Edit: Meme has been slightly altered to be more accurate. Credit to @ininewcrow for the updated and better image.
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
Right? Like, you should be honored that their mascot would be a guy who looks exactly like you. He does, he looks exactly like you. It's celebrating how your people were brave warriors who fought with honor despite being uncultured savages, and you should be proud to have your entire culture condensed into one easily imitated mascot. Also, you should be thrilled how they chant "Defense" to the tune of Amazing Grace and Ave Maria, you should love that because those are your songs. How could you possibly be insulted by such an honor?
Context is important here.
I wouldn't be offended at a team called Caucasians, filled entirely with Indian players. But I don't live in the same universe that Indian people do.
But maybe if white people made up 2% of the population, after being systematically eliminated by Indians to make use of our land, maybe if white people were relegated to the poorest, least productive areas of the country and told to be thankful for it, and maybe if the word Caucasian was kind of a rude way to refer to my skin color, I could see myself being offended at the idea.
This one's on me, because I was trying to make a point and be sarcastic at the same time.
While I agree with you, I'll quibble that context isn't actually important here. The point of the shirt, and the point I was trying to make, was that reducing an entire culture to a caricature is offensive in any context (regardless of whether or not you would it offensive). The people who defend using native imagery for sports mascots often claim that the portrayal is intended as an honor, and that they are celebrating the culture instead of demeaning it.
All of your points are correct, and each one compounds the offense. But even if you turn it around and use white people as the mascot, a people and culture who have not been systematically oppressed, deprived of life, liberty, and property, it's still an inherently prejudicial and ignorant thing to do. So any argument about how mascots are intended to promote or celebrate or honor a culture or a people still fails to justify the practice.
It's hilarious that you're trying to defend Native Americans but call them "Indians".
It's one of the multiple accepted terms for them,I have personally known a family who preferred the term offer others
Isn't that basically "I can't be racist, I have black friends"? What if I told you that I'd been told by Native Americans that they DON'T like being called "Indian"? And if they are Indian, what do you call people from India, exactly? You know, Indians?
And others feel the same about the term "Native Americans." It's a big group of people from hundreds of independent nations that never had need for a collective term for themselves before Europeans arrived and started assigning labels.
There is no right answer on what to call them, the best you can do is use the term preferred by the people you're interacting with at the moment, which will usually be their actual nation. For those situations where you are referring to them collectively, I've variously been told to use "Native Nations," "American Indian," "Native American," and "Indigenous Peoples." Each term will be liked by some and hated by others. Just be willing to change for the situation and people you're talking to and you'll be fine.
Oh, I do for sure. I'll call people by any name or group or whatever if they ask. But I would never assume that a Native American is perfectly fine being called the equivalent of "a native or inhabitant of India, or a person of Indian descent." That's insane to me, and it's insane to assume that they'd be fine with it. This whole thing is because of the irony of a person who was so clearly trying to defend Native Americans using a label that describes a completely different ethnic group. "No, not THOSE Indians, the other Indians, so named because a monster of a person landed here and thought he was somewhere else". It's just hilarious to me.
I'm not kidding, just last week I was participating in a diversity workshop run by people from Native Nations (their preferred term), and they regularly referred to "Indian country." It's a complicated term but it has been incorporated into their identity regardless of the fact that there is another group of people called Indians.
To be more specific you can say "American Indians" but even that's problematic in the same way "Native American" is because you're labeling them based on some Italian guy's name. You're so hung up on the "Indian" label but don't seem to have a problem constantly using "Native American" when the people you're referring to have absolutely nothing to do with Amerigo Vespucci.
Relating the word "America" to "Amerigo Vespucci" is a HUGE stretch, don't you think? It's what the continent is called in English, which we're speaking right now. How far back through etymology do we have to go?
No? Lol, that's literally where the name comes from, how is that a stretch? Using the term "Indian", which you're arguing against, predates the term "America." So if the origin of "America" is too far in the past to matter, then that's even more true of the term "Indian." (Technically the Spanish "Indios" from Columbus's 1493 writings is what predates "America", which first occurred in a German map in 1507. The writings were subsequently translated into Latin and disseminated through Europe, they may well have been translated into English before that map but I can't find when the first English translation occurred.)
My point is that the term you're insisting is the sole correct term isn't universally endorsed by native communities. Many view it as yet another Eurocentric term for exactly the reason that we named an entire continent after some European guy rather than the cultures and people that had been here for millennia. Others don't mind it and have adopted it in their identity.
Just ask people when interacting with them and don't be so dogmatic online. Sheesh.
This is why I was asking how far back through etymology do we have to go. I do not give a fuck what the origin of the word "America" was. The continent is called North America in English, which we are speaking. It is the same way I would call my ancestry German rather than Deutsch, because we are not speaking German. The people who were here before the Europeans are native to this land (even though technically they are not native either, since we all came from Africa if you go back far enough, which again, how far back do we need to go?). Hence, Native Americans. They were called "Indians" for a long time out of ignorance and then willful ignorance, but how do we distinguish Indians from India and Indians from America? Hence, American Indians.
The term "Indian" is wrong. Just because Christopher Columbus was stupid and thought he was in India does not make this continent India. I'm also not saying Native American or American Indians are the sole correct terms, but it's better than a literally wrong one that has a lot of bad history behind it. A black guy who doesn't mind when his white friends call him "nigga" does not mean that he speaks for all black people. Same thing with "Indian" to describe someone who is indigenous to this land (a land that is decidedly not India). I don't care if someone wants to be known as Native American, or American Indian, or Indian, or Cherokee, or Navajo, or Sioux, or anything else. But I'm not going to call any person commonly understood to be indigenous to the Americas any but the first two without asking them. Some assume their tribe, the other is both factually wrong and used pejoratively for hundreds of years.
And that's why your position is wrong. I'm not kidding, you need to care about these things. It's the part of this argument that seems to elude you.
It sounds like you don't even disagree that you should just ask people what they prefer, so maybe tone down the "let me tell you the only terms you're allowed to use for a people I don't belong to." It's not for us to say.
Explain to me the relevance that an English word came from an Italian man, then. The continent is called North America. That's what it is called in the language we are conversing in. The word's origin means nothing. What word should we use instead?
While I probably wouldn't make "Indian" my first choice due to the negative historical connotations, we do have plenty of formal institutions -- indigenous-led institutions among them -- that use Indian in the name. So it's bound to come up in casual discussion.
I think what is most important is that, if a group or individual expresses a preference, we should honor that preference where possible.
Even the term "indigenous" is problematic. It was the term used by the Romans to describe the subjugated peoples in remote provinces.
It doesn't matter what you think, dude. It's a generally accepted term among the people it's referring to. It's usually better to use the name of their tribe, but that's not always possible
That's cool. I prefer to call people from India Indians if that's alright. If I'd like to refer to a Native American as something else I'll at least do them the courtesy of saying American Indians so they aren't referred to as a completely separate ethnic group.
Some of the most racist and bigoted people, are also very politically correct.
Some of the least racist and bigoted people, are also very politically incorrect.
PC language is often used by people who are awkward around minorities or want to disguise their true intentions.
Political correctness has its place, but it's better to judge people by what they do or say, not how they say it.
You need more upvotes
Grew up near a res friendo, it was generally the preferred term. But tell me more about that horse you're on
Oh hey pot! I'm kettle, nice to meet you!
The fuck you on about "horse I'm on" lmao, you just did the same exact thing
I'm using the term I've been told to use to describe a group of people, by that group of people. Or at least a group of that people. If someone of that group comes up with a different term they'd like me to use I'll happily use that, until then, I'll use the last term I know to have been acceptable.
If you're a member of that group and prefer a different term, then make that known.
If you're not a member of that group, then you're making assumptions for a group of people and calling it respect while completely disregarding the wishes of the people to whom you're attempting to refer.
I'm not disregarding wishes. I'll call any INDIVIDUAL whatever they want to be called. Groups will be referred to by the most accurate and accepted name. Indians are from India and it's ridiculous to call Native Americans/American Indians that. It's as ridiculous as calling any black person "African American", like when the interviewer insisted on that terminology for Idris Elba, a black British man. That's it. I'm not calling them "Redskins", for example. I'm using a perfectly respectful and accepted term and not one that may or may not be accepted, depending on who you ask, and not one that is literally incorrect.
Edit: There's a person directly below this comment whose relatives hate the term "Indian".
I'm indigenous and I personally have no problem with being called Indian but I know a few of my relatives hate the term. I guess it really depends on the person
In the usa many do use the term Indian over native American. Not all it varries from place to place.
So you speak for ALL American Indians, then? Do I speak for ALL Germans? Or have I been in the US long enough that I'm no longer German? My grandmother was born in Germany, is that too far? Or is it just skin color, I speak for all whites, no matter the country or culture of origin? I'm curious to the rules here- I shouldn't speak for American Indians because I'm not one, right? So who can speak for all American Indians and all 547 distinct tribes (federally recognized)? Do you speak for every tribe? If not you, then who? Your phrasing was "Unless you're American indian", so... yes? You speak for all 547 tribes and 5.2 million people?
Buuuuuut.... you did say "Unless you're American indian", so that does imply that you or someone else CAN speak for all of a group. So I'm a bit confused here. I will call you whatever you'd like me to call you, including "Indian" on its own if that's what you'd prefer to be called (even though that doesn't make sense to me), but you didn't actually answer my questions. Let me try again- how is it bigoted to not assume that a group of people would want to be called something that is fundamentally incorrect by definition, has a turbulent history, and is not what most federal programs call them- you yourself say that the benefits go to "American Indians", not "Indians".
Thanks for the coloring page, is it one of your favorites?
Baby steps…
Or maybe they are not familiar with sportsball teams and are confusing the logo with that of the Cleveland Indians.
I had to look it up.
They actually recently changed that name. They're the Cleveland Guardians as of 2021.