Thread: Oy, Britishers, help me out here!

In all honesty we all know that the Indians you are talking about exist but in my experience they are just the "squeaky minority" and do not speak for the rest. (My experience by the way includes living with, working with everyday, basically living on a Shoshone/Paiute reservation, and working cattle with them on Indian land ( and let me tell you that "holding rodear" (look it up) with them is an experience), and being the only white guy with a bunch of Indians for miles around. And not to mention using reservation hospitals, stores and post office and such. Oh lets not forget going to town with them (usually 60 miles or more) and drinking with them (not something for the weak hearted) so don't try this at home kids!. I have lived like this from British Columbia to Arizona.
So, my Indians can whip your Indians any day, so there!
PS So if this is "far Right" . Then by your reckoning I can only conclude that most Indians are the same. But why must you always make things political?

There, don't you feel like more of a man? You got to condescend to me, use some "cowboy" terminology, ramble on about "masculine" activities such as drinking and living out in the Wild Wild West. I'm glad to have made your day a little brighter and more testosterone-filled!

Incidentally, I know what "rodear" means, o wise one. See, I a) used to train horses and b) speak Spanish. Any other, um, "obscure dialect words" you want to trot out on your cowpony?

And all this because I wanted to illustrate the inherent unsoundness of anecdotal evidence in debate. Whooo.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Incidentally, I know what "rodear" means,

Well, I am impressed. It is everyday language amongst Buckaroos, not obscure.
And since you have kindly offered your services, I do have another word to trot out. How about "cavvy" ? I am pretty sure this is the spelling we use. Is this a word that is clearly familiar to Spanish speakers? Or has it become obscure?

PS And yes, I do feel more manly now and I owe it all to you.

In response to the original question of British reference to Indians.The only source I have is television programs.There is a British show called 'The Kumars' which is done by Indians.I'm sure they refer to their British status as being Asians (of some sub-group reference).
And about the American Indian vs Native American issue.I was of the impression that the word 'indian' was simply another word for native, indigenous or aboriginal.I'm not really sure how specific to the country India it was meant to be.Many places start with the letter combination 'ind'.India, Indonesia, Indo-China, West Indes, South American Indian.I suspect that it is just another word for native 'in general'. .I think it's the early century film industry that dirtied the word 'indian'.Who really knows whether it's REALLY appropriate.Nobody has given us 'reasons' to to say Native instead of Indian.We're just 'demanded' to say yay or nay.So neither name-caller can really be blamed.
I'll just concur DDT's experiences of Australia.People from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are NOT refered to as Asians here.There's a huge distiction.I think that people form these countries just get umbrella'd as Indian, or they're called black.Rarely, if ever, Asian.
And, there was a post (sorry, I forgot to check your name) that mentioned Australia as a country that all Americans knew about.Only since the 2000 Olympics did Americans seem to know where Australia was.Moreso now since our country joined the G.W Bush-licking Co.To hammer home the point; Before either of these events, I saw an episode of Jay Leno where everyday New Yorkers were asked easy questions.One question was "Where is Australia located?", Leno asked, handing the map to a passer-by.And where did the guy point to? CANADA! Oh my!
He even gave him the clue "Australia is a COUNTRY.Do you still want to stick to your original answer".Why, yes he did! I don't expect Americans to know where Australia is, but I do expect them to know that 'Canada' is where Australia ISN'T.

I am not aware if the word "Indian" ever meant "native" . The way I heard the story was that Christopher Columbus set out to find a shorter trading route to India and the Indies and since he knew the world was round he went in the opposite direction than was usual to get there. When he reached the first dry land (central America) he assumed that he was in some uncharted region but close to India and he began to call the local inhabitants "Indians". Apparrantly the name has "stuck" for over 500 years.

He even gave him the clue "Australia is a COUNTRY.Do you still want to stick to your original answer".

Eh? Canada is a country too. But that's pretty bad, anyway.

About "Ind" meaning native, no, it doesn't. It refers to things that are related to India. I believe it's from the word "hind" - "hindi" - "hindu" etc. You notice this word "hind" in Arabic and I believe Farsi as well, to refer to India. The mixup with American Indians is usually explained with the Christopher Columbus story; however, I'm sure there's some different explanation that is not commonly known.

Oh!, I nearly forgot. That is also why the West Indies are named so. It took them some time to figure out that they were nowhere nere that East Indies but had stumbled across an entirely new continent.

Where are the American Indians origianlly from? Some place in Asia, right?

Originally Posted by Евгения Белякова

Where are the American Indians origianlly from? Some place in Asia, right?

Only in the sense that all of us are originaly "from" somewhere in Africa.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by Евгения Белякова

Where are the American Indians origianlly from? Some place in Asia, right?

Only in the sense that all of us are originaly "from" somewhere in Africa.

Для тех, кто интересуется: Patterns of Hominid Dispersal

[quote="Pravit"]
[quote\]Eh? Canada is a country too. But that's pretty bad, anyway.[quote\]
The guy may have initially thought Australia was a TOWN in Canada.But when the clue came that Australia was a COUNTRY, that excuse disappeared.

Then I guess the word Indian was born in the same light as the the word Gypsy, with people mistaking the Rom ethnic group for Egyptian pilgrims.Hence, (E)gyp(t)sy.In this case, I prefer the reference Native American, I guess.But Lynda, even if your friends don't like the word Indian, do not think it unfair to presume the person using it to be 'morally' at fault.Do you agree that it's not just the speaker that has to be sensitive, but the reciever aswell? Not everyone says the same word with the same lack of heart.

they can do there own things like kill someone then run to a resurvation and get away with it cause we dont have jurisdiction over there but, that dont happen often.

I live next to a reservation, one chief had his left foot cut off for not converting to catholism and some people that didnt convert got pushed off clifs by thier own people!

PS this forum dont grow much doesent it?

I think the main problem with children not learning their stuff is because we have MTV...also most of the World Geography teachers at my school are football coaches and have to teach that class or else they couldnt coach football. Football coaches know nothing, but their classes are extremely easy.

same here. exactly.


= = = = = = = = = = = = =


Well I feel as a half "Native American" I should put in my two cents... And really, the ones I know who resent being called Indians are the same obnoxiously politically-correct types that are found in other cultures as well - the ones that would rather call an old man a "youth-challenged male individual". Honestly, it's just a word. I personally don't think either one of those terms are derogatory anyways - no one really means it in a bad way that I know of, it's simply a way of referring to the thing your talking about so that the other person understands.

And if you want to be TECHNICAL, I'd be more obliged to be offended by the term Native American, since it was Columbus who came here and killed us and then afterwards named it America, and so really before we came we lived in whatever we called the country, not "America".

But seriously, most people really don't care that much. As long as you don't call me a buffalo-hugging wigwam monger or something

haha actually I'd probably laugh if you said that...but you get the picture

Originally Posted by nightfaerie

haha actually I'd probably laugh if you said that...but you get the picture

as far as kids go, I think its both parents/kids.

for instance a "kid" kills 10 ppl with a gun. ppl automatically say its the games but, who is buying the games.

But the KID """STILL HAS CHOICE""" and there fore it would be the kids fault to pull or not pull the triger.

Originally Posted by nightfaerie

Honestly, it's just a word. I personally don't think either one of those terms are derogatory anyways - no one really means it in a bad way that I know of, it's simply a way of referring to the thing your talking about so that the other person understands.

Tell this to Afro-americans who were initially suposed to be called 'negros' , which means simply "black" btw.

"Afro-American" and "Negro" are not derogatory, and educated people would not find these terms derogatory. They are simply outdated.

Originally Posted by Pravit

"Afro-American" and "Negro" are not derogatory, and educated people would not find these terms derogatory. They are simply outdated.

Yes, if you use them in Harlem you'll quickly get the idea of their "outdateness".

Who lives in the US, you or me? Uneducated people might find them offensive, just as uneducated Asians might find the term "Oriental" offensive. But I said educated people would not find them derogatory, only outdated.

People butcher the language. Every word seems to change its meaning every so often. Bitch and gay are 2 perfect examples.