Is it any less of a "blob" to refer to them as Native Americans" than it is to refer to them as "Indians" (which I've noticed you do).
No, that was my point... Traitor Fish said lumping native americans into one blob called "Injuns" was offensive... He seems to be under the impression "Indians" is a derogatory term but apparently its okay to lump them into one blob called native americans. I imagine a few Indians might object to being called americans, 'we' didn't treat them too well. I'd say both them and black people have good reason for not standing for the anthem or flag. Course they dont all agree on that either, I guess that depends some on how much pain their ancestors suffered... The Navajo and Hopi were spared the worst because nobody wanted their land enough to kill them off and take it.
Now who's "lumping them all together as a blob"?
I've been doing it all along (except when specifically discussing the Cherokee), TF complained - he said it rubbed people the wrong way. You should direct your first question to him.
Dont call them Indians because thats offensive, call them Native Americans instead. Well, who slaughtered the Indians? Oh yeah, the Americans. Thats even worse than naming slaves after their owners. Some dont mind, some do... If I was Indian I might not feel so honored being named after the genocidal maniacs who killed my people. I'd prefer my tribal or clan name, but like you said, that becomes impractical when discussing a large group of people encompassing a continent.
"I abhor the
term Native American" - Lakota activist Russell Means
Hey Traitor Fish, does lumping Indians into one blob called Native Americans rub anyone the wrong way?
It's not interesting at all, actually. It's nothing more than a shortcut for the intellectually lazy, the dishonest, and idiots to attack someone they know absolutely nothing about.
We know she has no Cherokee ancestors going back ~200 years or more. So contrary to what Zkribbler and TF argued, we do have documentation and its far older than Ellis Island.
She was offered tenure in 1993, but declined.
The offer remained open until she accepted it in 1995. She didn't discover that Harvard was mis-reporting her until 1996. There is no indication ethnicity had any bearing on her being grated tenure.
Well, who told Harvard she had Cherokee blood? How did they 'mis-report' her ancestry if she wasn't telling them about it? And you're wrong, Harvard presented her as their first minority (Indian) tenured professor, but she didn't know they did that until a year after her tenure? Looks like she dropped her Cherokee roots once she didn't need them.
She has won teaching awards at multiple schools.....<...>
And she dropped her Indian heritage after getting tenure. So instead of an Indian getting tenure, she cut in line and stole it from someone else. Now the only reason I'd give her a partial pass is if she actually believed she was Indian and found out she isn't a year after tenure, but her reason for believing that is unreasonable... Or I should say, its unreasonable to advance a career by claiming Indian ancestry based on having high cheek bones. I'm sure if she was ethical and only found out she wasn't Indian later she would have explained her mistake and told Harvard to honor the next minority with being the first tenured. Did she? Obviously she didn't resign, did she even offer to resign? They probably just swept it under the rug.
Based on what I told you: that it cavalierly flattens the richness and complexity of a culture to invoke it synecdochally by a single member of that group, even a revered member.
Pocahontas is unqualified to represent Indians? That was Trump's intent? No, his intent was to mock a white senator who spent years masquerading as an Indian.
Call your South Asian friend Ghandi for a month. Call your Irish friend St. Patrick for a month. Report back how they take it.
But he aint South Asian or Irish, he (she) lied about that to advance his career. I'm mostly Irish, if someone was pretending to be Irish and they got called on it with "look at St Patrick" I wouldn't be offended by St Patrick representing the Irish. Well, I like snakes so he wouldn't have my vote but I dont know who I'd replace him with, so...
You're making my point, you're nominating great people to represent larger groups. Thats what Trump did. When did sarcasm leave this forum? This thread is filled with it, but you guys dont understand sarcasm when its directed at Warren? If some guy claiming to be South Asian cuts in line and somebody says, 'hey, look at Ghandi jumping in line', he's not demeaning South Asians, he's exposing the outsider's sneaky attempt to become one.
It doesn't have to be to stir up hatred of the group. It simply is, in itself, belittling.
He's belittling Warren, not Pocahontas. Its a sarcastic comment directed at frauds trying to sneak in, it is not a commentary on the victims. And the notion its racist is illogical, the fraud is not one of the victims. She isn't Indian.
I'll refer back to Lawrence O'Donnell's analogy: calling a basketball player Michael Jordan should reasonably be taken as a compliment. Right? Well, not really. I mean it would be if the comparison was sincere. But there's only one Michael Jordan so a sincere comparison would indeed be quite a compliment, one to take pride in. I sure would...
But usually calling a basketball player Michael Jordan is meant sarcastically. Look at that guy, he thinks he's Michael Jordan. That aint an insult to Jordan, its placing him at the pinnacle of greatness - the representative of a very large group of people. It doesn't inspire racism against black people, even racists understand Michael Jordan represents the best in basketball.
