Aborigine.
If “redskin” is offensive, then why isn’t “black”?
I am a Native American, because I was born here. I am also an African American, because my ancestors came from Africa. (After being waylaid in Europe for a few tens of thousands of years, perhaps, but they still came from Africa.) I am also European-American, because I can trace ancestry from there, and I am also American-American, because my parents were both US citizens by birth. In fact, I am simply “American,” but, those who seek to claim Hyphenated-American status are merely attempting to divide and conquer the melting pot which this place was supposed to be.
“Chief” will do.
I think the term First Nations is used in Canada.
I was born in in the USA in 1962, so I’m a Native American. My ancestors came from England to the colonies in the 1600s. I like a bit of British culture (music etc) but I’m an American. Also I am a person of color. In fact my late mother and the President’s late mother are of the same race: white. (Or is that the absence of color? White is a color—when you’re buying paint, for example.)
I am kind of pinkish-beige. That’s a color. Also if the word colored is offensive why do we still have the Natl Assoc for the Adv of Colored People? People of Color is apparently OK, so it should be the NAAPOC. And I should be able to join.
Again, I am a person of color. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA had actually claimed to be an Indian and has been described as a person of color:
>>But a 1997 Fordham Law Review piece described her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color,”... In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.”...Asked to comment, Warren spokesman Alethea Harney said, “There is nothing new in this report. Elizabeth has been clear that _she is proud of her Native American heritage_ and everyone who hired Elizabeth has been clear that she was hired because she was a great teacher, not because of that heritage...”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/fordham-piece-called-warren-harvard-laws-first-woman-123526.html
Your reasoning is naive in the utmost: the emotional valence, social nuance and political charge of any given word is completely and exclusively determined in every instance by what the Left says it is.
End of discussion.
The writer isn’t very credible himself, he sounds as annoying as the people he is trying to criticize.
Will Harry Reid Tell This 100% Navajo Indian High School Their ‘Redskins’ Mascot is Racist?
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/19/will-harry-reid-tell-this-100-navajo-indian-high-school-their-redskins-mascot-is-racist/
it’s incorrect to call them native americans. we have proof europeans were here far earlier than indians. WE are the real native americans here.
I use the term “Native American” to distinguish the people who immigrated to the Americas several thousand years ago from the people who live on the Indian subcontinent.
I really wish there were a better term to use.
What about the Anasazi, the Ancient Ones who American Indians knew predated even them? Where does it end/begin?
The United States is the only country in the world that classifies its citizens into hyphenated groups. With that in mind I guess I’m a Brooklyn-American!
There is no such thing as a “native” American. No human is indigenous to this hemisphere. All are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Stop putting these Indians on a pedestal.
Then call the team the Washington Natives ... let’s see how that goes over with the busybodies and bullies.