I’m going to jump in and go back to the Indigenous piece. I’m going to speak from the current understandings for Indigenous folks who live within Canada’s borders. Indigenous is the preferred term if you need to speak about a large number of Indigenous people in a general way. For example, if you are speaking about the Indigenous people of North America. It’s also the preferred term if you are describing someone who you know is Indigenous but have no clue other than that. Better is First Nations, Métis, or Inuit. Those are three distinct subgroups of Indigenous. Métis is a very specific grouping, as is Inuit. First Nations is an umbrella term for all other Indigenous people. But the best case is to be specific about where that person is from or what language they speak. A friend of mine is from Bkejwanong and speaks Ojibwe, for example. Because we have four distinct nations within the borders of our school district, we are very used to talking about which community people live in. Native is a term that is used by many folks in First Nations communities here, but there’s been a shift away from it in recent years. Canada still has the Indian Act and our First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people are still bound by it. Using the word “Indian” to describe a First Nations person here is considered incredibly offensive. White folks can use it to refer to the Indian Act, but not to refer to a person. Some First Nations people use it to refer to themselves, while others never would. It is very similar to the N word in how it’s used here, though because of the Indian Act there is still a legal place for it. During powwows many communities sell NDN tacos. At times the word is spelled out but now it’s usually shortened. Folks from the community will use the word when they order but white folks generally won’t. And there are members of our local First Nations communities who refer to themselves as Indian in protest of the Indian Act. As a reminder that they are still governed by the outdated and racist policy.

The US terminology is definitely different than for communities within Canada’s borders. I think that’s largely because the US was far more successful in their efforts to kill off all the Indigenous people, so there are far more survivors here. IIRC there are ten times more identified Indigenous folks in Canada as there are in the US so when you think of the fact that we have 10% of the population as the US, that’s a significant difference.

Yep, the language is complicated. But my 8 and 9 year old students can have these conversations and explain which terminology is most appropriate because we have lots of conversations about it, so I figure adults can too.

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
Spending lots of time in New Mexico has taught me that adopting the language of my sensitive, high-income, well educated peers often just gets me a pat on the head or a sneer.

I have stopped using "native American" out there since most, ah, native people you meet in the public square, so to speak, call themselves Indians. Say "native American" to them and you're signaling to them things you probably don't want to signal.

Yep

Regarding “Native,” just . . . No. That is full on Tarzan talk. “The natives are restless.”

On the issue of whether the term Indigenous People is Eurocentric, of course it is. So is Natives, and every other term we’re discussing. The point, I think, is to make clear that, regardless of which tribe arrived where when, the one thing we can agree on is white people were not here first.

I guess when an Indigenous Person goes to Europe, she can refer to the Brits as Indigenous.

I'm thinking you didn't read my earlier comments.

1. What's a Brit? You know, the Germanic people fought to displace the "native" Celtic people only 1200-1500 years ago. And those "natives" are still there, holed up in Cymru (Wales if you want to offend them) and other hinterlands. Sound familiar?

2. The Navajo and Apache got to New Mexico and Arizona at around the same time as the European Spaniards. So who is native to the southwest? Lump the Pueblo peoples together with the Apaches "against" "those" Europeans? That's a pretty contemporary, but ahistorical, idea. The Spanish and the Pueblo were often allied against the Navajo and Apache (and other plains "Indians" who swooped in from time to time to raid and take captives).

Maybe we should just refer to haplogroups and be done with it. Mitochondrial of course, patriarchy be damned.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Maybe we should just refer to haplogroups and be done with it. Mitochondrial of course, patriarchy be damned.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Regarding “Native,” just . . . No. That is full on Tarzan talk. “The natives are restless.”

On the issue of whether the term Indigenous People is Eurocentric, of course it is. So is Natives, and every other term we’re discussing. The point, I think, is to make clear that, regardless of which tribe arrived where when, the one thing we can agree on is white people were not here first.

I guess when an Indigenous Person goes to Europe, she can refer to the Brits as Indigenous.

Well said.

quote:

Originally posted by ShiroKuro:
MA is correct, "Latinx" is advocated as (and being criticized for, depending on who you ask) being a gender neutral alternative to "Latino/Latina."

In terms of the "x" usage, I see several of my Spanish-speaking colleagues writing "folx" (instead of "folks") and when I asked about it, it was explained as a way to normalize Latinx, or to normalize the use of "x" as a gender-neutral plural form. Which, as a linguist, is fascinating to me.

One Spanish prof I know (who is male, from Spain and in his mid-50s I believe) rants about Latinx, he hates it. He thinks it's only supported by people who are either S-E bilinguals, or English native speakers who speak Spanish as an add-on... So he thinks the "x' is not "authentically" Spanish, esp. because you can't really pronounce it with Spanish pronunciation. In one sense, he has a point (re the pronunciation), but the bigger thing that I see is that this is an argument between Spain-spanish and Spanish of the Americas. And ultimately, it's an example of language ownership -- who gets to decide how Spanish changes? He's basically arguing that Spain-Spanish has the most authenticity, and that just because someone in the Americas speaks Spanish (perhaps even as their home language, or first language), that doesn't give them the right to try to change Spanish.

The problem is, the ship has already sailed. Spanish is changing, and its speakers in the Americas don't really care about his take on Spain-spanish....

ETA: also I included the prof's age above because I think this is also at least somewhat generational, the Spanish profs that I know that support use of Latinx are all a generation younger than this prof....

Folx? Yeah, no.

Not happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Regarding “Native,” just . . . No. That is full on Tarzan talk. “The natives are restless.”

On the issue of whether the term Indigenous People is Eurocentric, of course it is. So is Natives, and every other term we’re discussing. The point, I think, is to make clear that, regardless of which tribe arrived where when, the one thing we can agree on is white people were not here first.

I guess when an Indigenous Person goes to Europe, she can refer to the Brits as Indigenous.

Well said.

As PD pointed out, the Brits were not indigenous to the British Isles. So, perhaps our hypothetical Indigenous Person shouldn't do that, because it would be historically inaccurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Mary Anna:

quote:

Originally posted by big al:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Not too much, they are very similar And my Spanish is much better than my Portugese. Often if I don’t know a Portugese word I use the Spanish and change the pronunciation as appropriate. Most of the time it works. It’s humorous when it doesn’t.

I used to do that with some longer English words when I lived in Brazil. It's surprising sometimes how somewhat pretentious speech transcends language.

Big Al

I traveled in Italy with a friend who was in the Peace Corps in South America. (Not sure which country. Maybe Bolivia). She could sometimes make herself understood in Italian by tacking an "-o" at the end of key words.

I've done exactly the same thing in Italy, using French, and it worked well enough to be understood.

quote:

Originally posted by ShiroKuro:

The problem is, the ship has already sailed. Spanish is changing, and its speakers in the Americas don't really care about his take on Spain-spanish....

I recall, in some show I was watching, listening to people speaking Spanish in Spain, with several English words mixed into their Spanish, because the English word has actually been adopted as the Spanish word for something that is new and didn't have a historical word in the Spanish language.

quote:

As PD pointed out, the Brits were not indigenous to the British Isles.

Now wait a minute ...

The "Brits" WERE native (unless you count the earlier peoples that THEY displaced ). The British tribes were the Celts Julius Caesar encountered. Then when the Roman legions disappeared in 410 A.D. they left the Brits to fend for themselves against the encroachment of the Angles and Saxons. They're the "European" invaders.

We know how that story ended. With the Brits pushed into Wales, Cornwall, and the beautiful lake district of Cumbria. Around 800 A.D. the Cornish were pushed/migrated into Brittany (yeah, that's where the name comes from), and the only Brits to survive the German onslaught with their language and culture still sort of in place were in isolated Welsh dales.

Then the Danes came in and ...

Bernie just said ‘Latinos’ at the convention. Good for him.

And the survey says ...

https://www.pewresearch.org/hi...3-use-it/#fn-29384-5

https://www.washingtonpost.com...spanics-survey-says/

‘About One-in-Four U.S. Hispanics Have Heard of Latinx, but Just 3% Use It‘

‘Overall, “Hispanic” is preferred by a 61 percent majority of people of Latin American descent, followed by “Latino,” which is preferred by 29 percent, Pew found. Left-leaning people seemed to be more likely to have heard the term “Latinx.”’

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Regarding “Native,” just . . . No. That is full on Tarzan talk. “The natives are restless.”

On the issue of whether the term Indigenous People is Eurocentric, of course it is. So is Natives, and every other term we’re discussing. The point, I think, is to make clear that, regardless of which tribe arrived where when, the one thing we can agree on is white people were not here first.

I guess when an Indigenous Person goes to Europe, she can refer to the Brits as Indigenous.

+1

Countless people vacation (often honeymoon) in Hawaii and think of the the "natives" as a kind of backdrop for their experience. They don't know these people at all. They know virtually nothing about them. It's blatantly racist and somewhat naseua inducing.