Redskins Name Change

• O-Trap

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1532570 wrote:Again, the term "Native" is probably more offensive than the Redskins name.

  Perhaps I missed this part of the conversation, but why would it be offensive?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Because many of American Indians don't like the term.
• O-Trap

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1532640 wrote:Because many of American Indians don't like the term.

  So there's no logical rationale to legitimize whether or not it's offensive? It's just someone's subjective feeling?
  
  I feel better about using the term, now. As a culture, they are as native to this land as anyone. As such, the term is simply literal. It's like adults being offended at the word 'vagina' or 'penis'.
  
  'Indian', on the other hand, is inaccurate, since they are not native or residents of India.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I don't know the reason why they don't like it ... I just know the few people I know don't like the term Native. I'm not sure why they are offended by it.
• HitsRus

  

  I would imagine "American" Indian would be doubly inacurate as "American" is a term coined by the 'invading' settlers from Europe. Moreover, I would think most that would actually care about accuracy that much would probably rather be called by their tribal name i.e. Cherokee, Chippewa, Navajo etc as there is quite a bit of difference in most cases among the tribes. Lumping them into such a broad category as "Indians" or "Native Americans" wouldn't be much different then calling an Irishman a slav.
  
  Human>white skin>European>Hungarian.
  
  It really is only taxonomy, so why all the hurt feelings?
• O-Trap

  

  HitsRus;1532682 wrote:I would imagine "American" Indian would be doubly inacurate as "American" is a term coined by the 'invading' settlers from Europe. Moreover, I would think most that would actually care about accuracy that much would probably rather be called by their tribal name i.e. Cherokee, Chippewa, Navajo etc as there is quite a bit of difference in most cases among the tribes. Lumping them into such a broad category as "Indians" or "Native Americans" wouldn't be much different then calling an Irishman a slav.
  
  Human>white skin>European>Hungarian.
  
  It really is only taxonomy, so why all the hurt feelings?

  Eh, I'd see it more as calling an Irishman a Caucasian European. Referring to the continent instead of the country. As for the "America" part, that's the modern term for the land. Lands change names all the time (Myanmar, Russia, Palestine, China, etc. have all had other names throughout history, for example).
  
  Admittedly, while I know several Native American friends, they're mostly all of Navajo ancestry, so it's hardly a thorough cross-section, but the ones to whom I've spoken on the topic (which isn't all of them, because this topic isn't just falling out of their mouths) seem to prefer Native American. The one I know the best doesn't seem to mind 'Indian', but he has said 'it shows their ignorance' on more than one occasion about people who use it about people. Interestingly, he's a Cleveland Indians fan.
• majorspark

  

  As a native American I am offended at the term "native". Why should the color of my skin and ancestry make me any less "native" in the land that I was born and raised in than others?
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;1532876 wrote:As a native American I am offended at the term "native". Why should the color of my skin and ancestry make me any less "native" in the land that I was born and raised in than others?

  Your culture is not native to the United States, even if you, yourself, are.