And Gar is right in that plenty of folks prefer to be called "Indians" still; they find "Native American" pretentious and/or PC. But not everyone. Case in point: the Native American Rights Fund versus the Congress of American Indians.
Don't know how accurate infoplease is on this but:
[link]
In the end, the term you choose to use (as an Indian or non-Indian) is your own personal choice. Very few Indians that I know care either way. The recommended method is to refer to a person by their tribe, if that information is known. The reason is that the Native peoples of North America are incredibly diverse. It would be like referring both a Romanian and an Irishman as European. . . . [W]henever possible an Indian would prefer to be called a Cherokee or a Lakota or whichever tribe they belong to. This shows respect because not only are you sensitive to the fact that the terms Indian, American Indian, and Native American are an over simplification of a diverse ethnicity, but you also show that you listened when they told what tribe they belonged to.
When you don't know the specific tribe simply use the term which you are most comfortable using. The worst that can happen is that someone might correct you and open the door for a thoughtful debate on the subject of political correctness and its impact on ethnic identity. What matters in the long run is not which term is used but the intention with which it is used.
Except that I find "Native American" gets me ragged mercilessly by some local American Indians.
Heh. Now I want my own set!
Punk Rock Toddler (mine): [link]
Hee! Casper is such a cutiehead.
What a great picture to wake up to!
Now I have to jump in the shower because I have a full day planned of doing laundry, dusting, vacuuming, driving to the store to rent a carpet shampoo machine, and then carpet cleaning! How very glamorous and exciting my life is. Although we will be going to the X-Men movie tonight, so I have something non-cleaning-related to look forward to.
I've watched entirely too much
Teen Titans
this morning. I'm going to have to make up for it by being extra-productive this afternoon. I hope!
I'm pretty sure the only "us" was us people - the same us the U.S. and China have today.
I'm sorry--I don't get it.
My assumption was that there is a "We are people" us. And then when the white man comes, there is a "we are not
those
people" us. Neither of those concepts require an invasion.
I think Gar took your question as asking if there was an all-over-this-land, i.e., contintental "us" - that's how I parsed the answer anyway. But I think you were really looking at the more localized tribal/band/group us - "us" here in this clearing as opposed to "them" on the other side of the valley. Which I think there demonstrably was. Am I reading you both right?
Actually maybe not, now that I read you again.
I think there are all sorts of us, and not all of them require a them (well, not a human them). And not all of them require an invasion. But the idea that there is a West Indies of which I'm a part doesn't mean I'm claiming kinship or similarity with a Trinidadian.
I don't think it's a rare concept. In fact, I think it's human.
Okay, off to teach fledgling kravvers. Wish me luck.
