Comments on: Sharing fingerprints

By: cac

cac — Mon, 05 Apr 2004 05:25:04 +0000

Interestingly enough “first nations” seems to be used in Australia as well. “Aboriginal/Aborigine” suffers from not being indigenous while the several hundred aboriginal languages means that using the local term won’t cover the whole continent. the Victorian word “koori” enjoyed a brief vogue a few years ago but now seems to be on its way out for precisely this reason. As an alternative, specifically regional tribal names are now being used but of course can only cover a particlar area and also tend to lead to disputes as to who is entitled to call themselves Murri or Nyoongar or whatever. “Black” is used but suffers as a description because particularly in the South East many high profile Aborigines are fair or red haired and light of skin but “blackfella” is being more used although more it seems in the north where “yellafella” is a derogatory reference by full bloods for those with (as they see it) not enough Aboriginal blood. How do other indigenes deal with the problem of finding a non European imposed name?

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:08:59 +0000

"It just seemed interesting to me that academic writing seems so much more concerned about the problematic nomenclature then the agents to whom the nomenclature is applied."—kikuchiyo

That's how it seems to you, and it well may be true in some cases. But you don't really know how concerned these people are about "the agents to whom the nomenclature is applied". You're assuming a lack of concern in general because it is your observation that, in these cases, the choice of nomenclature gives little weight to the preferences of the people referenced. And I do think that sort of consideration (for preference) is both polite and instructive. But I don't agree that it should necessarily be normative. The way that I describe others asserts a worldview that has consequences in its assertion. The description is a moral act. I believe that my use of "Indian" would have adverse consequences and I wish to avoid those. I am, unfortunately, also insulting a number of people who would prefer that I describe them otherwise. I regret that. But, in my estimation, it's the lesser of two evils. What people want to be "called" is important and relevant. But it's not decisive, I don't think.

By: Kikuchiyo

Kikuchiyo — Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:12:28 +0000

If I understand your comment correctly, you may be conflating “tribal” with “indian”. I'm sorry. I intended to raise an only slightly related point, which has more to do with the intersection of the claim that Use of the term Native American or Indian is problematic, for many of the groups that form indigenous Americans and my own personal experience. It just seemed interesting to me that academic writing seems so much more concerned about the problematic nomenclature then the agents to whom the nomenclature is applied. Again: in my experience, and with very notable exceptions.

By: Bubb Rubb

Bubb Rubb — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:02:49 +0000

I have to say that I’ve only rarely met Native Americans who preferred any term other than “indian”. Clearly, this experience may well be a-typical. Posted by Kikuchiyo at April 3, 2004 03:36 PM If I understand your comment correctly, you may be conflating “tribal” with “indian”. The sovereign territories of Native Americans or Indians are referred to in the format of Nation, as in Navajo Nation or Lummi Nation, closer to my neck of the woods. The governments are referred to as “Tribal Governments”. This is common nomenclature. Although there is a derogatory sensibility to the use of “tribal”, as in association with un-modern, I don’t think it is viewed that way by Indians/Native Americans. As far as I know, they refer to themselves as belonging to the tribe, or a member of a nation. The organizational elements of these terms tribe, nation, and band are conflated by the fact that in many instances the US government put members of different tribes onto one reservation and thus I believe there are differences in self identificaion based on these individual historical differences. Use of the term Native American or Indian is problematic, for many of the groups that form indigenous Americans. In Canada, they are called and refer to themselves as “First Nations”. This nomenclature is slipping into the U.S. discourse. In Alaska, they refer to themselves as “Alakan Natives” and consider themselves quite separately from continental indigenous Americans. Use of the term “Indian” follows a trajectory similar with other oppressed groups in the U.S., such as Black/Negro/African-American. It was Indian, then it went to Native American, then in the sixties, there was the “American Indian Movement” which sought to reclaim “Indian” represented by Vine Deloria’s book “Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto”. The federal government has always, to my knowledge, used the term “Indian”, as in “Bureau of Indian Affairs”.

By: Kikuchiyo

Kikuchiyo — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:36:39 +0000

Dr. Ghost, Didn’t mean to be taken too seriously up there—just figured that it was an official use, and I was looking for a lead-in to the potentially revenue-raising drag-strip suggestion. In a slightly related note, I have to say that I’ve only rarely met Native Americans who preferred any term other than “indian”. Clearly, this experience may well be a-typical.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:21:10 +0000

Actually, GOAF, I was pretty alarmed at the prospect of my personal data being shared with any of these agencies…. But as a non-American I hadn’t appreciated the legal significance of the term. There are, after all, tribal authorities in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so forth, and the prospect of the US government sharing data on foreign nationals with such bodies struck me as pretty scary.

By: Ghost of a flea

Ghost of a flea — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:11:25 +0000

The “accidental failure” to include tribal governments under state laws would have no effect either way under treaty rights between any given First Nation and the United States federal government. Its use in this context is a simple acknowledgement of the role of law enforcement in this context. I am sorry to discover the use of the term “tribal” is amusing to people who consider themselves to be social progressives.

By: Kikuchiyo

Kikuchiyo — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:57:01 +0000

Keith is spot on. Many legislators have been very, very sad to discover that failure to include tribal governments accidentally fatally hampered favorite laws. Until only recently, many under-age smokers were very, very happy that someone committed this very oversight. Pyromaniac firework lovers remain, for the most part, pleased with Tribal sovereignty as well. What I wonder: since it is impossible to sue tribes, how long before they start operating drag-racing strips?

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:15:05 +0000

You do know what they mean, right? Native American “reservations” are (mostly) sovereign in the US.

By: Thersites

Thersites — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 09:18:50 +0000

at tribal level? They mean that your mom will be examining your underwear both before and after internaional flights. In front of a team of highly trained customs agent-nuns, most of whom knew you when you were 13. The underpants inspection will of course take place on national TV. You should be glad that Ashcroft didn't get what he really wanted.