How the Native American population changed since the last census(usafacts.org)
usafacts.org
How the Native American population changed since the last census
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-the-native-american-population-changed-since-the-last-census/
202 comments
That is a data point that is measurable at least and some useful information can be inferred from , though you may have a point that it is incomplete.
This trend was noticed in the most recent census. Home DNA tests sold by the likes of Ancestry and 23andme are a contributing factor.
“We find that people who have taken a [mail in ancestry test] are not only more likely to self-identify as multiracial, they are particularly likely to select three or more races,” Johfre said. These differences were most pronounced for middle-age adults, which means the U.S. multiracial population would be growing because of more than just new births, the researchers noted.
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/05/17/ancestry-tests-affect-r...
“We find that people who have taken a [mail in ancestry test] are not only more likely to self-identify as multiracial, they are particularly likely to select three or more races,” Johfre said. These differences were most pronounced for middle-age adults, which means the U.S. multiracial population would be growing because of more than just new births, the researchers noted.
https://news.stanford.edu/2021/05/17/ancestry-tests-affect-r...
Does this mean those are random "1/16th native american" WASPs and such, that claim the heritage because of the results, but otherwise didn't know about it, or have any real relation (demographic, cultural, etc) with native americans?
Because that's quite different than Native Americans actually increasing as demographic groups...
Because that's quite different than Native Americans actually increasing as demographic groups...
It's still significant because it speaks to people being more willing to admit to being part Native.
My father actively downplayed his 1/16th Cherokee blood quantum -- and a lot of Natives are quite vocal about hating the whole idea of blood quantum, but that's probably more than people here want to know -- and I grew up in a house in the 'burbs bought the summer I turned three with his military mortgage benefits.
In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill
He never said much about his Native heritage. I think he did so to be white-passing in a world where lynchings still happened.
I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied apparently largely due to fear of violent white supremacists, basically.
Dismissing the interest in their heritage of people like me is just more erasure of Natives and Native culture. It actively reinforces racism in subtle ways. The subtlety helps make it insidious and hard to combat, unfortunately.
My father actively downplayed his 1/16th Cherokee blood quantum -- and a lot of Natives are quite vocal about hating the whole idea of blood quantum, but that's probably more than people here want to know -- and I grew up in a house in the 'burbs bought the summer I turned three with his military mortgage benefits.
In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill
He never said much about his Native heritage. I think he did so to be white-passing in a world where lynchings still happened.
I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied apparently largely due to fear of violent white supremacists, basically.
Dismissing the interest in their heritage of people like me is just more erasure of Natives and Native culture. It actively reinforces racism in subtle ways. The subtlety helps make it insidious and hard to combat, unfortunately.
I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied
Speaking as someone who is also 1/32, same as you, people like us need to stop pretending having a sliver of genetic material somehow entitles us to a "cultural heritage". 1/32 is five generations. That's three percent. For comparison, the average European-American's DNA is 3.5% African. White people are blacker than you and me are Native American.
Speaking as someone who is also 1/32, same as you, people like us need to stop pretending having a sliver of genetic material somehow entitles us to a "cultural heritage". 1/32 is five generations. That's three percent. For comparison, the average European-American's DNA is 3.5% African. White people are blacker than you and me are Native American.
I think mixing of socially constructed races and genetic ethnicities is a recipe for disaster. The only thing the latter is good for IMO is to highlight how the former is a social construct.
With that in mind, tying cultural heritage to "where did my close ancestors come from" seems like a more sensible approach than genetic percentages, since that actually connects to a social context.
Having said that, cherry picking one out of thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents over the thirty-one others sounds pretty absurd. But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that.
With that in mind, tying cultural heritage to "where did my close ancestors come from" seems like a more sensible approach than genetic percentages, since that actually connects to a social context.
Having said that, cherry picking one out of thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents over the thirty-one others sounds pretty absurd. But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that.
But I'm not from North America so I probably miss some social context to understand the logic behind that.
It's a combinational effect of many minor causes stacking upon one another. People wanting to feel special. The feeling modern society is destroying the world and the sense Native American culture is the opposite of that. The mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with.
It's a combinational effect of many minor causes stacking upon one another. People wanting to feel special. The feeling modern society is destroying the world and the sense Native American culture is the opposite of that. The mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with.
What exactly is "white heritage" anyway? It only brings to mind white supremacy to me.
But I do celebrate my Finnish heritage, as well as my Irish and English ancestry.
But I do celebrate my Finnish heritage, as well as my Irish and English ancestry.
White supremacy as an ideology is as poisonous as black supremacy or any other "ethnic" supremacy.
White supremacy as the label being used by "progressives" has nothing to do with the ideology other than in sharing a name. The label is just one of the many applied to those who dare to divert from the narrative, often used in situations where the "progressive" has talked herself into a corner from where there is no getting out other than by creating a path of labels to escape on.
I think it is better to only use the term "white supremacy" when describing the former. Don't use it as a label for something you find distasteful, only use it as a term for a specific ideology. The same goes for words like "fascism", "racism", all the "-phobias" and more. Take back the language from those [1] who have used it to drive their own narrative.
[1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-derridean/
White supremacy as the label being used by "progressives" has nothing to do with the ideology other than in sharing a name. The label is just one of the many applied to those who dare to divert from the narrative, often used in situations where the "progressive" has talked herself into a corner from where there is no getting out other than by creating a path of labels to escape on.
I think it is better to only use the term "white supremacy" when describing the former. Don't use it as a label for something you find distasteful, only use it as a term for a specific ideology. The same goes for words like "fascism", "racism", all the "-phobias" and more. Take back the language from those [1] who have used it to drive their own narrative.
[1] https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-derridean/
No, I literally mean that the phrase "white heritage" brings to mind old fashioned kkk style white supremacy, not the white fragility style supremacy.
Heritage is actually a very common word used in modern klan and klan adjacent groups as they are very concerned with the racial purity of their lineage as well as the fact that they yearn for "the good 'ol days" of the antebellum south.
For hundreds of years, the idea of "whiteness" in America was used primarily to identify a group that for the most part had nothing exclusively in common except as that of oppressors.
Heritage is actually a very common word used in modern klan and klan adjacent groups as they are very concerned with the racial purity of their lineage as well as the fact that they yearn for "the good 'ol days" of the antebellum south.
For hundreds of years, the idea of "whiteness" in America was used primarily to identify a group that for the most part had nothing exclusively in common except as that of oppressors.
What exactly is "white heritage" anyway?
Precisely. The breadth of Native American genetic and cultural diversity was every bit as large as that of Europeans, and compressing it into a single category has the same problems as compressing all the cultures constituting "white" into a single category. If your connection to your tiny fraction of native ancestry is so insubstantial you can't be more specific than "someone from north or south america", you're unfortunately just not a member of that culture.
Many white Americans are unsatisfied with not having a specific ancestral identity and hence play these games with distant ancestors.
Precisely. The breadth of Native American genetic and cultural diversity was every bit as large as that of Europeans, and compressing it into a single category has the same problems as compressing all the cultures constituting "white" into a single category. If your connection to your tiny fraction of native ancestry is so insubstantial you can't be more specific than "someone from north or south america", you're unfortunately just not a member of that culture.
Many white Americans are unsatisfied with not having a specific ancestral identity and hence play these games with distant ancestors.
I don't know if you realize this, but complaining that "compressing all the cultures constituting "white" into a single category" is a problem, and then talking about "white Americans" in the next sentence as if that is a single cultural label is a self-contradiction.
The complaint two comments up about the "mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with" is an even stronger one.
EDIT: downvote all you want, it doesn't take away the contradiction of insisting on hanging on to an identity of "whiteness" while denying the history behind it.
The complaint two comments up about the "mild but persistent impression that white heritage isn't something to celebrate or positively self-identify with" is an even stronger one.
EDIT: downvote all you want, it doesn't take away the contradiction of insisting on hanging on to an identity of "whiteness" while denying the history behind it.
"European" isn't a culture but that doesn't stop Europeans from being a definable category of people. "Blue-eyed people" isn't a culture either but I can refer to people with blue eyes as a group.
"white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races, which is why it traditionally excluded people like the Irish and Italians, along with the obvious African peoples traded as slaves, who unlike the former groups can never "ascend" to "whiteness" no matter how much political or cultural capital they accumulate.
In the modern day, it has lost much of its explicitly racist connotations (except, obviously, when explicitly used in the original context by racists,) but just tends to mean "a person who looks white (until proven otherwise)" or "of European descent," the former of which isn't really related to culture, and the latter being so vague as to be useless as a cultural referent.
In the modern day, it has lost much of its explicitly racist connotations (except, obviously, when explicitly used in the original context by racists,) but just tends to mean "a person who looks white (until proven otherwise)" or "of European descent," the former of which isn't really related to culture, and the latter being so vague as to be useless as a cultural referent.
I'd go further and say that "whiteness" is just a form of the otherisum. A mechanism for establishing in and out groups to determine the potential for favorable and unfavorable social relationships. Whiteness is generally defined as people that look like, speak like and behave like a greater homogeneous population group. Each homogeneous group sets their own measure (bar) for inclusion. For instance. not all light skinned Europeans meet the standard for inclusion in small American towns. In general, the smaller and more homogeneous the population, the smaller the genetic ingroup.
>"white" as a claim of culture or heritage, only exists in the context of white supremacy. The concept of "whiteness" was invented during the days of the slave trade as a means of establishing racial classification and hierarchy - to contrast the superior "white" race with inferior "non-white" races
Isn't black exactly the same thing? A completely madeup racial category invented by white slavers to conveniently deny a group their humanity? And isn't it further possible that, after these racial groups were invented, actually real cultural identities began forming around them to the point where the invented categories had reified into something kinda real?
Isn't black exactly the same thing? A completely madeup racial category invented by white slavers to conveniently deny a group their humanity? And isn't it further possible that, after these racial groups were invented, actually real cultural identities began forming around them to the point where the invented categories had reified into something kinda real?
> to the point where the invented categories had reified into something kinda real
The "kinda" in that sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's a "real" social construct. It's not "real" in the sense of representing "real" human nature, or a "real" order of how things ought to be, which is how that social construct is wielded in practice.
The "kinda" in that sentence is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's a "real" social construct. It's not "real" in the sense of representing "real" human nature, or a "real" order of how things ought to be, which is how that social construct is wielded in practice.
Right, plenty of things are social constructs. Race, gender, laws, money. Arguing over whether these things are real or not is, I think, missing the point. The real argument should be over whether they're beneficial concepts or not.
I get the problem with claiming it to sound 'exotic' or whatever - exactly as you mention - this is 'entitlement' to sound special - but -
Thinking differently -
5 generations is also (assuming childbirth at 25 and not carefully auditing for off-by-ones):
1 generation of 1:1 mix, 4 generations ago (b. 1897)
1 generation of 1:2 mix, 3 generations ago (b. 1922)
1 generation of 1:3 mix, 2 generations ago (b. 1947)
1 generation of 1:4 mix, 1 generations ago (b. 1972)
1 generation of 1:5 mix, now. (b. 1997)
In other words - 50% of your parenting influence descends from 4 generations of mixed marriages, and the entire mixed lineage begins approx ~100 years ago where it certainly would be a huge factor in daily life. It's quite possible that you may have even met the original couple or their immediate children, and very likely that you met or had extended contact with the 25% generation who in turn almost certainly was extremely impacted by the preceding 2 generations.
Pretty sure there is some cultural trace either overtly or in the form of inherited scars.
The reason many mixed don't know much about their fraction is because their ancestors were put in indian schools and married off to anglo settlers or any number of other far worse 'ethnic cleansing' atrocities. Whatever in-depth discussion remained was likely suppressed or downplayed to facilitate assimilation, leaving only hints and impressions behind in the people. At this point there is no way for them to know anything more about their past even if they wanted to.
pretending it's nothing only makes it worse and grows the divide to the past - which itself is a shift away from native views of history and connectedness to ancestors
Thinking differently -
5 generations is also (assuming childbirth at 25 and not carefully auditing for off-by-ones):
1 generation of 1:1 mix, 4 generations ago (b. 1897)
1 generation of 1:2 mix, 3 generations ago (b. 1922)
1 generation of 1:3 mix, 2 generations ago (b. 1947)
1 generation of 1:4 mix, 1 generations ago (b. 1972)
1 generation of 1:5 mix, now. (b. 1997)
In other words - 50% of your parenting influence descends from 4 generations of mixed marriages, and the entire mixed lineage begins approx ~100 years ago where it certainly would be a huge factor in daily life. It's quite possible that you may have even met the original couple or their immediate children, and very likely that you met or had extended contact with the 25% generation who in turn almost certainly was extremely impacted by the preceding 2 generations.
Pretty sure there is some cultural trace either overtly or in the form of inherited scars.
The reason many mixed don't know much about their fraction is because their ancestors were put in indian schools and married off to anglo settlers or any number of other far worse 'ethnic cleansing' atrocities. Whatever in-depth discussion remained was likely suppressed or downplayed to facilitate assimilation, leaving only hints and impressions behind in the people. At this point there is no way for them to know anything more about their past even if they wanted to.
pretending it's nothing only makes it worse and grows the divide to the past - which itself is a shift away from native views of history and connectedness to ancestors
What do you identify with if every ethnic group in your ancestry is ~1/32 or less? It’s not like European was a single ethnicity. Roma isn’t Basque isn’t Bashkir isn’t Jewish etc.
Of course Native American isn’t a single ethnicity either, but you might be able to trace that back to say Inuit and actually have a specific culture to identify with. Where being say 1/16th black tells you little to nothing about the culture of that part of your ancestry.
Of course Native American isn’t a single ethnicity either, but you might be able to trace that back to say Inuit and actually have a specific culture to identify with. Where being say 1/16th black tells you little to nothing about the culture of that part of your ancestry.
You identify with your real identity. Unless your genetic heritage has an actual, unmistakable impact on your life (e.g., being black, being clearly Native American, etc) it's no more relevant to who you are than your eye color. It might be nice to be a member of a distinct ethno-cultural group but nobody is entitled to it, and if your ethnic identity is so ambiguous that it's possible for you to be mistaken about it then it isn't all that relevant to your life. I can point to a genetic test and say "Here are my fractions from Irish, German, Native American" but pretending any of them represent a greater influence on my identity than "ambiguously-white American man" would make me a play-acting fool.
If you must identify with some group, there is regional variation of lived experience within the US. Growing up in New York is a good deal different than growing up in San Diego. The outlooks and practices of people in that region form culture. It may not be an ancient culture or associated with genetic trends, but at least it's something you've actually experienced.
That said, I don't like when people ask me where I grew up because I immediately feel judged for something I had no say in.
That said, I don't like when people ask me where I grew up because I immediately feel judged for something I had no say in.
I mean maybe he never said anything because it's so tangential. My family is from Mexico and I'm 1/4th native. I've literally never heard anyone mention anything about it because it's practically meaningless. It doesn't afford any special treatment in the US, and DEFINITELY not in Mexico.
The only tribe I ever hear this brought up about is Cherokee lol
The only tribe I ever hear this brought up about is Cherokee lol
This reminds me of people in Soviet Union who chose to write “Russian” as their ethnicity in passport despite different ancestry (yes, there was such section in Soviet and later Russian passports until 1990s). Indigenous people of Siberia or Caucasus, Germans and Jews too familiar of ethnic prejudices were redefining their identity to open career opportunities. You could take either ethnicity of your father or your mother, being Russian was often considered the safest bet.
>I am actively trying to learn about the cultural heritage I was denied apparently largely due to fear of violent white supremacists, basically.
At something like the 1/16th level, it doesn't mean anything anyway (not even to white supremacists, but much less so as a real heritage). A heritage is the shared experiences, raising, and cultural connection, not about some miniscule bloodline/dna.
Unless we're talking about isolated inter-breeding populations, almost all people several 1/16ths of one or another ethnicity, that they have absolutely no connection with in any way (or ever cared about).
At something like the 1/16th level, it doesn't mean anything anyway (not even to white supremacists, but much less so as a real heritage). A heritage is the shared experiences, raising, and cultural connection, not about some miniscule bloodline/dna.
Unless we're talking about isolated inter-breeding populations, almost all people several 1/16ths of one or another ethnicity, that they have absolutely no connection with in any way (or ever cared about).
You seem to be mistaking "I want to know about the history of the people I come from" for "I want to know how the history of the people I come from impacts my everyday life". It's entirely possible to be curious your ancestry because it's part of the long path that leads to you existing.
I don't generally talk about my 1/32nd heritage, but there is a photograph of my great great great grandmother on the wall of my parents' house and I grew up with it there.
Your dismissive attitude is entirely inappropriate. I think it is commendable to be interested in learning about the parts of your family history that may have been suppressed out of racism or fear or racist retaliation.
Your dismissive attitude is entirely inappropriate. I think it is commendable to be interested in learning about the parts of your family history that may have been suppressed out of racism or fear or racist retaliation.
Was it really suppressed? I literally couldn't tell you anything about any of my great great grandparents, and the only thing I know about my great grandparents is that two of them used to own a bakery. I don't know any of their names. Sometimes history is just forgotten without any nefarious reasons, it's just stuff that doesn't matter anymore and the people it's about are long dead.
Different families and people place different priorities on passing those stories along. I personally had the good fortune of having one great grandmother who lived long enough for me to have many memories of her. I'm also lucky that other people in my family have taken the time to document many of tge stories that I don't know.
There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
> I personally had the good fortune of having one great grandmother who lived long enough for me to have many memories of her. I'm also lucky that other people in my family have taken the time to document many of the stories that I don't know.
I think my great grandmother lived until I was somewhere in my teens. I inherited her TV when she died. I've still forgotten her name. Does it really matter? In the end we'll all be forgotten, and that is fine, because once you're dead you're gone. I wouldn't want my descendants to keep looking back, they should be looking forward.
> There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
In your opinion, what would be the cut-off for "important" family history? How many dead and gone generations should we expect younger generations to remember?
I'm not saying Doreen is lying, I'm just saying that history naturally fades (unless you're Jesus or Hitler or something. Even then truth and myth will blur over time) and there usually isn't anything nefarious about that. Perhaps she's reading too much in it. With every generation you go back your number of new ancestors doubles (up to some point). Some of those people will be boring. Others maybe weren't interested in their family history (such as myself) and will effectively be a dead end.
> There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I think very few would object to people being interested in their family history (although some might find it a frivolous pursuit). It's the word "heritage" that makes me roll my eyes. If something wasn't part of your upbringing, then to me it's not part of your heritage.
> I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
Saving myself a lot of time now at the cost of potentially disappointing a curious member of a future generation seems like a good trade-off. Doubly so when it possibly prevents them from claiming a "heritage".
I think my great grandmother lived until I was somewhere in my teens. I inherited her TV when she died. I've still forgotten her name. Does it really matter? In the end we'll all be forgotten, and that is fine, because once you're dead you're gone. I wouldn't want my descendants to keep looking back, they should be looking forward.
> There are many reasons why these stories aren't passd on (often is is just that younger generations don't ask enough questions) but there is no reason not to take Doreen at her word about why her didn't talk about that part of the family tree much.
In your opinion, what would be the cut-off for "important" family history? How many dead and gone generations should we expect younger generations to remember?
I'm not saying Doreen is lying, I'm just saying that history naturally fades (unless you're Jesus or Hitler or something. Even then truth and myth will blur over time) and there usually isn't anything nefarious about that. Perhaps she's reading too much in it. With every generation you go back your number of new ancestors doubles (up to some point). Some of those people will be boring. Others maybe weren't interested in their family history (such as myself) and will effectively be a dead end.
> There certainly is no call to belittle people's interest in their heritages and family history, especially when they could learn stories about their family history that might be lost.
I think very few would object to people being interested in their family history (although some might find it a frivolous pursuit). It's the word "heritage" that makes me roll my eyes. If something wasn't part of your upbringing, then to me it's not part of your heritage.
> I sincerely advise to to ask any older living relatives to tell you what they can about your great grandparents (and consider recording those stories). You might not care now, but those stories do disappear with time and you or future generations of your family could find them very valuable.
Saving myself a lot of time now at the cost of potentially disappointing a curious member of a future generation seems like a good trade-off. Doubly so when it possibly prevents them from claiming a "heritage".
> a lot of Natives are quite vocal about hating the whole idea of blood quantum
Not to be too rude about it, but everybody outside the US hates it. Go to any European forum and see how they roll their eyes when an American says "I'm half Irish, quarter Norwegian and 342/2636ths Italian."
There's a tendency to treat ethnicity as a clothing accessory rather than a culture.
Not to be too rude about it, but everybody outside the US hates it. Go to any European forum and see how they roll their eyes when an American says "I'm half Irish, quarter Norwegian and 342/2636ths Italian."
There's a tendency to treat ethnicity as a clothing accessory rather than a culture.
[deleted]
There's a reason for people to hate it... it's a tool used for something similar to genocide, only instead of killing the individuals (like they did in the past) it is used to reduce the population out of existence over time. To get benefits as a tribal member, you need to have a blood quantum over a certain amount. That means native populations are guaranteed to shrink because there are fewer and fewer 'full bloods'.
It's also incredibly racist, when you get down to it. Does a white person need to be able to trace their lineage to claim they are white, or any other race, for that matter?
When you talk to Cherokee people, most of them are very clear that if you are part of the Cherokee culture, you're Cherokee. Throughout history, they have 'adopted' people of other races into their tribes, and those people married and had children. If an adopted white man married and adopted white woman, their children would be considered full blood, regardless of their skin color. So from a Cherokee perspective (and I assume any tribes that behaved similarly) the measure of a Cherokee is whether they are a part of the Cherokee culture, rather than what their genealogy shows.
It's also incredibly racist, when you get down to it. Does a white person need to be able to trace their lineage to claim they are white, or any other race, for that matter?
When you talk to Cherokee people, most of them are very clear that if you are part of the Cherokee culture, you're Cherokee. Throughout history, they have 'adopted' people of other races into their tribes, and those people married and had children. If an adopted white man married and adopted white woman, their children would be considered full blood, regardless of their skin color. So from a Cherokee perspective (and I assume any tribes that behaved similarly) the measure of a Cherokee is whether they are a part of the Cherokee culture, rather than what their genealogy shows.
[deleted]
> It's still significant because it speaks to people being more willing to admit to being part Native.
More people are proud to proclaim being First Nations people.
More people are proud to proclaim being First Nations people.
It's not the 1/<big number> that annoys people. It's the "claim the heritage because of the results, but otherwise didn't know about it, or have any real relation (demographic, cultural, etc)" part that annoys people.
And when someone is called out for this the inevitable response is "blood quantum is deeply offensive" crap which misses the whole point. If you sever ties with a culture for many generations you cease to be that culture. Someone who's great^N granddaddy banged a slave is no more African than an Nth generation American is <insert European culture here>
And when someone is called out for this the inevitable response is "blood quantum is deeply offensive" crap which misses the whole point. If you sever ties with a culture for many generations you cease to be that culture. Someone who's great^N granddaddy banged a slave is no more African than an Nth generation American is <insert European culture here>
> Someone who's great^N granddaddy banged a slave is
... the great grandchild of a slave?
if that were me i'd have many questions about the situation and how it impacted the next generation, etc.
this is the problem with dismissal -
it facilitates or accelerates the process of suppressing the history.
... the great grandchild of a slave?
if that were me i'd have many questions about the situation and how it impacted the next generation, etc.
this is the problem with dismissal -
it facilitates or accelerates the process of suppressing the history.
How do you go about learning more? I'm trying to do the same
I follow Natives on Twitter and by far I mostly read rather than engage.
It's hard to figure out how to publicly engage with someone I don't know on what is inevitably a touchy subject, so I try hard to not be one of those white assholes making demands. I try to listen and absorb instead of inserting myself. But I feel like listening to actual Natives is one of the better things I can do to learn about Natives.
I follow some Reddits. I read articles.
I keep notes and periodically try to do a little writing for my own edification, to help me process the info. Because there are two parts to the equation: someone "talking" and someone listening and it can be hard to clearly understand something when a lifetime of bias and what not is garbling your perception. I've done a lot of therapy and I'm familiar with the process of taking some time to let it sink in and become clearer to me what I'm looking at as opposed to what I'm projecting onto it.
It's hard to figure out how to publicly engage with someone I don't know on what is inevitably a touchy subject, so I try hard to not be one of those white assholes making demands. I try to listen and absorb instead of inserting myself. But I feel like listening to actual Natives is one of the better things I can do to learn about Natives.
I follow some Reddits. I read articles.
I keep notes and periodically try to do a little writing for my own edification, to help me process the info. Because there are two parts to the equation: someone "talking" and someone listening and it can be hard to clearly understand something when a lifetime of bias and what not is garbling your perception. I've done a lot of therapy and I'm familiar with the process of taking some time to let it sink in and become clearer to me what I'm looking at as opposed to what I'm projecting onto it.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
> Does this mean those are random "1/16th native american" WASPs and such, that claim the heritage because of the results, but otherwise didn't know about it, or have any real relation (demographic, cultural, etc) with native americans?
In the theory under which “race” is meaningful, it is biological and distinct from (and orthogonal to) social “ethnic” categories, so claiming race on that basis is exactly as valid as the idea of race itself.
Now, if we admit that “race” is just a dishonest label assigned to certain ethnic categories...
In the theory under which “race” is meaningful, it is biological and distinct from (and orthogonal to) social “ethnic” categories, so claiming race on that basis is exactly as valid as the idea of race itself.
Now, if we admit that “race” is just a dishonest label assigned to certain ethnic categories...
> In the theory under which “race” is meaningful, it is biological and distinct from (and orthogonal to) social “ethnic” categories, so claiming race on that basis is exactly as valid as the idea of race itself.
But even on that basis, 1/16 is not very meaningful.
> Now, if we admit that “race” is just a dishonest label assigned to certain ethnic categories...
...then we're looking at demographic groups, like the earlier comment asked about.
But even on that basis, 1/16 is not very meaningful.
> Now, if we admit that “race” is just a dishonest label assigned to certain ethnic categories...
...then we're looking at demographic groups, like the earlier comment asked about.
> 1/16 is not very meaningful.
To you... Many people find it meaningful including American Indian tribes which require ancestry of that amount.
To you... Many people find it meaningful including American Indian tribes which require ancestry of that amount.
[deleted]
I'd say, it's a broader concept that includes many ethnic groups with similar geographical origins and/or backgrounds and shared ancestries. Not that precise of course and with fuzzy edges...
I'm confused here - are you saying that ethnic categories are social constructs?
I’m 90% sure future historians will look back on this race to four significant digits trend the way we look at Victorian numerology. Correlated to real phenomena. But self obsessed to the point of irrelevance.
Yes, and thats interesting and important.
People begin inquisitiveness and empathy after realizing they are part of a uniquely North American diaspora. Its really not about being a poser or trying to get an obscure scholarship. The inquisitiveness leads to finding relatives and members of a tribe thought disbanded or eradicated, reconnecting by fractional blood can lead to being eligible for recognition, land and some degrees of sovereignty.
People begin inquisitiveness and empathy after realizing they are part of a uniquely North American diaspora. Its really not about being a poser or trying to get an obscure scholarship. The inquisitiveness leads to finding relatives and members of a tribe thought disbanded or eradicated, reconnecting by fractional blood can lead to being eligible for recognition, land and some degrees of sovereignty.
Not to nitpick, but totally nit picking. I don’t think people of NA heritage (in NA) would be considered a diaspora
Many were relocated, and the dilution of the knowledge of even the locations of other members counts to me.
I’d be interested to see the data. Black people are vastly more likely to have Native American DNA than WASPs because it was common until about 1750 for slave owners to buy/trade for female slaves with the Native American tribes.
"Their conclusions were that while almost all African Americans are racially mixed, and many have family stories of Native heritage, usually these stories turn out to be inaccurate, with only 5 percent of African American people showing more than 2 percent Native American ancestry. Gates summarized these statistics to mean that, "If you have 2 percent Native American ancestry, you had one such ancestor on your family tree five to nine generations back (150 to 270 years ago)." Their findings also concluded that the most common "non-black" mix among African Americans is English and Scots-Irish."
Just as an aside, I feel like "Scots-Irish" is a fairly uniquely American phrase which you don't really hear in Scotland or Ireland. There are a couple of possible interpretations and always I wonder which is meant:
1. Ulster-Scots, i.e. the Scottish people who moved into northern part of Ireland (now all of Northern Ireland plus a couple of counties in Ireland)
2. Some Irish and some Scottish, i.e. they have ancestors from both places and want a word to describe this
3. Generally celtic, i.e. they know it's Ireland or Scotland or maybe both and want to cover their bases
Neither is particularly harmful, but I kind of wish some people understood that #1 is a distinct thing
1. Ulster-Scots, i.e. the Scottish people who moved into northern part of Ireland (now all of Northern Ireland plus a couple of counties in Ireland)
2. Some Irish and some Scottish, i.e. they have ancestors from both places and want a word to describe this
3. Generally celtic, i.e. they know it's Ireland or Scotland or maybe both and want to cover their bases
Neither is particularly harmful, but I kind of wish some people understood that #1 is a distinct thing
The overwhelmingly most common usage is #1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans).
Right so this is what I meant. I've seen a few people proudly declaring their Scotch-Irish ancestry and in the same breath cursing those awful Brits who colonised Ireland (without realising that is technically the ancestors they are proud of). Like I'm not expecting anyone to be ashamed or anything, but a little awareness goes a long way and can save a few awkward situations
There's a reason why hillbillies are hillbillies, and it's not just because it sounds good.
(People in those parts of the country are disproportionately likely to be Scotch-Irish, and therefore to have an ancestor who named a child after William III).
(People in those parts of the country are disproportionately likely to be Scotch-Irish, and therefore to have an ancestor who named a child after William III).
Interesting, that's a new one on me! Thanks
> a little awareness goes a long way and can save a few awkward situations
if society ever gets this right about northern ireland it will be a good day for everyone :)
if society ever gets this right about northern ireland it will be a good day for everyone :)
(Ricardo Montalban opens cigar box.) "Cuban?"
It was a distinct cultural group who were largely outcasts in both Scotland and Ireland, and lived in certain specific areas of both nations. The majority left for north America because of their treatment in the British Isles.
This is covered in significant detail in "Albion's Seed", among others.
This is covered in significant detail in "Albion's Seed", among others.
I know what they were. My point is that many people use this and don't seem to properly understand it and appear to be think that it means definition #2 or #3. See the example I gave: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29992408
Yes, quite likely. Also in order to be accurate DNA services need to have enough samples (of the group and the geographic region) to be accurate otherwise they can be misleading.
Eh or it’s due to racism. I as a “white” skinned person often hesitate to put my race down for a multitude of reasons.
My family has moved to a new country every hundred-ish years so it’s hard to pin down a specific race anyways.
My family has moved to a new country every hundred-ish years so it’s hard to pin down a specific race anyways.
I can only speak from my observation of the tribes local to me.
In the 80s and early 90s the reservation was very poor on average (entire area is/was rural so it wasn't just on the res but it was significantly worse there). If you have ever watched the movie "Smoke signals" it has scenes shot which depict life on the local reservation (Coeur d'Alene tribe). Since the mid 90s or so things changed very rapidly for the tribe. The people are healthier, the infrastructure is better and the population seems to be growing and overall happier (again...observations).
What changed? Casinos.
Our local tribe went from being very poor with seemingly little voice in local politics to "very important" to the local community. They have not only improved their own lives but also invest heavily in improving the region and have a focus on things like the lake and natural preservation. Again...from my general observations...
In the 80s and early 90s the reservation was very poor on average (entire area is/was rural so it wasn't just on the res but it was significantly worse there). If you have ever watched the movie "Smoke signals" it has scenes shot which depict life on the local reservation (Coeur d'Alene tribe). Since the mid 90s or so things changed very rapidly for the tribe. The people are healthier, the infrastructure is better and the population seems to be growing and overall happier (again...observations).
What changed? Casinos.
Our local tribe went from being very poor with seemingly little voice in local politics to "very important" to the local community. They have not only improved their own lives but also invest heavily in improving the region and have a focus on things like the lake and natural preservation. Again...from my general observations...
Economically, casinos are a mixed bag for tribes. The ones that have been successful are super successful, but many other tribes operating casinos find themselves spending money on gaming that doesn’t pay off.
It makes a certain intuitive sense; a lot of reservation land was, unfortunately, poor land in the middle of nowhere. Building a casino in the middle of nowhere won’t do you any good, so the tribes that profit are the ones with proximity to major population centers (see: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in CT; Winstar and Chocktaw in OK). It ends up coming down to luck and location more than anything else.
It makes a certain intuitive sense; a lot of reservation land was, unfortunately, poor land in the middle of nowhere. Building a casino in the middle of nowhere won’t do you any good, so the tribes that profit are the ones with proximity to major population centers (see: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in CT; Winstar and Chocktaw in OK). It ends up coming down to luck and location more than anything else.
I also can only speak to the tribes near me, but casinos only help if the reservation is near people. The poorest US counties are mostly either places with a prison or a reservation, the lowest median household income is Buffalo County in South Dakota with a casino of it's own.
A couple of very large settlements [1], one being $452M, can go a long way to helping a poor community.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeur_d%27Alene_people#Environ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeur_d%27Alene_people#Environ...
Without the casino opening in 1993 would they have been able to afford to gain traction on that suit?
The whole lake should be a superfund site...but that would have ruined tourism. The Silver valley has been well known and from what I know is the only area really being actively "cleaned".
Cd'a, Spokane, Kalispel and Chewelah all opened tribal casinos and a few of them did fairly well.
As others have stated...proximity to a fairly large metropolitan area helps bring in traffic. Not to mention the area is on/near the junction of 2 major highways (I-90 and US95), airport, tourism...etc.
Cd'a, Spokane, Kalispel and Chewelah all opened tribal casinos and a few of them did fairly well.
As others have stated...proximity to a fairly large metropolitan area helps bring in traffic. Not to mention the area is on/near the junction of 2 major highways (I-90 and US95), airport, tourism...etc.
>I-90
Fun fact, the poorest county's casino I mentioned in my other post is 20 miles off of I-90 as well. Interstates are funny like that.
Fun fact, the poorest county's casino I mentioned in my other post is 20 miles off of I-90 as well. Interstates are funny like that.
Yeah...Spokane/Cd'A area isn't a small region. Even though it borders rural.
I was told once it was the largest metropolitan area on I90 between Seattle and Minneapolis. There is a lot of nothing out there.
I was told once it was the largest metropolitan area on I90 between Seattle and Minneapolis. There is a lot of nothing out there.
I'm in favor of removing the race question from the census. It proliferates collectivist thinking (my people/kin vs others, based on bloodlines or appearance) over individualism. It is also used as a justification for implementing discriminatory policies, ironically in the name of fighting discrimination.
The census exists to inform policy. If there is discrimination based on race, then we're better off measuring it so we can address it than burying our heads in the sand.
Of course, this may lead to targeted policies, just as insulin is applied to people with a diabetes diagnosis, and not to the general population.
Of course, this may lead to targeted policies, just as insulin is applied to people with a diabetes diagnosis, and not to the general population.
The comparison to diabetes has one major flaw. You either have or don't have diabetes and the fact that you are tested for it does not change your diabetes status. You can only measure it, but your measurement won't alter the situation.
But by constantly reminding people of their racial category, a feedback loop is created. The more are people defined by their race, the more important will they consider their racial category. They will also start viewing more interactions through the race angle, especially the negative ones. Not "the policeman was rude because he is an asshole", but "the policeman was rude because I am of a different race from him".
I cannot imagine a scenario where constant race consciousness leads to people being less concerned about anything that can be construed as racially charged.
But by constantly reminding people of their racial category, a feedback loop is created. The more are people defined by their race, the more important will they consider their racial category. They will also start viewing more interactions through the race angle, especially the negative ones. Not "the policeman was rude because he is an asshole", but "the policeman was rude because I am of a different race from him".
I cannot imagine a scenario where constant race consciousness leads to people being less concerned about anything that can be construed as racially charged.
The goal is, indeed, to make people more concerned about things that can be construed as racially charged, because of the first step to addressing inequity is to identify it. There are very many people who see what are obvious instances of structural racism (including the police interaction example you highlighted) and will fight tooth and claw to assert that no racism was involved. The result is apathy, lack of improvement, and continued racially-charged interactions between police and citizens. Pretending they aren't racially charged doesn't make them go away.
Before positive changes can be made, people need to recognize that do-nothing mindset is very common. On this, two days after Martin Luther King Jr Day, it may be value for us all to reflect on his words on the difference between the peace of the absence of tension and the peace of the presence of justice.
Before positive changes can be made, people need to recognize that do-nothing mindset is very common. On this, two days after Martin Luther King Jr Day, it may be value for us all to reflect on his words on the difference between the peace of the absence of tension and the peace of the presence of justice.
Identity is a wedge used to split class solidarity (but note the terrific solidarity of the elite class). The best improvements for everyone will come from policies which ignore identity and materially improve the lives of people.
The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities, that is, without having to do anything at all.
But the middle and lower classes will never find solidarity amongst themselves so long as we are fixated on identity, and nothing will change (that's the point).
The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities, that is, without having to do anything at all.
But the middle and lower classes will never find solidarity amongst themselves so long as we are fixated on identity, and nothing will change (that's the point).
Funny thing: the DNC agrees with you, at least right up until an identity has sufficient popular support.
I already expounded way more than was worth the effort on here recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29981488
As someone on the boot-end of people who chant "no politics maaaaan, just vibin', peace and love with no ideology" to distract from the boot, I vehemently disagree.
I already expounded way more than was worth the effort on here recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29981488
As someone on the boot-end of people who chant "no politics maaaaan, just vibin', peace and love with no ideology" to distract from the boot, I vehemently disagree.
> Identity is a wedge used to split class solidarity (but note the terrific solidarity of the elite class).
It's not, inherently, though it can be used that way, which is the essence of bourgeois identity politics, which is a distinct subset of identity politics.
> The best improvements for everyone will come from policies which ignore identity and materially improve the lives of people.
Identity is often intimately tied to distinct material circumstances; policies that “ignore identity and materially improves the loves of people”, without exception, ignore the distinct material circumstances of identifiable groups of people while improving the material circumstances of other groups of people, and invariably do so in ways which favor the groups most privileged by visibility in the status quo.
> The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities
That's very much not true of either of the major factions of the Democratic Party. The dominant neoliberal centrist faction actively doesn't want to deal with the economic inequalities more than is necessary to smooth out social disruptions interfering with corporate capitalist profit making (though it does want to deal with legal inequalities that impede efficient exploitation of human potential by capital), to the point of being willing to have the party lose power rather than doing more than is necessary to that end, whereas the progressive populist wing actively wants to deal with the problems.
And neither faction is so ignorant of the political realities of the US system to expect that the party is secure in it's (extremely narrow) federal legislative majority or control of the White House.
It's not, inherently, though it can be used that way, which is the essence of bourgeois identity politics, which is a distinct subset of identity politics.
> The best improvements for everyone will come from policies which ignore identity and materially improve the lives of people.
Identity is often intimately tied to distinct material circumstances; policies that “ignore identity and materially improves the loves of people”, without exception, ignore the distinct material circumstances of identifiable groups of people while improving the material circumstances of other groups of people, and invariably do so in ways which favor the groups most privileged by visibility in the status quo.
> The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities
That's very much not true of either of the major factions of the Democratic Party. The dominant neoliberal centrist faction actively doesn't want to deal with the economic inequalities more than is necessary to smooth out social disruptions interfering with corporate capitalist profit making (though it does want to deal with legal inequalities that impede efficient exploitation of human potential by capital), to the point of being willing to have the party lose power rather than doing more than is necessary to that end, whereas the progressive populist wing actively wants to deal with the problems.
And neither faction is so ignorant of the political realities of the US system to expect that the party is secure in it's (extremely narrow) federal legislative majority or control of the White House.
> Identity is often intimately tied to distinct material circumstances
Not so fast. Au courant are stories around data disaggregation, highlighting that Asian Americans in NYC have the highest poverty rate (also noted is the way this runs counter to popular perceptions). But rather than splitting up the populace in increasingly finer-grained ways, why don't we just do something to address the poverty in our society?
To wit, yes we agree the DNC does want to do anything about poverty or economic inequalities in general. They are happy to stage photo ops while draped in kente cloth but they will never do anything to improve the material circumstances of the lower classes.
> The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities
>> That's very much not true of either of the major factions of the Democratic Party.
You mean the neoliberal and conservative wings of the Democratic party? I assume "the squad" knows how to use political power as well as Manchin, but the fact that they don't indicates they, too, simply use identity as a means to the ends of the donor class.
Not so fast. Au courant are stories around data disaggregation, highlighting that Asian Americans in NYC have the highest poverty rate (also noted is the way this runs counter to popular perceptions). But rather than splitting up the populace in increasingly finer-grained ways, why don't we just do something to address the poverty in our society?
To wit, yes we agree the DNC does want to do anything about poverty or economic inequalities in general. They are happy to stage photo ops while draped in kente cloth but they will never do anything to improve the material circumstances of the lower classes.
> The Democratic party has held the belief that demographics will keep them in power without having to actually address economic and legal inequalities
>> That's very much not true of either of the major factions of the Democratic Party.
You mean the neoliberal and conservative wings of the Democratic party? I assume "the squad" knows how to use political power as well as Manchin, but the fact that they don't indicates they, too, simply use identity as a means to the ends of the donor class.
> But rather than splitting up the populace in increasingly finer-grained ways, why don't we just do something to address the poverty in our society?
Because the actual specific dynamics are different for different parts of society; when you try to address the problem without regard to those differences, which tend to be very closely tied to identity because they are one of the things that forges shared identities, you end up addressing the broad problem in the way which address the way that problem manifests in the most dominant group primarily.
> I assume "the squad" knows how to use political power as well as Manchin,
Better, probably.
> but the fact that they don't
Uh, they do.
What they don't do is have the position Manchin (or Sinema) does by virtue of the 50-50 balance in the Senate, and the reliable support of Republicans when they oppose the rest of the Democratic Party.
Because the actual specific dynamics are different for different parts of society; when you try to address the problem without regard to those differences, which tend to be very closely tied to identity because they are one of the things that forges shared identities, you end up addressing the broad problem in the way which address the way that problem manifests in the most dominant group primarily.
> I assume "the squad" knows how to use political power as well as Manchin,
Better, probably.
> but the fact that they don't
Uh, they do.
What they don't do is have the position Manchin (or Sinema) does by virtue of the 50-50 balance in the Senate, and the reliable support of Republicans when they oppose the rest of the Democratic Party.
I hardly think a once a decade census is "constantly reminding people of their racial catagory". From my experience, it would be the rascists doing the constant reminding, and not just the cross burning kinds. I've met all kinds of rascists.
Every one of my very white looking kids has fielded questions about that dark hispanic guy hanging around, or knocking on the door to pick them up. They've also been privy to rascist discussion that they've later shared with me, since people don't see them as non-white.
Heck, I didn't see myself as non-white until I moved to a rural school in the early 90's.
Every one of my very white looking kids has fielded questions about that dark hispanic guy hanging around, or knocking on the door to pick them up. They've also been privy to rascist discussion that they've later shared with me, since people don't see them as non-white.
Heck, I didn't see myself as non-white until I moved to a rural school in the early 90's.
But even Native American tribes mostly care about people who are culturally present in their tribes as members versus being of Native American race.
For example those whose ancestors didn't partake in the Dawes Roles are generally excluded from tribal membership even if they are genetically similar; the reasoning being they haven't been present as citizens in generations.
And really, what should we care about most? A particular hue of skin, or our values, principles, traditions, and history?
For example those whose ancestors didn't partake in the Dawes Roles are generally excluded from tribal membership even if they are genetically similar; the reasoning being they haven't been present as citizens in generations.
And really, what should we care about most? A particular hue of skin, or our values, principles, traditions, and history?
> And really, what should we care about most? A particular hue of skin, or our values, principles, traditions, and history?
That's always been a hard question to answer when there's an existing reality and history in which the "should" in your first sentence is replaced by "do". It's easy to say that it would be best to start doing the right thing today (or even yesterday); much harder to do that after centuries of doing the wrong thing.
That's always been a hard question to answer when there's an existing reality and history in which the "should" in your first sentence is replaced by "do". It's easy to say that it would be best to start doing the right thing today (or even yesterday); much harder to do that after centuries of doing the wrong thing.
> census exists to inform policy
Race is a social construct. The census strengthens that construct. OP’s argument is that race should be a weaker construct, which is a legitimate if debatable argument.
Race is a social construct. The census strengthens that construct. OP’s argument is that race should be a weaker construct, which is a legitimate if debatable argument.
Second OP's point is that yes, race is a social construct, with clear and consistent impacts in real people's lives every day. The census exists to measure things that may be used to inform policy.
Therefore, something such as race, even if it is an arbitrary social construct used to divide based on nothing more than skin color, is important to measure against other factors such as income and address. It helps you decide when/where/what is being discriminatory.
Race should be a weaker social construct, yes. But living in Infinite Fun Space doesn't help anyone today in the real.
Therefore, something such as race, even if it is an arbitrary social construct used to divide based on nothing more than skin color, is important to measure against other factors such as income and address. It helps you decide when/where/what is being discriminatory.
Race should be a weaker social construct, yes. But living in Infinite Fun Space doesn't help anyone today in the real.
As pointed out elsewhere in the comments on this thread, the census may have accidentally ended up enforcing white hegemony in America. See the anecdotes of people suppressing the reporting of partial indigenous or African heritage in order to pass as white. The data made America look far more white than it ever was. And despite the recent trend I doubt the effect has vanished. Are we so sure we want to be using that data for policy?
I keep expecting (not hopefully) the establishment of "Trans Racial" people, where people want to be recognized as the race they identify as, rather than what they were labeled at birth. The logic is precisely the same as transgenderism. There have been a few cases, with the Rachel Dolezal case of 2015 getting a lot of attention.[1] I wonder if the status that transgenderism has achieved would make such a movement easier. Or, would it discredit such movements and "dysphoria" diagnoses? I mean, if we're going to alter/deny immutable traits, and if race is truly a "social construct", why wouldn't trans-racialism become a thing?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-r...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/washington-spokane-naacp-r...
I don't think trends and fashion are that aware of their own transience. For example, the rise of Christianity in a region hardly coincides with the rise of other forms of theism. But why not? If people are willing to believe in one imaginary superbeing, why not others whose logic is precisely the same as Christianity? Yet precisely the opposite happens - the one arbitrary belief is forced to delegitimize similar trends, in order to establish itself as not-just-another-arbitrary-theism.
Transgender people have only very recently been given the faintest legitimacy, and they naturally want to defend that against transracialists and otherkin and other movements that basically look like a parody of trans people. Even if their logic isn't fundamentally stronger than those other movements, transgender people have something that actually matters: a little bit of power.
Why should anyone sacrifice that to the altar of logic?
Transgender people have only very recently been given the faintest legitimacy, and they naturally want to defend that against transracialists and otherkin and other movements that basically look like a parody of trans people. Even if their logic isn't fundamentally stronger than those other movements, transgender people have something that actually matters: a little bit of power.
Why should anyone sacrifice that to the altar of logic?
Ignoring race doesn’t make it stop being a problem. We tried that from basically the 1980s till the mid-2000s and things really only got worse. Race may have stopped being on the minds of white people, but it is always on the minds of non-white people every time they interact with a white person. Not engaging on racial issues is why we had riots in 2020.
If you think things got worse for people since the 1980s, maybe you should start by digging a little deeper into how bad it used to be. And why would you think race has stopped being on the minds of any people? Do you have any evidence of this, because it sure strikes as utterly wrong given the non-stop ongoing national conversation about race.
No. Especially for the Native American population. It's important for us to have statistics on those with Native blood, especially since the government was entitled to legally kidnap children from family regardless of home stability as recently as 1978.
Did they actually use that power that recently, or was this one of those "200 year old law" situations?
Forced boarding schools were extensively used as forced assimilation up until 1978, when the Indian Child Welfare Act [1] was passed. These boarding schools were notoriously strict, often abusive[2], and often church-run [3]. This led to an unknown number of deaths in the Native children population, many of whom are only just now being discovered and identified [4,5]. Unfortunately, the ICWA has been under attack via the courts recently even though the United States has a history of abuse and maltreatment of Native American children [6].
1: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-popul... 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20121206131053/http://www.amnest... 3: https://web.archive.org/web/20050829051045/http://sacbee.com... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/us/native-american-boardi... 5: https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-graves-of-indigenous-c... 6: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_federal-judges-reconsider-indi...
I highly recommend Cecily Hilleary's relevant articles on VOA if you're unfamiliar of the grotesque and disturbing history of forced assimilation and cultural genocide through America's Indian Boarding schools. They are excellent primers on the topic, highlighting yet another example of the US's embarrassing treatment of America's indigenous population.
Examples of Cecily Hilleary's great investigative work on boarding schools and maltreatment of Native children:
- https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_oneida-nation-boarding-school-... - https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_native-americans-feds-own-amer... - https://www.voanews.com/a/indian-boarding-schools-outings-ap... - https://www.voanews.com/a/assessing-blame-for-deaths-of-indi... - https://www.voanews.com/a/scholars-work-to-untangle-the-comp...
Some recommended reading if you're interested in learning more about Indian boarding schools:
- https://www.amazon.com/Pipestone-Life-Indian-Boarding-School... - https://www.amazon.com/dp/0700629602/ref=wl_mb_wl_huc_mrai_2... - https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Five-Indian-Schoolboys-Omaha/d... - https://www.amazon.com/Stringing-Rosaries-Unforgivable-Conte... - https://www.amazon.com/Boarding-School-Blues-Educational-Exp... - https://www.amazon.com/They-Called-Me-Uncivilized-Everyday/d...
1: https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/diverse-popul... 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20121206131053/http://www.amnest... 3: https://web.archive.org/web/20050829051045/http://sacbee.com... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/us/native-american-boardi... 5: https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadian-graves-of-indigenous-c... 6: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_federal-judges-reconsider-indi...
I highly recommend Cecily Hilleary's relevant articles on VOA if you're unfamiliar of the grotesque and disturbing history of forced assimilation and cultural genocide through America's Indian Boarding schools. They are excellent primers on the topic, highlighting yet another example of the US's embarrassing treatment of America's indigenous population.
Examples of Cecily Hilleary's great investigative work on boarding schools and maltreatment of Native children:
- https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_oneida-nation-boarding-school-... - https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_native-americans-feds-own-amer... - https://www.voanews.com/a/indian-boarding-schools-outings-ap... - https://www.voanews.com/a/assessing-blame-for-deaths-of-indi... - https://www.voanews.com/a/scholars-work-to-untangle-the-comp...
Some recommended reading if you're interested in learning more about Indian boarding schools:
- https://www.amazon.com/Pipestone-Life-Indian-Boarding-School... - https://www.amazon.com/dp/0700629602/ref=wl_mb_wl_huc_mrai_2... - https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Five-Indian-Schoolboys-Omaha/d... - https://www.amazon.com/Stringing-Rosaries-Unforgivable-Conte... - https://www.amazon.com/Boarding-School-Blues-Educational-Exp... - https://www.amazon.com/They-Called-Me-Uncivilized-Everyday/d...
True. And, the question is now meaningless, too, because people can select multiple answers, and can base their choice(s) on self perception rather than actual lineage.
Racism is also based on perception and not actual lineages.
Trying to eliminate the concept of race for those that aren’t racist only further empowers the racists. You can’t jump the gun. In your personal life I think it’s good to end any acknowledgement of race, but you still need to keep the social dynamics in mind. Like an atheist in church, don’t go around yelling God’s not real. Sit down and think about how these people collectively keep this idea alive.
This should come as a surprise to no one. Many white people like to identify as some amount of some racial or cultural group that isn’t white. Whether that’s talking about a grandmother that was “full blooded” $tribe/nation or leaning into Irish/German/Italian/etc ancestry.
As white culture has become more and more generic due to mass media and little regional variation, many people are going to try to find something unique or “exotic” about themselves to make them stand out. It’s peacocking, both inwardly and outwardly focused. You see this especially strong in social and mating contexts (read: bars).
There’s a lot of problems with this, but primary is that it puts the Native American experience as one that exists only in the past. Not the reality of the lives lives by people belong to the various tribes and nations today.
As white culture has become more and more generic due to mass media and little regional variation, many people are going to try to find something unique or “exotic” about themselves to make them stand out. It’s peacocking, both inwardly and outwardly focused. You see this especially strong in social and mating contexts (read: bars).
There’s a lot of problems with this, but primary is that it puts the Native American experience as one that exists only in the past. Not the reality of the lives lives by people belong to the various tribes and nations today.
> As white culture has become more and more generic due to mass media and little regional variation, many people are going to try to find something unique or “exotic” about themselves to make them stand out. It’s peacocking, both inwardly and outwardly focused. You see this especially strong in social and mating contexts (read: bars).
That is not the reason some white people try very hard to find some non-white person in their family tree and are willing to go so far as to make one up if they can't find one. Some do it in an attempt to be able to claim to be 'not one of those white folks' when confronted with anti-white narratives. Others - Elisabeth Warren [1], Rachel Dolezal [2], Tracy Castro-Gill [3] and many, many more - do it to try to get a piece of the positive discrimination/positive action/affirmative action pie which is set aside for members of specific identity groups. Others do it to have a way out when confronted with the all too common claims of "white supremacy" or "white privilege" or similar racialised slurs.
That white people voluntarily take upon them claims of non-whiteness should give lie to claims of oppression of the minorities they claim to be part of unless all those who take up (often faked) minority identities happen to be masochists.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-elizabeth-warren-nati...
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44256760
[4] https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-seattle-schools-woke...
That is not the reason some white people try very hard to find some non-white person in their family tree and are willing to go so far as to make one up if they can't find one. Some do it in an attempt to be able to claim to be 'not one of those white folks' when confronted with anti-white narratives. Others - Elisabeth Warren [1], Rachel Dolezal [2], Tracy Castro-Gill [3] and many, many more - do it to try to get a piece of the positive discrimination/positive action/affirmative action pie which is set aside for members of specific identity groups. Others do it to have a way out when confronted with the all too common claims of "white supremacy" or "white privilege" or similar racialised slurs.
That white people voluntarily take upon them claims of non-whiteness should give lie to claims of oppression of the minorities they claim to be part of unless all those who take up (often faked) minority identities happen to be masochists.
[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-elizabeth-warren-nati...
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44256760
[4] https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-seattle-schools-woke...
It’s because being straight, white and not trans means you’re an evil oppressor to a lot of younger people these days. They at least have to claim bisexuality when they aren’t, or loudly proclaim their brown ethnicity when they’re in fact over 7/8 European and could claim a noble title and European citizenship.
It’s almost like people are judging everyone by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.
It’s almost like people are judging everyone by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.
Be aware that census data is contextual to it's location. During the 2020 census we struggled heavily to census reservations and the rural country in general. Sometimes receiving threats of violence. We were asked many times to census various areas and simply could not do so for our safety because the number of anti government types has made it dangerous.
Imo the main statistic, number of people, is the most accurate. All the rest are optional inputs and may not accurately reflect the true data due to the nature of collection.
Imo the main statistic, number of people, is the most accurate. All the rest are optional inputs and may not accurately reflect the true data due to the nature of collection.
Threats of violence occur because in the last ten years, many reservations have suffered a silent invasion by Mexican drug cartels.
This has occurred in reservations all through the US, along Northern and Southern borders, creating large areas of lawlessness, at horrific human cost. It's not anti-government types so much as Mexican cartels and their types.
If they talk to any outsiders, it can mean death and torture.
Tribal police are strong in some places, but they're laughably insufficient in most cases, and there's an intersection of tribal pride, corruption, distrust of feds, and being overwhelmed that have given cartels a large number of virtually untouchable strongholds.
There are places law enforcement cannot and will not go inside the borders of the US under the control of drug cartel strongmen. Human trafficking, murder, disappearances, drug trade, murder for hire, money laundering, and so on are being hidden under the veil of tribal sovereignty.
The number of girls and young women that go missing is an atrocity, but the ones that go unreported are worse. These people are owed more.
I'm not sure what the solution is that preserves native sovereignty and roots out the cartels, but the US is headed for a dramatic escalation of violence inside the borders. I am as against the war on drugs as anyone, and support blanket legalization as a necessary tool in neutering cartels and their influence. The trouble now is that cartels with militarized presence and sophisticated logistics will need US military intervention within our borders, and on tribal lands, and that's a politically untenable proposition.
So it festers. People disappear. Outsiders see a superficial veneer of anti-government sentiment but the problems are much deeper and more destructive for native cultures. The longer it goes on, the higher the eventual cost will be.
It's shocking that this isn't better known, but maybe Americans don't want introspection of truly scary things.
This has occurred in reservations all through the US, along Northern and Southern borders, creating large areas of lawlessness, at horrific human cost. It's not anti-government types so much as Mexican cartels and their types.
If they talk to any outsiders, it can mean death and torture.
Tribal police are strong in some places, but they're laughably insufficient in most cases, and there's an intersection of tribal pride, corruption, distrust of feds, and being overwhelmed that have given cartels a large number of virtually untouchable strongholds.
There are places law enforcement cannot and will not go inside the borders of the US under the control of drug cartel strongmen. Human trafficking, murder, disappearances, drug trade, murder for hire, money laundering, and so on are being hidden under the veil of tribal sovereignty.
The number of girls and young women that go missing is an atrocity, but the ones that go unreported are worse. These people are owed more.
I'm not sure what the solution is that preserves native sovereignty and roots out the cartels, but the US is headed for a dramatic escalation of violence inside the borders. I am as against the war on drugs as anyone, and support blanket legalization as a necessary tool in neutering cartels and their influence. The trouble now is that cartels with militarized presence and sophisticated logistics will need US military intervention within our borders, and on tribal lands, and that's a politically untenable proposition.
So it festers. People disappear. Outsiders see a superficial veneer of anti-government sentiment but the problems are much deeper and more destructive for native cultures. The longer it goes on, the higher the eventual cost will be.
It's shocking that this isn't better known, but maybe Americans don't want introspection of truly scary things.
That's not as applicable to this region, but yes that is part of it. However this was not simply tribals, a good number of threats and acts came from old rural white men. They think the "government" is coming after them and therefore anyone with a clipboard and a name tag is a secret agent to them. I am dead serious.
(Citation needed)
https://abcnews.go.com/US/tribal-land-us-mexico-border-drug-...
https://news.azpm.org/s/30767-drug-cartels-target-indian-cou...
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/drug-cartels-targeting-ind...
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article2...
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993059731/u-s-mexico-efforts-...
https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/crow-leaders-call-for-m...
https://apnews.com/article/missing-in-indian-country-north-a...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/12/976053675/human-trafficking-c...
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/ahwatukee/2020/02...
https://www.courier-journal.com/in-depth/news/investigations...
I could literally go on for thousands of small town stories, or tens of thousands individual family stories about murder and trafficking. This is happening in reservations all over the US and along southern Canada. All of the lower 48, I'm not sure about Hawaii or Alaska.
Along the west coast, lots of illicit marijuana farming, and lots of truck stops and trafficking logistics and meth manufacture elsewhere.
I don't know why we haven't seen a journalistic investigation into the big picture. I've spoken to native friends who have family on reservations who see cartel members recruiting youth, meeting with elders, and crazy shootouts.
https://news.azpm.org/s/30767-drug-cartels-target-indian-cou...
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/drug-cartels-targeting-ind...
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article2...
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993059731/u-s-mexico-efforts-...
https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/crow-leaders-call-for-m...
https://apnews.com/article/missing-in-indian-country-north-a...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/12/976053675/human-trafficking-c...
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/ahwatukee/2020/02...
https://www.courier-journal.com/in-depth/news/investigations...
I could literally go on for thousands of small town stories, or tens of thousands individual family stories about murder and trafficking. This is happening in reservations all over the US and along southern Canada. All of the lower 48, I'm not sure about Hawaii or Alaska.
Along the west coast, lots of illicit marijuana farming, and lots of truck stops and trafficking logistics and meth manufacture elsewhere.
I don't know why we haven't seen a journalistic investigation into the big picture. I've spoken to native friends who have family on reservations who see cartel members recruiting youth, meeting with elders, and crazy shootouts.
Back when I was doing grants, I had the US Census for a reservation for 1970, 1980, and 1990. I remember that the total population had not gone up by much (maybe 8,000 to 8,200), but on each census 50% of the population was under 18. That scared me deeply.
Doubling would have been happier.
Doubling would have been happier.
Maybe that was due to a lot of people leaving the reservation?
I have hopes but I doubt it.
Native American adults are likelier to have served in the military than the overall population.
The American military has its good points. Being more fair/less unfair about racial issues seems to be one of them.
My career-Army ex-husband once said to me "We are all part of the Green Race." In other words, we are blood brothers because of the uniform and because of civilians excluding active duty military families.
When I was a military spouse, the general unemployment rate was around 5 or 6 percent and the unemployment rate for military spouses was around 30 percent. I think this is in part because locals don't want to hire someone knowing they will likely move again in two or three years and in part because the military has good benefits, so it is still possible -- or was when I was a military spouse -- to support a family on one income, which seems to generally not be true for most Americans these days.
The military tends to have a somewhat high percentage of people of color generally. I honestly think it's in part because promotions are less racially biased than they seem to be in the civilian world.
The American military has its good points. Being more fair/less unfair about racial issues seems to be one of them.
My career-Army ex-husband once said to me "We are all part of the Green Race." In other words, we are blood brothers because of the uniform and because of civilians excluding active duty military families.
When I was a military spouse, the general unemployment rate was around 5 or 6 percent and the unemployment rate for military spouses was around 30 percent. I think this is in part because locals don't want to hire someone knowing they will likely move again in two or three years and in part because the military has good benefits, so it is still possible -- or was when I was a military spouse -- to support a family on one income, which seems to generally not be true for most Americans these days.
The military tends to have a somewhat high percentage of people of color generally. I honestly think it's in part because promotions are less racially biased than they seem to be in the civilian world.
> The military tends to have a somewhat high percentage of people of color generally.
Isn't this due to the U.S. Military being more attractive to poorer people, which are statistically more likely to be of color?
Isn't this due to the U.S. Military being more attractive to poorer people, which are statistically more likely to be of color?
Yeah. I was having trouble justifying the cost of college and was trying to go for ROTC but couldn't because of medical issues. My dad essentially used the air force as a means to extract himself from generational poverty. We're white, so money was really the only motivation though I think he overall enjoyed his time there (non-combat role).
[deleted]
>I honestly think it's in part because promotions are less racially biased than they seem to be in the civilian world.
But the top brass is definitely not racial diverse. So its actually the other way around. More people of color serve because poorer people are more likely to serve, but even when people of color are over represented in the military they are still underrepresented in the leadership. Making the military even more biased than rest of society.
A drill sergeant yelling equally at everyone does not mean that the system is equal.
But the top brass is definitely not racial diverse. So its actually the other way around. More people of color serve because poorer people are more likely to serve, but even when people of color are over represented in the military they are still underrepresented in the leadership. Making the military even more biased than rest of society.
A drill sergeant yelling equally at everyone does not mean that the system is equal.
See also the Amish.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-01/why-the-a...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-01/why-the-a...
It's not the same. Amish fertility is 5-6 children per woman. Doubling is expected.
Native American fertility is actually below replacement (and lower than white, last I saw). But the definition of NA is more expansive, and the population can "expand" through outmarriage.
Native American fertility is actually below replacement (and lower than white, last I saw). But the definition of NA is more expansive, and the population can "expand" through outmarriage.
> and the population can "expand" through outmarriage
You see something very similar going on with the Reform Jewish population. Reform Jews have relatively few kids, but a very high intermarriage rate (about 80% of Reform Jews marry non-Jews!) so you see the Reform Jewish population increasing regardless.
You see something very similar going on with the Reform Jewish population. Reform Jews have relatively few kids, but a very high intermarriage rate (about 80% of Reform Jews marry non-Jews!) so you see the Reform Jewish population increasing regardless.
And also the Haredim Jewish sects are seeing strong growth.
Both the Amish and the Haredim reject a lot of modernity and are quite conservative as well look to keep traditional families and gender roles. Probably not a coincidence that there are the groups still seeing strong growth.
Both the Amish and the Haredim reject a lot of modernity and are quite conservative as well look to keep traditional families and gender roles. Probably not a coincidence that there are the groups still seeing strong growth.
[deleted]
It's worth noting that the definition of "Native American" varies over time. In addition to people self-identifying for various political, social, and economic reasons, the tribes can decide their own level of generic purity. One tribe can specify that you must be ¼ indian to qualify for their tribe, while others can make it far less or more.
All of this leads to the old joke, "What do you call 64 Cheyenne in a room?" "One indian."
The linked article unfortunately bases its conclusions on "self-identification," which is problematic. When the federal government sent the tribes billions of dollars in COVID relief money, suddenly there were newly-minted, self-described "indians" crawling out of the woodwork trying to get a check.
Also realated, there's currently a bunch of people on a reservation outside of Seattle who are being kicked out of their homes because they're not tribal enough. The tribe changed its definition, and because these people are from a related tribe up in Canada, they no longer qualify.
/Friends with a lot of indians. Subscribe to two indian newspapers. And yes "Indian" is correct. It's only white people and city indians who embrace the term "Native American." Rez indians call themselves "indians." Proudly.
All of this leads to the old joke, "What do you call 64 Cheyenne in a room?" "One indian."
The linked article unfortunately bases its conclusions on "self-identification," which is problematic. When the federal government sent the tribes billions of dollars in COVID relief money, suddenly there were newly-minted, self-described "indians" crawling out of the woodwork trying to get a check.
Also realated, there's currently a bunch of people on a reservation outside of Seattle who are being kicked out of their homes because they're not tribal enough. The tribe changed its definition, and because these people are from a related tribe up in Canada, they no longer qualify.
/Friends with a lot of indians. Subscribe to two indian newspapers. And yes "Indian" is correct. It's only white people and city indians who embrace the term "Native American." Rez indians call themselves "indians." Proudly.
As an archaeologist for whom the topic of names comes up a lot, why in the world would you give general advice on "Indian" naming? It's obviously specific to individual preferences and you should generally prefer identifying people with nations anyway.
“Indian” refers to Indians as a whole, especially with respect to their political relationship with the United States. Indians themselves use the term in that context, and it’s the preferred term in, for example, the field of Indian law.
It’s like the term “Asian.” Few people identify as generic “Asian” and it would be incorrect to equate it with a nationality or specific culture. But it does work at a high level to address a group of people who have something in common on a political dimension.
It’s like the term “Asian.” Few people identify as generic “Asian” and it would be incorrect to equate it with a nationality or specific culture. But it does work at a high level to address a group of people who have something in common on a political dimension.
It would be nice if the Canadian term First Nations was adopted for the political sense.
[deleted]
Where did you learn that?
mbg721(1)
why in the world would you give general advice on "Indian" naming?
I'm not. I'm reiterating what has been told to me by close to a dozen Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni indians.
Why would some random archaeologist decide for a large group of people what they should be called, when they call themselves something else?
I happen to have the January 6, 2020 edition of The Navajo Times on my desk. Just skimming the headlines (because I haven't read it yet), I see the following:
"Phoenix Indian Center," "Gallup Indian Medical Center," "Indian Health Service," "Santa Fe Indian."
The Four Corners region of the United States is called "Indian Country" by the indians who live there.
What give you the right to tell people what they can call themselves?
I'm not. I'm reiterating what has been told to me by close to a dozen Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni indians.
Why would some random archaeologist decide for a large group of people what they should be called, when they call themselves something else?
I happen to have the January 6, 2020 edition of The Navajo Times on my desk. Just skimming the headlines (because I haven't read it yet), I see the following:
"Phoenix Indian Center," "Gallup Indian Medical Center," "Indian Health Service," "Santa Fe Indian."
The Four Corners region of the United States is called "Indian Country" by the indians who live there.
What give you the right to tell people what they can call themselves?
I'd encourage you to re-read what I wrote, because I've very intentionally avoided telling anyone what they can call themselves.
Part of this whole respecting preferences is that individual terms have to be treated separately. "Indian" is different than "American Indian" which is again different from "Indian country" or "Indian law". Someone may dislike some or most of these without necessarily disliking the others. The ones with specific technical meanings we're unfortunately stuck with in context.
Another popular example of this sort of issue is "Navajo" itself, as many would prefer to be called Diné or some derivative thereof.
Part of this whole respecting preferences is that individual terms have to be treated separately. "Indian" is different than "American Indian" which is again different from "Indian country" or "Indian law". Someone may dislike some or most of these without necessarily disliking the others. The ones with specific technical meanings we're unfortunately stuck with in context.
Another popular example of this sort of issue is "Navajo" itself, as many would prefer to be called Diné or some derivative thereof.
CGP Grey made a very convincing video on the argument that at least in the US, unexpectedly enough, "Indian" is probably the most appropriate term to use for Native Americans for a multitude of reasons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
Interesting but there is only a Part 0. Unless it is some sort of inside joke, I was hoping for more.
There is more coming, he's been working on the topic for years. I think the extra long delay between this and the next in the series is due to a combination of his rather slow rate of production, recent American politics, and Covid (both videos inspired by Covid, and Covid preventing visits to America).
He's also put out a number of tangentially related videos inspired by his research work on Indians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABMV4wXx6Xo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCeMCwxayp0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsWr_JWTZss
He's also put out a number of tangentially related videos inspired by his research work on Indians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABMV4wXx6Xo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCeMCwxayp0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsWr_JWTZss
> There is more coming
Well....maybe. 2 years is a long gap, even for Grey. I would assume he had hoped to put out much more by now. That he didn't is probably a reflection not just to COVID productivity but also lost motivation.
I hope that's not the case, but who knows...
Well....maybe. 2 years is a long gap, even for Grey. I would assume he had hoped to put out much more by now. That he didn't is probably a reflection not just to COVID productivity but also lost motivation.
I hope that's not the case, but who knows...
[deleted]
> identifying people with nations anyway.
Always awkward after conquests.
Always awkward after conquests.
I am not white or a city Native American and I use Indian for people from the country of India, because it results in less confusion.
If you want to prevent ambiguity you can use "American Indians" and "People from India". But usually it is clear from the context what you mean.
Whoa, sorry, I posted this under the wrong post. This was supposed to go under https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29989643
On a trip to the Monument Valley, our guide explicitly told us they hate being named as Indian. They seem to prefer their tribal name or if I remember correctly, First Nation).
It depends, these groups of people are not a monolith. US federal legislation and agencies often use “Native American” or “American Indian” on signage, etc. and some groups use similar, others don’t. I have found “indigenous” to be the most widely-accepted contemporary moniker.
First Nation is Canadian, and I would point out the number of reservations that have high school teams named "Indians". Those names are local.
My bad. Our guide told us the Navajo believe they were one of the first humans on the Earth, maybe I mis-remembered it as first nation.
Cubans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans are all hispanic or latino but don't confuse them.
Although, if you are not an enrolled member of a tribe and you say you're an Indian on a reservation, expect some serious backlash. Harvard may accept you but the tribes will not.
That being said, some tribes use their enrollment offices as a power play on some members. I do wish the federal government would step in some way. Its a tricky subject.
That being said, some tribes use their enrollment offices as a power play on some members. I do wish the federal government would step in some way. Its a tricky subject.
>I do wish the federal government would step in some way
Yes, what Native Americans could use is more federal meddling in their lands, tribes, and affairs... /s
Yes, what Native Americans could use is more federal meddling in their lands, tribes, and affairs... /s
In Canada tribal offices get money from the federal government and they get to decide how to spend it. Some tribes equally share, others hire family and the money never trickles down.
You can't take the easy way out and ignore the problem because you are part of the problem.
You can't take the easy way out and ignore the problem because you are part of the problem.
What about the Indians from India? What do they call them?
Slang wise, I've heard the phrase "beads not feathers". Generally, when talking on a reservation, its pretty obvious, but "Indians from India" was another. Depends on the crowd. You also have to remember that Native Americans talking about other Native Americans will use slang (not for outside use) or refer to the other's tribe.
1) I remember a band that I thought was called "Beads and Feathers" that had Native Americans and Indians.
1) I remember a band that I thought was called "Beads and Feathers" that had Native Americans and Indians.
I've always seen "feather" contrasted with "dot", not "bead". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindi_(decoration)
I've gotten the sense from Brown Pundits that among themselves they refer to themselves as Desi. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desi )
I've gotten the sense from Brown Pundits that among themselves they refer to themselves as Desi. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desi )
Dot works too. I heard beads at some meeting from an Indian from India speaker. I've heard Dot too.
In the movie, Good Will Hunting, clarification is made with “Dot, not feathers” which seems more accurate since both a dot mark and a feather are forehead ornamentations.
I have heard "Sari not sorry". Dunno where that came from, but I think I like it.
I dunno, but I've seen/used American Indians before to disambiguate (unless talking about specific nations/ethnicities), and Indian-Americans for Americans from India. for (non-American Indian) Indians in India, maybe Indian Indians? subcontinental Indians? that last sounds wrong to me but I dunno what else to use!
I never disambiguate. my accent is thick enough to give away which type of Indian I am.
As someone of Indian origin - I just call myself South Asian. This seems to be accepted term by many of us who were either born or raised in the west. That could include people of Pakistani heritage, Sri Lankan, Nepal and Bangladesh.
East Indians. In rural parts of Canada and the US where indigenous North Americans are the largest minority, restaurants that serve South Asian food (if they even exist) tend be self-described as serving East Indian cuisine.
I'm not sure why this comment has been downvoted. It's a simple fact that anyone traveling in the prairies can confirm. Like it or not, in parts of Canada and the US, "East Indian" is a common term used to refer to people from the country of India. Here is just one example of a restaurant that describes itself that way: http://www.redchillis.ca
Even where I live, in a county which probably has 10 times more Indian-Americans than American Indians, the relevant section of the ethnic food aisle in supermarkets is described as "East Indian".
I suspect it doesn’t come up that often.
Indian is definitely not used in Canada nor is Native American as it turned into a very derogatory term. The preferred term is First Nations and Inuit.
I once had a girl ask me if she looked Indian. I said no, she got pissed off, and it was quite a while before I realized she didn't mean "from India." Turned out she was from Whitehorse, "full blooded Indian" she said.
First Nations is what they say on the CBC, but "Indian" hasn't been stamped out completely.
First Nations is what they say on the CBC, but "Indian" hasn't been stamped out completely.
In all seriousness, I wonder how long it will be until "First Nations" and "Inuit" become derogatory. I didn't even know "Native American" was bad, to be honest.
There are already people who consider terms like "Inuit" homogenizing and insulting. There are thousands of indigenous groups in the Americas and every person in them can have their own preferences and opinions. There isn't a singular term to refer to the totality of their identities any more than there is for "Eurasians".
>There are thousands of indigenous groups in the Americas and every person in them can have their own preferences and opinions.
Well, the same is the case with Europeans, Asians, and so on, so?
We have smaller identities, and larger group identities, it's not belonging or being categorized in one precludes the smaller more unique identity...
Well, the same is the case with Europeans, Asians, and so on, so?
We have smaller identities, and larger group identities, it's not belonging or being categorized in one precludes the smaller more unique identity...
It's not a higher level label, they simply don't consider themselves Inuit in the same way Canadians generally don't consider themselves "American".
That's not much a problem, usually a characterization is for use by others, you don't necessarily have to agree. Germans don't consider themselves living in "Germany" either. Or, names like "Balkans" are not necessarily preferable by those there, but that's life.
Lots of people living in Europe don't consider themselves europeans.
The problem there is that "American" has two meanings. Not that it's homogenizing.
Does "Inuit" have two meanings?
Does "Inuit" have two meanings?
It's more like if you took American to just mean "people of the USA". So it's more like "Canadians don't consider themselves part of the people of the USA". Inuit refers to a specific subgroup of people which have it as a word in their language. Many of those not in it, if you apply the label to them, they view it as if you insisted Canadians were part of the US people because "they live in the roughly same area and live kind of similarly".
Part of it is the word Eskimo. Not popular and falling out of fashion, people look for a replacement, and grabbed what a large subgroup of the people called that calls itself. And thus mislabeling those that are not in that subgroup.
To stretch the analogy again, lets assume for some reason "North American" has become a word to avoid, so lets just call all North Americans what the people from the USA call themselves to be more considerate. And the Canadians aren't happy with that.
Part of it is the word Eskimo. Not popular and falling out of fashion, people look for a replacement, and grabbed what a large subgroup of the people called that calls itself. And thus mislabeling those that are not in that subgroup.
To stretch the analogy again, lets assume for some reason "North American" has become a word to avoid, so lets just call all North Americans what the people from the USA call themselves to be more considerate. And the Canadians aren't happy with that.
Logically, being characterized at one level doesn't prevent categorization into finer or coarser levels. In reality, there is a finite amount of information that can be conveyed, and the level of characterization is often whatever you lead with. There are important trade offs to be made with fitting in with a larger group vs being characterized as the mixture of traits of said larger group.
Eurasians sounds like a neat way to group people who are given a handicap when they apply to Harvard.
I have never heard anyone taking offense to the word Inuit. It simply means "people" in Kalaallisut.
Greenland is quite far from places like Utqiagvik and Chukotka, where indigenous locals speak entirely different languages. Is it any surprise some people wouldn't want to be labeled that way?
I'll admit "inuit" is pretty widely accepted nowadays, but it's not universally so. The relevant ANLC page gives a good summary of the situation: https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php
I'll admit "inuit" is pretty widely accepted nowadays, but it's not universally so. The relevant ANLC page gives a good summary of the situation: https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php
Native American is giving them the name of an Italian man who helped colonize them, it's not difficult to see why that's a poor name choice.
Meanwhile in Canada I have an Indian Status Card
I've heard plenty Indians call themselves Indian. Probably tied to locality
When my father was in school in Northern Ontario they were having students cross out "savages" in text books & write in "Indians". While I was growing up the term was moving to aboriginal
I've heard plenty Indians call themselves Indian. Probably tied to locality
When my father was in school in Northern Ontario they were having students cross out "savages" in text books & write in "Indians". While I was growing up the term was moving to aboriginal
The same is not true in the US. Although in the late 80's, I almost got into a fight in Winnipeg because someone asked my Dakota classmate what "reserve he was from". Neither of us had ever heard the term, and it was not, initially, accepted as a friendly inquiry. "You think I'm an animal wasi'chu" did get the guy thinking there was a bit of terminology mismatch.
Much of my mother's side of the family is Navajo and they do use the term Indian. Inuit is a completely different group much, much further north.
Yes, if you're willing to pay people to say that they're Native American, over time more people will say it.
I recently visited my ex-girlfriend, who is part Navajo, when passing through the city she lives in now and we had a good laugh about this. When we were dating, she never talked about being Native American because she didn’t think it would benefit her in any way. We actually argued about whether she should apply for the Native American scholarships available to her and she was against it at the time. But, since the Democratic Party identity politics craze began, she warmed up to the idea and now she shamelessly uses it to her advantage. I hate identity politics and so does she, but I was pleased to learn she became comfortable with it for her own sake. In her case, she never passed for white anyhow.
[deleted]
Or, maybe because its been economically, socially and legally advantageous to be considered white for hundreds of years, so people who weren't white were saying they were (if they could get away with it). What we're seeing now may be a pendulum swing, and if so, good.
It’s hardly good if multi-generational white-passing, possibly advantaged folks are reclassifying themselves as white. For example, Elizabeth Warren, who has infinitely more privilege than my brown ass.
Yup, they'll have both Native and White privilege with this.
Isn't Warren white and reclassified herself as American Indian though?
Can’t believe I got upvotes despite a typo that makes things confusing. I meant as American Indians.
>"What we're seeing now may be a pendulum swing, and if so, good."
I was raised to believe that 'the pendulum' coming to rest, so to speak, is the good thing.
I was raised to believe that 'the pendulum' coming to rest, so to speak, is the good thing.
Don't disagree with you. I'm happy it's swinging away from the extreme position its been held in for centuries. I never stated where I want it to come to rest. Maybe if we remove the structures that have kept it in place it will come to rest somewhere agreeable? (though for the majority of those who stand to lose power, it's unlikely to be agreeable).
> Or, maybe
What difference do you see between my comment and yours?
What difference do you see between my comment and yours?
You said payment.
They described a lessening of discrimination.
Those are very different things.
They described a lessening of discrimination.
Those are very different things.
As seen by Senator Elizabeth Warren, identifying as Native American can confer quite a few benefits, and that was back in the 80's. These days I can only assume the dividends are even greater.
With that in mind it is not a huge leap of the imagination that, if given the option to, many people will self-id as Native American to gain a perceive edge in a society were diversity is increasingly valuable.
With that in mind it is not a huge leap of the imagination that, if given the option to, many people will self-id as Native American to gain a perceive edge in a society were diversity is increasingly valuable.
[deleted]
They keep lowering blood requirements. Lots of mexicans claiming to be parts of tribes when in reality they genocided he california natives. Federal government wants to dilute the blood line to eventually take the reservation lands.
Blood requirements are set by the tribe, not the federal government
Source: am member of a federally recognized tribe that only requires one parent be a member for their children to be a member, much like US citizenship, so unless that changes my children for 100 generations will be 100% Native-American just as they will be 100% American
Source: am member of a federally recognized tribe that only requires one parent be a member for their children to be a member, much like US citizenship, so unless that changes my children for 100 generations will be 100% Native-American just as they will be 100% American
The Elizabeth Warren effect.
85% growth in 10 years vs 10% for the general population. The Liz Warren effect.
We are pre-Constitutional sovereigns, recognized by our treaties with the U.S. and Canada. States like Michigan might force our teachers get "foreign language certificates," despite the fact that Michigan is a word from our language[0], but my children speak their language and our culture are pillars of strength and stability in our family. Blood quanta, problems of race in America, what to call us -- that's not our focus.
[0]https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/michigan-education/20...