No one's questioning whether we have the right to act like assholes, Tourist. I believe her question was something more along the lines of, "How do I avoid acting like one?" That being said, no term should be offensive if used in context. In this case, I would go with Indian.
'Political correctness' is every bit as dehumanizing as the worst ethnic slur. The first form of bigotry is despising others for their differences. The second form is denying the differences and insisting on making everyone just like you. The alternative is to see the differences, and appreciating those differences. On the other hand, it's tricky beccause you can perceive differences that don't really exist, or that are individual differences, not ethnic/cultural/gender-based. It takes a continuing effort to not generalize individual traits to a larger group, because the human mind depends on classification and extrapolation to process information. So, back to terminology. The honest thing a writer can and should do is use the words the character would use, or in some cases the modern equivalent that conveys the same tone. The narrator is also a character, even if that character is an echo of the author. So the real answer is that there is no one right answer. Sometimes, deciding the voice of the narrator must be a conscious choice.
As always, Ed, and I respect your stand. It is not the disagreements I object to amongst my fellow citizens, it's the holier-than-thou "do as I say" smugness that just sets my teeth on edge. Heck, Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit. And Ed, I always read your stuff. I know that if you ever posted, "Tourist, I hate everything you stand for and the cayuse you rode in on--and here's my postulates as to why," I would be assured on a fair, well-documented thesis, that I would probably agree with. Political correctness is theft of my heritage. If I had my way, it would be an act of sedition with capital punishment. It denies our collective past, and seeks to make it invalid. Our colonial Framers suggested defense against this principle with "liberty teeth."
I add my voice to others that said if it was used back then than by all means go for it, and i think people should not try and hide history there is a reason it happened and we should not forget it. Lately many even say its offensive to mention the holocaust so should we ignore it ever happened? same goes for the term "negro" it was a name used back then we should be ashamed of it but we should not try and change history just cause its offensive. Being called a "bastard" was also an offensive name but today its hardly an insult(probably still is for some sensitive people), but you see the term bastard used all the time in movies and books and no one gives it a second thought.
I was crossing a parking lot with one of my non-motorcycle friends when a loudmouth bellowed a racial epthet at me from a block away. My citizen friend was stunned, and asked, "Who's that idiot?" I looked towards the offending party and responded, "Oh, that's the biker who was the best man at my wedding." You'll notice from my last few hundred posts here that my self-esteem has forever been crushed and I shant ever be the man I was, but simply the pasty shadow I now present. Get over the pity-party bruising, folks. We used to be tough, try to remember when.
I don't understand. Isn't our heritage individual freedom? As in, freedom to carry yourself how you see fit? Freedom to be a saint, freedom to be a sinner? How can you speak of freedom and liberty in one breath only to punish people for expressing themselves in the next? You walk a fine line of hypocrisy, my friend. ~ J. J.
My grandfather was the last full blood Cherokee in our family name. When he spoke of his heritage he referred to himself as ‘Cherokee’. “I am Cherokee” he said when we talked about our family history. He married a woman from France and had seven children, all boys. They were French and Cherokee. Never once did anyone in my family call themselves ‘Indian’ or ‘Native’, or any of the other various monikers we place on peoples. My father married a German woman. That made me, and my sister, French, German, and Cherokee. I couldn’t fathom describing myself as French, German, and Indian. Nor could I fathom calling myself European and Cherokee. That doesn’t tell you who I am. Getting back to the author of this thread, if JennyM is writing a ‘historical book’ (we don’t know if it’s a historical text book or a novel set in the historical ‘Wild West’). If it were a text I would tend to lean toward the popular naming conventions of our time. Re: Native American name controversy. If it were a novel set in the historical ‘Wild West’ I would be in favor of using Tribal names. Creek, Apache, Algonquin, and hundreds more tribes, are all very fine peoples, I’m sure, but please don’t toss me into that pot of stew by calling me ‘Indian’. Btw, Thank you for for that, Cogito. Edit: Thank you for for that, Cogito, because it expands the way I think of PC which I don't really care to get into right now. I just found your statement very deep, and true.
It is. But part of that freedom is the responsibility of a daily struggle to keep Tories from disenfranchising us with our own freedoms. Like using our concept of free speech to lobby the central government to outlaw free speech, for example. You'll often hear this idea in shorthand as "Freedom isn't free." Less than a generation ago a soldier took an oath to protect our country "from enemies from without and within." We don't seem to value that concept much anymore. But hey, you don't miss something until it's gone. I think it will finally sink in when the day comes (and probably sooner than later) when you go google something, and a window pops up informing you "This information has been censored by the order of Homeland Pre-Criminal Information Filtration." China and parts of the middle-east already have that problem. Laugh if you want, but not too long ago Tipper Gore wanted the government to poke around in music. So why not our books and stories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore
My personal opinion: We have Freedom of Speech, but if someone prefer that I call them something else, then I will call them something else. If erebh's wife would want me to call her Native, or Native American, then that is what I will call her out of respect, even if I may disagree with it. Sorry, but I'm not sure how respectfully calling someone by something other than 'Indian' is on the same line as the government censoring damned near everything. As for a writing standpoint? Well, it depends on the character, really. Writers are pretty much invisible recorders following them around. Sometimes characters are going to do things, or say things that we in this day and age would fine horribly offensive. That's on them. EdFromNY/JJ_Maxx said it best. There will always be racist, bigoted characters, and if they're gonna be properly racist and bigoted, they need to act and say the part. I can't have a character who claims he hates Asians do nothing to show the readers that he hates them. And if you're writing historical fiction, you should stick to the terms they used back in the day. My Western outlaw character isn't going to call the Natives he meets 'Native Americans'. At best, he'd call them by the tribe they came from (if he respects them), and at worse, they're 'Indians'.
LOL. I hate to admit this, but I did own a Honda GoldWing in 1979. As for reliability, I was just cruising down Madison's old Beltline Highway at about 50 MPH when the entire engine exploded. I had 1,400 miles on the motor, barely broke-in. I'm not exaggerating. I did not grab the clutch or touch the brakes, I just let her roll to a stop near the median. I left a debris field 50 to 75 yards long. I got off the bike and the entire engine was missing, cases and everything. The armature spun loose inside the alternator, and went flying through the back of the engine at 17,000 RPM. They sent four engineers from American Honda in California to take the bike for study, and gave me a CBX for my trouble. I didn't like that bike any much better. I went back to Harleys, and I have never left. Shouldn't have left in the first place. My avatar is a 1971 Super Glide. Not bad for a 19 year old wise-mouth kid.
Cog, as I said earlier, most (not all) of what we categorize as "political correctness" is nothing more or less than simple human decency. There was a time when we called this "good manners" or "polite society". It is actually the antithesis of bigotry. I also don't think anyone is looking to deny the differences among individuals. But I do think that some people look for ways to marginalize people because of their differences. And that I do object to.
I would agree. The problem with political correctness is that it seems to be used by guys usually picked last in softball. They cannot or will not compete, so instead of playing you upright, they try and beat you to death with the rule book. I could, in fact, give you a list of at least twenty derogatory terms that apply to me, personally. Sound like a familiar boast? It should, it's a plot point in literature. Cyrano de Bergerac made the same claim. It appears that the same lesson must be learned anew by every generation.
Tourist, you have an uncanny knack for infusing simple statements with a heavy emotional overload. Exactly what heritage of yours has been stolen by simply asking that various people not be marginalized? Let's not call gay people "faggots". Let's not call African-Americans "niggers". Let's try to be at least somewhat accurate in how we refer to people who were native dwellers of our country before our ancestors subsumed them through genocidal war. How does any of that have any impact on your heritage? Now, there are some things done in the name of political correctness with which I do not agree - particularly the manner in which religious-based holidays are "sanitized" in our public schools, such as Christmas and Chanukkah being run through a meat-grinder resulting in a bland celebration of "holidays". Again, no one suffers, no one is "robbed of his heritage", but we miss a chance to expose our children to holidays that they do not celebrate but that their friends do. As a widely varied society, we each have a limitless supply with which to educate, and be educated by, our fellows. Yet we are often too quick to disparage others simply because they are different. As a child, I remember being dragged out of my neighborhood and my school as part of "white flight". Nothing good came of that, not for me, not for my family, not for the neighborhood left behind. Very far afield from what this thread started, so maybe if we want to continue this discussion, we should start a related thread over in the Lounge.
Ed, just how high is "up"? When does the slippery slope start? If we agree that there is a list of words or ideas than can be eliminated, it soon becomes mandated that they should be eliminated. But you can still object. When rulers get tired of objections they make sure you cannot object--safely. Ideas are powerful tools. I heard my Aunt Clara state an old Sicilian adage. Roughly translated (because this is a family forum) it states, "A lion can lead 1,000 sheep better than a sheep can lead 1,000 lions." I was your typical pasty faced, stupid, fourteen year old boy. I read a book, one book. It has been dangerous, let me stress that, dangerous, to try and make me do anything ever again. We are a free people because of that free exchange of ideas. And I never forgot the principle. One idea, on a printed page, in a book.
I think what Ed is saying is that there is a middle ground between being a complete arse and shouting offensive slurs like "faggot" or "gook" (the Asian equivalent of the n-word) and absolute stifiling of free speech. Now, some things are offensive, like those two words I just typed, so, no, I would not go out into polite society and yell that at someone. As someone protected under Freedom of Speech, I have a right to say it. No one's gonna stop me, but that does not mean I can go on ahead and do so! Now, I, as the narrator, will likely address the Natives as that, Natives. Whatever my characters choose to call them is their business.
Again, I understand the concept. The issue is not the freedom we choose, like freely choosing to not use an epithet. Rather, I'm talking about the freedom to espouse an unpopular idea. In my response to Ed, I mentioned the importance I found in one book. Clearly, I have my detractors here. So delineate that idea. One of my detractors jokes, "Well, if a book made people like The Tourist, clearly we should find that book and burn it." Sound like anyone you know? Can't happen here? Mark Twain sound like a man that should be censored and controlled? Heck, he already is... Did you know that 40 years ago they had public burnings of Beatles albums? Did you know that Elvis Presley went to see Nixon on the immoral impact of British music? Did you know that Nixon granted the request, and welcomed Presley in for the meeting?
The Tourist just takes things too far and says that the smallest thing will eventually lead to utter tyranny. So if someone wants to be un-offensive by using a nuetral term for Native Americans, he is offended because he feels it is a small step toward complete destruction of the world. That, of course, is a gross exaggeration but it gets tiresome when you play Chicken Little in every thread. Some people choose to be unoffensive, just let them or ignore them. ~ J. J.
Your soapbox is creaking under the weight of all the use it has gotten lately, Turista. This thread is about what choice this writer should make, not whether The Man is gonna clap her in irons for it. Give it a rest, please.
[QUOTE} Now, some things are offensive, like those two words I just typed, so, no, I would not go out into polite society and yell that at someone. As someone protected under Freedom of Speech, I have a right to say it. No one's gonna stop me, but that does not mean I can go on ahead and do so! [/QUOTE] I didn't realise that US freedom of speech allowed these words be used in such derogatory fashions. In Ireland and Britain we'd be arrested for hate crimes / racism... I would agree with someone above saying it's probably safer to use the tribe name as they never changed from day 1. Cherokees today were cherokees hundreds of years ago - Job done!
I didn't realise that US freedom of speech allowed these words be used in such derogatory fashions. In Ireland and Britain we'd be arrested for hate crimes / racism... I would agree with someone above saying it's probably safer to use the tribe name as they never changed from day 1. Cherokees today were cherokees hundreds of years ago - Job done!
(Sarcasm begins.) So you would _require_ me, as a patriotic duty, failure punishable by death, to insult others? In my day to day interactions with everyone, I must use every ethnic and other slur at my command? Actually, is "at my command" enough? What if I don't know the slurs? What if I don't know the nationality or other attributes to use as a guideline for those slurs? Ignorance of the required forms of hatred is no excuse, no defense. I'd better study slurs, and research the backgrounds of everyone I meet, to make sure that I am sufficiently politically incorrect. Obviously, freedom of expression must give way to this far more important duty. Should I throw in some anti-male and anti-gun slurs here? Would that make you more comfortable? (Sarcasm ends.) If that's not what you're saying, then what on earth _are_ you saying?
Actually, history teaches me. Did you know that some of the World War I soldiers did not receive a portion of their pay. They went to Washington D.C. to protest. Soldiers fired at them. Ask your grandparents about "Crystal Night" in Germany. As for windows breaking, I saw riots and windows being smashed on State Street in Madison, Wisconsin in 1969. In 1970, four students were shot and killed at Kent State. Over and over again, even in civilized countries, people say the same things. "Oh, it's not so bad, what's a small loss of freedom and convenience? What could happen?" You never hand over your freedom, your beliefs, or your safety to some ideologue who promises that he knows better. You are now not only being told what to say, but what to think. The government openly frisks you at airports, but also crosschecks your book purchases at Barnes & Noble in secret. If you come to Madison and simply walk outside, you will be on surveillance cameras on the average of 32 times per day. But please, don't worry. Someone will come along soon and make everything alright. But first, let's make sure we cross out some objectionable phrases in that book of yours... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734667/
Actually, they were called "Savages" back then by many people. "Indian" then was the equivalent of "Native American" today. It was the nice way to refer to someone. OP, it also depends on your perspective and if your talking of a specific tribe or tribes. For instance, if you're setting is Colorado/Wyoming in the 1860's, then there's a decent chance you'd hear them called "Nits." (If you're using that time and that area, then I suggest you also reference the Sand Creek massacre, however). So iron out setting and who exactly is talking (if you haven't already), and then find out what activities were happening around that time, especially concerning the American "Indian wars." Journals or quotes of American military leaders back then would make a very good original source for the way they're referenced. If you're talking about today - then it also depends on the perspective. Some will say "native American," some will say, "Indian," some will use a number of very cruel and derogatory terms. Here's a link to the "Racial Slur Database" that lists the slur, the representation (in this case, all Native Americans), and the reasons/origins the slur was attached. (The site does not celebrate slurs, but merely informs as to origins, etc). NSFW - http://www.rsdb.org/race/native_americans
