|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Jul 11 2005, 10:20 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member [Level 2] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 1-June 05 Member No.: 7,772 |
Well, in the lack of the better word, I guess they could be called Native Americans.. Though, they should be asked about it.. What did they call their continent before Europeans came? It sure isn't America, so they should have say in what they should be called.. I agree with someone who posted before, that perhaps, they should be called by their tribe name, but it can't be used in general, when addressing all the tribes.
As a note, natives are called Indians, because Europeans thought they found India, because they set sail to find India and it's spices.. So, I guess, that's why they stayed 'Indians'.. Here in Yu, we call them "Indijanci", which could be translated as Indians, but, we call Indians from India, "Indijci", so... Maybe they could take the term Indijanci? |
|
|
|
Oct 30 2006, 10:57 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Member [Level 1] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 4-July 05 Member No.: 8,994 |
I believe that the best term is Native American. It's part of the acronym NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ), which directly involves the heads of Native American nations. If they had a problem with "NA" I suspect they would have requested it to be changed.
On a side note, lately there's been a debate between ARPA (Archaeological Resources Protection Act) and the local Native American community in Washington State about ownership of recently discovered bones that are over 8,000 years old. The Native Americans believe that it is the remains of their forefathers (and therefore subject to repatriation and burial in the Native American way), while the scientific community believes that Native Americans had not traversed to the American continent by that time, and instead of giving the bones up to the Native Americans, these bones should be studied further. http://www.archaeology.org/9701/etc/specialreport.html |
|
|
|
Nov 1 2006, 11:52 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Privileged Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 629 Joined: 26-February 05 Member No.: 3,995 |
Why would you call them "Native Indians"? Please tell me that's the joke option.
Anyway, the politically correct term is "Native Americans," but the historical term is "Indians." I don't believe that it should make a difference, but a lot of people get offended about really small things. Some of them don't mind being called Indians, others do; it really depends who you're talking to. |
|
|
|
Nov 2 2006, 11:00 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Neurotical Squirrel ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: [HOSTED] Posts: 590 Joined: 4-November 04 From: Novi Sad, Vojvodina Member No.: 2,127 |
I think, that "Native Americans", should be called whatever their tribe name is... I mean, OK, they all look similar, have sligtly reddish tan, one could say they are one race, a race for themselves... But, if we take into account, that white race, has different nations, such as the french, germans, polaks, and others, why can't natives, have something like that... So, if the tribes name is Sioux, they should be called the Sioux, and so on, and so on...
What was the name they had for American continent? It's the Europeans that gave it such a name, so even Native Americans, can be wrong... Maybe they called America Bambiland, or Great Wast Land, so they would technicaly be called Great Wast Landers My oppinion is, if they can't be called by their tribes name, then, at least, Native Americans... And we know who the Indians are... You know... That country, India? Pretty much people there, and I'm sure they're no more too happy with this name game, then the natives... People should pay more attention to these details... Details are everything |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Similar Topics
| Topics | Topics | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th October 2008 - 11:41 PM |