h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How is this term incorrect?

America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian cartographer. Americans are people who immigrated to the country, aliens from Europe mostly at the time the Paha Sapa were stolen.

Currently, the term Native American is used by the Census Bureau to classify people who are American indians. Some of us would assert that you can be Native or you can be American, but not both.

The Lakota are a sovereign nation, not Americans. Americans are a sovereign nation too, but they are not Lakota. The term Native American attempts by implication to extinguish the sovereignty of the Lakota nation. This is why it is not an acceptable term.

Americans is a bit of a dodgy term all round. I would have said that American implies a person who hails from the Americas, i.e. North, South and Central America and associated islands. Hence, technically a person with a Canadian passport, or Jamaican, or Honduran would be considered American. Following on from this, citizens of the United States of America really ought to be called something else, an often suggested term being Statsian, i.e. of the States. Hence the Lakota could happily be Native Americans, i.e. those of the Americas who were there first.

I suspect the Mexicans might object to Americans being termed "of the states". That would tend to diminish the importance of Los Estados Unidos de Mexico.

Unfortunately, all this terminology presupposes one agrees with the concepts of state sovereignty, a relatively recent invention of 16th century Europeans, which has subsequently been imposed on the rest of the world primarily through the pernicious institution of colonialism. Citizenship in so-called "states" overrides family, clan or tribal affiliations thus alienating land and resources from tribal people for the benefit of those who control the so-called "states".

In the contemporary world the controllers are most likely to be huge multinational corporations whose principal interests are profits not the welfare of people nor the proper custodial care of the earth. I think we're seeing the results of that situation very graphically all over the world right now. If anyone has any doubts about how things will go in the world, just review the histories of the North American tribes were treated for a preview.

Ah, the minefield of political correctness. To me a Native American is someone who is native to the big hourglass twin continent over the horizon to the west. I don't have a different name for this landmass. You use American Indian up in your first reply, which I'd suppose is even more incorrect.
Are there actually any acceptable terms for the indigenous people of the continents of the western hemisphere?
Not that I want to be a pest, I just feel it's a bit unfair to say "Native American is incorrect" and then don't give a useable alternative.

What do you call yourself?

If I need to state my geographic connection I'm a Østlending/Norwegian/European.
If I need to describe my overall appearance I'm a Norwegian/Nordic/Caucasian.

I would have thought that as in AIM (American Indian Movement) American Indian would be an apropriate term.

Math

I don't want to be a pest either, but it occurs to me that maybe you're not really interested in what we prefer to be called at all, but rather in developing some plausible excuse for calling us whatever you like. If that's the case, why do you bother asking?

If you say you prefer not to be called something, I will not spend a lot of time disputing your preference. That's simple courtesy I think, don't you? So where's the difficulty?

Fair enough, Ostlendinger, I'm Sicangu Lakota. In appearance I resemble a human female of slightly darker complexion than typical of "caucasians". Just exactly what do all these wonderful categories tell you?

For many American indian is fine if you choose not to use the tribal affiliation. For others it's not so fine. Some even prefer Native American, especially those who prefer to compete in the dominant culture. They are, therefore, Americans in every sense that Americans deem appropriate.

Since we're not one monolithic mass culture, it might be appropriate to use tribal affiliation whenver possible to at least acknowledge the diversity, don't you think?

>> Fair enough, Ostlendinger, I'm Sicangu Lakota. In appearance I resemble a human female of slightly darker complexion than typical of "caucasians". Just exactly what do all these wonderful categories tell you?

Østlending really wouldn't make sense to anyone not in Norway, so Norwegian would really be more appropriate.


>> Since we're not one monolithic mass culture, it might be appropriate to use tribal affiliation whenver possible to at least acknowledge the diversity, don't you think?

Yes, whenever possible... I understand now that there is no single term that will be acceptable to all. I still feel the use of "incorrect" is bad. 'Offensive' could be appropriate, 'politically incorrect' could be as well, plain 'incorrect' requires the strict interpretation of "American" as 'USAian'.
'Whenever possible' implies there are times when it's not possible, which means that telling the reader 'this is wrong' whithout telling her/him 'while this is right', leaving him/her unable to converse on the topic at all.

I think it would be helpful to focus not on what is essentially a relatively trivial issue such as terminology but on the land or sovereignty issues.

I find it very interesting what you apparently are interested in, Norwegian. Please don't be offended. I'm not criticizing you, just making observations now.

I notice that you identify yourself with a portion of land demarked by abstract borders, that, as best I can recall ofhand, didn't exist prior to 1912. If a Norwegian comes to live in Minnesota, for example, does he or she remain a Norwegian? I think if a Lakota comes to live Oslo, he or she remains a Lakota. That is one difference I notice.

Another is that you are apparently very interested in labels. You spend a great deal of effort defining yourself according to accepted categories of race or geopolitical entities.

This is very facinating to me because before I haven't considered these things that maybe evidence a little different perception of the world. Maybe these are some of the things that have made it difficult for people to understand each other for a very long time. What do you think?

"Ah, the minefield of political correctness. To me a Native American is..."

Names are not always about what you want to call someone, or the name that society gives them. To some people, it can be very important that you call them by the name they prefer. This discussion reminds me of the frequently evolving words or phrases applied to African-Americans (the group which currently refers to itself most often as African-Americans). To some people it seems an absurd matter of political correctness that they once prefered to be called "Negroes" or "Colored People," then "Blacks," then "Afro-Americans," then African-Americans. These days some people prefer "people of Color," and my grandparents can't understand why they get dirty looks for saying the very similar but antiquated expression "Colored People."

I'm sure there will be other names that come in vogue in the future. But it's a matter of respect. If someone I respect tells me they want to be called something specific, whether it's an individual name or group identity, I will honor their wishes. If I tell them they're just being politically correct and I continue using the name I think fits them better, I am showing my lack of respect for them.

This discussion also reminds me of an argument I had with someone the other day on the "Opinions about Iraq War" thread. Do the Kurds who reside in Iraq feel like they're really "Iraqis," or do they identify more strongly with their ethnic group in place of national identity? Is it reasonable, then, to say that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against "his own people?" Noam Chomsky mentioned in an article a week or two ago that Saddam Hussein 'used gas against "his own people": Kurds, who were his own people in the sense in which Cherokees were Andrew Jackson's people.'

>> I find it very interesting what you apparently are interested in, Norwegian. Please don't be offended. I'm not criticizing you, just making observations now.

Don't worry, I'm not easily offended. (Well, actually I am, but you haven't offended me yet.) I'm not sure if we agree on what I'm interested in, so I'll try to explain that now, right after I comment your statements.

>> I notice that you identify yourself with a portion of land demarked by abstract borders, that, as best I can recall ofhand, didn't exist prior to 1912. If a Norwegian comes to live in Minnesota, for example, does he or she remain a Norwegian? I think if a Lakota comes to live Oslo, he or she remains a Lakota. That is one difference I notice.

Well, your offhand recollection is purdy off. Before and during the viking age (800-1100) people would probably think of themselves with more narrow geographical focus than 'Norway', but this is the time that the term comes into existence. I won't repeat the entire history here, but although the area was ruled for 400 years from Denmark, and then for 100 years by Sweden, the area Norway and the term Norwegian didn't suddenly appear in 1905 with the end of the union with Sweden.
I don't identify myself directly with the geographic area, but I speak a language (Norwegian) that is disctinct from Swedish and Danish (although heavily influenced by Danish after 400 years of union), I'm part of a culture that has many regional varieties and many things in common with Swedish and Danish culture, and that is slowly dying the globalisation death, but that still is separable from the rest of the world.
Would I still be a Norwegian if _I_ moved to Minnesota, yes. Would my children? (If I had any.) Possibly. Would their children? No. They might feel Norwegian-American and lable themselves as thus, but in my opinion that is a part of the general US-citizen culture. For special purposes, like historical research for any reason, they'd be 'of Norwegian decent'.

And I'm actually not particularly interested in labels, I just like a good discussion. Or maybe I _am_ interested in labels and just don't have much need for them since the people I interact with most of the time are a fairly homogenous group.

>> This is very facinating to me because before I haven't considered these things that maybe evidence a little different perception of the world. Maybe these are some of the things that have made it difficult for people to understand each other for a very long time. What do you think?
I think you are right. People don't understand each other because communications is so many things and because language isn't words. People can use the same words and speak a different language, because it's the intent and emotion behind the words that is the actual language. And this part of communication is elusive and at the same time impossible to defeat in any simple manner.

As I mentioned, maybe I am overly interested in labels and just haven't noticed it myself. But let me give you an example of the kind of reasoning I make when reading 'Native American is incorrect'.

In everyday life this is not a problem, because I speak Norwegian, and we have one word (indianer) that, although etymologically tied to the false belief that the islands columbus reached were the "West Indies", is separate from the word for people from India (inder). And since few Lakota speak Norwegian they are not likely to be offended. But lets say I'm talking to someone who don't speak Norwegian, but speak English, the only other language I'm comfortable conversing in. The topic is h2g2 and I start telling them about having a discussion with you. And since I think it's kind of interesting that I had a discussion with someone who's a Lakota I tell this person that "oh, by the way, she's a Lakota."
When this hypothetical persons asks "a what", I could say "it's an Indian Tribe", or I could say "it's a tribe of Native Americans" or I could wreck my whole example by using what I assume is completely inoffensive "it's a North American tribe". Problem solved, but I'd still like to be able to say "She's Native American" in a simpler way than "she's a member of a NA tribe."

The problem will probably never arise, but as I said, I like discussions, as long as no one offends me.

I would also, previously, have used the term Native American when describing the theories of the original migration into the Americas.

Well, enough rambling from me.

I think what's sort of funny about all this is that the term "indianer" or, perhaps in my case "indiana", would be less troublesome, since it doesn't imply anything about American sovereignty over the Lakota Oyate or nation. The legendary Columbus mistook the Caribbean islands for the East Indies hypothesis has been disputed recently because India wasn't called that in the 15th century. So some have asserted that what he really meant was La Gente in Dios, the People of God, which I don't find particularly offensive.

Still the discussion has brought out something about how many people, like your hypothetical correspondent, are simply ignorant of the diversity of indian people so the insistance on using tribal names might have some merit in the long run.

Your comments regarding Norway and Norwegians has been very enlightening. I apologize for getting the date wrong on the end of the union with Sweden. For some reason I had the notion that the event was associated in a positive way with the expedition of Amundsen, but I suppose it might have been the one he conducted in the Arctic on the Fram for three years then, not the Antarctic one where he bested that notably incompetent but widely promoted, Robert Falcon Scott. I seem to recall that either Amundsen or Nansen left on an expedition Swedish and returned Norwegian. It probably doesn't matter that much really.

If I understand you correctly, your people have been in this Norway a long time and apparently have some identity of nationality regardless of the existence of a nationstate. I also presume you figure your lineage through the male line with all the "sons" in the surnames. Is that correct? Are your people closely related in a tribal fashion?

As you may have surmised already, there is little love lost historically between the Lakota and the Scandinavians since it was the latter people who occupied the ancestral homeland. Ironically, those whites who were killed in that fight were perhaps as much victims of government perfidy as the indians. The government, under the Homestead Act, had given away land it didn't own apparently unconcerned for the rights of the traditional occupants.

I would hope therefore that you and me might "mend" some things by learning a little bit about each other now and I thank you for expressing an interest in these matters. Do you have a name you can share comfortably? I'm Rita Fontanero and pleased to meet you, Norwegian.

It's funny how the conquerors like to put labels on people to further colonial goals. Thus, if the oil of Iraq is coveted, then the Americans must make a heinous villain out of Saddam Hussein in his dealings with the Kurds, but not support the Kurds in their struggles against the Turks. I doubt very much anyone in America really cares what happens to the Kurds. They are just a convenient issue to raise in the struggle for global domination that began 500 years ago and continues in our day.

Regarding the Africans, their fate is particularly tragic given that they were brought to the "New World" against their will. I think the slavers and their descendents have much to answer for and it's little enough to ask that people use terms of respect when referring to these Africans even if those terms change frequently.

Even so, the black soldiers who came into our country did not gain our respect. I recognize they were given the bad jobs deliberately to avoid having the white soldiers do the dirty work, but I think these black whitemen had a choice and chose wrongly. None to my knowledge have ever expressed contrition for their part in the massacres and other injustices of the so-called "Indian Wars". Consequently, I don't feel obligated to defend their descendents very much in their struggles against "The Man". When they decide to help us a little, maybe we can help them and we can all be Lakota but until then, I suppose I better leave this matter alone.

The reason the terms "colored people" and "people of color" are not synonymous is because the former term was used with derision whereas the latter is used with pride and respect. It's unfortunate that many whites cling to the color issue as if color variation were more important in humans than in cattle.

Still when you consider that our men are still frequently referred to as bucks and our women as sows, you might get the impression that for some people denying the humanity of others is how they affirm their own humanity. That's too bad, isn't it?

Besides, everyone's coloured or you wouldn't be able to see them.

I don't see the point of worrying about what happened before my grandparents were born. I don't even know if my ancestors were in this country during the Indian Wars or slavery. I know that no one in my mother's family was still in whatever country they came from.

I'm not to blame for the injustices that I do not perpitrate.

Nope, it would still be 'indianer'... not that this matters. I had to look up the "Columbus didn't call it Indies" thing, because I thought I'd recently read a refutation of the refutation. And I found it at http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgenteindios.html, but still it wouldn't imply anything regarding land ownership or sovereignity.

Yeah, it would have been Amundsens trip through the Northwest Passage (or not actually through... I can't remember) on the Gjøa. He borrowed Fram from Nansen for his trip to the South Pole, well actually (allow me to be a bit nationalistic here and rave on about the bit parts we have played in the big world) he borrowed it for an expedition to the North Pole, but when word arrived that Peary (had to look this up, and found that it was all the way through the northwest passage) had reached it he changed his plans. He didn't inform anyone until after they'd left, and then he sent a telegram to Scott saying he was trying for the pole as well. And he got there first, not his fault that Scott was incompetent and that the British would rather blame him than admit their hero was a git. Sorry about that. Now, where was I.
A right, I was gonna spew out a little more history. He would have left in 1904 with Norway having a monarch in common with Sweden, and returned to a Norway out of the union. He wouldn't have left it as Swedish, since Norway since 1814 had it's own parliament and the king was officially King of Sweden and Norway and had the motto "The benefit of the brother peoples".

Lineage has, like the rest of Europe been through the male line. The -sen and -son names no longer indicate who your father is, having only a patronymic started disapearing in the late 1800s, and during the 1900s it disappeared as a part of the name altogether. The Icelanders still use the patronymics... which means a family of mother, father, son and daughter will have four different surnames.
But that's Iceland. It's no longer uncommon for a Norwegian woman to keep her 'maiden name' when marrying, but it's not uncommon to stick to the old 'take your husbands name' either. The two weddings I've been to were one of each, my mom changed her name, her sister didn't... I don't know the actual statistics.

There are 4.5 million Norwegians, and although any family tree will have some cousins marrying and most people are decended from the 100-200 thousand survivers of the black death in the 14th century there is also a lot of other European blood. So, no, we're not related in a tribal way.

Scandiavians have a history of taking what isn't theirs, viking raiding, fighting amongs ourselves, emigrating to North America, treating the indigenous Sami people of northern Scandinavia very poorly. But I like to think we've learned, especially Norway, with the unions and occupation by Germany during WWII. The Sami policies indicate fairly recent generations hadn't learned all that much, but what do you expect, people are stupid. It's a pity they continue to be so even without the 'excuse' of outdated world views.

Pleased to meet you Rita, I'm Bjørnar Tuftin. Perfectly comfortable sharing that, it's on my homespace as well. Just don't call me Bjorn, that annoys me. And thank you for reading all the way down here. Hope I haven't bored you.