Who are Native Americans?

[Bernieyeball]

I always get grief when I pose this question but I think it is a reasonable inquiry.
I suspect the humans who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Europeans did not call it North America or America.
How can they be Native "Americans"?

[qpw3141]

It's not the most apposite of names because it means something completely different from native <anything else>.

On the other hand, it's arguably more apposite than 'Indians'.

[MrDibble]

I like the Canadian "First Nations", myself.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Bernieyeball

I always get grief when I pose this question but I think it is a reasonable inquiry.
I suspect the humans who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Europeans did not call it North America or America.
How can they be Native "Americans"?

If you always get grief, it seems to mean that you are asking the question a lot. Since your question attempts to insist on some (undefined, yet rigid), definition of words with some implied but not explained logic; I can see why you would get grief for it. Language is rarely bound by external laws of logic.

Basically, the word used in English, (where the phrase occurs), to identify the two major land masses and related islands that are separated from Eurasia and Africa by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is "America," (North and South). The people who lived here before the arrival of the English speaking settlers from Europe would be considered natives. Hence, the phrase "Native American" can be used to identify them in English.

This, of course, is completely separate from the matter that the people so identified do not actually choose that phrase for self-identification, generally preferring their tribal name, (either in its original form or in its Anglicized variant), or accepting the equally "erroneous" term "indian."

[Smeghead]

See, there's this place, right? And it's called "America", OK? And the people that live there, well, they're called "Americans". But a lot of them are descended from people who moved there recently, yes? And so to distinguish the ones that were there first, the "natives", we combine those two concepts into the term "Native American".

I hope that clears things up.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

See, there's this place, right? And it's called "America", OK? And the people that live there, well, they're called "Americans". But a lot of them are descended from people who moved there recently, yes? And so to distinguish the ones that were there first, the "natives", we combine those two concepts into the term "Native American".

I hope that clears things up.

Not really because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Which of the following means something completely different to all the others.

Native Londoner
Native New Yorker
Native Californian
Native Italian
Native American
Native Texan
Native Mexican

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Not really because it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Which of the following means something completely different to all the others.

Native Londoner
Native New Yorker
Native Californian
Native Italian
Native American
Native Texan
Native Mexican

You do realize that words in English can have more than one meaning, right?

[Latro]

How about "Aborigines" ?

But then, it now seems like there were people before the "American-Indians" arrived in the america's.

Would those be Pre-Aborigines.

[Krokodil]

It would be nice if the Indians (a term most of them apparently use, however grudgingly) had some old pre-Columbian term that applied to all the tribes from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, but they apparently didn't and saw no need for one.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

You do realize that words in English can have more than one meaning, right?

Yes, but in that case it's generally the context that let's you know which meaning applies.

You know: 'I filled the pitcher with water' is not usually understood to mean that you were torturing some baseball player at Guantanamo Bay.

If someone says: 'He's a native American', it could mean he's someone who was born and lives in the USA or it could mean that he belongs to the group of people also know as 'American Indians'.

Whilst it's good to try and use nomenclature that no one finds offensive it's also a good idea to avoid picking identifiers that already have a perfectly clear (and different) meaning.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Yes, but in that case it's generally the context that let's you know which meaning applies.

That's also the case here. I don't think I've ever heard a person born in America described as a "native American" (other than a joke on the Simpsons) because people know it might be taken as referring to Native American heritage.

Whilst it's good to try and use nomenclature that no one finds offensive it's also a good idea to avoid picking identifiers that already have a perfectly clear (and different) meaning.

This describes "Indian" perfectly.

And to the OP... they were native to the place that is now called America. See?

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Yes, but in that case it's generally the context that let's you know which meaning applies.

You know: 'I filled the pitcher with water' is not usually understood to mean that you were torturing some baseball player at Guantanamo Bay.

There are tons of constructions in English which are ambiguous on their face and require additional context to clarify. "He's an engineer." Does he work on a train or does he design circuits? "She's mad." Is she angry or is she crazy? Do you find yourself complaining about these too?

If someone says: 'He's a native American', it could mean he's someone who was born and lives in the USA or it could mean that he belongs to the group of people also know as 'American Indians'.

In most cases it will mean the latter, some times it will mean the former. So what?

Whilst it's good to try and use nomenclature that no one finds offensive it's also a good idea to avoid picking identifiers that already have a perfectly clear (and different) meaning.

As far as I know, most people understand what the term "Native American" is referring to, particularly if it's in the context of the discussion they're having. You've been given a clear definition of the term, and yet you somehow think that this clear definition is confusing. Your beef seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular. ETA: Did you have trouble figuring out that "beef" here means complaint rather than the meat from a cow?

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

There are tons of constructions in English which are ambiguous on their face and require additional context to clarify. "He's an engineer." Does he work on a train or does he design circuits? "She's mad." Is she angry or is she crazy? Do you find yourself complaining about these too?

In most cases it will mean the latter, some times it will mean the former. So what?

As far as I know, most people understand what the term "Native American" is referring to, particularly if it's in the context of the discussion they're having. You've been given a clear definition of the term, and yet you somehow think that this clear definition is confusing.

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up about this.

It's really not a big deal. It's just that I've heard several people opine that it's not the most intelligent choice of name and that seems a reasonable comment.

Your beef seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular.

Yes, I suppose it is a complaint about the way that stupid people take a phrase that already means something and make it mean something completely different thus creating the possibility for misunderstandings.

ETA: Did you have trouble figuring out that "beef" here means complaint rather than the meat from a cow?

Do you think you could, perhaps, work out the answer to that by yourself?

Do you find any ambiguity when the two interpretations are:

"Your cow meat seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

and

"Your complaint seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Yes, I suppose it is a complaint about the way that stupid people take a phrase that already means something and make it mean something completely different thus creating the possibility for misunderstandings.

Do you think you could, perhaps, work out the answer to that by yourself?

Do you find any ambiguity when the two interpretations are:

"Your cow meat seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

and

"Your complaint seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

All of this applies to native American vs. Native American, too. Native + American can meant something other than Native American but in almost all contexts it's obvious what people are saying. I've never heard anyone talk about Columbus' meetings with people-who-were-born-in-America, or talk about people-born-in-America living on reservations, or discussing tribes of people-who-were-born-in-America.

[DrFidelius]

Which is why I always refer to my Wife's extended family as "Redskins," to avoid confusion (except with sunburned people).

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Marley23

All of this applies to native American vs. Native American, too. Native + American can meant something other than Native American but in almost all contexts it's obvious what people are saying. I've never heard anyone talk about Columbus' meetings with people-who-were-born-in-America, or talk about people-born-in-America living on reservations, or discussing tribes of people-who-were-born-in-America.

Over the phone, you hear: "I was in the US last month. I had dinner with a Ian and Dave to discuss the merger. Ian emigrated there five years ago. Dave is a native American".

Was Dave simply someone who was born in the US or was he descended from people who were there before Columbus?

As I said, it's not a big deal. It just doesn't strike me as the most intelligent choice of nomenclature when, until some bright spark coined that usage, it would have meant something completely different. Something that makes the meaning of 'native American' quite different to the meaning of 'native <anything else>.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up about this.

I'm not sure why you think you're personal projections apply to me. Who said I was worked up?

It's really not a big deal. It's just that I've heard several people opine that it's not the most intelligent choice of name and that seems a reasonable comment.

I've never heard anyone express confusion over the term Native American. I've never heard it used in the alternate way you're describing in my lifetime. Perhaps if I picked up a newspaper from a hundred years ago, it might be used that way, but since the majority of people aren't confused about it, and since you yourself don't think it's a big deal, then what is the purpose of this discussion?

Yes, I suppose it is a complaint about the way that stupid people take a phrase that already means something and make it mean something completely different thus creating the possibility for misunderstandings.

As in the stupid people who decided "mad" could either mean crazy or angry? Yeah, they were pretty stupid. And I guess the people who coined the term "Native American" were short-sighted in being unable to predict that some people would claim that there was some big confusion over the word when there really isn't any.

Do you think you could, perhaps, work out the answer to that by yourself?

Do you find any ambiguity when the two interpretations are:

"Your cow meat seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

and

"Your complaint seems to be with the way the English language develops rather than this term in particular."

Can you work out a joke when you see one? I wonder why you got so worked up about that.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Over the phone, you hear: "I was in the US last month. I had dinner with a Ian and Dave to discuss the merger. Ian emigrated there five years ago. Dave is a native American".

Was Dave simply someone who was born in the US or was he descended from people who were there before Columbus?

Since you're discussing national origins I'd assume he was born in the U.S. (And if I'm wrong, so what?) I understand there are situations in which this could be confusing. There are two ways to read the phrase. But most of the time the meaning is clear. It's the same as the beef example.

[Ravenman]

But it seems that you don't have a problem with the term "American" being used to describe someone from the U.S. Shouldn't it really describe people from the ice floes of Canada all the way to the pointy part of Chile?

In your example, how do we know that Dave wasn't born in Costa Rica?

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But it seems that you don't have a problem with the term "American" being used to describe someone from the U.S. Shouldn't it really describe people from the ice floes of Canada all the way to the pointy part of Chile?

In your example, how do we know that Dave wasn't born in Costa Rica?

This is a good point. We should actually stop using the term "American" to describe someone from the United States, since that leads to confusion. As a bonus, that would remove any confusion with the term "Native American." Now, we just need to come up with a replacement term for "American."

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bernieyeball

I always get grief when I pose this question but I think it is a reasonable inquiry.
I suspect the humans who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Europeans did not call it North America or America.
How can they be Native "Americans"?

Lemme ask you a question: was the poet Homer a European? He did not call the place he lived "Europe."

Is it reasonable to refer to Lucy, the early human, as an early African?

There's a type of bird called the American swallow-tailed kite. I'm pretty sure these birds don't call the place they live America. Is the name therefore a misnomer?

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

But it seems that you don't have a problem with the term "American" being used to describe someone from the U.S.

As noted many times before, the United States of America ( which is the full and official name of the country ) is the only country in the Americas to use America in its title. Consequently the use of "American" to refer to its citizens is both logical and justified. Now if the Federal Republic of Central America/United States of Central America ( 1823-1840 ) was still in existence, this might be confusing. Since it is not, it isn't.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

I'm not sure why you think you're personal projections apply to me. Who said I was worked up?

You just sounded very antsy. If you weren't, sorry.

but since the majority of people aren't confused about it, and since you yourself don't think it's a big deal, then what is the purpose of this discussion?

I don't know. I just ventured an opinion and got jumped on.

I'm quite prepared to accept that other people have other opinions to which they are entitled and have as much validity as mine.

OTOH, a couple of people here seem to want to prove that my opinion is actually wrong.

As in the stupid people who decided "mad" could either mean crazy or angry? Yeah, they were pretty stupid.

This is why I thought seemed to be a little worked up. That's not the same thing at all as it's just a linguistic evolution. People referred to people who were so angry that acted as if they were mad - mad with anger. It wasn't a case of someone sitting down and making a conscious decision to use an existing word to mean something completely different.

And I guess the people who coined the term "Native American" were short-sighted in being unable to predict that some people would claim that there was some big confusion over the word when there really isn't any.

Just because you believe there isn't any does not make that true for everyone under all circumstances. And, yes, it does seem to me to be slightly stupid to choose a term that already meant something quite different.

Evidently it doesn't to you but then not everyone is the same.

Can you work out a joke when you see one? I wonder why you got so worked up about that.

Was it a joke?

You were trying to make an analogy between two uses of a word in a context where there is no conceivable possibility of confusion and one where it's very easy to demonstrate possible confusion.

It was a poor analogy because 'beef', although meaning two different things can almost certainly be understood from context whereas 'native American' can easily be used in a situation where the context would allow either interpretation.

To put it another way, if you didn't know the slang meaning of 'beef' it would be obvious that you didn't understand what was being said and you would need to look something up. OTOH, if you didn't know the more recent meaning of 'native American' you would quite naturally apply the classic meaning - the one that fits the pattern of 'native <anything else> with no way of knowing you had misinterpreted what was being said.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

As noted many times before, the United States of America ( which is the full and official name of the country ) is the only country in the Americas to use America in its title. Consequently the use of "American" to refer to its citizens is both logical and justified. Now if the Federal Republic of Central America/United States of Central America ( 1823-1840 ) was still in existence, this might be confusing. Since it is not, it isn't.

That is certainly a logical argument, unless you want to employ the reasoning being used in this thread to claim that the term "Native American" is confusing. People from Asia are Asians and people from Europe are Europeans. And if we want to refer to people from either Europe or Asia, we would use the term Eurasian.

And people from N. America are N. Americans and people from S. America are S. Americans, but if we want to refer to people from either N. or S. America.... uh, oh! Confusion city! (which is not actually a city, dang that English language.)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

I don't know. I just ventured an opinion and got jumped on.

I'm quite prepared to accept that other people have other opinions to which they are entitled and have as much validity as mine.

OTOH, a couple of people here seem to want to prove that my opinion is actually wrong.

To be fair, an opinion is something like, "It's dumb to call first-nations folks 'Native Americans' and not to use the term for anyone else." Well, sure, that's your opinion, and I guess it's neither wrong nor right.

But when you start offering reasons for those opinions, those reasons may be sensible or they may be ridiculous. And people are free to call you on it if you post ridiculous reasons to support your opinions.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

To put it another way, if you didn't know the slang meaning of 'beef' it would be obvious that you didn't understand what was being said and you would need to look something up. OTOH, if you didn't know the more recent meaning of 'native American' you would quite naturally apply the classic meaning - the one that fits the pattern of 'native <anything else> with no way of knowing you had misinterpreted what was being said.

That's only because I included additional context with the statement. And this is what you've been doing with your examples. You give an example of a short sentence with purposely ambiguous context ("Dave is a native American") and then compare it to a long sentence (such as my beef sentence) which does contain additional context. The two examples are not equivalent as written. But I can craft any number of scenarios with ambiguous context which won't give a clear indication of what the word "beef" means:

"Joe, I heard you had a problem with your order. Where's the beef?" I might be talking about a problem, but it's not clear from this series of statements. I might actually be talking about an order of beef.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

But when you start offering reasons for those opinions, those reasons may be sensible or they may be ridiculous. And people are free to call you on it if you post ridiculous reasons to support your opinions.

I presume you meant: "And people are free to call you on it if they believe the reasons you give to support your opinions are ridiculous".

In which case I'd have to agree.

However, what isn't clear is how the view that someone making a deliberate choice to use a phrase that already has a clear meaning to mean something quite different even when used in the same context and, further, to make the meaning different to any other meaning using the same construct, can be considered 'ridiculous'.

They may not agree - that's their prerogative - but it seems a perfectly sensible view.

[BrightNShiny]

Oh, I missed this:

Originally Posted by qpw3141

[That's not the same thing at all as it's just a linguistic evolution. People referred to people who were so angry that acted as if they were mad - mad with anger. It wasn't a case of someone sitting down and making a conscious decision to use an existing word to mean something completely different.

Unless there was some spontaneous mutual agreement between a large group of people to use the word "mad" both ways, somebody had to be the first person to do it. In other words, someone had to "make it up." And to me, this sounds like some kind of just-so story, so unless you have an OED cite or something, I'm not prepared to take your version of how "mad" evolved linguistically at face value.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by DrFidelius

Which is why I always refer to my Wife's extended family as "Redskins," to avoid confusion (except with sunburned people).

Your in-laws play football in Washington DC? Can you get me tickets?

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Over the phone, you hear: "I was in the US last month. I had dinner with a Ian and Dave to discuss the merger. Ian emigrated there five years ago. Dave is a native American".

Was Dave simply someone who was born in the US or was he descended from people who were there before Columbus?

Native Americans are also native Americans, so it is being redundent, too.

In your example, what is the need for the distinction between emigrant and native? If Ian is naturalized, then both of them are Americans. If Ian is not a ciziten the Ian is <nationality> and Dave is American. Why would you overcomplicate what you are saying to add confusion?

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

You give an example of a short sentence with purposely ambiguous context ("Dave is a native American") and then compare it to a long sentence (such as my beef sentence) which does contain additional context.

Well, obviously it was 'purposely ambiguous'. I was trying to demonstrate how the phrase could be ambiguous. It would have been pointless to write a piece that was not ambiguous.

The two examples are not equivalent as written. But I can craft any number of scenarios with ambiguous context which won't give a clear indication of what the word "beef" means:

"Joe, I heard you had a problem with your order. Where's the beef?" I might be talking about a problem, but it's not clear from this series of statements. I might actually be talking about an order of beef.

Nope, that's not the same thing because there is already an underlying context. They are clearly discussing an order that either is or isn't about cow meat (and whether it is or isn't is known to both parties). Only a cretin would use the term 'where's the beef' to mean complaint in a context where the location of some cow meat was uncertain. Even then you've changed the wording from the somewhat more common "what's the beef" just to force the ambiguity.

OTOH, it's actually quite likely that someone - particularly someone for whom English was not their first language - would read: "x was a native American" and naturally assume it followed the pattern of "x was a native <anything else>".

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

Oh, I missed this:

Unless there was some spontaneous mutual agreement between a large group of people to use the word "mad" both ways, somebody had to be the first person to do it. In other words, someone had to "make it up." And to me, this sounds like some kind of just-so story, so unless you have an OED cite or something, I'm not prepared to take your version of how "mad" evolved linguistically at face value.

Your prerogative, of course.

People using 'mad' as a short form of 'so angry he acted as if mad' seems a very sensible and logical explanation for the genesis of the usage.

Using Occam's razor it seems the most likely.

Unless you can come up with some more credible alternative?

[smiling bandit]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I like the Canadian "First Nations", myself.

I dislike this because it's so faux respectful, and possibly not true. They weren't really particularly connected in any meaningful way, so given a choice I wouldn't call them anything as an arbitrary group. They definitely weren't nations and they might not have been first.

Thus, I prefer the nom de guerre Amerindians if I must use something. Tacking the "-indians" on may not make that much sense, but it's not like the people who first called them that had ever met actual the other kind.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

Native Americans are also native Americans, so it is being redundent, too.

LOL - what a perfect example of how the term can become mired in ambiguity.

In your example, what is the need for the distinction between emigrant and native?

That's irrelevant. It would depend on the rest of the conversation. Had it had something to do with the cultural environment that the people he had met were brought up in, quite a lot. Whatever, the point is that because of the ambiguity information that was intended to be passed may have been misinterpreted.

If Ian is naturalized, then both of them are Americans. If Ian is not a ciziten the Ian is <nationality> and Dave is American. Why would you overcomplicate what you are saying to add confusion?

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

One person is trying to convey some meaning to another. Because the term 'native American' has two meanings, both of which make perfect sense in exactly the same context, the recipient can misinterpret the intended meaning if he is not aware that said term has the alternative meaning.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

I was trying to demonstrate how the phrase could be ambiguous.

Didn't everybody already acknowledge it can be ambiguous? Given the way people speak, it's not likely to be ambiguous.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Didn't everybody already acknowledge it can be ambiguous?

Hard to say.

Given the length of the exchange that came about because I made the observation that deliberately adopting a phrase that can be ambiguous is not the brightest way to behave it seems that some people, at least, are not happy to accept that possible ambiguity.

Given the way people speak, it's not likely to be ambiguous.

Well, that's one take.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Given the length of the exchange that came about because I made the observation that deliberately adopting a phrase that can be ambiguous is not the brightest way to behave it seems that some people, at least, are not happy to accept that possible ambiguity.

You're projecting. What people are saying, I think, is that the ambiguity is almost always resolved by context. I have never encountered a situation where I was not sure if a speaker meant "native American" or "Native American" (and when they are written down the capitalization is another clue). You managed to make up an example where it deliberately wasn't completely clear, but that doesn't match most people's experience. You could do the same with a lot of other idiomatic phrases. And while it's euphemistic, Native American is definitely more accurate than Indian, which in that case is based on a huge geographical error.

[Hello Again]

[quote=qpw3141;12789486
OTOH, it's actually quite likely that someone - particularly someone for whom English was not their first language - would read: "x was a native American" and naturally assume it followed the pattern of "x was a native <anything else>".[/QUOTE]

Except that Native American, meaning indigenous occupant of North America at the time of European settlement, is a descriptive noun referring to a cultural grouping that should always be capitalized. Like European, Mongolian, or New Yorker.

It should also be noted however, that purely as a matter of culture and usage, the United States of America is not said to have a native population, other than the displaced Native Americans. Thus the term "native American" in common usage, has overtones many perceive as racist/anti-immigration and it is a usage to be avoided. The much more common and traditional term "natural born citizen" is preferred, if distinguishing a born citizen from a naturalized citizen is relevant and necessary.

So, since you are avoiding controversial usages, and always capitalizing correctly, (right?) no confusion normally occurs.

[TWDuke]

[Abe Simpson mode]I first recall hearing the term Native American on an episode of the TV show Alice in which Larry Hovis corrects someone who says "Indian." At the time it offended me a bit, because I thought it implied that the rest of us who have lived our entire lives here aren't native Americans. I had no problem with saying native American peoples or native American culture, but applying it to individuals of a particular ancestry seemed to exclude the majority of native Americans.

But you know what? I've realized in the past 20-odd years it doesn't hurt me a bit. Most people who meet me assume I was born in this country, and if someone happens to think I'm from Canada, it's no skin off my nose anyway.

Now, what if someone who looks Asian or Hispanic or speaks with an accent but was born in the United States wants to distinguish himself from immigrants? He can always say he is a native-born American. Yes, it's an extra syllable, but it doesn't seem like an undue hardship.

Finally, the term Native American seems to be one I only hear on TV or radio anyway. In conversation, I think people are much more likely to say Indian or, when more clarity is needed, American Indian. (I'm fairly certain I've never heard "Amerind" or "Amerindian" spoken aloud, although I've seen them in print.)

The much more common and traditional term "natural born citizen" is preferred, if distinguishing a born citizen from a naturalized citizen is relevant and necessary.

Someone can be a "natural born citizen" without ever having been to this country, which is why I suggested "native-born" for someone who was actually born within its borders.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

qpw, all languages are rife with ambiguities. This is how language works. Examine your last response to me: grammatically it doesn't even make any sense, given that it appears to be missing a predicate to a nested dependent clause. But again, how language works is that I'm able to figure out your meaning without difficulty.

You're complaining about a central feature of language. What's interesting is the particular example that you're harping about.

If the phrase "Native American" virtually never causes confusion, and if it pulls in the connotations the speaker wishes to pull in (pointing out that the referent comes from a culture that's been here many centuries longer than the cultures of more recent immigrants), then it's a successful usage. The fact that you can't come up with any real-life examples where the term causes confusion, needing to create hypotheticals, is telling.

And in your example, the speaker should have rephrased his information: "I was in the US last month. I had dinner with a Ian and Dave to discuss the merger. Ian emigrated there five years ago. Dave was born there". It has the advantage of fewer syllables, parallel construction, and no ambiguity.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by Bernieyeball

I always get grief when I pose this question

How do you 'pose' it, do you put a little dress on it? Sheesh:

assume a posture as for artistic purposes; "We don't know the woman who posed for Leonardo so often" [syn: model, sit, posture]

Or maybe this:


Pretend to be someone you are not; sometimes with fraudulent intentions;

[Lemur866]

The thing is, the concept of "Indians" or "Native Americans", to refer to people descended from people who lived here before Columbus, is a European construct. The various tribes and empires who lived in the Americas before Columbus didn't have a term that meant "people who live in the Americas", because they didn't need to.

You have to be aware that there's another continent out there before you need a name for the particular continent you live on.

And when Indians came in contact with Europeans, they didn't have the idea that there were two types of people--Indians in one category, Europeans in another. Rather, Europeans were just one more type of people. Sure, they spoke different languages and dressed funny and had funny technology, but so did every other group that wasn't your group.

[Anne Neville]

You expect language usage to be logical and unambiguous? That's your problem, right there. That's like expecting golfers to follow the rules of basketball.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

I don't know. I just ventured an opinion and got jumped on.

I'm quite prepared to accept that other people have other opinions to which they are entitled and have as much validity as mine.

OTOH, a couple of people here seem to want to prove that my opinion is actually wrong.

Welcome to the SDMB. If you post an opinion in a debate forum, and someone responds, they are neither jumping on you nor disrespecting your right to hold an opinion. Instead, they are responding to you.

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Well, obviously it was 'purposely ambiguous'. I was trying to demonstrate how the phrase could be ambiguous. It would have been pointless to write a piece that was not ambiguous.

Well, I would like to argue with your implied premise. Namely, conversation doesn't generally work like your purposely ambiguous example. That is, people understand the ambiguities in their language and thus work around them in conversation.

Originally Posted by Marley23

And while it's euphemistic, Native American is definitely more accurate than Indian, which in that case is based on a huge geographical error.

And yet, oddly enough, Charles C. Mann in Appendix A of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus argues for the term Indian. He did a lot of field work around the hemisphere and says that every native person he met used "Indian" rather than "Native American." He goes on to quote Russell Means, an early leader of AIM:

Originally Posted by Russell Means in 1998

I abhor the term Native American. We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

It's not the most apposite of names because it means something completely different from native <anything else>.

On the other hand, it's arguably more apposite than 'Indians'.

Okay, your arguments have convinced me that "Native Americans" is pointlessly ambiguous and clearly coined by people who have trouble counting past ten with their shoes on. So, what term should we use instead, particularly given that "Indian" is even more ambiguous?

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Your prerogative, of course.

People using 'mad' as a short form of 'so angry he acted as if mad' seems a very sensible and logical explanation for the genesis of the usage.

Using Occam's razor it seems the most likely.

Unless you can come up with some more credible alternative?

So you just made it up then? You're the one making a factual claim, therefore, you're the one who should provide evidence of the claim.

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

Well, obviously it was 'purposely ambiguous'. I was trying to demonstrate how the phrase could be ambiguous. It would have been pointless to write a piece that was not ambiguous.

So, you accuse other people of getting worked up. But then you throw around words like stupid and use the roll eyes. But, way to completely miss the point of my statement.

Nope, that's not the same thing because there is already an underlying context. They are clearly discussing an order that either is or isn't about cow meat (and whether it is or isn't is known to both parties). Only a cretin would use the term 'where's the beef' to mean complaint in a context where the location of some cow meat was uncertain. Even then you've changed the wording from the somewhat more common "what's the beef" just to force the ambiguity.

You're not king of the language, so you don't get to arbitrarily decide who is a cretin for using what. I can just as easily say that only a cretin would use the term "Native American" to refer to someone other than an American Indian. That's not an argument, that's just you throwing around insults. If you can't comprehend that there are multiple phrases in English that contain ambiguity, that's not our problem, that's yours.

OTOH, it's actually quite likely that someone - particularly someone for whom English was not their first language - would read: "x was a native American" and naturally assume it followed the pattern of "x was a native <anything else>".

Quite likely? Again, more made up stuff. At this point, you need to provide polling data or survey data to back these statements up, or you should just admit that you're making stuff up.

[Peremensoe]

This is Bernieyeball's second try at this. Many here are addressing a slightly larger question (the overall usefulness and accuracy of "Native American") than what he actually asked (about that term's incorporation of "American," which wasn't a pre-Columbian word).

Originally Posted by Bernieyeball

I suspect the humans who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Europeans did not call it North America or America.
How can they be Native "Americans"?

Originally Posted by spark240

In English, we call it America. "Native American" is an English-language term.

As it happens, the word for the continent in some Native languages is "America," or something close to it, simply because individual tribes had no basis for thinking in terms of the whole continent before European arrival.

In Cherokee Tsalagi, the word is Ameliga.

Before the European "discovery," there was no concept, for anyone, of a collective body including all the human populations indigenous to the American continents, but distinct from all human populations elsewhere. Therefore the only possible terms are retrofits. If you speak English, it makes sense to use an English retrofit term. "Indian" was the first such, but is obviously more susceptible to misunderstanding in most contexts.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Since you're discussing national origins I'd assume he was born in the U.S. (And if I'm wrong, so what?) I understand there are situations in which this could be confusing. There are two ways to read the phrase. But most of the time the meaning is clear. It's the same as the beef example.

If the speaker was concerned about the possibility of misunderstanding, he could say "Dave is an American by birth." Ian's "emigration" implies he has relocated permanently, and may become a citizen. But given the parallel presentation of the two, I would say it's easy to comprehend as a statement on each man's personal origins and relationship to the United States, not his ancestry.

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

They definitely weren't nations and they might not have been first.

They were nations.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government.

[qpw3141]

Originally Posted by BrightNShiny

So, you accuse other people of getting worked up. But then you throw around words like stupid and use the roll eyes. But, way to completely miss the point of my statement.

So, you believe that someone needs to be 'worked up' to recognise the concept of 'stupidity'? That's an idea I haven't heard before.

And, really, I can't see anything wrong with rolling your eyes at someone who says of an example you're made up to illustrate a point about possible ambiguity: "You give an example of a short sentence with purposely ambiguous context ". Yes, obviously. There would be no point in giving an example that was not ambiguous in context. I can't understand why you are having so much trouble with that.

You're not king of the language, so you don't get to arbitrarily decide who is a cretin for using what.

Could I respectfully suggest that you try and understand the difference between stating an opinion and asserting that you are 'king of language'?

I can just as easily say that only a cretin would use the term "Native American" to refer to someone other than an American Indian.

Well, you could, but as you would be suggesting that people were cretins for using two words in their normal English sense I don't think you'd get much traction.

That's not an argument, that's just you throwing around insults.

Really?

So, in your view, saying that you don't believe anyone would do something because it would be stupid constitutes an insult? Another new concept; although I suppose it helps to explain 'May cause drowsiness' warnings on bottles of sleeping tablets.

If you can't comprehend that there are multiple phrases in English that contain ambiguity, that's not our problem, that's yours.

Ah, the 'everyone else does it so it's OK to do it', argument. Not one that goes down well with everybody.

Quite likely? Again, more made up stuff. At this point, you need to provide polling data or survey data to back these statements up, or you should just admit that you're making stuff up.

Sometimes you need to poll people to decide something - e.g Do you believe that GWB was an idiot?

Sometimes you can just use deductive logic and no poll is necessary.

Ask yourself these questions:

Why would anyone who had not heard that the expression 'Native Americans' have any reason to assume it meant anything other than the equivalent of 'Native <anything else>'?

Is everyone who is likely to read English, particularly those for whom it is not their first language aware of this irregular usage?

[BrightNShiny]

Originally Posted by qpw3141

So, you believe that someone needs to be 'worked up' to recognise the concept of 'stupidity'? That's an idea I haven't heard before.

Well, if you're going to continue to fling insults (which indicates that you can't back up your argument) then I'd say the stupid person is the one who can't comprehend a word with a clear definition, such as Native American.

And, really, I can't see anything wrong with rolling your eyes at someone who says of an example you're made up to illustrate a point about possible ambiguity: "You give an example of a short sentence with purposely ambiguous context ". Yes, obviously. There would be no point in giving an example that was not ambiguous in context. I can't understand why you are having so much trouble with that.

Yes, when you give your arbitrary ambiguous examples, they're peachy. When anybody else gives an ambiguous example, there's some mysterious logic in your head that makes them cretins. Talk about a statement needing rolleyes.

Could I respectfully suggest that you try and understand the difference between stating an opinion and asserting that you are 'king of language'?

Oh, please, there's nothing respectful about what you're doing here. You're throwing a tantrum because nobody wants to play along with your pedantic word games.

Well, you could, but as you would be suggesting that people were cretins for using two words in their normal English sense I don't think you'd get much traction.

I've gotten plenty of traction here. You're the one who's not coming off well in this thread. You're flailing around makes it clear you have no argument.

Really?

So, in your view, saying that you don't believe anyone would do something because it would be stupid constitutes an insult? Another new concept; although I suppose it helps to explain 'May cause drowsiness' warnings on bottles of sleeping tablets.

Ah, yes. Even more insults. The fact that you have to resort to insults (even though you initial threw a tantrum over the tone of other people's posts) just shows that you have no argument.

Ah, the 'everyone else does it so it's OK to do it', argument. Not one that goes down well with everybody.

This makes no sense. Language is inherently about what "everyone does." If you can't grasp that basic concept, then you have no business trying to lecture people about language.

Sometimes you need to poll people to decide something - e.g Do you believe that GWB was an idiot?

Sometimes you can just use deductive logic and no poll is necessary.

Ask yourself these questions:

Why would anyone who had not heard that the expression 'Native Americans' have any reason to assume it meant anything other than the equivalent of 'Native <anything else>'?

So, you're not planning to back up your attempted factual statements? You know, there's a whole group of people who study language as their career. You could check them to see if what you're saying is true. But instead, you've just decided to pretend that what you think is reality. Have fun, but I doubt many people are going to take your viewpoint, since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Is everyone who is likely to read English, particularly those for whom it is not their first language aware of this irregular usage?

That's why we have these things called dictionaries. To make people aware of potentially irregular or idiomatic usages (although the term "Native American" is neither idiomatic or irregular). But apparently, you've never heard of a dictionary. So, you think you're limited understanding of the English language applies to everyone.

[BrightNShiny]

Or, to sum up, you're entire argument is: I'm going to make up stuff and people who don't agree with me are stupid cretins. Big deal. It's not a persuasive argument, but have fun trying to convince yourself that it is.