South Dakota Republican Convention

[DaGip]

Hey, guys! I just got back from the South Dakota State Republican Convention. It was quite the experience as I have never participated in a party convention before. More Republicans support Ron Paul in their hearts, but they just feel that they have to vote for McCain based on party lines (which does not make sense to me). Absolutely no one was energized over McCain...

Ron Paul supporters were able to get a number of issues accomplished. We were able to amend the 2008 platform to include the "eventual abolishment of the IRS" and we added a new plank that stated the South Dakota Republican party does not support embryonic stem cell research if it means killing a fetus to get it, but we do support all other forms of stem cell research.

I tried to get them to change any reference to Native Americans to read Native Americans instead of American Indians, but they refused to budge, because they considered themselves to be Native American...I see their point, but I was just thinking that the term Indian is offensive to some Native Americans, and the whites don't ever refer to themselves as Native American, but American. I disagreed for this allowance, but I gave the best argument I could. I am not offended by the term American Indian, but technically Indian is the wrong name anyway, as Native Americans are neither Indian nor from India.

Anyway, I just wanted to explain to you guys why I was gone this weekend.

[MeDeFe]

How about the eventual abolishment of the NSA and of the Patriot Act?

[DaGip]

How about the eventual abolishment of the NSA and of the Patriot Act?

Baby steps...baby steps. The Patriot Act itself could be contested by the Supreme Court as it has been declared unconstitutional (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Sep29.html ) but the abolishment of the NSA would have to be left up for debate, even among Ron Paul supporters.

[2dimes]

Does anyone use the term "First nations people" there?

[DaGip]

Does anyone use the term "First nations people" there?

In regards to Native Americans? That is the first time I ever heard that term, and no, I never heard anyone at the convention use that term.

[2dimes]

That's the Canadian term for North American Aborigionals due to the fact they are the first to inhabit the continent.

[Snorri1234]

I tried to get them to change any reference to Native Americans to read Native Americans instead of American Indians, but they refused to budge, because they considered themselves to be Native American...I see their point, but I was just thinking that the term Indian is offensive to some Native Americans, and the whites don't ever refer to themselves as Native American, but American. I disagreed for this allowance, but I gave the best argument I could. I am not offended by the term American Indian, but technically Indian is the wrong name anyway, as Native Americans are neither Indian nor from India.

It's a tribute to the stubborness of the americans that they keep referring to native americans as indians in the face of facts.

[jonesthecurl]

I think it's amazing that we can steal two entire continents from them, virtually wipe them out, and wonder if we're using the right name for them.

[muy_thaiguy]

I tried to get them to change any reference to Native Americans to read Native Americans instead of American Indians, but they refused to budge, because they considered themselves to be Native American...I see their point, but I was just thinking that the term Indian is offensive to some Native Americans, and the whites don't ever refer to themselves as Native American, but American. I disagreed for this allowance, but I gave the best argument I could. I am not offended by the term American Indian, but technically Indian is the wrong name anyway, as Native Americans are neither Indian nor from India.

It's a tribute to the stubborness of the americans that they keep referring to native americans as indians in the face of facts.

Some call themselves Indians, don't why, but they do. Most of the time they just go by their tribe (which there are quite a few).

[DaGip]

I tried to get them to change any reference to Native Americans to read Native Americans instead of American Indians, but they refused to budge, because they considered themselves to be Native American...I see their point, but I was just thinking that the term Indian is offensive to some Native Americans, and the whites don't ever refer to themselves as Native American, but American. I disagreed for this allowance, but I gave the best argument I could. I am not offended by the term American Indian, but technically Indian is the wrong name anyway, as Native Americans are neither Indian nor from India.

It's a tribute to the stubborness of the americans that they keep referring to native americans as indians in the face of facts.

Some call themselves Indians, don't why, but they do. Most of the time they just go by their tribe (which there are quite a few).

Most of the Native Americans that I know, don't really give a shit and are fine with the term Indian referring towards their heritage, but the more politically correct Native Americans would prefer to be referred by their tribal name, of which there may be derivatives of each tribe making the list quite long (such as Mdewakanton Sioux of which I descend which is part of the Dakota Sioux which then is part of the Greater Sioux Nation which includes Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, etc.)

The problem I have with the term doesn't necessarily stem from racial grounds, but that when some one is talking to me about Indians and I assume they are talking about Native Americans, but in reality they were talking about the REAL Indians from India. That bugs me. I would much rather the term Native American be used, as it is quite clear what it means despite many white people claiming that they are Native Americans because they were born here. That is besides the point, whites can call themselves American and when someone claims to be Native American the distinction is quite clear what is being implied.

American Indian can be clear to some extent, but what if some one descends from India but is a citizen of America? Than that term again can apply to that person as well, so where is the unique Native American identity in this term?

I have heard the term Amerindian, but I am not sure how much that is being used, but it sounds cool. Yet again it is stemming from the term Indian which is totally false, as the indigenous people are not from or have anything to do with India.

When I speak to Natives, I usually use their tribe to refer towards them, I really think that is proper; but in legal context when talking about the general Native populace as a whole, how should that be addressed?

The First Nation's People? Hmm? I guess for legal contexts this may work. I will have to see if I can change that in the platform in the next convention.

[muy_thaiguy]

I tried to get them to change any reference to Native Americans to read Native Americans instead of American Indians, but they refused to budge, because they considered themselves to be Native American...I see their point, but I was just thinking that the term Indian is offensive to some Native Americans, and the whites don't ever refer to themselves as Native American, but American. I disagreed for this allowance, but I gave the best argument I could. I am not offended by the term American Indian, but technically Indian is the wrong name anyway, as Native Americans are neither Indian nor from India.

It's a tribute to the stubborness of the americans that they keep referring to native americans as indians in the face of facts.

Some call themselves Indians, don't why, but they do. Most of the time they just go by their tribe (which there are quite a few).

Most of the Native Americans that I know, don't really give a shit and are fine with the term Indian referring towards their heritage, but the more politically correct Native Americans would prefer to be referred by their tribal name, of which there may be derivatives of each tribe making the list quite long (such as Mdewakanton Sioux of which I descend which is part of the Dakota Sioux which then is part of the Greater Sioux Nation which includes Dakota, Lakota, Nakota, etc.)

The problem I have with the term doesn't necessarily stem from racial grounds, but that when some one is talking to me about Indians and I assume they are talking about Native Americans, but in reality they were talking about the REAL Indians from India. That bugs me. I would much rather the term Native American be used, as it is quite clear what it means despite many white people claiming that they are Native Americans because they were born here. That is besides the point, whites can call themselves American and when someone claims to be Native American the distinction is quite clear what is being implied.

American Indian can be clear to some extent, but what if some one descends from India but is a citizen of America? Than that term again can apply to that person as well, so where is the unique Native American identity in this term?

I have heard the term Amerindian, but I am not sure how much that is being used, but it sounds cool. Yet again it is stemming from the term Indian which is totally false, as the indigenous people are not from or have anything to do with India.

When I speak to Natives, I usually use their tribe to refer towards them, I really think that is proper; but in legal context when talking about the general Native populace as a whole, how should that be addressed?

The First Nation's People? Hmm? I guess for legal contexts this may work. I will have to see if I can change that in the platform in the next convention.

I was just going with the major tribes, because it can be quite confusing when you get to the various sub-tribes (like what you said).

[DaGip]

The Republican Convention also said that the newspaper had an article about which of the Dakota's Americans preferred the best:

South Dakota came in #1

Dodge Dakota came in #2

and

North Dakota came in #3

Those zany Republicans!

[jonesthecurl]

Most of the tribal names which people know are just the labels that other locals or later europeans gave them. In most local languages, the name for the tribe is "us" or "the people".

I have a problem with the Indians/people from India confusion too. Especially as I and other Brits would refer to Indians/Pakistanis etc as "Asian", whereas in the US that means people from the Far East..

[muy_thaiguy]

Most of the tribal names which people know are just the labels that other locals or later europeans gave them. In most local languages, the name for the tribe is "us" or "the people".

I have a problem with the Indians/people from India confusion too. Especially as I and other Brits would refer to Indians/Pakistanis etc as "Asian", whereas in the US that means people from the Far East..

Well, we do get a lot of people from all over, so it helps break it down a bit to know where someone came from.

[2dimes]

Like most things context is more important than the word it's self. In the company of local first nations people here I let the conversation direct the word choices. If you initiate it and it's confortable I'll call you what ever you like. Initially however I'll use first nations out of respect because I'm not one of you I shouldn't whip out the "N" word or in this case the "I" word just because that's what you call your friends that are part of your race.

My biggest problem with the whole "politically correct" terminology is there is no consistancy and it's somewhat dynamic and changes. Let's pick a word and stick with it people.

After all my country is named a native word for town or village "kanata". It's tough to say, is that cool because it's a native word or mean and disrespectfull because it's out of context. Here it's a little better past wise, in some cases our government took in entire tribes and gave them reservation land, yet still we had the residential schools and corralled a nomatic people that would hunt vast areas into what would by comparison be a closet that is those reservations.

I think it's amazing that we can steal two entire continents from them, virtually wipe them out, and wonder if we're using the right name for them.

Well I supose though they were late for that and I didn't meet them personally. I hope my ancestors would be the type that would be as a minimum polite toward fellow man rather than a "Hey fellas lets git them racist slur and take their kids. Gotta teach 'em english and beat the savage out of them." Better yet as much as they are not as fun to tell stories about maybe some of the people that actually reached out and tried to help out the first nations people. Not every single european that came over here hunted them and or the bison.

I wasn't there and not a fan of the two church outfits that were responsible for residential school but I kind of see how their members might have got confused enough to participate. I find that far more amazing than the corporate take over. How exactly does a person decide that to follow Jesus they'll steal children from their families. I don't remember that part of the bible, to me it sure doesn't sound like loving people and everything the guy ever said basically comes back to that. I suppose the whole fire and brimstone shtick seems to scare the sense out of some people.

As far as the "stealing their land" that's a little missleading.

The whole "let's go over to North America and quote civilise it unquote, then divy it up for sale to create an illusion of ownership for the working class whitey, is the foundation for and isn't much removed from today's tax, mortgage, whatever other move designed to make you pay the upper class to make you work for them while pretending to own the place where you live.

Thus proving the guys making money off everyone else have not only allways been bad guys but pretty fair at manipulating the general population into doing the nasty bits or dirty work as it were. "I worked hard to own this house/land and have the God given right to protect it with mah gun."

[jonesthecurl]

Good post.

Names can be important, but attitude more so.

Few Welsh people now resent the name "Welsh", even though it's Anglo-Saxon for "foreigner". Bloody cheek.

And most Welsh surnames were only adopted because the English government wanted to give the welsh a surname : when asked what their name was, the Welsh answered with (say) "William ap John ap Rhys ap..." ie William, son of John, etc. So the English clerks would write down #William Upjohn" or just "William John/Johns/Jones". That's why most Welsh surnames are first names - Griffith, Lewis, John, Williams, Morgan, Reece, etc.

Not that relevant to the discussion, but it's about how people name things and often fail to understand another culture, so it's not too far from the path we were treading.

[Snorri1234]

Good post.

Names can be important, but attitude more so.

Few Welsh people now resent the name "Welsh", even though it's Anglo-Saxon for "foreigner". Bloody cheek.

And most Welsh surnames were only adopted because the English government wanted to give the welsh a surname : when asked what their name was, the Welsh answered with (say) "William ap John ap Rhys ap..." ie William, son of John, etc. So the English clerks would write down #William Upjohn" or just "William John/Johns/Jones". That's why most Welsh surnames are first names - Griffith, Lewis, John, Williams, Morgan, Reece, etc.

Not that relevant to the discussion, but it's about how people name things and often fail to understand another culture, so it's not too far from the path we were treading.

Stuff like that always reminds me of Terry Prachett where explorers usually asked what the name of a mountain was by stopping a local and pointing at a mountain or something. This leads to names like "Just a forest", "Your own finger, idiot." and "Who is this nutjob who doesn't know what a mountain is?"


History is full of awesomeness.