Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Native Americans
Message-ID: <313@rtech.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 14:18:19 EST
Article-I.D.: rtech.313
Posted: Wed Apr 24 14:18:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Apr-85 01:42:43 EST
References: <2522@hplabsc.UUCP> <281@rtech.ARPA> <1644@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA
Lines: 54

> 
> 	I feel that there is a misconception here regarding why the term 
> "Red Indian" is considered to be derogatory. Skin colour cannot be the reason
> why the term is in disfavour. Red is a good colour to look at, unlike black
> and to a certain extent brown too.  People with a reddish hue are esthetically
> very appealing - in fact, more so than white-skinned people. Hence it must be
> the mistaken identity part which creates disfavor for the term "Red Indian".

I'm going to say this as gently as possible: apparently you were not living in
the United States during the height of the civil rights movement.  Black is
not an ugly skin color, nor is brown, nor is any other skin color.  Before the
civil rights movement in the 60's, blacks in this country were conditioned to
believe that they were not up to the standards of white beauty.  In the 60's,
blacks started to realize that they had been conditioned to hate themselves,
and so black leaders started a "black is beautiful" campaign.  They were right,
and still are: black *is* beautiful, as are white and brown.

I suggest that you rid yourself of your idea that some skin colors are better
than others.

> I guess the combination of "native American pride"
> (from watching movies, I get
> the feeling that the Red Indians/native Americans were a proud race who tried
> to maintain their cultural identity against the European(white settlers) - 
> which by the way is in contrast to the real Indians)
> and European imperialistic
> notions - thrusting their nomenclature on the "native Americans" - must be the
> reason why they prefer to be called "native Americans", rather than "Red
> Indians".  
> 
> 						Sanjay Gupta

"Red Indians" are neither red nor Indian.  Native Americans are usually light
brown or nearly white (i.e. Caucasian coloring).  In fact, it is usually
impossible to tell that a person is Native American by his or her looks.

Please keep in mind that the term "Red Indian" isn't used in American English.
I have never heard Native Americans object to this term per se, probably
either because they haven't ever heard the usage, or because they don't want
to waste their time fighting against a sin that the American people don't
commit.

Some Native Americans don't object to "American Indian," but many of them
object to being called "Indians" simply because it is wrong.  Why should
they be known as "Indians" because of a mistake Christopher Columbus
made hundreds of years ago?  I have also heard Native Americans object to
the idea that they are called "red," because this is also wrong.  To combine
the terms into "Red Indian" is doubly wrong.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff