Discussion on American Native Indians

[FattChoy]

Did you guys read about the report of Philippine natives having Denisovan genes?

 

Lol....

 

[Guest Ah Flute]

On 8/21/2021 at 11:50 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

宇宙是无止境的

白色是所有颜色的组合

清理你长笛上的口水

.

谷歌?

好二丫

别再侬面前班门弄斧了行不

[Guest Meanly Preacher]

On 8/20/2021 at 9:51 PM, Guest Caught Telling Lies said:

Guest Meanly Preacher literally performed the biggest mic drop in Blowing Wind history on his thick skull and all the Houston Attention Hog could do was disingenuously accuse him of arguing for the sake of arguing. Uh, hello, pot meet kettle.

 

Thanks for noticing and also trying to help cut through the arrogant fog of racist ignorance. Game recognizes Game.

[InBangkok]

On 8/21/2021 at 10:46 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

This is one of the most idiotic and deplorable posts I have read in a very long time. 

 

1.  What difference is there if I give thanks to God for still having hairs on my skull,  or I give thanks to God for having given me the money that allowed me to still have hairs on my skull?  

 

2. WHAT YOU KNOW of the care or not care by the White Colonizers?  As usual, what you write are pure speculations.  They named the natives they found "Indians",  and "Indians" has remained.  Period!

 

If America's original sin was to put aside the Bible's key tenet "thou shall kill" and they can never live it down, then this is the same for EVERY NATION ON EARTH.  No nation has ever kept away from killing.  Not even YOU stay away from killing,  since you have done and do fill your belly with animal flesh from living creatures that have been killed for the specific purpose to feed you! 

 

And how idiotic to define America as the group of people who came from Spain in 1492 and other early colonizers.  We TODAY have nothing to do with what happened over half a millennium.  If there are still some direct descendants of Christopher Columbus in the US,  they could be count with the fingers of one hand.  But maybe they are none,  because Columbus was from Italy, and came to Central America.  And you surely cannot criticize the pilgrims who came in the Mayflower because...  these were "people of God", objects of great reverence !  And those Americans who today claim to be descendants of these pilgrims... must be fakes in their majority.   

You know something? It might help if you actually read what I wrote other than immediately jumping in and putting into it what you only think I wrote. 

 

1. Re your hair. You made a point. I made a point. My point was based exclusively on what you have written before in this forum. If you did not want that information shared, then why on this good earth would you bother to share it in the first place? And having shared it, why do you get upset in the slightest when it is repeated? That makes no sense! 

 

2. I wrote that the white colonisers of the USA did not care what the native indigenous tribes were called. They needed to give them a name and they chose Indians. That makes not one iota of difference to what i wrote. And you do not even refer to that. My point was that they were massacred in massive numbers by the white colonisers just  because they were in the way of the white man's colonial expansion. 

 

You seem to deny that America is the land of religious liberty and freedom. You go on and on about my criticising this. Why? Does not the religion of America's founders state perfectly clearly "Thou shall not kill?" Maybe you think it is perfectly appropriate to kill. Was it therefore perfectly acceptable that the 'Indians' were killed in massive numbers? Do you believe the African Americans were free for centuries after arriving in the USA? They were not. Were the native American 'Indians' free? The latter were massacred! 

 

And yet you consider my pos -

On 8/21/2021 at 10:46 AM, Steve5380 said:

This is one of the most idiotic and deplorable posts I have read in a very long time. 

How absolutely strange - but hardly unusual with this poster!

[Steve5380]

On 8/22/2021 at 1:10 AM, InBangkok said:

You know something? It might help if you actually read what I wrote other than immediately jumping in and putting into it what you only think I wrote. 

 

1. Re your hair. You made a point. I made a point. My point was based exclusively on what you have written before in this forum. If you did not want that information shared, then why on this good earth would you bother to share it in the first place? And having shared it, why do you get upset in the slightest when it is repeated? That makes no sense! 

 

2. I wrote that the white colonisers of the USA did not care what the native indigenous tribes were called. They needed to give them a name and they chose Indians. That makes not one iota of difference to what i wrote. And you do not even refer to that. My point was that they were massacred in massive numbers by the white colonisers just  because they were in the way of the white man's colonial expansion. 

 

You seem to deny that America is the land of religious liberty and freedom. You go on and on about my criticising this. Why? Does not the religion of America's founders state perfectly clearly "Thou shall not kill?" Maybe you think it is perfectly appropriate to kill. Was it therefore perfectly acceptable that the 'Indians' were killed in massive numbers? Do you believe the African Americans were free for centuries after arriving in the USA? They were not. Were the native American 'Indians' free? The latter were massacred! 

 

And yet you consider my pos -

How absolutely strange - but hardly unusual with this poster!

 

On Tuesday you answered my post in the US political discussions with this first line:

 

"That is one of the most racist and deplorable posts I have read in a very long time."

 

I had to laugh at your efforts to put me down . You know perfectly well that I don't have a racist cell in my body.  So I am copying your style for a while for fun, since I have much more reasons to write to you the following:

 

" This is one of the most idiotic and deplorable posts I have read in a very long time. "

 

You seem to have taken notice, which was my purpose.     Maybe this will help you.

 

I don't understand what fixation you have about my hair, but I have never, never intended to hide the fact that I have had hair transplants, plus some other plastic surgery done.  The reason I "revealed" this is to give my fellow gay folks some confidence that plastic surgery is not some idiotic obsession with vanity that should be avoided if one has some morality!  It is not.  Plastic surgery is a recourse we should apply, with moderation, if we want to improve our appearance beyond what we can achieve ourselves, and we have the means to do so.  Not all plastic surgery is very expensive and the resources, they can be found if we avoid spending in dumb things like designer clothes, expensive watches, jewelry, etc.  What is of value is what our body IS,  much more than what we put on it.

 

You need to consult a shrink.  To say that I deny that America is the land of religious liberty and freedom is evidence that something is wrong in your head.  The same as trying to make an argument around "thou shall not kill".  What does this have to do with the name "American Indians, the topic of this thread" ??    😲

[Guest Unridiculous Equivocations]

On 8/21/2021 at 6:58 AM, FattChoy said:

Did you guys read about the report of Philippine natives having Denisovan genes?

 

What is your point and what does that have to do with Native Americans (who are NOT "Indians")?

 

Anyway the Russians have the highest amount of Denisovan genes among any modern population.

[InBangkok]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:10 PM, Steve5380 said:

1. You know perfectly well that I don't have a racist cell in my body. 

 

2. So I am copying your style for a while for fun,

 

3. To say that I deny that America is the land of religious liberty and freedom is evidence that something is wrong in your head.  The same as trying to make an argument around "thou shall not kill".  What does this have to do with the name "American Indians, the topic of this thread" ??    😲

1. Oh really? Well I think we could all have some fun with that false statement. The fact is you have made plenty of racist references in your time as a poster. Clearly you are back to wanting me to quote some to show how little validity some readers should apply to some of your posts. 

 

2. Ah! I forgot! As you have said soooo many times, you always write here for a bit of fun. Taken with (1) above, your posts are clearly also not serious. In future, readers will therefore realise that you are only writing "for a bit of fun".

 

3. If you had even bothered to read the substance and fact contained in my earlier contributions, you would be aware of precisely why my comments are related to this thread. What you call "American Indians" and I prefer to call Native Americans were massacred    partly in the name of civilisation (since the "Indians" were clearly not civilised)  but much more for their land. From en estimate of 5 to 15 millions living on that land when the first settlers arrived, only some 235.000 remained after the "Indian" Wars at the end of the 19th century, a frightening result of over 5,000 wars, attacks and raids. These massacres had been inflicted on these native peoples by the white settlers. As I have clearly explained and you have not read, the early settlers with their Puritan Calvinist beliefs arrived with the aim of setting up a colony based on their deep religious beliefs based on the Bible's teachings. One, as you know perfectly well, is the commandment "Thou hall not kill." Yet the successors of those settlers were perfectly happy to take pat in the many massacres of the Native Americans. So much for the religious values they were so desperate to follow! Do you now finally understand the relationship between "American Indians" and killing?

[Steve5380]

On 8/22/2021 at 10:53 PM, InBangkok said:

1. Oh really? Well I think we could all have some fun with that false statement. The fact is you have made plenty of racist references in your time as a poster. Clearly you are back to wanting me to quote some to show how little validity some readers should apply to some of your posts. 

 

2. Ah! I forgot! As you have said soooo many times, you always write here for a bit of fun. Taken with (1) above, your posts are clearly also not serious. In future, readers will therefore realise that you are only writing "for a bit of fun".

 

3. If you had even bothered to read the substance and fact contained in my earlier contributions, you would be aware of precisely why my comments are related to this thread. What you call "American Indians" and I prefer to call Native Americans were massacred    partly in the name of civilisation (since the "Indians" were clearly not civilised)  but much more for their land. From en estimate of 5 to 15 millions living on that land when the first settlers arrived, only some 235.000 remained after the "Indian" Wars at the end of the 19th century, a frightening result of over 5,000 wars, attacks and raids. These massacres had been inflicted on these native peoples by the white settlers. As I have clearly explained and you have not read, the early settlers with their Puritan Calvinist beliefs arrived with the aim of setting up a colony based on their deep religious beliefs based on the Bible's teachings. One, as you know perfectly well, is the commandment "Thou hall not kill." Yet the successors of those settlers were perfectly happy to take pat in the many massacres of the Native Americans. So much for the religious values they were so desperate to follow! Do you now finally understand the relationship between "American Indians" and killing?

 

You don't have fun with what I write,  you have fun putting down what I write, trying to find things to criticize and calling me names,  like my racism.

 

But I understand that this is the result of your lack of education.  If you had any,  you would know what the real meaning of racism is.  Here for your convenience I quote the definition in the prestigious Merriam Webster dictionary:

 

1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

I have and will always maintain that there is no superior race, but all races have about the same human potential. But if you are a malevolent troublemaker (are you not?) you will tag someone's preferences as "racism".  So if someone says "I don't like Indians nor Filipinos", or "I would never have sex with a Black",  you will jump up and call this RACISM,  even if this is just an expression of a preference, without saying anything about the object of the preference.

 

Your comments about the killing of American Indians is worthless because it applies to all colonization, perhaps without exceptions.  The Roman Empire did a lot of killings in its colonization. The Israelites after crossing the waters into the "promised land" did a lot of killings.  The Spanish, the British Empire, the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch, did a lot of killings in taking possession of their colonies. In addition, the Puritans, the Catholics, the Protestants did a lot of killings in their land and the land of others.  

 

You should open a separate thread to discuss killing. There is much to say about it, just not here.  We living creatures are predestined to die,  and killing is a way of expediting such deaths. Not a nice topic to discuss, but you can discuss it with yourself. 

[InBangkok]

On 8/23/2021 at 8:12 PM, Steve5380 said:

Your comments about the killing of American Indians is worthless because it applies to all colonization, perhaps without exceptions.  The Roman Empire did a lot of killings in its colonization. The Israelites after crossing the waters into the "promised land" did a lot of killings.  The Spanish, the British Empire, the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch, did a lot of killings in taking possession of their colonies. In addition, the Puritans, the Catholics, the Protestants did a lot of killings in their land and the land of others. 

Wrong! It is perfectly on point since this thread is about American Native Indians. It has nothing to do with what other peoples did or may have done. The facts are 100% clear. The American white colonisers massacred the American Native Indians in huge numbers. To find this worthless is really rather simple-minded!

[Guest 2003]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:12 PM, InBangkok said:

Wrong! It is perfectly on point since this thread is about American Native Indians. It has nothing to do with what other peoples did or may have done. The facts are 100% clear. The American white colonisers massacred the American Native Indians in huge numbers. To find this worthless is really rather simple-minded!

 

Please stop using the historically racist and geographically incorrect term favored by Steve and other White Privilegists, which the moderators have since wrongly applied to the title of this thread despite being asked to change it to Native Americans several times, or at least reference a "name debate" in the title of this thread. But of course since none of them are Native Americans, they don't care about the harm caused by their stubbornness, even passively, and continue to perpetuate colonial terminology, whether they "intend to" or not. Those of us on the right side of dignity and morality should only use Native Americans, which is who they are, and the inaccurate designation American Indian needs to be dumped into the rubbish bin of history. I am sure you understand this very well, of course, so thank you in advance.

[Steve5380]

On 8/24/2021 at 8:20 AM, Guest 2003 said:

 

Please stop using the historically racist and geographically incorrect term favored by Steve and other White Privilegists, which the moderators have since wrongly applied to the title of this thread despite being asked to change it to Native Americans several times, or at least reference a "name debate" in the title of this thread. But of course since none of them are Native Americans, they don't care about the harm caused by their stubbornness, even passively, and continue to perpetuate colonial terminology, whether they "intend to" or not. Those of us on the right side of dignity and morality should only use Native Americans, which is who they are, and the inaccurate designation American Indian needs to be dumped into the rubbish bin of history. I am sure you understand this very well, of course, so thank you in advance.

 

You are on the "right side of dignity and morality"?  Or perhaps you are malevolent here, trying to instigate trouble?

 

There is no divide here on dignity or morality. Everyone posting here has his dignity and morality, you are not superior to anyone!

 

The importance of the designation given to the descendants of the early indigenous habitants of America is in its UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION,  period!  If "Indian" is included in the designation, this is not an insulting term, and the Asian Indians should not be offended that it is used outside their group. 

 

Your Native Americans  is incorrect.  My son and grandchildren are native Americans, because they were born in America.  American Indian or American Native Indian are designations that are perfectly correct and should not give raise to any negativities.  You are not even one of them,  and you are arguing here for the sake of arguing.

 

People like you who make issues out of nothing contribute to a politically correct change to "Native American".  I don't have a problem with this, but "American Indian",  "Indian",  "Indian affairs",  "Indian reservations"  continue to be used.  I like the "Indian" in American Indian and I will keep using it, which is none of your business. I have too much dignity and morality to be troubled by... trouble makers!   

[InBangkok]

On 8/24/2021 at 8:20 PM, Guest 2003 said:

 

Please stop using the historically racist and geographically incorrect term favored by Steve and other White Privilegists, which the moderators have since wrongly applied to the title of this thread despite being asked to change it to Native Americans several times, or at least reference a "name debate" in the title of this thread. But of course since none of them are Native Americans, they don't care about the harm caused by their stubbornness, even passively, and continue to perpetuate colonial terminology, whether they "intend to" or not. Those of us on the right side of dignity and morality should only use Native Americans, which is who they are, and the inaccurate designation American Indian needs to be dumped into the rubbish bin of history. I am sure you understand this very well, of course, so thank you in advance.

Thank you for the useful clarification.

 

On 8/25/2021 at 7:37 AM, Steve5380 said:

You are on the "right side of dignity and morality"?  Or perhaps you are malevolent here, trying to instigate trouble?

 

My son and grandchildren are native Americans, because they were born in America

As usual @Steve5380 doubles down and will not accept another posters' comments. Again as usual, if you do not agree with him you "instigate trouble" or are a trouble maker or some such other nonsense.

 

As for calling his son and grandchildren native Americans, that is stupid. Does @Steve5380serious believe that those born in his native Germany call themselves "Native Germans"? In my life and career I must have met thousands of Germans. Not one has described himself as a "native" German? Does he believe that if I had been born in Paris, I would call myself a "Native Frenchman"? Or in Sydney a "Native Australian"? Of course they don't!  

[Steve5380]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:45 AM, InBangkok said:

 

As for calling his son and grandchildren native Americans, that is stupid. Does @Steve5380serious believe that those born in his native Germany call themselves "Native Germans"? In my life and career I must have met thousands of Germans. Not one has described himself as a "native" German? Does he believe that if I had been born in Paris, I would call myself a "Native Frenchman"? Or in Sydney a "Native Australian"? Of course they don't!  

 

Nobody calls himself a "native" of any country.  But we all are.  If you were more literate you would have found the adjective "native" many times to describe the person as born in the country.  I have praised many new acquaintances by telling them that as "native Houstonians" they are some of the best,  and none of them were Indians and none corrected me for that.  Native can also denote some ability from birth,  like a "native musician", "native runner", "native swimmer". 

 

English is not an easy language.  The definition of "native" confirms what I am saying.   

[Steve5380]

On 8/26/2021 at 9:40 AM, Nightingale said:

 

I was also astonished and dismayed by this news:

US  Teen's  Cheongsam  Photos  Split  Online  Views

2 May 2018

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/us-teens-cheongsam-photos-split-online-views

 

A non-Chinese had worn a cheongsam to prom night.  But some Chinese took umbrage at it.  Why can’t people appreciate others’ appreciation of different cultures?  My cousin wore a sari to a Chinese wedding dinner and the Indians at the function did not express dismay.  So I wonder what has happened to this world that has made people so easily offended.  So instead of splitting hairs over terminology, can we just carry on with the topic?  It’s fruitless to carry on disagreeing.

 

I looked at the pictures of the girl who had worn the cheongsam, and she is pretty.  Nice leg and nice curvature of the butt.   Which makes me think of the reason that Chinese objected:  ENVY,  pure ENVY, ha ha.  I liked the way the girl defended herself.   She must also have enough dignity to not be troubled by trouble-makers.

 

I might have given the impression to recommend not to be bothered by trouble-makers.  But in reality I support what we are doing: to fight back!  with the intelligence, humor, zest that is so positive for the spirit.    

 

 

[Guest 2003]

What a shock. Two of the oldest and most stubborn know-nothing know-it-alls on this website refuse to educate themselves and stop using terminology incorrectly invented in the 1400s. Look at a calendar. It is now 2021. Nobody in our younger generation cares what words YOU are comfortable with ... because it's NOT about YOU ... it's about THEM ... and the EVILS inflicted on their race by MURDEROUS WHITE COLONISTS ... yet you both continue to insist on perpetuating a geographically incorrect racist term no matter what.

 

You read something on Wikipedia? So what! Anybody can edit Wikipedia. Some anti-gay asswaffle could go to Wikipedia right now and change the entry on Homosexuals to read "Homosexuals, also knows as gays, faggots, queers, and bitches, are a sexual minority estimated by their propagandistic supporters to comprise 10 percent of the human population." Wikipedia is not accepted as a source by my teachers and it is not accepted as a source by me. There are many scholarly books on Native Americans that are much better references.

 

When you stubbornly refuse to adapt your minds to 2021, and continue to demand that a race be described using a geographically incorrect term from the 1400s, you are just as inconsiderate as the Spanish Conquistadors who brutally beheaded so many of them with swords or the so-called English Pilgrims who genocidally murdered so many of them with blankets infected by smallpox. You have the same mentality just because you don't know any of them and you don't care about any type of harm that your careless words promote against them.

[singalion]

On 8/10/2021 at 10:00 AM, Guest 2003 said:

White Steve5380 and White Singalion both sound like Trump Voters when they complain about the term White Privilege. It is not racist to point out that certain white people refuse to see themselves as anything less than perfect, while instead blaming all of the world's problems on Asians, Blacks, Latino/as, Muslims, and other ethnic groups, and using that blame to "justify" mistreating those other people.

 

On 8/10/2021 at 1:45 PM, Guest Racist Comments Are Racist said:

Steve and Singalion are responding just like the so-called white liberals in the USA who whiningly complain "Not All White People" when human rights activists like Stop Asian Hate and Black Lives Matter raise issues about White Privilege & Legacy Racism. They can never actually experience the true pain and hardships endured by other races, due to their inherent White Privilege, and they are also not fully capable of feeling honest empathy. Sometimes they simply need to stop talking, shut the heck up, and just listen for a while as other races try to wake them up to what's really going on in the world instead of getting defensive, feeling butthurt, and spewing sewage.

 

I assume from the USA political thread anyone would know I surely wouldn't be any Trump voter.

 

Further, clearly in that thread and others here I have been surely not blaming any world problems on "Asians, Blacks [what?], Latinos, Muslims or other ethnic groups..." 

 

The fact that you are using the word "Blacks" is sufficient demonstration of your own lack of racial sensitivity. And this while you are complaining when others use the word

"American Indian".

That is not very persuasive and more a sign of your own prejudices.

 

Second BW readers are well aware that I am one of the most vocal and outspoken at BW when it comes to racism or any form of discrimination.

 

So I don't take your both shoes you tried to fit on me anyhow assuming you are the same person hiding behind two Guest nicks (as often).

 

I find it more disturbing if people here repeatedly use that word "white privilege" which seems to carry a racist connotation.

Reason can be jealousy or suffering from an inferiority complex.

 

 

PS.: I never said I would accept or use any other naming of the native people in the US... if they could once agree on what way they intend to be called...

Outsiders should not "impose" any name on them!

 

 

[Guest 2003]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:56 AM, singalion said:

I assume from the USA political thread anyone would know I surely wouldn't be any Trump voter. Further, clearly in that thread and others here I have been surely not blaming any world problems on "Asians, Blacks [what?], Latinos, Muslims or other ethnic groups ..." The fact that you are using the word "Blacks" is sufficient demonstration of your own lack of racial sensitivity. And this while you are complaining when others use the word "American Indian". That is not very persuasive and more a sign of your own prejudices. Second BW readers are well aware that I am one of the most vocal and outspoken at BW when it comes to racism or any form of discrimination.  So I don't take your both shoes you tried to fit on me anyhow assuming you are the same person hiding behind two Guest nicks (as often). I find it more disturbing if people here repeatedly use that word "white privilege" which seems to carry a racist connotation. Reason can be jealousy or suffering from an inferiority complex. PS.: I never said I would accept or use any other naming of the native people in the US ... if they could once agree on what way they intend to be called ... Outsiders should not "impose" any name on them!

 

I did not accuse you of being a Trump supporter. I said you "sound like a Trump supporter" ... in the sense that you refuse to listen to any opinions but your own ... and refuse to update your thinking for the year 2021. You are also acting like 7heaven (more like 7hell) in trying to nitpick at words and create fake arguments.

 

There is nothing wrong with saying Blacks to refer to people of African descent. You know this very well (unless your White Privilege stops you from ever meeting any actual Black people), as millions of Black people all over the world call themselves Black every hour of every day, and unlike you, I have dozens of Black friends.

 

What you are confused by is the way Trump says "the Blacks" when he refers to African Americans. That is considered offensive because it is a form of "othering" aimed at convincing his racist supporters that "the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians, the Gays, etc." are outside of society. Consider yourself totally schooled.

 

As for Native Americans, the "name imposed on them by outsiders" is the geographically incorrect term "American Indians" based on the ignorant mistake of an ang moh sailor who was smart enough to understand that the world is not flat, but too dumb to understand that he did not land in India or meet any Indians.

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, Guest 2003 said:

You are also acting like 7heaven (more like 7hell) in trying to nitpick at words and create fake arguments.

As for Native Americans, the "name imposed on them by outsiders" is the geographically incorrect term "American Indians" based on the ignorant mistake of an ang moh sailor who was smart enough to understand that the world is not flat, but too dumb to understand that he did not land in India or meet any Indians.

 

You are actually not much different to 7heaven, because you repeat your same point over and over.

We all know how the name of "American Indian" came about. (let's say at least most here know how the name was derived at).

It might be geographically incorrect, but this is how some differently looking people were named following the Columbus discovery.

 

I am sure there are other peoples in the world who had been wrongly named by colonialists or who knows by whom, the American "Indians" wouldn't be the only ones.

 

Historically is is not correct to say it was an "ignorant" mistake, because Columbus believed he had found India on his trip. This was the early time of discovery. Knowledge and science was not that advanced and the education of Columbus was lacking. He started working on ships with 14 years and received an education in navigation in Portugal. It is said he was largely self taught. He wasn't illiterate which is already outstanding during his time.

 

We are the one's who know he was wrong (now).

Further, Columbus did not even reach the US. In that sense he did not even give a name to the native Americans but just to the inhabitants of Haiti and Cuba.

He had never been to India and never had seen Indians in his life.

 

I sense some negative grudge on Ang Mohs in your posts.

 

Had it made any real difference if it had been 郑和 who had sailed this journey and thought he landed in India???

 

 

 

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, Guest 2003 said:

 

I did not accuse you of being a Trump supporter. I said you "sound like a Trump supporter" ... in the sense that you refuse to listen to any opinions but your own ... and refuse to update your thinking for the year 2021. You are also acting like 7heaven (more like 7hell) in trying to nitpick at words and create fake arguments.

 

There is nothing wrong with saying Blacks to refer to people of African descent. You know this very well (unless your White Privilege stops you from ever meeting any actual Black people), as millions of Black people all over the world call themselves Black every hour of every day, and unlike you, I have dozens of Black friends.

 

What you are confused by is the way Trump says "the Blacks" when he refers to African Americans. That is considered offensive because it is a form of "othering" aimed at convincing his racist supporters that "the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Asians, the Gays, etc." are outside of society. Consider yourself totally schooled.

 

As for Native Americans, the "name imposed on them by outsiders" is the geographically incorrect term "American Indians" based on the ignorant mistake of an ang moh sailor who was smart enough to understand that the world is not flat, but too dumb to understand that he did not land in India or meet any Indians.

 

Why do I refuse to listen? that is untrue. I am reading your posts. I do listen. I read your posts.

 

Why do you need to refer to Trump over and over. This thread here is not about Trump but about the naming of American Native people. Please stay at the discussion and leave Trump out of the show. Trump is not relevant for this thread. I don't bother what Trump says.

 

But must I follow your view? I can have mine, can't I let the name change be done by the American Native people on their own?

Let them decide how they want to be called.

 

Why do we as total outsiders (or again White, African, Asian, Hispanic Americans) decide how these peoples should be named?

 

Why?

We have nothing to do with it.

 

As for the last part:

On 8/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, Guest 2003 said:

As for Native Americans, the "name imposed on them by outsiders" is the geographically incorrect term "American Indians" based on the ignorant mistake of an ang moh sailor who was smart enough to understand that the world is not flat, but too dumb to understand that he did not land in India or meet any Indians.

 

 

You say it is geographically incorrect, the majority of Native Americans don't feel like that because so far they decided against any name change.

You are the one who intends to impose a new name on these peoples.

 

What you did not write here at all is the fact that other Americans have been using the name "Indian" in denigrating the American Native people.

The word "Indian" or "American Indian" had not been the problem if the other ethnics of the US had given this negative connotation to the word "Indian" somehow belittling American Natives/Indians.

That is the real problem.

 

But all in all you are doing nothing other than deciding on behalf of the American Indians/ American Natives and give them a new name.

In that sense you are doing exactly the same what Columbus did.

To impose on them a name (they might not even want).

 

Why are you telling them what name they should carry???

 

Why don't you let these tribes decide what is the best way to call them?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by singalion

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, Guest 2003 said:

There is nothing wrong with saying Blacks to refer to people of African descent. You know this very well (unless your White Privilege stops you from ever meeting any actual Black people), as millions of Black people all over the world call themselves Black every hour of every day, and unlike you, I have dozens of Black friends.

 

Yes that might be so that you have dozens of friends, often they call each other even with the "N" word, but it is more of a joke or in rap songs.

 

However, calling others as Black is considered rude (if not racist).

 

By the way, there is no need to come up with the "White Privilege" term all over again and again.

 

Not meeting any African Americans due to their skin colour is outright racist.

 

Just a question for those majority Singaporeans who do not ever meet any other Singaporeans with a different skin colour, should I call that "Yellow Privilege?"

 

Being in Asia for quite some while and working in Singapore, it would be a bit stupid, not to get in touch, converse or meet with people of different colours.

 

 

In my personal view, Singaporeans are focusing much too much on this race thing and walking around with this racial mindset.

 

 

[singalion]

And here is something from the 21st century on the correct terminology of American Indians.

 

National Museum of the American Indian.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?

All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people.

 

 

https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know

 

National Museum of the American Indian
New York

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House
One Bowling Green
New York, NY 10004

National Museum of the American Indian
National Mall

Fourth Street & Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20560

 

 

[Guest 2003]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:01 AM, singalion said:

It might be geographically incorrect, but this is how some differently looking people were named following the Columbus discovery.

 

It IS geographically incorrect!

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:01 AM, singalion said:

I am sure there are other peoples in the world who had been wrongly named by colonialists or who knows by whom, the American "Indians" wouldn't be the only ones.

 

Since you're so "sure," then start a thread about them and take up their cause, "Mr. White Savior Complex Anti-Racism Crusader."

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:01 AM, singalion said:

Historically is is not correct to say it was an "ignorant" mistake, because Columbus believed he had found India on his trip. This was the early time of discovery. Knowledge and science was not that advanced and the education of Columbus was lacking. He started working on ships with 14 years and received an education in navigation in Portugal. It is said he was largely self taught. He wasn't illiterate which is already outstanding during his time. We are the one's who know he was wrong (now). Further, Columbus did not even reach the US.

 

He "believed" INCORRECTLY ... and he was WRONG ... and that is IGNORANT. Trump supporters "believe" he was cheated out of the 2020 election. They "believe" INCORRECTLY ... and they are WRONG ... and they are IGNORANT. Nobody said Columbus was illiterate, which means being unable to read, but his knowledge of world geography was clearly and obviously incomplete.

 

The Vikings knew four centuries earlier that there was land across the Atlantic Ocean between Europe and Asia, but Columbus didn't, and he saddled history with an embarrassing mistake. It is only white people's stubborn "reverence" for his "discovery" (of land which already existed) that prevents people like you from saying loudly that he was wrong and correcting the errors of the past.

 

The continued celebration of Columbus Day, rather than expanding it into an occasion that acknowledges the good as well as the multitude of bad that happened in history as a result of his voyage, is a perfect example. Same line of thinking that prevents America from dealing with its own racism problems because too many (White) people refuse to have any honest discussions of the past. Also nobody said Columbus reached the US.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:01 AM, singalion said:

I sense some negative grudge on Ang Mohs in your posts.

 

Any "grudge" that I might have is against people who stubbornly insist they are right when they are not, refuse to consider any other facts from people of other races once they are presented, don't want anything in the world to change from what they had ingrained into their heads as children, and write ridiculously long posts to spark fake arguments over the most trite of details.

 

Your posts in this thread make it clear that in the 1970s and 1980s, you would have been strongly insisting that there was no systemic police brutality against African Americans, and then used your own wonderful interactions with the police as "proof" that they must be delusional. Before you claim otherwise, that is exactly how the majority of White Americans felt at the time, and you would have been no different.

 

One of the first incidents to lay the truth bare to the public was the Rodney King beating, followed by a White jury in a White suburb refusing to convict the 100% guilty police officers, thus sparking the 1992 L.A. Riots. And before you divert into attacking King himself ... yes he was speeding, and yes he was wrong, and yes he deserved to be arrested ... but those cops could have easily handcuffed him once he was on the ground. There was no reason to beat him so horrendously other than pure brutality. It was disgusting. Nor am I defending the rioters. But that court case was simply the straw that broke the camel's back because Black people had already been having their complaints about police brutality fall on deaf ears for decades at that point.

 

So now we are in the 2020s, and almost every phone has a camera, and similar incidents are being recorded and posted on such a regular basis that even people like you can't deny the truth any longer. And yet a police officer still murdered George Floyd in broad daylight, by choking him to death with a knee on the neck, even though he knew he was being recorded. People need to be able to admit when a system has failed, and the American police system has failed just as badly as American and European teachings of world history that largely center themselves and barely acknowledge the rest of humanity have failed. But then you expect folks to accept whatever name they've previously and erroneously been called because (White) people are already used to it.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:01 AM, singalion said:

Had it made any real difference if it had been 郑和 who had sailed this journey and thought he landed in India???

 

If a Chinese sailor had sailed west from China in the 1400s, and followed the Asian coastline, he would have eventually sailed past or made a stop in India, and he would have known he was in India, because ancient Chinese traders had contacts with and knowledge of India. Sounds like the type of uneducated analogy a Trump supporter would make. And if a Chinese sailor had sailed east across the Pacific Ocean in the 1400s and landed in North America, he would have known he wasn't in Europe, because the court of Kublai Khan learned a lot about what Europe was like during their contact with Marco Polo.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:17 AM, singalion said:

Why do you need to refer to Trump over and over. This thread here is not about Trump but about the naming of American Native people. Please stay at the discussion and leave Trump out of the show. Trump is not relevant for this thread. I don't bother what Trump says.

 

Then stop behaving like an arrogant, know-it-all, won't-consider-other-opinions Trump-supporting obnoxious White-Privileged boor!

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:17 AM, singalion said:

Why do we as total outsiders (or again White, African, Asian, Hispanic Americans) decide how these peoples should be named?

 

They have NOT "decided to be named" Indians ... yet you insist on calling them that ... because YOU are personally comfortable perpetuating a geographically incorrect mistake made by another European. Canadian tribes have settled on the term First Nations, yet you are not insisting on using those words, which are at least a lot more accurate than "Indians."

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:17 AM, singalion said:

What you did not write here at all is the fact that other Americans have been using the name "Indian" in denigrating the American Native people. The word "Indian" or "American Indian" had not been the problem if the other ethnics had given this negative connotation to the word "Indian" in the US in belittling American Natives.

 

You are not five years old. It doesn't matter "who started it." You sound like Trump during his infamous 2016 interview with Anderson Cooper. What matters is using a proper term that respects people's actual dignity and true heritage. Move forward and quit desperately clinging to the past.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 4:17 AM, singalion said:

But all in all you are doing nothing other than deciding on behalf of the American Indians / American Natives and give them a new name. In that sense you are doing exactly the same what Columbus did. To impose on them a name (they might not even want). Why are you telling them what name they should carry??? Why don't you let these tribes decide what is the best way to call them?

 

So now you want to pretend like I created the term "Native Americans" and am trying to "impose" it, even though that name has been around for decades? LOL. Just because you weren't previously familiar with the decades-old movement to use "Native American" and toss the ignorant, racist, geographically incorrect term "American Indian" into the garbage can of history doesn't mean it is new. There is a lot you don't know, and no matter how many longwinded posts you type to create deflections, that isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

If you "ask them what they want to be called," they will say call them by the name of their individual tribes, but that doesn't work for the majority of people who aren't in those tribes. Similarly, if you ask various Asian Americans what they want to be called, "Asian Americans" would very rarely be their first choice. They would usually want to be called Chinese Americans (or ABCs), Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and so on.

 

But that is far too complicated for the average (White) American brain to deal with, which is why the term Asian American was created in the first place. Same thing with Hispanics and Latinos/as/es. And the average (White) American brain certainly isn't going to be able to memorize the differences between Apaches, Cherokees, Chippewas, Lumbees, Pueblos, Siouxs, Pimas, Navajos, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Arapahos, and the dozens of other Native American tribes. Utter rubbish and you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Nobody said Columbus was illiterate, which means being unable to read, but his knowledge of world geography was clearly and obviously incomplete.

 

Did you ever see the world maps from the 15th century?

 

What was there on geography???

 

You are blaming Columbus when people at that time did not even know there is such a thing as North and South America...

 

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

The Vikings knew four centuries earlier that there was land across the Atlantic Ocean between Europe and Asia, but Columbus didn't, and he saddled history with an embarrassing mistake. It is only white people's stubborn "reverence" for his "discovery" (of land which already existed) that prevents people like you from saying loudly that he was wrong and correcting the errors of the past.

 

 

But had the Vikings been aware that they stepped on a "new" continent?

Why was such knowledge not shared with other "tribes".

We can conclude that the Vikings had touched on North America but had not been aware that it is a new continent.

The Vikings did not just die and disappear...

 

And following the Vikings we would call the American Indians "Vinlanders" . Anything better?

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by singalion

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:17 PM, singalion said:

What you did not write here at all is the fact that other Americans have been using the name "Indian" in denigrating the American Native people.

The word "Indian" or "American Indian" had not been the problem if the other ethnics of the US had given this negative connotation to the word "Indian" somehow belittling American Natives/Indians.

That is the real problem.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

You are not five years old. It doesn't matter "who started it." You sound like Trump during his infamous 2016 interview with Anderson Cooper. What matters is using a proper term that respects people's actual dignity and true heritage. Move forward and quit desperately clinging to the past.

 

Don't take me out of the context.

 

My point was not "who started it" but

how it came that calling someone "American Indian" had a negative undertone and was like an insult.

This has nothing to do who started calling American Indians as such.

 

And that is why people now think, calling American "Natives" as American Indians is inappropriate.

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

It IS geographically incorrect!

 

So what?

It is how some peoples in Northern America started to be called.

 

Why don't you challenge the name America also?

We should not call Americans, Americans, because it is plain wrong also!

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Trump supporters

 

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Trump supporter would make.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

won't-consider-other-opinions Trump-supporting obnoxious White-Privileged

 

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

you sound like Trump during his infamous 2016 interview with Anderson Cooper

 

 

Look how many times you quoted Trump in your previous post and made your helpless obsessive attempts to make me look like a Trump supporter.

 

Does this below sound like a Trump supporter???

 

On 12/28/2020 at 11:23 PM, singalion said:

The history will show whether Trump was a good President.

But in my personal view he will be very fast forgotten and most probably judged as one of the worst Presidents of the US for the past century (if not the worst).

 

 

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

The continued celebration of Columbus Day, rather than expanding it into an occasion that acknowledges the good as well as the multitude of bad that happened in history as a result of his voyage, is a perfect example. Same line of thinking that prevents America from dealing with its own racism problems because too many (White) people refuse to have any honest discussions of the past.

 

And any other peoples in the world would not need to have a honest discussion of their past???
Only the Americans or White Americans?

Are you sure?

 

How about Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Indians, .... ???

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Just because you weren't previously familiar with the decades-old movement to use "Native American" and toss the ignorant, racist, geographically incorrect term

 

How does this fit into this:

 

And here is something from the 21st century on the correct terminology of American Indians.

 

National Museum of the American Indian.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?

All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people.

 

 

https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

So now you want to pretend like I created the term "Native Americans" and am trying to "impose" it, even though that name has been around for decades?

 

I did not say you created the term.

 

I am just saying that you impose to these peoples to be grouped under the term "Native Americans" while they don't want it and you never asked them if they want to be called "Native Americans".

That is imposing a name on them the same as Columbus did with American Indian.

There is no difference! You behave the same as Columbus.

 

Let them decide on their own. It is not your business. (but you can have your opinion)

 

National Museum of the American Indian.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?

All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by singalion

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Asian Americans what they want to be called, "Asian Americans" would very rarely be their first choice. They would usually want to be called Chinese Americans (or ABCs), Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and so on.

 

 

In my personal view there should not be any need to call Asian Americans as "Asian" Americans... or Vietnamese Americans, Chinese Americans etc.

 

They should all be called just Americans.

 

Nobody needs all these suffixation on their origin next to American.

 

Is it of any serious relevance? Does it change the value of a person?

 

We should get rid of this "racial" categorisation.

 

A human is a human (full stop).

 

 

Edited August 28, 2021 by singalion

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

certainly isn't going to be able to memorize the differences between Apaches, Cherokees, Chippewas, Lumbees, Pueblos, Siouxs, Pimas, Navajos, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Arapahos, and the dozens of other Native American tribes. Utter rubbish and you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

No, it is not rubbish at all!

 

Because I pointed you to the fact that you should let these people decide on their own how they prefer to be named.

Instead of imposing on them a new name they probably don't want!

 

Here read it again:

 

What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?

All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people.

 

[Guest Unridiculous Equivocations]

On 8/28/2021 at 4:32 AM, singalion said:

Yes that might be so that you have dozens of friends, often they call each other even with the "N" word, but it is more of a joke or in rap songs.

 

However, calling others as Black is considered rude (if not racist).

 

WTF? I really need to step in here. Are you seriously trying to argue that saying Black is the same as saying the "N" word? Are you serious? This shows a gigantic character flaw. You don't know when to stop arguing, and you simply double down no matter what, just like a Trump supporter to borrow the words used by Guest 2003.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue for the banning of names and terms such as Black Entertainment Television, Black Entertainment & Sports Lawyers Association, Black Lives Matter, Congressional Black Caucus, Historically Black Colleges & Universities, National Association of Black Journalists, or Union of Black Episcopalians?

 

I have spent a lot of time in the USA and Europe and I have never met a Black person who said being called Black is offensive. Nor do they equate it with the disgusting "N" word, so the fact that you brought up the disgusting "N" word says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else, and now you're embarrassing yourself.

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Trump supporters

 

On 8/28/2021 at 6:30 PM, Guest 2003 said:

Trump-supporting

 

On 8/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, Guest 2003 said:

like a Trump supporter

 

On 8/28/2021 at 11:40 PM, Guest Unridiculous Equivocations said:

just like a Trump supporter

 

It is just too obvious that you are one and the same person and hiding behind these different Guest profiles, which is common to you, because of your personal insecurity and inferiority complex you always need to make it look as if there is a huge group out there supporting your posts.

(Not sure how to call this complex of yours... but maybe "I pretend I don't stand alone complex" would be suitable)

 

Nobody would harp on this "Trump supporter " thing as you do.

 

There is no need to change any guest nicks, I very well know who you are.

 

 

 

 

[singalion]

On 8/28/2021 at 11:40 PM, Guest Unridiculous Equivocations said:

 

WTF? I really need to step in here. Are you seriously trying to argue that saying Black is the same as saying the "N" word? Are you serious? This shows a gigantic character flaw. You don't know when to stop arguing, and you simply double down no matter what, just like a Trump supporter to borrow the words used by Guest 2003.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue for the banning of names and terms such as Black Entertainment Television, Black Entertainment & Sports Lawyers Association, Black Lives Matter, Congressional Black Caucus, Historically Black Colleges & Universities, National Association of Black Journalists, or Union of Black Episcopalians?

 

I have spent a lot of time in the USA and Europe and I have never met a Black person who said being called Black is offensive. Nor do they equate it with the disgusting "N" word, so the fact that you brought up the disgusting "N" word says a lot more about you than it does about anyone else, and now you're embarrassing yourself.

 

Learn to read.

I did never write that saying Black is the same as the "N" word.

As usual you are taking things out of the context and out of proportion, just to attack me.

 

Same as I did not argue to ban any names or terms containing the word "black" .

 

This is your fabricated and pretended miscomprehension of what I wrote, just to hit out against me.

 

 

However:

There are people who find the word "Black" rude and there are "Blacks" who find it rude to be called Black.

 

Maybe you did not talk to people of colour in the US... if not you would have found clues that not all like to be called "Blacks".

 

 

Here some evidence that the word "Black" is considered rude or offensive (and even for "Blacks") :

a)

From guidelines at a University:

 

Talking about racism

Many white people find it difficult to find the words for discussing racial issues. Sometimes they are afraid of using particular words for fear of offending someone and saying something that is apparently rude.

 

It is still used by some older people now, often because they feel it is rude to describe someone as ‘black’.

Black, black

The word ‘black’ is often misused.

The word ‘black’ was often used negatively and offensively.

Everyone needs to be aware of the large number of negative ways that the word ‘black’ can be used and the number of positive ways that white is used.

 

b) a newspaper article from the US:

Should the term 'black' to describe people of African origin be retired?

• Vava Tampa 19 Aug 2019

The terms 'black' and 'negro' were coined to dehumanise people from the African continent to serve the imperialist and colonial agendas of Europe and the US.

I have a confession. I have a list of words I avoid using. They turn me off, whether or not they are italicised or direct quotes. They range from "civilised" to Americans' blind use of "race" to the French pronoun "tu."

 

On top of my list today is "black" – not the colour which I find beautiful. I resent being called black. I find it offensive and the continued dehumanisation of people of African origin in the United States and across the world is partially a result of this label – and ending it is as significant as taking down the confederate flag.

 

For me, "black" and "negro" are two sides of the same coin. They are inherently derogatory labels – imposed on Africans to discredit their humanity and to boost a false sense of white superiority. There is no other way around it. And whichever way you look at it, to continue to call us by labels we were called in plantations and its after-party is at the very least immoral – if not racist, unexamined as it might be.

We are not black. No "black" or "negro" has ever existed in Africa. We are Africans.

 

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/should-the-term-black-to-describe-people-of-african-origin-be-retired-29105

 

 

 

 

Is that sufficient evidence that some people find it rude or offensive to be called "Black"???

 

 

Nice try to hit out on me, but once again you failed.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Mississippi Paddlefish]

On 8/29/2021 at 12:50 AM, singalion said:

 

Learn to read.

I did never write that saying Black is the same as the "N" word.

As usual you are taking things out of the context and out of proportion, just to attack me.

 

Same as I did not argue to ban any names or terms containing the word "black" .

 

This is your fabricated and pretended miscomprehension of what I wrote, just to hit out against me.

 

 

However:

There are people who find the word "Black" rude and there are "Blacks" who find it rude to be called Black.

 

Maybe you did not talk to people of colour in the US... if not you would have found clues that not all like to be called "Blacks".

 

 

Here some evidence that the word "Black" is considered rude or offensive (and even for "Blacks") :

a)

From guidelines at a University:

 

Talking about racism

Many white people find it difficult to find the words for discussing racial issues. Sometimes they are afraid of using particular words for fear of offending someone and saying something that is apparently rude.

 

It is still used by some older people now, often because they feel it is rude to describe someone as ‘black’.

Black, black

The word ‘black’ is often misused.

The word ‘black’ was often used negatively and offensively.

Everyone needs to be aware of the large number of negative ways that the word ‘black’ can be used and the number of positive ways that white is used.

 

b) a newspaper article from the US:

Should the term 'black' to describe people of African origin be retired?

• Vava Tampa 19 Aug 2019

The terms 'black' and 'negro' were coined to dehumanise people from the African continent to serve the imperialist and colonial agendas of Europe and the US.

I have a confession. I have a list of words I avoid using. They turn me off, whether or not they are italicised or direct quotes. They range from "civilised" to Americans' blind use of "race" to the French pronoun "tu."

 

On top of my list today is "black" – not the colour which I find beautiful. I resent being called black. I find it offensive and the continued dehumanisation of people of African origin in the United States and across the world is partially a result of this label – and ending it is as significant as taking down the confederate flag.

 

For me, "black" and "negro" are two sides of the same coin. They are inherently derogatory labels – imposed on Africans to discredit their humanity and to boost a false sense of white superiority. There is no other way around it. And whichever way you look at it, to continue to call us by labels we were called in plantations and its after-party is at the very least immoral – if not racist, unexamined as it might be.

We are not black. No "black" or "negro" has ever existed in Africa. We are Africans.

 

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/should-the-term-black-to-describe-people-of-african-origin-be-retired-29105

 

 

 

 

Is that sufficient evidence that some people find it rude or offensive to be called "Black"???

 

 

Nice try to hit out on me, but once again you failed.

 

 

 

 

There is an active movement called Black Life Matters. If Black is rude or offensive, why did they use this word as part of their movement? 

[singalion]

On 8/29/2021 at 10:41 AM, Guest Mississippi Paddlefish said:

There is an active movement called Black Life Matters. If Black is rude or offensive, why did they use this word as part of their movement? 

 

Because the word Black is shorter and only one word compared to African American 

 

and AALM had sounded like anonymous alcoholics lives matter. 

 

That had caused too much confusion... 

 

😂

[Steve5380]

Please continue with this crucial debate on the appropriateness of the name "American Indian".  

It is of utmost importance that your reach a consensus or at least bring it to a rational level.

 

Meanwhile, I am attentively following the news about the hurricane Ida that is falling on Louisiana. What is happening in New Orleans?  How many victims will it create?  How much material damage will it inflict?  What natural forces have steered most hurricanes and tropical storms to Louisiana instead of falling a little bit further west on Houston?  Is it my good karma?  But I must return here soon from these trivialities to see how this very important discussion is progressing.  

[Steve5380]

I am back.  The whole city of New Orleans has lost electric power.  And it may take WEEKS before all is restored again.  It is to be seen how long the storm will linger, if the city will avoid to be totally inundated again.  And as is well known,  all the water that falls on New Orleans needs to be removed by pumps!

 

Imagine... with a climate like Singapore now in summer,  and without power for two weeks?  This is like living in HELL.  No food refrigeration, no power for all the electronics...

 

I see that the conversation here has not progressed.  So... what is it?  is "American Indian"  acceptable or not?  This is tremendously important to resolve,  I won't be able to sleep tonight if I don't have an answer!

[singalion]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:17 AM, Steve5380 said:

I am back.  The whole city of New Orleans has lost electric power.  And it may take WEEKS before all is restored again.  It is to be seen how long the storm will linger, if the city will avoid to be totally inundated again.  And as is well known,  all the water that falls on New Orleans needs to be removed by pumps!

 

Imagine... with a climate like Singapore now in summer,  and without power for two weeks?  This is like living in HELL.  No food refrigeration, no power for all the electronics...

 

I see that the conversation here has not progressed.  So... what is it?  is "American Indian"  acceptable or not?  This is tremendously important to resolve,  I won't be able to sleep tonight if I don't have an answer!

 

Thanks for the near to instant weather reports in Lousiana, which are totally necessary in this thread and serve the discussion. Were you hinting at some sort of rain dance???

 

According to the renown National Museum of the American Indian you can say what you want unless you use like Trump the "R" word. You can even say geographically incorrect just "Indian" but best is to ask the name of the respective tribe and call them by their tribal name. 

 

Every heated argument on the proper or politically correct name is just letting off some sort of smoke but doesn't signal anything...

 

 

National Museum of the American Indian.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the correct terminology: American Indian, Indian, Native American, or Native?

All of these terms are acceptable. The consensus, however, is that whenever possible, Native people prefer to be called by their specific tribal name. In the United States, Native American has been widely used but is falling out of favor with some groups, and the terms American Indian or indigenous American are preferred by many Native people.

 

 

https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know

[Steve5380]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:24 PM, singalion said:

 

Thanks for the near to instant weather reports in Lousiana, which are totally necessary in this thread and serve the discussion. Were you hinting at some sort of rain dance???

 

 

No.  You cannot call a category 4 hurricane a "rain dance".   Have you ever had the experience of being in an hurricane?

 

You have found a good reference that considers that all the usual names for the American Indians are correct, so the issue is a non-issue.  But this does not answer one question:  what motivates a bunch of dumb argumentative individuals to launch a tirade of insults to people who like the name "American Indians"?  This is such a neutral, harmless name!  Don't they have more interesting subjects to argue about?   And to link the preference of "American Indian" to white supremacy?  This is completely idiotic!  It is something to be expected from a "Guest Guest"  or a @7heaven, but they haven't shown up in this thread.   Or perhaps they have, just under a different alias?

[Guest 7heaven]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:05 AM, Steve5380 said:

 

No.  You cannot call a category 4 hurricane a "rain dance".   Have you ever had the experience of being in an hurricane?

 

You have found a good reference that considers that all the usual names for the American Indians are correct, so the issue is a non-issue.  But this does not answer one question:  what motivates a bunch of dumb argumentative individuals to launch a tirade of insults to people who like the name "American Indians"?  This is such a neutral, harmless name!  Don't they have more interesting subjects to argue about?   And to link the preference of "American Indian" to white supremacy?  This is completely idiotic!  It is something to be expected from a "Guest Guest"  or a @7heaven, but they haven't shown up in this thread.   Or perhaps they have, just under a different alias?

It is not surprising that Steve and Singalion like to jettison many conversations here and somehow inject their opinions on others, but in doing so they did not realise they are displaying their limitations and scope of understanding of many issues. 

[Guest 9heaven]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:18 PM, Nightingale said:

 

So says the ignorant bigot.

So says the PRC propaganda mouthpiece 

[Guest Unridiculous Equivocations]

On 8/28/2021 at 12:50 PM, singalion said:

b) a newspaper article from the US:

Should the term 'black' to describe people of African origin be retired?

We are not black. No "black" or "negro" has ever existed in Africa. We are Africans.

 

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/should-the-term-black-to-describe-people-of-african-origin-be-retired-29105

 

Is that sufficient evidence that some people find it rude or offensive to be called "Black"??? Nice try to hit out on me, but once again you failed.

 

So you found one article from 2019 written by an TRT World employee who hates being called Black -- someone who works at a television station that only exists to produce propaganda for the Turkish dictator Erdogan -- and is not in any way whatsoever a "newspaper article from the US" as you falsely (or ignorantly) claimed. Learn what you are linking to before just grabbing the first thing Google finds that agrees with your personal opinion. TRT World is no more credible than Fox News, Russia Today, Sputnik, CGTN, or Xinhua.

 

You are trying to have it both ways by falsely claiming it is offensive to refer to Black people as Black people -- based on your own very limited knowledge and almost nonexistent contact with actual Black people while relying on one article from a Turkish government propaganda operation that enjoys interjecting discord into the West -- and then saying the name "Black Lives Matter" is okay because "African American Lives Matter" would be confusing. That is some serious Fox News type pretzel logic right there. Just ridiculous.

 

The way you are snapping at people, lobbing personal insults, and starting arguments all over Blowing Wind lately shows that you are going through very troubling personal issues and you need to step back from the ledge. Your recent behavior on this website is not good for your mental health and you should consider taking a break from this website, dealing with whatever is going so badly in your life out in the real world, and reflecting on how to become a better member of the Blowing Wind Community as opposed to a blowhard.

[Guest Overexposed Yourself]

On 8/28/2021 at 9:37 AM, singalion said:

In my personal view there should not be any need to call Asian Americans as "Asian" Americans ... or Vietnamese Americans, Chinese Americans etc.

 

They should all be called just Americans.

 

Nobody needs all these suffixation on their origin next to American.

 

Is it of any serious relevance? Does it change the value of a person?

 

We should get rid of this "racial" categorisation.

 

A human is a human (full stop).

 

I'm sure all those pleasant bottoms in the Asian American community will waste no time moving your imdividual opinion on what they should be called to the immediate top of their agenda. It's not like they have a Coronavirus Pandemic, Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Wave, or a Thousand Other Issues to deal with at the moment.

[Steve5380]

On 8/28/2021 at 8:37 AM, singalion said:

 

In my personal view there should not be any need to call Asian Americans as "Asian" Americans... or Vietnamese Americans, Chinese Americans etc.

 

They should all be called just Americans.

 

Nobody needs all these suffixation on their origin next to American.

 

Is it of any serious relevance? Does it change the value of a person?

 

We should get rid of this "racial" categorisation.

 

A human is a human (full stop).

 

 

Your personal view is clouded here.

 

There is nothing wrong with Indian Americans, Asian Americans, Italian Americans, German Americans, Asian Americans..... etc. etc.  Sometimes the group qualifier is essential and there is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing wrong in using it.  

 

It is also very common to use American Car,  European Car, Japanese Car,  etc. etc.  and the Cars are not supposed to be victimized by this.  😄

 

[singalion]

Only that cars are not humans... 

 

I don't think you can compare this, even considering that some people talk with their cars. 

[Steve5380]

On 8/31/2021 at 1:23 PM, singalion said:

Only that cars are not humans... 

 

I don't think you can compare this, even considering that some people talk with their cars. 

 

This was just an example,  and I think that cars may have a personality.  I feel a relationship when I drive my car I bought 27 years ago.

 

But another example are the French Cuisine,  the American Cuisine, the Indian Cuisine, in common use instead of just calling them "food" or "human food".  And human food is very important to humans!

[Guest Mississippi Paddlefish]

On 9/1/2021 at 12:40 AM, Guest Unridiculous Equivocations said:

 

So you found one article from 2019 written by an TRT World employee who hates being called Black -- someone who works at a television station that only exists to produce propaganda for the Turkish dictator Erdogan -- and is not in any way whatsoever a "newspaper article from the US" as you falsely (or ignorantly) claimed. Learn what you are linking to before just grabbing the first thing Google finds that agrees with your personal opinion. TRT World is no more credible than Fox News, Russia Today, Sputnik, CGTN, or Xinhua.

 

You are trying to have it both ways by falsely claiming it is offensive to refer to Black people as Black people -- based on your own very limited knowledge and almost nonexistent contact with actual Black people while relying on one article from a Turkish government propaganda operation that enjoys interjecting discord into the West -- and then saying the name "Black Lives Matter" is okay because "African American Lives Matter" would be confusing. That is some serious Fox News type pretzel logic right there. Just ridiculous.

 

The way you are snapping at people, lobbing personal insults, and starting arguments all over Blowing Wind lately shows that you are going through very troubling personal issues and you need to step back from the ledge. Your recent behavior on this website is not good for your mental health and you should consider taking a break from this website, dealing with whatever is going so badly in your life out in the real world, and reflecting on how to become a better member of the Blowing Wind Community as opposed to a blowhard.

Well said especially the last paragraph.

[Steve5380]

On 9/1/2021 at 11:31 AM, Guest Mississippi Paddlefish said:

Well said especially the last paragraph.

 

Not well said at all!

 

The ugly discussions here started by people like you who, for some not understandable reasons want to bash whoever is fine with the name "American Indians".  This lack of understandable reasons may point to some ugliness, aggressiveness, malevolence of people who like to argue and contradict for the sake of arguing and contradicting.