Native American Programme Tonight BBC4 21.00
- Thread starter Bonzo Frog
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
In Canada, First Nations is the most common and preferred name used. Aboriginal people is another. The word 'Indian' is little used, as it's found offensive, because of the stereotyping of the past where the word was used in a derogatory way.
First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here in Florida terminoogy's not a big deal either. The Seminoles and the Choctaw own casinos pretty much everywhere.
I think this may be one area where semantics are an exceptionally important principle
It all too easy to say "we don't bother about that" but if I was a first nation member I genuinely would
The terms Native American and Indian are outdated and foolish
And to imply ownership of Casinos as positive choice is missing the whole point
There is more than one first nation state and that needs recognition and compensation
We have behaved very badly and should make due recompense
Anything else is dishonesty
It all too easy to say "we don't bother about that" but if I was a first nation member I genuinely would
The terms Native American and Indian are outdated and foolish
And to imply ownership of Casinos as positive choice is missing the whole point
There is more than one first nation state and that needs recognition and compensation
We have behaved very badly and should make due recompense
Anything else is dishonesty
When I said terminology isn't a big deal in Florida I meat it isn't a big deal to the Indians I know personally.
As to behaving badly and owing compensation; how did we behave worse than they did in displacing the earlier peoples/ How do we owe compensation any more than they owe it to those earlier peoples?
The point of the casinos is that they are exempt from state laws banning them.
I think you may need a slightly more open minded approach on this one mate
If you can not see how hilarious your response is ?
If you can not see how hilarious your response is ?
Who were the first Greenlanders though? It is still a moot point, whether the Inuit or the Vikings got there first. Who had more "right" to that land? Who knows?
Problem is though unless you are part of this ethnic group, your opinion is absolutely worthless.
The ONLY people that can speak for them is themselves.
When "do gooders" step in and try and interpret what might cause offence it's absolutely ridiculous and although good intentioned all it does it create more noise over which the real group of folks affected have to shout over.
We had the same thing in the UK in the 70's and 80's, all this PC rubbish about dropping the gollywog from margarine, not being able to say bah bahhh black sheep any more etc etc.
This absolutely ridiculous PC speak was bought in by white middle class wooly jumper wearing do gooders who had absolutely no idea what ethnic groups in the UK wanted.
What makes it worse is that these folks can't even be bothered to do it right.
The native Americans are a VAST race of thousands of tribes spread over thousands if not million of miles, there are different social groups with entirely different languages and beliefs, add to that the entirely different personalities in those groups and even moods on certain days and you start to see that "summing up" what MIGHT cause offence to SOME people at SOME times is absolutely ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that it's belittling for others to speak for them, your basically saying they have no voice for themselves.
In the words of George Henry Lewes.
Is it really so hilarious? That I point out that where you say we acted so "badly" we were merely doing exactly the same thing that the Indians themselves had done before us? We were more technologically and numerically superior so we prevailed; it's lamentable, but that's been the basis of human expansion pretty much forever.
I too would like to have seen just what their various cultures might have developed into if left alone. Particularly the more advanced such as the Aztecs, or the Incans. But back then (just as now) there was no Star Trek like "Non Interference Doctrine."
I simply don't have any personal need to feel guilt because my ancestors acted normally for their time and culture (and prevailed) It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for having an "open mind" Is your daughter engaged to marry an American Indian? Mine is. Is your grandson part American Indian? My youngest one is.
Last edited:
cbr6fs you have a valid point.
One of the most sucessful peoples in the US, those of native descent.
And, in my limited experience with them, one of the ones with the biggest chip.
However as a hard nosed old worlder, I think I can sensibly say that in spite of our fastination with them. (We even gave them the name of a race with which we have had a long fastination, one held since the time of Plato.) none of us will ever understand them.
One of the most sucessful peoples in the US, those of native descent.
And, in my limited experience with them, one of the ones with the biggest chip.
However as a hard nosed old worlder, I think I can sensibly say that in spite of our fastination with them. (We even gave them the name of a race with which we have had a long fastination, one held since the time of Plato.) none of us will ever understand them.
Also watched this last night and although enjoyable it seemed to lack substance for anyone whose studies have empathised with any culture subjected to the human spirit of greed and cruelty (all of us!). As santaman say's they were all at it, and no doubt always will be and the more things change, the more they stay the same. i found that the subtle inference of "it was ours first" alluded to by the native participants in the documentary is all very well but as we in the UK are now finding out ourselves, if you don't stand up and fight for what you and yours have got then someone will be there to take it all from you.
Obviously different people will interpret the same information differently, given differing moods and concentration levels and even the same person can interpret the same thing differently.
For me though the message i got was not that they were complaining about the past, but that still the image of these people is still being disrespected and whored out.
Geronimo was used as an example right at the start, with his image being portrayed from everything as a dishonest savage through to just badly researched opinions.
The other prime examples being the images of these people being whored out on everything from American football teams to cigarette branding.
I do find it very hypocritical that the nation that bought us all this politically correct nonsense to such an extreme level that a friend of mine received a written warning for describing his friend and colleague as "Black".
What really screams madness though is that the said friend is black himself and his friend/colleague had absolutely no problem with the description, in fact my friend went around his company of a few hundred employees with a petition against the warning signed by every single "black" person in the company.
STILL the white middle class manager refused to accept that his friend was not offended.
So on one hand you that that madness level of political correctness, yet on the other the native people are caricatured by major sports teams and that's acceptable.
I.E.
I'm pretty sure there would be a uproar from certain ethnic groups if the other 3 images were used.
As i say just my interpretation but that's the point i believe the program was trying to put forward.
There is no such thing as a country being a "good guy", we've all got seas of blood on our historical hands.
But between ethnic cleansing, slavery and it's use of atomic bombs, napalm etc on civilians it's a dark disturbing history of our colonial cousins.
One which it doesn't seem to learn from if the recent and current drone attacks are anything to go by.
Nobody today can bear guilt for what their ancestors did. It is very wrong to blame Americans especially for the things listed. No country would have or did refuse any of them. Except in terms of scale what is the difference between an excrement smeared punji stick and napalm?
Read "Quartered Safe Out Here" by George Macdonald Fraser, who having helped defeat the Japanese in Burma would have been faced with near certain death in an invasion of Japan were it not for the Atom Bomb. Who are you to say he should have died and not those killed by the bombing?
Read "Quartered Safe Out Here" by George Macdonald Fraser, who having helped defeat the Japanese in Burma would have been faced with near certain death in an invasion of Japan were it not for the Atom Bomb. Who are you to say he should have died and not those killed by the bombing?
And how nice various tribes of Indians were to each other.
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ne/county/hitchcock/history/canyon.html
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ne/county/hitchcock/history/canyon.html
Obviously different people will interpret the same information differently, given differing moods and concentration levels and even the same person can interpret the same thing differently.
For me though the message i got was not that they were complaining about the past, but that still the image of these people is still being disrespected and whored out.
Geronimo was used as an example right at the start, with his image being portrayed from everything as a dishonest savage through to just badly researched opinions.
The other prime examples being the images of these people being whored out on everything from American football teams to cigarette branding.
I do find it very hypocritical that the nation that bought us all this politically correct nonsense to such an extreme level that a friend of mine received a written warning for describing his friend and colleague as "Black".
What really screams madness though is that the said friend is black himself and his friend/colleague had absolutely no problem with the description, in fact my friend went around his company of a few hundred employees with a petition against the warning signed by every single "black" person in the company.
STILL the white middle class manager refused to accept that his friend was not offended.
So on one hand you that that madness level of political correctness, yet on the other the native people are caricatured by major sports teams and that's acceptable.
I.E.
I'm pretty sure there would be a uproar from certain ethnic groups if the other 3 images were used.
As i say just my interpretation but that's the point i believe the program was trying to put forward....
This point about using the image as a sports mascot is interesting in itself. As you mentioned in an earlier post, no one can really speak for any ethnic group but they themselves. Oddly those interviewed about it have no problems about this use.
Also interestingly at least 2 of the other caricatures you chose are indeed used widely in advertising and marketing. A variation of a black woman is used as the symbol of one of the most popular pancake syrups (Aunt Jemimas') and one variation or another of a Mexican image is used on the menu, billboard, or other ad for at least a third of all Mexican restaurants. Also a caricature of a Chiquaqua with a sombrero and heavy Mexican accent (Speedy Gonzoles) is the popular charecter of a popular kids' cartoon (Looney Tunes)
Last edited:
Similar threads
