Re: [OT] British vs. American English
On 2 October 2011 16:09, John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:
> Hilco Wijbenga writes:
>> Actually, no, we (Canadians) call them "First Nations" (or, at least,
>> that's the PC term). It does have a nice ring to it.
>
> But that refers to their political units. It doesn't work as a label
> for individuals.
I realized that after I had hit send. I was wondering whether I was
going to get called on that. :-)
So I did a bit more research. Apparently, "Indian" is indeed still
used (in fact, it's a legal term) but, as I understand it, the PC term
is (are you ready for this ...): "First Nations Individual". Quite a
mouthful. Canada recognises various different groups (First Nations,
Inuit, and Métis) to make things even more interesting. It's a
complicated mess. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
>> And it makes more sense than "native" since humans aren't really
>> native to any place (check your history books for how humans spread
>> across the globe).
>
> Then neither are many other animals.
Exactly. :-) Did we just turn various sciences upside down? And what
would all those environmental groups do if they couldn't claim the
destruction of "native" flora and fauna anymore? ;-)
Still, if nobody can say they are "native" to a particular piece of
land any more then perhaps all this stupid bickering about who owns
what can stop. [Yeah, riiiight. :-) ]
>> And in the US (nowadays), it's "Native Americans". Calling them
>> Indians was always silly as Indians live in India.
>
> An extremely politically-incorrect friend makes the distinction by
> saying "Indian (feather not dot)". I just say "Native American".
Nice one. :-) I can appreciate !PC jokes. You have to be so careful
nowadays, it can become rather tiresome. Then again, if you're always
the butt of jokes, and it just doesn't stop, I'm sure it stops being
funny very quickly.
Reply to: