Gregory Morrow

Jeremy Henderson wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:05:51 +0000, Gregory Morrow wrote:
    > >
    > > Barney wrote:
    > >
    > >> In article <[email protected]>,
    > >> [email protected] (poldy) wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > I always thought it was amusing that there is a Tex Mex chain called
    > >> > Indiana's in Paris. Never tried it but seems to be popular.
    > > This is amusing because here in the US Indiana the US state is
considered a
    > > rather dullish and backward place...populated by folks who could
charitably
    > > be called "slow learners"....
    > >
    > > For us in Chicago it's primarily known as a place one goes *through* (on
    > > ghastly congested roads no less) to get to scenic Michigan or points
farther
    > > East. The panorama Indiana presents to us is one of futility and
    > > hopelessness
    > Then the restaurant is appropriately named.


*lol*

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow

<[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
    > > Donna Evleth writes:
    > >
    > > > It doesn't. My own guess is the connection with "Indians", as in
    > > > native
    > > > Americans.
    > >
    > > Native Americans aren't Indians. They may or may not be aboriginal.
    > > Indians don't come from America.
    > But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.
    > (Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
    > native Canadians?)


In Canada IIRC it's "Inuit"....

--
Best
Greg

Mxsmanic

jenn writes:

    > today in the US 'native Americans' refer to themselves as Indians --

So they are making the same mistake as everyone else.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > Indeed, but we can't change the past.

We don't have to. We need only worry about the present and future.

    > Unless it is obvious from the context that it means that and not an
    > aboriginal American, I am sure nearly everybody would both intend and take
    > it to mean an aboriginal American.

Then they need to correct their understanding. It's rather like
assuming that gay means homosexual, which leaves us without a way to
actually say gay.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic

Donna Evleth writes:

    > I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why I
    > appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians from
    > India. I really do know the difference. Honest.

But you give the impression that all native Americans are "Indians,"
when in fact only a minority are aboriginal (the apparent intended
meaning of "Indian").

A more logical usage:

Indian = from India
native American = born in America
aboriginal American = of immemorial American ancestry

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Padraig Breathnach

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

    >A more logical usage:
    >Indian = from India
    >native American = born in America
    >aboriginal American = of immemorial American ancestry

Usage isn't logical; it's consensual.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, jenn <[email protected]>
wrote:

    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > > jenn writes:
    > >
    > >
    > >>duh -- that is what they call themselves and what they were
    > >>traditionally called
    > >
    > >
    > > They traditionally called themselves by various names, depending on
    > > their tribes.
    > >
    >
    >
    > today in the US 'native Americans' refer to themselves as Indians --
    > this may change tomorrow

Tell that to all the High Schools that have been pressured to change
their team names.

jay
Thu Jul 29, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Jeremy Henderson

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:29:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Donna Evleth writes:
    >
    >> I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why I
    >> appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians from
    >> India. I really do know the difference. Honest.
    >
    > But you give the impression that all native Americans are "Indians,"
    > when in fact only a minority are aboriginal (the apparent intended
    > meaning of "Indian").
    >
    > A more logical usage:
    >
    > Indian = from India
    > native American = born in America
    > aboriginal American = of immemorial American ancestry

"Cowboys and aboriginal Americans" - fair rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

The Reids

Following up to randee

    >Milan
    >There are supposedly two Mexican restaurants in Milan owned by somebody
    >from Roswell, New Mexico, USA. I have not tried them, and rather doubt
    >I will ever actually get to Milan in our travels in northern Italy, but
    >I wonder if anybody has tried either the Louisiana Bistro or the El
    >Tropico Latino? Supposedly the Bistro is a hangout for the Delta pilots
    >on the Atlanta/Milan run.

I wouldn't go to Milan for Mexican food!

    >Chilis
    >You can get a feel for the heat of a Mexican/Spanish restaurant by
    >asking the cook what varieties of chilis he uses - if he uses Big Jims
    >for rellenos and either Barker or Sandia for the salsa, you know you are
    >in good hands....................

Spanish food does not use much in the way of chillis.
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

barney

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:

    > [email protected] writes:
    > > Unless it is obvious from the context that it means that and not an
    > > aboriginal American, I am sure nearly everybody would both intend and
    > > take it to mean an aboriginal American.
    >
    > Then they need to correct their understanding. It's rather like
    > assuming that gay means homosexual

For what sense of "means" does it not, in modern general usage?

barney

In article <[email protected] et>,
[email protected] (Gregory Morrow) wrote:

    >
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > [email protected] (Mxsmanic) wrote:
    > > > Native Americans aren't Indians. They may or may not be aboriginal.
    > > > Indians don't come from America.
    > >
    > > But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.
    > >
    > > (Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
    > > native Canadians?)
    >
    >
    > In Canada IIRC it's "Inuit"....

I thought that was out of fashion now; maybe it's back. But doesn't it
specifically refer to the people of the north (as opposed to those of the
prairies)?

Richard

"Gregory Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

    > In Canada IIRC it's "Inuit"....

Not quite. The Inuit are a people who live in the far north of Canada. Used
to be that we'd call them Eskimos.

Richard

Olivers

Mxsmanic extrapolated from data available...

    > [email protected] writes:
    >
    >> But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.
    >
    > So must it remain so for eternity? It is rather glaringly incorrect.
    >
    >> Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
    >> native Canadians?
    >
    > They are aborigines. Aborigine means "from the beginning," and is the
    > correct word for someone who is of native ancestry since time
    > immemorial. A "native American," in contrast, is simply anyone who was
    > born in America, irrespective of ancestry.
    >

A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock. Current research has begun to conclude that there
were likely some others here before them (and even the earliest of their
type disappared as successive groups gained hegemeony over areas of the
Americas). The remains recovered and dated in the US Pacific Northwest
several years back became subject of a furor, After modest research and
dating had proved them to be quite different than any known Native
American/Indian types (and older), the local tribes as much as to protect
their traditional early bird status, demanded and recived the remains for
reburial (and concealment from those devilish scientists).

B. I don't know why you conclude that they are calling themselves
"Indians" these days to any greatere xtent that they ever did. While we in
the US went through the "Native American" stage and the political
correctness binge which followed (which caused most folks to use the term),
most of the tribes and their associations continued to employ the
traditional generic term. As for your employment of "Native American",
since that includes everybody born between ice-covered Canadian islands and
Patagonia, the "all inclusivness" thereof renders it pretty inexact.

After all, are Canadians born in Canada any less "Native" Americans.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans". After all, we've not gotten around to
changing the Atlases to do something about that big misprint, the "West
Indies", and in much of the US and Canada, "West Indians" remains pretty
clear and includes neither Caribs, Taino or folks from Mumbai.

"PreColumbians" wouldn't be bad, but would offend some folks from
Minnesota, Norwegians, Swedes and some Danes plus descendants of wandering
Scandinavians and people named Ericson. But you never know about things
like that. After all, we old folks grew up with "Eskimo" and overnight
most of them became "Inuit" (but kept the poor Eskimo dogs). Blacks may
choose to be called so, but woe unto him who hauls out "Redskins" and is
not speaking of a professional football team, all the amateurs haveing been
forced to surrender to PC.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

TMO

TMO

Olivers

The Reids extrapolated from data available...

    > Following up to randee
    >
    >>Milan
    >>There are supposedly two Mexican restaurants in Milan owned by somebody
    >>from Roswell, New Mexico, USA. I have not tried them, and rather doubt
    >>I will ever actually get to Milan in our travels in northern Italy, but
    >>I wonder if anybody has tried either the Louisiana Bistro or the El
    >>Tropico Latino? Supposedly the Bistro is a hangout for the Delta pilots
    >>on the Atlanta/Milan run.
    >
    > I wouldn't go to Milan for Mexican food!
    >
    >>Chilis
    >>You can get a feel for the heat of a Mexican/Spanish restaurant by
    >>asking the cook what varieties of chilis he uses - if he uses Big Jims
    >>for rellenos and either Barker or Sandia for the salsa, you know you are
    >>in good hands....................
    >
    > Spanish food does not use much in the way of chillis.

You're right. I really think of Italian food as actually more often
employing red chiles (chiles is the more common English for the peppers)
than would a Spanish chef. Unfortunately, Big Jims, Barkers and Sandias
are not varieties of chiles but trade/growing area names from Southern New
Mexico (as is "Hatch") and would be entirely unknown among Mexicans or
Mexican Markets. Chile Rellenos usually are done with Poblano chiles, a
dark green variety with very modest heat. Mexican table sauces depend on
fresh jalapenos and serranos, and lately chipotle (a smoked ripe jalapeno),
pequins and such oddities as the Scotch bonnet/Habanero. Mole Verde, green
sauces, use several, usually locally grown, species in types matching such
US breeds as Hatch, Anaheim, etc., often combined with tomatillos, almost
unknown in New Mexico. It's a long way and alot of kitchens and gardens
bewteen the Green Chile Stew of Northern New Mexico and Pibil from the
Yucatan.

TMO

Most "Mexicans" speak of New Mexico's cuisine as being too hot, preferring
their "heat" in condement form, raw and cooked salsas or even chiles.

Mxsmanic

Olivers writes:

    > A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
    > late-arriving stock.

They are descendants of immemorial stock (one without a clear written
record of its immigration), which is a pretty good dividing line.

    > There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
    > choice than "Native Americans".

The problem is that there are more and more real Indians in the world,
and with two completely different groups sharing the same name, it can
get pretty confusing.

    > Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
    > renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

But wasn't Scarlet a slave owner?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.