Sagepaper

Below is a piece I wrote on the matter of politically correct terminology. I had hoped to get the supporting links together before posting this as a topic. I think I should post it now, rather than step on Canadian toes. It refers to what is appropriate in the United States.

I did not mean to be demeaning or racist in referring to the Canadian Aborigines as, "American Indians." I did not know that could be a racial slur, or anything. In this light, my post on racism must have made me look like a monster!

Here goes:

American Indians or Native Americans?

Lest you think I am insensitive, racist, or just politically incorrect, I thought I would tell you why I call our aboriginal population, "American Indians," rather than, "Native Americans." I am bowing to THEIR preference. It is, in fact, insensitive to call them, "Native Americans."

This is not simply a matter of mixed preferences like you find among Negroes about whether they want to be called, "Blacks" or "African Americans." The Indians are well united, across tribes, in their preference. They do not simply prefer to be called American Indians, either.

They are so strongly opinionated in the matter that they sent a delegation to the United Nations to express their wishes. I don't know the exact name of the committee, but the gist of it is that it represents aboriginal peoples. There was some day, week, month, or year of the Aborigine at the time. The US government delegation went to "register" (?) ours as "Native Americans."

The American Indian delegation was not formally recognized, I think, but conducted a protest. Their wishes were taken into account. I don't remember if they prevailed; they certainly created some awkwardness for the US delegation. I think the UN has them down as American Indians, though.

Members of AIM are, as usual, more militant about it than the general Indian population. They believe that they were defeated and oppressed as American Indians, and it is as American Indians that they will rise again. In the less militantly minded, there is still the same sentiment of wanting a continuity in their history. You cannot understand their history without understanding their interaction with Europeans. In schools, this interaction goes back at least to the time they were mistaken for "Indians."

So, down with the politically correct, and the New Agers, who think they know what's best for their little brown (red?) brothers. They should, perhaps, be a bit less arrogant. These language-changers never tried visiting a Reservation to find out what might truly be politically correct.

I think they just want a convenient way of telling an Indian (like an Arapaho) from an Indian (like a convenience store owner). Yes, I know. That opinion is completely offensive to the spirit of political correctness.

It does, however, reflect a new linguistic problem created by a dramatic change in US demographics. Even though it is correct to call an Indian an Indian, the Indians were here first, and already had claim to the title. If you want to distinguish them, you will simply have to add "American" consistently when you mean an Indian.

Of course, some "India" Indians are Americans, and don't like being "India" Indians. They prefer to be "Indians." Again, though, they are the Johnny-come-lately's. They should be Indian-Americans. That way we don't have to dump on the American Indians again.

Okay, that was a bit defensive. I guess I was sticking-up for American Indians as well as for myself. I hope this was informative or useful, anyway.

I did not mean to be demeaning or racist in referring to the Canadian Aborigines as, "American Indians." I did not know that could be a racial slur, or anything. In this light, my post on racism must have made me look like a monster!