Anonymous wrote:A lot of unearned guilt on this thread, but whatever makes you feel virtuous I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's right, I don't believe a word like Oriental is racist, when the word literally means "pertaining to the East or Rising". Asian is a much worse term because it comes from the name of the area at the very western part of Asia (modern Turkey), and why would those of the east prefer to define themselves as being from the westernmost part of the continent, the small area which borders Europe?

East of what

The west. Duh.

I meant: east of what? /s

Saying “Oriental” isn’t racist because it just means “eastern” is a bad take because obviously you are then referring to the people of an entire continent not by the name of that continent (as we do for all the others) but in reference to the position of Europe.

So what? Most of the people in this country were European and lots of us still are. Do you know what "China" means? Did China talk about the rest of the world in relationship to itself? It is OK for people, even people of European descent, to admit that they see the world in relation to themselves.

Anonymous wrote:The people who raise the "native Americans were fighting with each other before contact" argument are generally not making informed historical arguments, though. They are making arguments that are illogical, racist, or false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

ALL are occupiers.

Those "Native Americans" came from Asia.

Not only that, but they didn't even come all at once. There were waves of them migrating across the land bridges over the centuries and even over millennia in some cases. So even among the indigenous people in the Americas, you still had established people and newcomers. And yes, they fought each other and took their lands many times over. These are humans after all, and not some "noble savages."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

There are clear examples of Native American warfare before European contact. Your post ignores this reality and is, ironically, ignorant and racist itself.

The people who raise the "native Americans were fighting with each other before contact" argument are generally not making informed historical arguments, though. They are making arguments that are illogical, racist, or false. E.g., 1) All Native Americans fought with each other, so Europeans fighting with any/all of them is morally equivalent. 2) Native Americans fought savagely against each other (some were even cannibals! they fought with each other to capture humans for sacrifices!) so they were evil cultures anyhow and we don't need to shed tears over them. 3) The United States territory was primarily acquired through military superiority and not violations of agreements (and later,) treaties signed between governments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's right, I don't believe a word like Oriental is racist, when the word literally means "pertaining to the East or Rising". Asian is a much worse term because it comes from the name of the area at the very western part of Asia (modern Turkey), and why would those of the east prefer to define themselves as being from the westernmost part of the continent, the small area which borders Europe?

East of what

The west. Duh.

I meant: east of what? /s

Saying “Oriental” isn’t racist because it just means “eastern” is a bad take because obviously you are then referring to the people of an entire continent not by the name of that continent (as we do for all the others) but in reference to the position of Europe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area with a large First Nations population and have many friends who are Native American.

And shocker, they’re not a monolith. Some use the term Indian, some Native, some Indigenous. Many of my friends would be uncomfortable with me describing myself as native since I’m of European descent. My H is of Aztec descent and he’d definitely have a strong opinion if I called myself native. So I don’t use the word in that way because it’s easy for me to not say the word in order for others to be more comfortable.

I just really don’t get why there are non-indigenous people who suddenly get butthurt over not being able to describe themselves as native. It’s just a word, who cares? Like how often are you going around telling people you’re native? It’s Like the whole thing with Lizzo, or the little mermaid. White dudes literally care nothing about a historical flute or a cartoon mermaid, or the word “native”, until someone who looks different enters that space, and now all of a sudden they feel something was stolen from them.

If letting another group of people use that word gives them a sense of identity and pride, why argue? It has literally zero impact on your life.

White people want to start a trend where they greet indigenous people by acknowledging they "live on stolen land." Not sure what the acknowledgement accomplishes and seems very insulting to say without giving that land back.

“Land acknowledgement” is the term you are seeking.

It is not insulting. It accomplishes a tremendous amount - particularly as a crucial first step.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area with a large First Nations population and have many friends who are Native American.

And shocker, they’re not a monolith. Some use the term Indian, some Native, some Indigenous. Many of my friends would be uncomfortable with me describing myself as native since I’m of European descent. My H is of Aztec descent and he’d definitely have a strong opinion if I called myself native. So I don’t use the word in that way because it’s easy for me to not say the word in order for others to be more comfortable.

I just really don’t get why there are non-indigenous people who suddenly get butthurt over not being able to describe themselves as native. It’s just a word, who cares? Like how often are you going around telling people you’re native? It’s Like the whole thing with Lizzo, or the little mermaid. White dudes literally care nothing about a historical flute or a cartoon mermaid, or the word “native”, until someone who looks different enters that space, and now all of a sudden they feel something was stolen from them.

If letting another group of people use that word gives them a sense of identity and pride, why argue? It has literally zero impact on your life.

White people want to start a trend where they greet indigenous people by acknowledging they "live on stolen land." Not sure what the acknowledgement accomplishes and seems very insulting to say without giving that land back.

“Land acknowledgement” is the term you are seeking.

It is not insulting. It accomplishes a tremendous amount - particularly as a crucial first step.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area with a large First Nations population and have many friends who are Native American.

And shocker, they’re not a monolith. Some use the term Indian, some Native, some Indigenous. Many of my friends would be uncomfortable with me describing myself as native since I’m of European descent. My H is of Aztec descent and he’d definitely have a strong opinion if I called myself native. So I don’t use the word in that way because it’s easy for me to not say the word in order for others to be more comfortable.

I just really don’t get why there are non-indigenous people who suddenly get butthurt over not being able to describe themselves as native. It’s just a word, who cares? Like how often are you going around telling people you’re native? It’s Like the whole thing with Lizzo, or the little mermaid. White dudes literally care nothing about a historical flute or a cartoon mermaid, or the word “native”, until someone who looks different enters that space, and now all of a sudden they feel something was stolen from them.

If letting another group of people use that word gives them a sense of identity and pride, why argue? It has literally zero impact on your life.

White people want to start a trend where they greet indigenous people by acknowledging they "live on stolen land." Not sure what the acknowledgement accomplishes and seems very insulting to say without giving that land back.

Anonymous wrote:I live in an area with a large First Nations population and have many friends who are Native American.

And shocker, they’re not a monolith. Some use the term Indian, some Native, some Indigenous. Many of my friends would be uncomfortable with me describing myself as native since I’m of European descent. My H is of Aztec descent and he’d definitely have a strong opinion if I called myself native. So I don’t use the word in that way because it’s easy for me to not say the word in order for others to be more comfortable.

I just really don’t get why there are non-indigenous people who suddenly get butthurt over not being able to describe themselves as native. It’s just a word, who cares? Like how often are you going around telling people you’re native? It’s Like the whole thing with Lizzo, or the little mermaid. White dudes literally care nothing about a historical flute or a cartoon mermaid, or the word “native”, until someone who looks different enters that space, and now all of a sudden they feel something was stolen from them.

If letting another group of people use that word gives them a sense of identity and pride, why argue? It has literally zero impact on your life.

Anonymous wrote:Native American = a race.

Not same as a "native Washingtonian."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

ALL are occupiers.

Those "Native Americans" came from Asia.

Not only that, but they didn't even come all at once. There were waves of them migrating across the land bridges over the centuries and even over millennia in some cases. So even among the indigenous people in the Americas, you still had established people and newcomers. And yes, they fought each other and took their lands many times over. These are humans after all, and not some "noble savages."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.

There are clear examples of Native American warfare before European contact. Your post ignores this reality and is, ironically, ignorant and racist itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t people native to the place where they were born?

Not necessarily.

Most in the U.S. are occupiers.

ALL are occupiers.

Those "Native Americans" came from Asia.

Not only that, but they didn't even come all at once. There were waves of them migrating across the land bridges over the centuries and even over millennia in some cases. So even among the indigenous people in the Americas, you still had established people and newcomers. And yes, they fought each other and took their lands many times over. These are humans after all, and not some "noble savages."

I am getting really tired of this misinformation being spread, both repeatedly on this thread and every time people talk about indigenous Americans. No, they were not all fighting and taking over each other's territories all the time. There were maybe 50 million people across both continents, which cover 17 million square miles. Tribes were not huge and lived in villages that were loosely congregated by language and culture across larger areas, similar to how Alaska natives live today. When Europeans arrived, they were able to establish boundaries between tribes pretty easily and drew maps using rivers, mountains, etc. There may be have been occasional clashes over hunting territories, problems following ecological stressors, and a small number of tribes with an aggressive culture, but overall there is not much evidence that there was overlap or conflict among different groups, who were more focused on day-to-day issues than "territory."

The fighting and political conflicts among tribes that most people know about happened after contact when fur trapping became extremely lucrative and territorial rights and boundaries became important to tribes. Also, as Europeans pushed westward and consumed natural resources, tribes that previously had not had to deal with scarcity suddenly had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves and were encouraged by the US Government to fight with each other. These were not traditional patterns.

It is ignorant to post these kinds of responses "they fought each other and took their lands many times over" without knowing the history, and I suspect it is done with racist intent.