Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who are the native Americans ?

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:08:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

How about asking it as the first people to inhabit the continent?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Technically, "Native Americans" emigrated from Africa. There's no hard distinction between them.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 11:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:27:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Technically, "Native Americans" emigrated from Africa. There's no hard distinction between them.

Technically you need a dictionary. Have you ever bothered to define "native?"
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 11:13:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:30:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
They are from Kenya.

Lol, obviously. Just as good an answer as 99% of Americans can give!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 11:14:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:55:55 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Red Indians.

Incorrect.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 11:38:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 11:14:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/29/2015 2:55:55 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Red Indians.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 12:16:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

"Native Americans" as an ethnic group refers to the indigenous people of the United States. Other definitions and interpretations are prevalent as well. Wikipedia actually offers a very balanced take: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Red Indian" is a misnomer. It is not a term used today outside of local slang/slurs. Early European explorers thought they reached India when in fact they reached the Americas.

There is no reason White Europeans specifically would be referred to as Native Americans although I've seen arguments why all Americans born in the United States regardless of their race should be called "Native Americans." I much prefer the term, "US citizen."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 10:53:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 11:38:07 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 11:14:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/29/2015 2:55:55 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Red Indians.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 10:58:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

White Europeans.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 10:59:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 12:16:45 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

"Native Americans" as an ethnic group refers to the indigenous people of the United States. Other definitions and interpretations are prevalent as well. Wikipedia actually offers a very balanced take: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Red Indian" is a misnomer. It is not a term used today outside of local slang/slurs. Early European explorers thought they reached India when in fact they reached the Americas.

There is no reason White Europeans specifically would be referred to as Native Americans although I've seen arguments why all Americans born in the United States regardless of their race should be called "Native Americans." I much prefer the term, "US citizen."

I find your preference odd, considering the definition of "native" means "where one is born." A person born in Green Bay has no problem calling themself a native Green Bayen. They have no problem calling themself a native Wisconsinite. They have no problem calling themself a native midwesterner. But Native American? WHOOOOOOOOOOOA buddy that's an American Indian you can't call yourself that! I would "prefer" if you called yourself something different, like a US Citizen or a Native Green Bay/Wisconsin/Midwesterner/North American/Planet Earthian-non Native American! What a load of garbage, the political correctness is out of hand here. What's wrong with using words to describe WHAT THEY MEAN?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 11:00:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 11:38:07 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 11:14:20 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/29/2015 2:55:55 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Red Indians.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

LOL I'm just screwing with you bud, please respond to my identical dialogue with F16 if you want my reasoning.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 12:25:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 10:59:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I find your preference odd, considering the definition of "native" means "where one is born." A person born in Green Bay has no problem calling themself a native Green Bayen. They have no problem calling themself a native Wisconsinite. They have no problem calling themself a native midwesterner. But Native American? WHOOOOOOOOOOOA buddy that's an American Indian you can't call yourself that! I would "prefer" if you called yourself something different, like a US Citizen or a Native Green Bay/Wisconsin/Midwesterner/North American/Planet Earthian-non Native American! What a load of garbage, the political correctness is out of hand here. What's wrong with using words to describe WHAT THEY MEAN?

It is not that it is a terribly wrong, it is that the "Native American" is the most accurate description of an indigenous group of people so if you call yourself "Native American," people will assume (and in my opinion, rightly so), that you belong to one of those indigenous groups.

Analogy: It is not terribly wrong for a Russian American to describe themselves as Asian. But "Asian" typically refers to the ethnic groups of East and Southeast Asia. So, a Russian simply refers to themselves as Russian. Same way, Native Wisconsinite makes sense as someone born there but Native American commonly refers to the indigenous ethnic groups.

Language evolves with time. Wikipedia offers two definitions of Native. And besides "Native American" by itself refers to specific groups just like "Asian" refers to specific groups. You could argue that Russians are Asians but the term "Asian" has taken on another meaning (describing an ethnicity) beyond just describing people from Asia.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 12:28:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I also think "citizen" is a very accurate term to distinguish "Americans" from those here temporarily on a visa.

If it is necessary to separate "Native-born" vs "Naturalized" citizens, those terms work too although instances of needing them are fairly rare.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 12:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

Neither. The Native Americans are actually Indians.
Christopher Columbus was looking for America but accidentally found India.
Thinking India was America, he called the Indian people Native Americans.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 7:53:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 10:59:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/30/2015 12:16:45 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:49:19 PM, Uganda wrote:
Are they the Red Indians or White Europeans ?

"Native Americans" as an ethnic group refers to the indigenous people of the United States. Other definitions and interpretations are prevalent as well. Wikipedia actually offers a very balanced take: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Red Indian" is a misnomer. It is not a term used today outside of local slang/slurs. Early European explorers thought they reached India when in fact they reached the Americas.

There is no reason White Europeans specifically would be referred to as Native Americans although I've seen arguments why all Americans born in the United States regardless of their race should be called "Native Americans." I much prefer the term, "US citizen."

I find your preference odd, considering the definition of "native" means "where one is born." A person born in Green Bay has no problem calling themself a native Green Bayen. They have no problem calling themself a native Wisconsinite. They have no problem calling themself a native midwesterner. But Native American? WHOOOOOOOOOOOA buddy that's an American Indian you can't call yourself that! I would "prefer" if you called yourself something different, like a US Citizen or a Native Green Bay/Wisconsin/Midwesterner/North American/Planet Earthian-non Native American! What a load of garbage, the political correctness is out of hand here. What's wrong with using words to describe WHAT THEY MEAN?

Here's a novel idea, how about using words to communicate?

Language is a matter of agreed upon conventions regarding symbols and their meaning, the simple fact is the term Native American is referential to a group of people, there is a consensus as to what the term means in our language, which just happens to be how language works. I suppose you can protest and use the term to mean something else, but it would simply be misleading and a misuse of the language to use the term differently, you can make up your own definitions if you want, but what you won't be doing with the language is communicating, and that's kind of the whole point of using words.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:44:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 7:53:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Here's a novel idea, how about using words to communicate?

Language is a matter of agreed upon conventions regarding symbols and their meaning, the simple fact is the term Native American is referential to a group of people, there is a consensus as to what the term means in our language, which just happens to be how language works. I suppose you can protest and use the term to mean something else, but it would simply be misleading and a misuse of the language to use the term differently, you can make up your own definitions if you want, but what you won't be doing with the language is communicating, and that's kind of the whole point of using words.

Nobody seems to get that changes in language can be detrimental. You all just see it as evolution no matter what, which is not surprising as most moderners feel that modernity=superiority. Often-times when a word is established, there is a precise meaning it holds. In other words, somebody had an idea and decided to encapsulate all the elements of that idea into one term. When you use the term, the ideas unravel and fall into place. If you change the meaning of it arbitrarily without changing the formal definition, this leads to confusion. "Native," in our dictionary, has a precise meaning: the place one was born. And the damage caused by the misuse of the term is already quite evident, we have people unable to define what the term means (e.g., F16 is confused as to whether he can call himself a native-American even though he is in fact native to this country). You and other liberally-minded fellows feel like you have to be sympathetic to descendents of the tribes that our ancestors slaughtered by letting them establish that they are the TRUE Americans while we are just the low-lifes that came over here and committed genocide to take their land. For starters, if you really want to be sympathetic, then give your time and efforts or money to the cause and do something actually meaningful instead of playing semantic games to make yourself feel better about it. I'm not going to instill cognitive dissonance into my daughter and tell her she's a native Green Bayer, native Wisconsinite, native midwesterner, non-native American, and native North American, just so I can make you and the liberal community feel better about your perception of damage to tribes while you do NOTHING to actually help them in any meaningful way. You can play mind-games with your words all you want, I will be no part of it!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:02:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 12:25:34 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 3/30/2015 10:59:04 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

I find your preference odd, considering the definition of "native" means "where one is born." A person born in Green Bay has no problem calling themself a native Green Bayen. They have no problem calling themself a native Wisconsinite. They have no problem calling themself a native midwesterner. But Native American? WHOOOOOOOOOOOA buddy that's an American Indian you can't call yourself that! I would "prefer" if you called yourself something different, like a US Citizen or a Native Green Bay/Wisconsin/Midwesterner/North American/Planet Earthian-non Native American! What a load of garbage, the political correctness is out of hand here. What's wrong with using words to describe WHAT THEY MEAN?

It is not that it is a terribly wrong, it is that the "Native American" is the most accurate description of an indigenous group of people so if you call yourself "Native American," people will assume (and in my opinion, rightly so), that you belong to one of those indigenous groups.

It's the most "accurate" term? I just showed beyond a reasonable doubt by citing the definition of the word "native" that this is a wildly INACCURATE term. If I show you a picture of a circle and call it a square, and the formal definitions of such remain in tact in our literature, then colloquial usage of it should not affect how we have all agreed to define it using our official reference materials.

Analogy: It is not terribly wrong for a Russian American to describe themselves as Asian. But "Asian" typically refers to the ethnic groups of East and Southeast Asia. So, a Russian simply refers to themselves as Russian. Same way, Native Wisconsinite makes sense as someone born there but Native American commonly refers to the indigenous ethnic groups.

I see no connection. Russia is in Asia. They can call themselves native Russians or native Asians if they feel so inclined, if they are a proud people and consider themselves superior to Asians then they have their obvious reasons for trying to disassociate with the rest of the continent. I can call myself a native American or a native North American.

Language evolves with time. Wikipedia offers two definitions of Native. And besides "Native American" by itself refers to specific groups just like "Asian" refers to specific groups. You could argue that Russians are Asians but the term "Asian" has taken on another meaning (describing an ethnicity) beyond just describing people from Asia.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias offer knowledge in a different method than dictionaries, they are not commonly used for defining extremely basic, extremely simple terms. If I want to know about World War II, then I consult an encyclopedia. If I want to know what the word "talk" means, then I use a dictionary. You are deliberately misusing an encyclopedia because it strengthens your argument to talk on the subject in broader terms. "Native" is a very basic concept, extremely simple and straightforward. What you're doing is akin to me saying that a "foot" is as long as anybody's foot, and ignoring that there is a technical meaning - 12 inches - for what a foot really is. If my foot is 11 inches long, and I say a book is a foot long because it's 11 inches, then you would be right in correcting me that a foot is technically 12 inches long and by speaking so I am degrading my ability to communicate with others. I can bring up Wiki articles all day long showing that my foot is an actual foot, but that doesn't change the function of measuring length.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 12:06:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 12:28:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I also think "citizen" is a very accurate term to distinguish "Americans" from those here temporarily on a visa.

If it is necessary to separate "Native-born" vs "Naturalized" citizens, those terms work too although instances of needing them are fairly rare.

Oh I see, you mean all of us Native-born non-native Americans? Is that how I should describe myself? Or perhaps you'd prefer if I shorten it to "native-born-American." Should people stress the word BORN when they say it too, especially if there are genuine native-Americans present that might be offended by me saying I was born here? I'm native-baaaaaaaaaawn, my brutha
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 2:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
On accuracy, you are separating the term "Native" from "Native-American." They both have separate meanings. The term "Native American" itself refers to indigenous groups in the United States and is what the generally accepted meaning is. Most people don't use it as two separate words but as one phrase. Merriam Websters dictionary recognizes this (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) so if you are going by the dictionary above all else, you have to accept that there is a dictionary definition of the term Native American as well within the definition for native.

"Native American" as referring to indigenous people doesn't have the connotation that you describe: there is no suggestion that people who aren't Native American are less "American" than them. It is merely a way of describing a set of ethnic tribes and groups descended from the peoples of North America to distinguish them from people whose ancestral roots are in Afro-Eurasia.

It implies no sympathy or references to slaughter. It is merely a convenient way of describing a group of people. It is my third choice of term after 1) Tribe name, 2) "Indigenous people" if tribe name is not known. However, indigenous doesn't seem to be very popular. I prefer it over "American-Indian" because it is more accurate to refer to the ethnicity of a set of tribes and groups by referencing their ancestral origins than by calling someone by a nationality most have never seen nor heard of (Indian). Adding in American to the term does nothing to make it more accurate as they are still not Indians in any way.

It is just as fine for you to call yourself a native American as it is for a Russian American to refer to themselves as Asian. There is no state censorship of the term. The government won't fine you for it.

I don't see the issue with "citizen." All American citizens are equal regardless of where they were born. In the rare case that you need to distinguish between "native born" and "naturalized" (ex: presidency requirements), those terms work fine. I never suggested you refer to yourself as native-born non-Native American or any such strawmen. What circumstance are there that even require you to call yourself a native American anyways?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 11:44:44 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/30/2015 7:53:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Here's a novel idea, how about using words to communicate?

Language is a matter of agreed upon conventions regarding symbols and their meaning, the simple fact is the term Native American is referential to a group of people, there is a consensus as to what the term means in our language, which just happens to be how language works. I suppose you can protest and use the term to mean something else, but it would simply be misleading and a misuse of the language to use the term differently, you can make up your own definitions if you want, but what you won't be doing with the language is communicating, and that's kind of the whole point of using words.

Nobody seems to get that changes in language can be detrimental. You all just see it as evolution no matter what, which is not surprising as most moderners feel that modernity=superiority. Often-times when a word is established, there is a precise meaning it holds. In other words, somebody had an idea and decided to encapsulate all the elements of that idea into one term. When you use the term, the ideas unravel and fall into place. If you change the meaning of it arbitrarily without changing the formal definition, this leads to confusion. "Native," in our dictionary, has a precise meaning: the place one was born. And the damage caused by the misuse of the term is already quite evident, we have people unable to define what the term means (e.g., F16 is confused as to whether he can call himself a native-American even though he is in fact native to this country).

I suppose he can call himself Native American if he wants, but considering that the term has a specific meaning, it will be misleading. I'm just thinking words should be used to communicate, and when there is a consensus agreement on the definition of a term, effective communication becomes a matter of using the term accurately

You and other liberally-minded fellows feel like you have to be sympathetic to descendents of the tribes that our ancestors slaughtered by letting them establish that they are the TRUE Americans while we are just the low-lifes that came over here and committed genocide to take their land.

Well...actually being a descendent of one the tribes that your ancestors slaughtered, I just thought I was supposed to have that "sympathetic" attitude.

For starters, if you really want to be sympathetic, then give your time and efforts or money to the cause and do something actually meaningful instead of playing semantic games to make yourself feel better about it.

I figured that just being Cherokee was meaningful enough, and I wasn't even aware there was a cause, but hey, if you want to give your money to "the cause", I'll take it. Feel free to put "for the Trail of Tears" on the memo line of the check if it will make you feel better. LMFAO

I'm not going to instill cognitive dissonance into my daughter and tell her she's a native Green Bayer, native Wisconsinite, native midwesterner, non-native American, and native North American, just so I can make you and the liberal community feel better about your perception of damage to tribes while you do NOTHING to actually help them in any meaningful way. You can play mind-games with your words all you want, I will be no part of it!

I hate to be the one to burst your dramatic little bubble, but I don't know of a single person that's actually looking for any of you to help us out, and let's not forget that we gave you guys the gift of tobacco, so how about we just call it even.

Donadagohvi.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 3:55:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

I suppose he can call himself Native American if he wants, but considering that the term has a specific meaning, it will be misleading. I'm just thinking words should be used to communicate, and when there is a consensus agreement on the definition of a term, effective communication becomes a matter of using the term accurately

I will not participate in the euphemism of my language, and I will accept the consequences of confusing and even upsetting the people who I communicate with. When they hear my reasoning, if they are intellectually-worthy, they will forgive me. When my daughter enters school and defeats her teachers and fellow students on the subject, she will make enemies. I will give her the choice of whether she wants to acquiesce for the sake of protecting her relationships... after all, stupid people must be appeased constantly, that is one of the downfalls of being an intellectual. I, however, will not acquiesce on this particular subject.

You and other liberally-minded fellows feel like you have to be sympathetic to descendents of the tribes that our ancestors slaughtered by letting them establish that they are the TRUE Americans while we are just the low-lifes that came over here and committed genocide to take their land.

Well...actually being a descendent of one the tribes that your ancestors slaughtered, I just thought I was supposed to have that "sympathetic" attitude.

I will not euphemize my language to appease you, but I will also not euphemize my language to hide what my ancestors did. It was genocide; slaughter; worthy of being talked about alongside the holocaust. I think that's the important point to recognize, don't you agree?

For starters, if you really want to be sympathetic, then give your time and efforts or money to the cause and do something actually meaningful instead of playing semantic games to make yourself feel better about it.

I figured that just being Cherokee was meaningful enough, and I wasn't even aware there was a cause, but hey, if you want to give your money to "the cause", I'll take it. Feel free to put "for the Trail of Tears" on the memo line of the check if it will make you feel better. LMFAO

My donations go to Rwanda at the moment, I think those people require more immediate help than tribal descendents. Americans' consumption of goods and our use of foreign nationals and economic pressure to secure such goods causes more damage than anything else.

I'm not going to instill cognitive dissonance into my daughter and tell her she's a native Green Bayer, native Wisconsinite, native midwesterner, non-native American, and native North American, just so I can make you and the liberal community feel better about your perception of damage to tribes while you do NOTHING to actually help them in any meaningful way. You can play mind-games with your words all you want, I will be no part of it!

I hate to be the one to burst your dramatic little bubble, but I don't know of a single person that's actually looking for any of you to help us out, and let's not forget that we gave you guys the gift of tobacco, so how about we just call it even.

Donadagohvi.

Tribal descendents get more help than anybody in Wisconsin, they require a host of racially-based laws to give them an advantage over non-tribes as some sort of repayment for genocide. The results of these handouts (called "per capita checks") is not promising for tribal descendents, as they often use them as an excuse to avoid having to secure gainful employment. And they have a sense of pride to them that is quite disturbing, from their "native pride" bumper stickers to giving non-tribal citizens attitudes when we pass through their reservations. Could you imagine if I put a "white pride" bumper sticker on my car? LOL!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 4:50:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 2:16:56 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
On accuracy, you are separating the term "Native" from "Native-American." They both have separate meanings. The term "Native American" itself refers to indigenous groups in the United States and is what the generally accepted meaning is. Most people don't use it as two separate words but as one phrase. Merriam Websters dictionary recognizes this (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) so if you are going by the dictionary above all else, you have to accept that there is a dictionary definition of the term Native American as well within the definition for native.

Yes lol online dictionaries will put just about anything into their database that has an accepted meaning by most people, I remember when I was young and there was controversy over "yo" (as in the hip-hop culture term for "hey") being added to the official dictionary. On one hand we recognize that there is some (actual) positive evolution of language that should be recognized, we shouldn't insist on some divine standard that can never be changed. But on the other, there's a difference between a logically-innocuous term like "yo" and a term that is internally logically-inconsistent like Native-American. At this point you can pretty-much count on any term introduced in a Taylor Swift song to be captured in an online database within 24 hours of it being invented.

"Native American" as referring to indigenous people doesn't have the connotation that you describe: there is no suggestion that people who aren't Native American are less "American" than them. It is merely a way of describing a set of ethnic tribes and groups descended from the peoples of North America to distinguish them from people whose ancestral roots are in Afro-Eurasia.

In the same breath that you tell me there's no damage, you fall victim to the damage itself. "Indigenous people" is the same thing as "native people;" I am indigenous to the modern United States, am I not? And if you lived in Wisconsin you would see the damage, tribes have their own reservations that white people cannot live on and special rules that apply only to them. They are doing everything they can to gain an advantage and using your arguments to base it on.

It implies no sympathy or references to slaughter. It is merely a convenient way of describing a group of people. It is my third choice of term after 1) Tribe name, 2) "Indigenous people" if tribe name is not known. However, indigenous doesn't seem to be very popular. I prefer it over "American-Indian" because it is more accurate to refer to the ethnicity of a set of tribes and groups by referencing their ancestral origins than by calling someone by a nationality most have never seen nor heard of (Indian). Adding in American to the term does nothing to make it more accurate as they are still not Indians in any way.

It is just as fine for you to call yourself a native American as it is for a Russian American to refer to themselves as Asian. There is no state censorship of the term. The government won't fine you for it.

I don't see the issue with "citizen." All American citizens are equal regardless of where they were born. In the rare case that you need to distinguish between "native born" and "naturalized" (ex: presidency requirements), those terms work fine. I never suggested you refer to yourself as native-born non-Native American or any such strawmen. What circumstance are there that even require you to call yourself a native American anyways?

So this last question is a sort of a "let's just pretend it makes sense even though it doesn't, because it will make them happy" type of thing? Less than half a mile from my house is a city sign that says "Oneida Reservation." "Native-Americans" put "native pride" bumper stickers on their cars, they expect discounts when they shop at businesses, they have land only "natives" can live on, they receive per capita checks from casinos that only they are allowed to operate (casinos are illegal for whites), they have their own special police force that must deal with their citizens who break the law... if you think there is no difference, I assure you there is, it's a lot more evident here than in most places.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 6:55:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I linked to Merriam Webster because you seem to argue that dictionary definitions ought to be preferred. Now you've moved the goalposts to book dictionaries. But language evolves. Compound words have developed to mean things different from the individual word: http://www.k12reader.com...

Tribes have their own reservations because many tribes are sovereign nations by themselves which have a special relationship with the US government. They are not sovereign as other countries but are domestic dependent nations: http://en.wikipedia.org... The tribal council, not the local or federal government, generally has jurisdiction over reservations. The special police forces and such all make sense when you consider the context.

Casinos are good. They attract tourists and bring in revenue which help sustain these tribal nations. If various states in the US have declared gambling illegal, that is their choice (I'm not aware of the legality of casinos in Wisconsin). Legality of casinos: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 8:47:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
native=where you were born
native American=anybody born in America
Native American=anybody who is racially identified with a tribe

The last term is used, but it is self-contradictory and problematic. If you want to use it then fine, I can't stop you and many will use it with you - but you're eroding our ability to communicate by euphemizing our language to make you feel better about the fact that our ancestors slaughtered the tribes centuries ago. And deep down I think you feel your own racial pride, and enjoy the distinction. After all, you're not descended from these spear-chucking, wagon-burning, feather-wearing savages. You're of noble European blood, the finest the world has to offer. So if the language suffers for you to enjoy that pride, then sobeit. "Native," after all, has also become a synonym for "savage," has it not? "The natives are restless." Are you familiar with that quote? You don't want to be associated with these savages, so you are fine with not being called a native American.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 12:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not of "noble European blood" or whatever. You shouldn't make assumptions. This isn't about me or my feelings. It is not about "feeling better." It is about using the most accurate term you can develop.

I fail to see how calling indigenous tribes "Native Americans" euphemizes our language. There is literally no better way to refer to all indigenous tribes at once. You would rather call them by the name of a country they've never seen or heard of which is far more inaccurate that what you take issue with. By all means, if you have a better terminology, let's hear it. "American-Indian" isn't it. They are not Indians in any way, shape, or form. I already said tribe names are better. I think you are taking liberties by calling yourself an "indigenous American." People in many countries are considered indigenous. This is not US specific: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I would not even consider thinking of Native Americans as savages nor Europeans or any other race as better than others.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:55:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 4:27:11 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/31/2015 3:55:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

I suppose he can call himself Native American if he wants, but considering that the term has a specific meaning, it will be misleading. I'm just thinking words should be used to communicate, and when there is a consensus agreement on the definition of a term, effective communication becomes a matter of using the term accurately

I will not participate in the euphemism of my language, and I will accept the consequences of confusing and even upsetting the people who I communicate with. When they hear my reasoning, if they are intellectually-worthy, they will forgive me. When my daughter enters school and defeats her teachers and fellow students on the subject, she will make enemies. I will give her the choice of whether she wants to acquiesce for the sake of protecting her relationships... after all, stupid people must be appeased constantly, that is one of the downfalls of being an intellectual. I, however, will not acquiesce on this particular subject.

You and other liberally-minded fellows feel like you have to be sympathetic to descendents of the tribes that our ancestors slaughtered by letting them establish that they are the TRUE Americans while we are just the low-lifes that came over here and committed genocide to take their land.

Well...actually being a descendent of one the tribes that your ancestors slaughtered, I just thought I was supposed to have that "sympathetic" attitude.

I will not euphemize my language to appease you, but I will also not euphemize my language to hide what my ancestors did. It was genocide; slaughter; worthy of being talked about alongside the holocaust. I think that's the important point to recognize, don't you agree?

Euphemize?
https://www.youtube.com...


For starters, if you really want to be sympathetic, then give your time and efforts or money to the cause and do something actually meaningful instead of playing semantic games to make yourself feel better about it.

I figured that just being Cherokee was meaningful enough, and I wasn't even aware there was a cause, but hey, if you want to give your money to "the cause", I'll take it. Feel free to put "for the Trail of Tears" on the memo line of the check if it will make you feel better. LMFAO

My donations go to Rwanda at the moment, I think those people require more immediate help than tribal descendents. Americans' consumption of goods and our use of foreign nationals and economic pressure to secure such goods causes more damage than anything else.

I'm not going to instill cognitive dissonance into my daughter and tell her she's a native Green Bayer, native Wisconsinite, native midwesterner, non-native American, and native North American, just so I can make you and the liberal community feel better about your perception of damage to tribes while you do NOTHING to actually help them in any meaningful way. You can play mind-games with your words all you want, I will be no part of it!

I hate to be the one to burst your dramatic little bubble, but I don't know of a single person that's actually looking for any of you to help us out, and let's not forget that we gave you guys the gift of tobacco, so how about we just call it even.

Donadagohvi.

Tribal descendents get more help than anybody in Wisconsin, they require a host of racially-based laws to give them an advantage over non-tribes as some sort of repayment for genocide. The results of these handouts (called "per capita checks") is not promising for tribal descendents, as they often use them as an excuse to avoid having to secure gainful employment. And they have a sense of pride to them that is quite disturbing, from their "native pride" bumper stickers to giving non-tribal citizens attitudes when we pass through their reservations. Could you imagine if I put a "white pride" bumper sticker on my car? LOL!
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater