29 Jan 2019, 2:49 pm
29 Jan 2019, 3:12 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
If you read something from 1967, and something from 1969 (in American media), you will find that "Negro" was predominant in 1967, and that "Black" was predominant in 1969.
...Probably essentially correct, yeah - but maybe you a touch overestimate how quickly the " hip, new " word came in. Both of us were young and not really reading adult-level reading much then - For an illustration of your first point - I recall a 1967 issue of a Justice League if America comic book, a " public-service announement " type of story called " Man, The Name Is Brother! ". A black youth refers to himself as a " Negro ". This was Comics Code-approved " nice " reading, and a PSA kind of story - from, ha ha, DC, the less " hip " of the two big super-hero-oriented comic book companies, not Marvel. So it was polite/normal in 1967.
_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
29 Jan 2019, 4:11 pm
ASS-P wrote:
...BTW, seeing some vintage LIFE magazines from the 60s 
that dealt with the Civil Rights Movement in the window if a vintage magazines store here in San Francisco underlined that " Negro " was, in fact, once the polite/ correct/mainstream/default word for a person of sub-Saharian African ancestry - Period! Obviously, it has long since passed from that, I'm not going to use it now - However, it was. "First Nation (Er/s)? Is that more a Canadian, than American, useage?
that dealt with the Civil Rights Movement in the window if a vintage magazines store here in San Francisco underlined that " Negro " was, in fact, once the polite/ correct/mainstream/default word for a person of sub-Saharian African ancestry - Period! Obviously, it has long since passed from that, I'm not going to use it now - However, it was. "First Nation (Er/s)? Is that more a Canadian, than American, useage?Yes, in Canada we use First Nations or Indigenous people. In recent times our country has started coming to terms with our horrible racism (like the government finally acknowledging and apologizing for residential schools). In the apology the term "Indian residential schools" is used because that's what they were called at the time--it's only recently we renamed our ministry from "Indian Affairs" to "Indigenous and Northern Affairs". So you can see this is a contentious term here and our people and our government are moving away from it's use to distance ourselves from past systemic racism in our country. Our treatment of our indigenous people has been very shameful, and a lot of us pledge to not use terms like "Indian" anymore because it calls back to that shameful time that we don't want to carry with us into our country's future. I'm sorry that's so hard for some people to understand, but growing up next to a reservation and going to school with lots of First Nations students made me more aware of and sensitive to these issues. The kids growing up told me they don't like that word especially coming from a white person because of everything that it stands for, so I stopped using it a long time ago.
And when you add all that on top of how Indian is just literally incorrect (because they're not from India, and we have many immigrants in Canada who are actually from the Indian Subcontinent so it can get confusing if you're using the wrong terms for people) and how autistic people usually are with being literal and wanting to use correct and accurate terminology, I am really surprised at how few people here seem to understand why "Indian" used towards Native North Americans is problematic. Maybe it's more acceptable in parts of America, but if you guys ever travel here or talk to Canadians you might want to keep in mind that it's not as acceptable everywhere.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,766
Location: Long Island, New York
29 Jan 2019, 4:28 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
enz wrote:
Erm I'm from New Zealand and I'm not familiar with that
"Indian" is a racial slur, like "redskin", because Native American people aren't from India.
It is not a slur, it is just another example of the NT's not being literal
.New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name
Quote:
Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.
The results — immediately celebrated by team owner Daniel Snyder and denounced by prominent Native American leaders — could make it that much harder for anti-name activists to pressure Redskins officials, who are already using the poll as further justification to retain the moniker.
But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed The Post’s findings.
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Two other key leaders in the name-change movement did not challenge the validity of the poll, and instead issued a joint statement calling the responses from Indians “encouraging.”
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.
Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.
What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do.
In a 2014 national ESPN poll, 23 percent of those reached called for “Redskins” to be retired because of its offensiveness to Native Americans — more than double the 9 percent of actual Native Americans who now say they are offended by it.
The poll, which has a 5.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error, was conducted by randomly calling cellular and landline phones. It asked questions only of people who identified themselves as Native American, after being asked about their ethnicity or heritage.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.
The results — immediately celebrated by team owner Daniel Snyder and denounced by prominent Native American leaders — could make it that much harder for anti-name activists to pressure Redskins officials, who are already using the poll as further justification to retain the moniker.
But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed The Post’s findings.
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Two other key leaders in the name-change movement did not challenge the validity of the poll, and instead issued a joint statement calling the responses from Indians “encouraging.”
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.
Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.
What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do.
In a 2014 national ESPN poll, 23 percent of those reached called for “Redskins” to be retired because of its offensiveness to Native Americans — more than double the 9 percent of actual Native Americans who now say they are offended by it.
The poll, which has a 5.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error, was conducted by randomly calling cellular and landline phones. It asked questions only of people who identified themselves as Native American, after being asked about their ethnicity or heritage.
Bolding Mine
American Indian Movement Webpage
Indian Pride Organization Webpage
What is actually offensive is people deciding for other people what they should be offended by.
That poll you cited was just 504 people and was from 2016. This article from 2017 tells me there are still a lot of Native Americans who really aren't happy with the name: http://time.com/4859656/washington-reds ... eme-court/
From the article: "Studies have repeatedly highlighted the devastating damage to self-esteem and overall mental health that exposure to this word causes for Native American children. Exposure to mascotization has also been shown to encourage discrimination and prejudice toward Native Americans by those of other races. The obligation to not use the R-word is a moral one." There are words written by two Native American people. I'm going to listen to them and not use the term and ask other white people not to use it.
I was surprised at the ‘Redskins” poll because that has been a subject of controversy for a long time. Although “Native American” and “Indigenous Peoples”,” is replacing “Indian” I have rarely seen objections to “Indian”.
The way I look at it a word is just a word. It is all about the way the word is used. The phrase “Indian Giver” is a pejorative. It means a person who gives gifts and wants them back. I remember when that phrase was in common use.
1968 somewhat popular song
If I was an Indian I would be pretty pissed about that song.
29 Jan 2019, 6:15 pm
29 Jan 2019, 6:15 pm
29 Jan 2019, 6:16 pm
29 Jan 2019, 6:19 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,618
Location: the island of defective toy santas
30 Jan 2019, 3:53 am
I remember driving through a montana indian reservation in the late 80s and seeing, at every stop sign, groups of native americans standing and walking about, just staring bullets at me, like I didn't belong there on their land. 
I knew I was unwelcome and I beat feet to get out of there.
30 Jan 2019, 5:00 am
30 Jan 2019, 5:19 am
auntblabby wrote:
I remember driving through a montana indian reservation in the late 80s and seeing, at every stop sign, groups of native americans standing and walking about, just staring bullets at me, like I didn't belong there on their land. I knew I was unwelcome and I beat feet to get out of there.
I knew I was unwelcome and I beat feet to get out of there.That's different from the Piute and Moappa reservation I've been on in Nevada and the Tulalip one here. They're more than happy to let us shop and gamble there.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,766
Location: Long Island, New York
30 Jan 2019, 10:44 am
30 Jan 2019, 10:55 am
ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
enz wrote:
Erm I'm from New Zealand and I'm not familiar with that
"Indian" is a racial slur, like "redskin", because Native American people aren't from India.
It is not a slur, it is just another example of the NT's not being literal
.New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name
Quote:
Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.
The results — immediately celebrated by team owner Daniel Snyder and denounced by prominent Native American leaders — could make it that much harder for anti-name activists to pressure Redskins officials, who are already using the poll as further justification to retain the moniker.
But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed The Post’s findings.
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Two other key leaders in the name-change movement did not challenge the validity of the poll, and instead issued a joint statement calling the responses from Indians “encouraging.”
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.
Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.
What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do.
In a 2014 national ESPN poll, 23 percent of those reached called for “Redskins” to be retired because of its offensiveness to Native Americans — more than double the 9 percent of actual Native Americans who now say they are offended by it.
The poll, which has a 5.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error, was conducted by randomly calling cellular and landline phones. It asked questions only of people who identified themselves as Native American, after being asked about their ethnicity or heritage.
The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.
Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.
The results — immediately celebrated by team owner Daniel Snyder and denounced by prominent Native American leaders — could make it that much harder for anti-name activists to pressure Redskins officials, who are already using the poll as further justification to retain the moniker.
But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed The Post’s findings.
“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”
Two other key leaders in the name-change movement did not challenge the validity of the poll, and instead issued a joint statement calling the responses from Indians “encouraging.”
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39.
Even 9 in 10 of those who have heard a great deal about the controversy say they are not bothered by the name.
What makes those attitudes more striking: The general public appears to object more strongly to the name than Indians do.
In a 2014 national ESPN poll, 23 percent of those reached called for “Redskins” to be retired because of its offensiveness to Native Americans — more than double the 9 percent of actual Native Americans who now say they are offended by it.
The poll, which has a 5.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error, was conducted by randomly calling cellular and landline phones. It asked questions only of people who identified themselves as Native American, after being asked about their ethnicity or heritage.
Bolding Mine
American Indian Movement Webpage
Indian Pride Organization Webpage
What is actually offensive is people deciding for other people what they should be offended by.
That poll you cited was just 504 people and was from 2016. This article from 2017 tells me there are still a lot of Native Americans who really aren't happy with the name: http://time.com/4859656/washington-reds ... eme-court/
From the article: "Studies have repeatedly highlighted the devastating damage to self-esteem and overall mental health that exposure to this word causes for Native American children. Exposure to mascotization has also been shown to encourage discrimination and prejudice toward Native Americans by those of other races. The obligation to not use the R-word is a moral one." There are words written by two Native American people. I'm going to listen to them and not use the term and ask other white people not to use it.
I was surprised at the ‘Redskins” poll because that has been a subject of controversy for a long time. Although “Native American” and “Indigenous Peoples”,” is replacing “Indian” I have rarely seen objections to “Indian”.
The way I look at it a word is just a word. It is all about the way the word is used. The phrase “Indian Giver” is a pejorative. It means a person who gives gifts and wants them back. I remember when that phrase was in common use.
1968 somewhat popular song
If I was an Indian I would be pretty pissed about that song.
...I'll have something to say about lerhsps-now-dodgy pop songs using phrases and musical flourishes " Indian ' and gambling later!
_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
30 Jan 2019, 10:57 am
30 Jan 2019, 11:29 am
30 Jan 2019, 12:08 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Struggling With Social Media |
25 Jan 2025, 2:11 pm |
| Aut teen daughter, using social media to solict relationship |
03 Dec 2024, 6:39 pm |
| Pentagon removes major media outlets,"Rotation Program" |
01 Feb 2025, 8:55 am |
