| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 03/27/2007 : 11:04:28
|
Just an example of how this 'categorising' of people is really difficult.
In the Kimberley and in the Northern Territory Aboriginal people call themselves 'blackfella' or 'blekbala' (the Kriol word)
This term came from the colonists, but it was taken on by the Aboriginal people and is totally acceptable.
A friend of mine (white) went to speak at a conference in Adelaide, where there were Aboriginal people from all the states. In her talk she used the term blackfella. A hush fell over the conference hall. When she finished she was subjected to abuse from Aboriginal people from other states for using the word. Fortunately one of her Aboriginal colleagues was with her, and calmed everything down, explaining it was an acceptable word used by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike.
So, even amongst people who others would like to group as 'one' there was no agreement.
But I have never been able to take that term into my personal vocabulary.
But even more interesting is the introduction of the term Indigenous to refer to Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. This latter group have always used that term, and not Aboriginal. So essentially, government processes dictated the introduction of the word so they could talk about both groups without having to say/write 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' every time (this really is the original mass use of the word). A lot of Aboriginal people have reacted strongly against that term as they feel it demonstrates the government is still trying to strip their identities from them.
I think that there are two things at play:
- people's personal responses to words, and their choice to use them or not (and reaction to their use by others)
- the identities that groups of people form for themselves but which in reality may not cover every person who could potentially be part of that group
And since the identities groups form evolve over time, a word that their predecessors might have found acceptable is overriden by a new word.
It's all a bit of a minefield really |
 |
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 11:20:05
|
And that's not even bearing in mind that aboriginal and indigenous are technically the same or that neither of these groups is actually indigenous anyway... (Don't worry - I would certainly count them as indigenous for practical purposes - but I would do the same with the Maoris and the Chagossians.)  |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:10:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And that's not even bearing in mind that aboriginal and indigenous are technically the same or that neither of these groups is actually indigenous anyway... (Don't worry - I would certainly count them as indigenous for practical purposes - but I would do the same with the Maoris and the Chagossians.)
I'm not sure what you mean by you wouldn't classify Aboriginal Australians as 'indigenous'? What do you classify as 'indigenous' then? |
|
|
|
Beanmimo 
"August review site"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:26:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
How long can you remember?
Over twenty years.
Hey Sal, i got the impression that you were in your early twenties for some reason. I thought you said it somewhaere before.
I must be wrong. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:56:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And that's not even bearing in mind that aboriginal and indigenous are technically the same or that neither of these groups is actually indigenous anyway... (Don't worry - I would certainly count them as indigenous for practical purposes - but I would do the same with the Maoris and the Chagossians.)
I'm not sure what you mean by you wouldn't classify Aboriginal Australians as 'indigenous'? What do you classify as 'indigenous' then?
Well, they've only been there about 50,000 years. Indigenous theoretically means 'originating from'. Of course, that ultimately means that only Africans are truly indigenous. In practice, things are naturally quite different and it really comes down to who was there first and people just find indigenous to be an easy label. Thus, I would treat the Chagossians (with 150 years' settlement) as more 'indigenous' than black or white Americans. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 13:59:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Hey Sal, i got the impression that you were in your early twenties for some reason. I thought you said it somewhaere before.
Well, unless I were in my very early twenties, I would still be able to remember back more than twenty years, although admittedly not about an issue such as this. I definitely haven't stated that I was that age. As a clue, one of my accolades is called Pic(k)s of 1976. |
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 14:12:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Hey Sal, i got the impression that you were in your early twenties for some reason. I thought you said it somewhaere before.
Well, unless I were in my very early twenties, I would still be able to remember back more than twenty years, although admittedly not about an issue such as this. I definitely haven't stated that I was that age. As a clue, one of my accolades is called Pic(k)s of 1976.
Stick, wrong end of, etc!!
I think the clue is subtle enough, your secrets safe with me!! |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire 
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 18:46:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I'm not so sure about this. Firstly, I wouldn't call these terms clinical, especially as they tend to be constructed from parts of people's ancestry that people choose to focus on. Secondly, the term in use is African American, not Afro-American. Thirdly, I personally do not like those sort of terms, as it is divisive/problematic to be nationality-specific. For example, as we found in the other thread, Americans often accidentally call other black people African Americans!
quote:
Every other colloquial term for an "Afro-American" that I'm aware of is considered 'offensive' by somebody.
I don't agree that black is colloquial. Colloquial is not the same as non-clinical. I have also never heard anyone objecting to it (as an adjective), but the rise of African American suggests that some may do. I would appreciate hearing about it if anyone knows more about that.
I am not an authority on this subject, as I am white, but here goes.
I've never called anyone an "afro-american", but I have seen this happen and it wasn't pretty. I would not suggest using this term.
I almost always use the term "black". Indeed, there are some who object to this, but most of the time there's not a better alternative.
"African-American" is the phrase used primarily by research studies, HR departments, news reports, and the like. If I used the phrase in everyday speech, it just wouldn't fit. I would be seen as being afraid of offending people and it would be hard to build rapport. On the other hand, if I was giving a speech I would use this phrase.
My roommate is black but you would be wrong to call him "African-American" since he is from the Bahamas. When people call him it, however, he doesn't object.
quote:
quote:
d) Persons whose IQ is below 80 (that's about 10% of the population)
people with learning difficulties/disabilities
Moron, retarded, imbecile, idiot: All of these were clinical terms at one point for people with low IQs. No matter which new terms you make up or how you put it, no one wants to be considered inferior intellectually. "Learning deficiency" is an ambiguous term and the person told that they have it might assume it's ADD or something, not necessarily being inferior to someone in intelligence. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 19:12:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]Thus, I would treat the Chagossians (with 150 years' settlement) as more 'indigenous' than black or white Americans.
Welp, the First Families of Virginia have been here more than twice that long. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 00:34:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
And that's not even bearing in mind that aboriginal and indigenous are technically the same or that neither of these groups is actually indigenous anyway... (Don't worry - I would certainly count them as indigenous for practical purposes - but I would do the same with the Maoris and the Chagossians.)
I'm not sure what you mean by you wouldn't classify Aboriginal Australians as 'indigenous'? What do you classify as 'indigenous' then?
Well, they've only been there about 50,000 years. Indigenous theoretically means 'originating from'. Of course, that ultimately means that only Africans are truly indigenous. In practice, things are naturally quite different and it really comes down to who was there first and people just find indigenous to be an easy label. Thus, I would treat the Chagossians (with 150 years' settlement) as more 'indigenous' than black or white Americans.
You are right, if you don't accept 50,000 years or more of primary, continuous and uninterrupted connection to the land as indigenous, there ain't any indigenous people out there. But I'm not sure why you brought this up? The discussion was about the words used to name 'groups' of people and the response of those groups. Aboriginal is obviously not an Aboriginal Australian languages word - but it has been accepted, despite the fact that Aboriginal people in Australia weren't acknowledged as citizens of the country until 1967 and were controlled under successive 'Aborigines Acts'. Indigenous is no more or less offensive a word in the general sense, but it is the act of the government choosing to change the term to name people that has caused offense.
In reality, each Aboriginal group calls themelves by their tribal name, and there are at least 150 groups, and about 90 that still speak, or have members of the community that speak, traditional languages. The diversity is huge, and while all groups still accept being called Aboriginal, as I said above, it is not possible to generalise other terms.
There are some amusing moments to be had when in a meeting a government representative is told not to call people 'indigenous' and then they have to remember not to use that word, include 'Torres Strait Islanders' when necessary, as well as ignore it written all over their powerpoint displays. |
Edited by - Shiv on 03/28/2007 00:37:27 |
|
|
|
rabid kazook 
"Pushing the antelope"
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 01:16:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Napoleon Dynamite especially pissed me off because it's 90 minutes of kicking the nerd and laughing at him. When I did laugh, I felt like an asshole.
Seriously Napoleon is a movie character and there were like lots, and lots jokes that didn't involve nerdiness puns, actually I don't remember any... actually I think that was all he's charm, yes Napoleon was charming...
From my perspective, and from how I watched this movie, and from that what did I like about it, there's nothing exploitive about it... it's a comedy with offbeat characters and while maybe there exist people who think this movie is funny because "it's cool to mock" I'm stepping away from these, and embrace the thought that I and a whole round of my friends that have watched it like it because it's sheer craze frenzy of funny jokes.
Also, you could also hate Buster Keaton's, Charlie Chaplin's films for similar reasons... but do you? |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 02:42:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
You are right, if you don't accept 50,000 years or more of primary, continuous and uninterrupted connection to the land as indigenous, there ain't any indigenous people out there. But I'm not sure why you brought this up?
He's brought it up because he is a pedant, and to him the point that aboriginal ancestors 40,000-70,000 years ago came from somewhere else is all that matters in relation to the literal meaning of "indigenous". To him words are not servants of thought, they are masters, and he must protect them from being abused, as he would see it, by being used in anything but the most literal sense. Of course he recognises the other senses exist, but for him they are always ultimately wrong. He thinks he knows how "indigenous" should be used, and you don't and this gives him his compensatory sense of self-importance, of role.
Actually, he is not really right anyway, even in his own limited definition, as modern aboriginal culture is the product of some 50,000 years development and adaptation to Australian conditions, so their culture is indigenously Australian and they as a people, a central part of whose definition is cultural, are therefore indigenous too. They are no more the same people as their ancestors were 50,000 years ago than we are the same as our ancestors.
|
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 06:55:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
[
He's brought it up because he is a pedant, and to him the point that aboriginal ancestors 40,000-70,000 years ago came from somewhere else is all that matters in relation to the literal meaning of "indigenous". To him words are not servants of thought, they are masters, and he must protect them from being abused, as he would see it, by being used in anything but the most literal sense. Of course he recognises the other senses exist, but for him they are always ultimately wrong. He thinks he knows how "indigenous" should be used, and you don't and this gives him his compensatory sense of self-importance, of role.
Whippy, that part has poetic flare that I admire. It's musical. In form, it's almost like a hybrid or Orwell and Nabokov. But I just don't like the fact that it's a lash out at Sal. I have nothing to do with any difficulty between you, and I do not presume to know its particulars. However, I ask that we coexist in peace for a while, at least until the next barb finds its home in the other's heart.
I like Sal. I've disagreed with him vehemently before; he's pissed me off before; I've felt insulted at times by some of his commentary to me; I've agreed with him on many, many occasions; and I've admired his gumption and observation on many other occasions. Dislike him or not, he continues to contribute to the site, he adds insightfulness (and many times without inciting something), and he's a loyal friend of the site.
Foxy and Sean have a healthy rivalry. I'm not saying you have to. I'm just saying ... well, I'm not exactly sure. Maybe I'm saying, don't hate Sal: he's a lot more intelligent than many; he expresses himself with a good deal of eloquence as well as salt; and at least he engages us in thought.
Fight. But perhaps we might avoid the ad hominem. |
|
|
|
thefoxboy
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 07:01:59
|
Sean--->  <----Sean
 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 09:47:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[quote]Thus, I would treat the Chagossians (with 150 years' settlement) as more 'indigenous' than black or white Americans.
Welp, the First Families of Virginia have been here more than twice that long.
Um, that was my point. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 03/28/2007 09:50:18 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Calling a spade a spade
