@bo "Krellin, no one is saying that all non-indigenous peoples should leave the continent." I never said anyone was saying that....what are you talking about?

"If you really want people to think of everyone else as a person, you have to abolish race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, etc etc... in other words, good luck. "

Thanks...I appreciate your good wishes. We can start with you, brother human Bo...how about you start calling yourself "a human" instead of a x% Native American as your first identifier....YOU can start the integration of humanity in to a common group....

@steephi....You know African Americans used to be Black used to be Negro used to be...and on and on it goes.

Eventually the current "Native Americans" will get all offended because enough damned white people are calling them Native Americans and they'll come up with a new name and we can all go back to realizing that anyone born here is a native American...

Maybe if we start having enough "mixed race" babies we can just end ALL thuis bullshti and be done with it.

I do call myself a human being. I find race irrelevant. However, when one race is chosen as superior over another by the masses, I have a responsibility to stand up against it because I am in solidarity with all people and I'd like all people to be in solidarity with me.

"Maybe if we start having enough "mixed race" babies we can just end ALL thuis bullshti and be done with it."

Jefferson just rolled in his grave.

@krellin: we really agree more than you seem to think. I just say what I say for clarity when needed although I prefer just talking about humans since there's no big difference IMO.

In fact, I consider the word racist to be slightly racist, and yes, I noticed the irony. This is because in the end I think there's only one race among us: the human race. Other than that, I don't think you can judge someone's race (common definition) by their colour or things like different eyes, which is how we usually define race.

Are you guys sure the term "American Indian" is so bad? I have a Modern Scholar lecture series titled "The History of Native America" by Ned Blackhawk (Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University, where he teaches American Indian Studies) and he consistently refers to "American Indians" in his lecture series (he is himself a Native American). I forget his exact reasons but he says that the term "Native American" is actually quite contentious within the Native community, and that in many ways "American Indian" is preferred. You can argue about the logic of the etymology but lots of words have illogical etymologies. The Wikipedia article on Native Americans also says that most Natives do refer to themselves as "American Indians".

"In fact, I consider the word racist to be slightly racist, and yes, I noticed the irony"

+1 Agree...

Jefferson rolled in his grave? He started the movement, dotting the land with his own mixed-race offspring!

"I do call myself a human being. I find race irrelevant. However, when one race is chosen as superior over another by the masses, I have a responsibility to stand up against it because I am in solidarity with all people and I'd like all people to be in solidarity with me. "

One sheer mass of confusion...it's irrelevant...unless I want to join the fight, he says

Or you could look at both sides of the fight and call them both stupid and ignore it. If enough people ignored the bullshit instead of jumping on the politically correct band wagon the fights might just end...

Krellin, I know he did.. that's what makes his vehement rants against mixed race so odd.

I'm not jumping on a politically correct bandwagon. If I gave a shit about political correctness, this thread wouldn't have happened.

Well said spyman. David Barton should try to confront that professor and see how far it gets.

"Here's a good litmus test for deciding if someone should be considered Indian:"

Somebody should tell people from the West Indies that.

Also, while what Barton says is amoral it is also true. Logistical warfare is the most efficient at ending wars. That's how Sherman beat the South.

I've never met anyone from the West Indies who refer to himself as Indian. Do they do that?

West Indian? Yes.

Indian itself is a European-made designation for people from India so I don't get what the attachment to the word is all about.

"West Indian? Yes."

How is that different from using the term American Indian rather than just Indian?

"Indian itself is a European-made designation for people from India so I don't get what the attachment to the word is all about."

What? Words have meaning. If you use words outside their meaning it becomes confusing.

American Indians are Indians. Too many times have things been decided for American Indians; let that one be. Most American Indians certainly don't appreciate the claim that they are "American" at all. This place was never America. How can anyone be native to a place that didn't exist?

bo, you can use words however you want as long as you don't get annoyed when you cause confusion because of it.

I'll explain it all to people just as I have here.

I was reading in the book of Mormon that native American Indians were descended from Jews. Two brothers, in fact. One killed the other and god punished him by darkening his skin and making him savage

So call them what you wait, but God calls them "bad Jews!" And god is rarely wrong.

Who is David Barton is he knew?

No, he's just another old white guy in Texas.

"How is that different from using the term American Indian rather than just Indian?"

I don't follow. The term 'West Indies' has the same 'problem' as the term Indian or American Indian as it stems from cartographical confusion from a long time ago, but people still self-identify as West Indian, and the region as West Indies, and it doesn't really matter what anybody outside of the West Indies thinks about that, because it's their call what they self-identify as. Just like it's the American Indian Movement (AIM)'s call to self-identify as American Indian. It doesn't matter what abgemacht (or anybody else) thinks they should be called, or if it confuses people.

"What? Words have meaning."

Yes they have meaning. But I don't understand why people of a particular heritage have to label themselves how other people labeled them, just because it's "confusing" to others to do otherwise. If they don't feel an affinity or identification with a certain word, then why should they be pressed to go ahead and identify with it?

@Putin

Referring to American Indians as just Indians is vague and confusing. That's my only point.

The term "Indian" to describe people from India is vague and confusing, considering the named region is a massive territory with a multitude of topographies, ethnic groups, cultures, languages, etc. It's about as specific as calling a Danish person "European" or a Chinese person "Asian". Adding the aboriginal peoples of the Americas to the mix doesn't make much of a difference as far as vagueness goes, and the context likely clarifies any confusion anyway. People have been calling themselves that for centuries, I fail to see why it matters.

The last time I checked, India was one country, which is a fairly reasonable way of sorting people.

"Sincerely,
Every single Indian and part-Indian and anyone with half a bit of knowledge about Indians in North America"

Fuck off, child, I didn't ask you to speak for me.

"No, Indian. American Indian if you want. I've explained that in the past."

Native American is more accurate than Indian.

**more precise, not more accurate