posted
Eskimo is actually a derogatory word. When the Europeans invaded Canada, they enslaved the noble Eski people and brought them south to do landscaping work. Hence we get the cruel and racist expression, "Eski, mow!"
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. Can't say I've ever heard that one before.
Still, it's inevitable that someone is going to come along and point out that "Eskimo" is offensive because it actually means "eaters of raw meat". So let me cut that one off at the pass by pointing out right now that that's a myth. As to whether it's offensive, that pretty much depends on the individual Inuit or Yupik person you're talking to. Some of them mind, some of them don't. Kind of like the word "Indian", come to think of it.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was told by an English teacher in college that using the term eskimo was the equivilent of calling an african-american the "n" word. I never verified it though, I just quit using the term. Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The person I was talking to was 3/8 Inuit or something like that, and took after her mother's side of the family, so she was blonde and blue eyed. Go figure.
Anyway, this was in the North West Territories, and there was a lot of frou-ha-ha about the Canadian native people insisting on being called First Nations. The topic came up and she said that she thought the First Nations people were idiots and she didn't want to be identified with them, nor did most of the rest of the Inuit people.
As for her being called Inuit or Eskimo, she didn't really care. It seems to be a personal thing.
I have a friend - black - who gets pissed off when people call her African-American. She's Canadian, not American, to start with (her words), and she's not from Africa, but Jamaica. Never mind that blacks from Jamaica probably came from Africa - she doesn't care.
posted
I tend to have a problem with the whole african-american thing too, I usually just use the term black but I didn't want to risk offending anyone. Posts: 295 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whereas most Indian friends of mine will laugh at you if you call them "Native Americans." They call themselves Indians.
This does cause problems, though, because there are also East Indians, and how are you expected to differentiate? My friend Kristin's response is to ask "Indian? Dots or feathers?"
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit, though, I've also gotten snarky about my heritage, but mostly just to be a snot. When someone I was talking to kept referring to non-Latinos as "Anglos," I made the point that a good percentage of my ancestors were Scottish Celts and would not appreciate in the least bit being called Anglo.
Also, someone once commented on some sort of kinship I should feel with the local Crow tribe, me being an eighth Indian myself. I said, "Are you kidding? I'm part Cheyenne - we hated the Crow more than we hated the whites!"
I suppose that as many problems as attitudes like this cause, it's at least a good exercise in knowing one's roots...
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Elliott Smith - Kings Crossing 2. Hot Water Music - Radio 3. Against Me! - The Disco before the Breakdown 4. Cursive - Some Red Handed Slight of Hand 5. The Weakerthans - Reconstruction Site 6. Bright Eyes - Going For The GOld 7. Rilo Kiley - With Arms Outstretched 8. Now It's Overhead - Dark Cycle 9. The Faint - Take Me To THe Hospital 10. Hope For Agoldensummer - Laying Down The Gun 11. Damien Rice - Cannonball 12. Modest Mouse - Blame It On The Tetons 13. Snow Patrol - Run 14. Cursive - Staying Alive
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Da Goat - no, she preferred black. But then, she really was black, not cafe au lait or tan or whatever. She was black black black.
Where I am now, the Indians are really the Indians - the ones with the dots. Sri Lankans seem to hate Indians - it's pretty funny. "Bloody Indians." 'Course, I'm not allowed to say that - it would be racism. But they can. On the other hand, we regularly watch Indian movies.
Oh! Did I mention? Fahim, who is Sri Lankan, but more accurately, of Arab descent (going back hundreds of years) was mistaken for Italian. The guy insisted that Fahim was Italian even after Fahim corrected him. No, I'm Sri Lankan, Fahim says. "No you're not. You're Italian. I know what you are."
Sometimes, people are just dumb.
But then, I'm mistaken for Japanese.
Did I mention that I'm a pasty white person with pink undertones and blue eyes of obviously European (Dutch) descent?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I've always thought that the term "Anglo" by itself sounds offensive. I suppose I can't rationally justify my response, but whenever I hear someone say "Anglo" without finishing the term, I can't help but think they're trying to be derogatory.
I'm mostly of English heritage myself, so I don't mind being called Anglo-Saxon--fact is, the chances are very good that I have a lot of genuine Anglo-Saxon blood in my veins. But I can never quite feel comfortable being called an "Anglo".
Also, I really hate it when people say "Anglo-Saxon" in place of "white". Not all Europeans are Anglo-Saxon. In fact, most of them are not at all. Calling all white people "Anglo-Saxon" is like calling all black people "Zulu".
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with just saying "white" and "black" and getting it the hell over with. Native Americans I usually call Native Americans, not because I think "Indian" is offensive, but because it's an inaccuracy brought about by the idiocy of Christopher Columbus.
As for people of Spanish extraction, it has never been sufficiently explained to me why they can't just be called "white". It's been my experience that Hispanic people like to set themselves apart from the rest of us whites, but I can't find any justification for it. Is it because they're originally from a hot Mediterranean country? So are Italians. Is it because most Hispanics in America have Native American blood? So do I--I'm an eighth Cherokee, but that doesn't stop me from calling myself white. At any rate, I don't use the adjective "Latin" to describe them. I doubt one Hispanic American in a thousand can actually speak Latin. Yes, Spanish is a Romance language, descended from Latin--but so are French, Italian, and Romanian, and you know, I've never heard a speaker of any of those languages call themselves "Latin".
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend who is a mixture of just about everything, Chinese, Arab, Jewish, Scots-Irish, English and who knows what else. She really hates having to tick the 'Other' ethnicity box on forms. But I think that basically, most people who think they belong to a specific race are really 'Other' and just don't know it because it's more than four generations back, so we should really just get over labelling people in this way.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Bella, if I tell you that I am of Japanese ancestry (I am), frequently refer to myself as Japanese (I do), and consider that to be an important part of my identity (I do), are you going to tell me that I should really get over labelling myself in this way?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not necessarily. What I mean is that people who have to consider themselves 'Other' often feel out of place in a society which values the labelling of ethnicity very highly. More recent historical and genetic analysis has shown that migration in the past has actually been more widespread than previously believed, and it might be nice for us to bear in mind that apart from in extremely isolated cultures, the majority of people are in fact of more than one ethnic decent, even if that is only in the distant past. It might help to reduce racism in society if that could be borne in mind.
I don't mean that you are not of Japanese descent. I just mean that that is probably not all you are, and that culture is probably a better way of defining a person's heritage than race. Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread may be the most serious thread ben has ever started, and he just meant it to be that he finished a cd. hehe
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't mean that you are not of Japanese descent. I just mean that that is probably not all you are, and that culture is probably a better way of defining a person's heritage than race.
Certainly, not all of my ancestry is Japanese. In my case it's much more explicit than what you're talking about; I'm only three-quarters Japanese. Being of mixed ancestry, I am quite sympathetic to the kinds of issues you're talking about. After all, I have experienced and continue to experience them. But saying that it's society that values labelling ethnicity is only looking at half of the way things really are.
It should be obvious that no one should be denied a job or rejected from a school or otherwise looked down upon for his or her ethnicity. But ethnicity and culture are strongly correlated. In some cases, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make reference to a culture without making reference to the ethnic group from which it arises. I know of no way to identify Japanese culture that does not in some way reference "Japanese-ness."
People should be treated as individuals. But individuals are in part defined by the groups to which they belong. Treating members of a group as though they are all exactly the same is wrong. Refusing to see people as more than a single quality is wrong (unless, I suppose, that really is all there is to that person). But refusing to allow people to define themselves as they wish to is also wrong. Looking down on people for wanting to "label" themselves is wrong.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
