poneyup's Comments
Tylerp - hahahahahahah
hahaha
I just watched that. Right on!
hahaha
I just watched that. Right on!
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
And speaking of these blanket terms, the same goes for "Indians" vs. "Native-Americans" or whatever else they've come up with lately.
All these words are Western constructs, words from a language not native to America when it is discovered by the Europeans. They had their own tribal names and probably didn't have a blanket term for all the people that shared their skin color, since they didn't know there was another way people could look. That is until the Europeans came and brought the full buffet. So I would imagine they probably just called themselves "human" in their different dialects and languages.
So, what I'm saying is, the whole thing is corrupt to start with. Changing the name for a particular group of people every ten years to try to make up for a mass-genocide is like putting a band-aid on a decapitated head.
There isn't really much need to use these words in an everyday conversation (wishful thinking, I know, but there isn't). For the purposes of theoretical essays and studies that rely on ethnic-specific data then those performing the study should be allowed to choose whichever term they find to be the most accurate and descriptive given the circumstances. So if they want to say "Indians", I say let 'em.
But with these things like everything else, I guess you have to leave it up to the people the word refers to:
http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html
All these words are Western constructs, words from a language not native to America when it is discovered by the Europeans. They had their own tribal names and probably didn't have a blanket term for all the people that shared their skin color, since they didn't know there was another way people could look. That is until the Europeans came and brought the full buffet. So I would imagine they probably just called themselves "human" in their different dialects and languages.
So, what I'm saying is, the whole thing is corrupt to start with. Changing the name for a particular group of people every ten years to try to make up for a mass-genocide is like putting a band-aid on a decapitated head.
There isn't really much need to use these words in an everyday conversation (wishful thinking, I know, but there isn't). For the purposes of theoretical essays and studies that rely on ethnic-specific data then those performing the study should be allowed to choose whichever term they find to be the most accurate and descriptive given the circumstances. So if they want to say "Indians", I say let 'em.
But with these things like everything else, I guess you have to leave it up to the people the word refers to:
http://www.peaknet.net/~aardvark/means.html
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Well, here's the thing.
I know a thing or two about eskimos (I have been in Greenland), and the way I understand it the word "inuit" is too specific, it's like calling all Asian people Japanese. It refers to a sub-group of what we used to call "eskimos".
I realize there may be some cultural-insensitivity baggage that needs to be dealt with, but in terms of accuracy I would go with "Eskimo". If you want, we can settle on Greenland-American or some $h!t like that but either way we would be doing this group of people a disservice.
And aside from all that, the "eskimos" that I met didn't give a damn what you called them, they usually had "names" they used to address each other with anyway.
And, no, Eskimo does not equal the N-word by a long shot. Not even in the same ballpark.
I know a thing or two about eskimos (I have been in Greenland), and the way I understand it the word "inuit" is too specific, it's like calling all Asian people Japanese. It refers to a sub-group of what we used to call "eskimos".
I realize there may be some cultural-insensitivity baggage that needs to be dealt with, but in terms of accuracy I would go with "Eskimo". If you want, we can settle on Greenland-American or some $h!t like that but either way we would be doing this group of people a disservice.
And aside from all that, the "eskimos" that I met didn't give a damn what you called them, they usually had "names" they used to address each other with anyway.
And, no, Eskimo does not equal the N-word by a long shot. Not even in the same ballpark.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Hey, and guess what? There is this brand new thing out there, it's called...brace yourself..."sushi" and apparently it's mostly raw fish!