Appropriation of Indian Red as 'Chestnut' (or other alternative) will be viewed by some as 'making appropriate' the label for a colour, and no doubt by other groups as cultural theft by excising reference to its origin. Seems the best option is to recognise the actual etymology carries no semblance of offense whatsoever, and leave well alone. On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 10:44, Mark Hall <mhall89446 at att.net> wrote:> > > And then there is also the issue of some people seeing it offensive and others not seeing it offensive (and both camps are in the minority group). Case inpoint is look at the term being used for self-identification with California Native American groups List of Federally-Recognized Tribes in CA | Links and Resources > > | > | > | > | | | > > | > > | > | > | | > List of Federally-Recognized Tribes in CA | Links and Resources > > The Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible fo... > | > > | > > | > > > I also distinctly remember in the NAGPRA brouha of 2008 on the UC Berkeley campus when the Metis chancellor of UCB at the time told several groups the term Indian was derogatory and shouldn't be used--a variety of California Native Americans gave him a piece of their mind in no uncertain terms... > Best, Mark E Hall > On Tuesday, November 17, 2020, 7:22:33 AM PST, T. A. Milne via R-help <r-help at r-project.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 07:54:01 +1100Jim Lemon <drjimlemon at gmail.com> <mailto:drjimlemon at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Elaine,There seems to be a popular contest to discover offence everywhere. Idon't think that it does anything against racism, sexism orantidisestablishmentarianism. Words are plucked from our vast lexiconto comfort or insult our fellows depending upon the intent of theuser. It is the intent that matters, not the poor word. Chasing thewords wastes your time, blames those who use the words harmlessly,and gives the real offender time to find another epithet. > > > Jim: This is superbly expressed. I wish that I could have saidthat! Your posting should go down in the annals of brilliant rhetoric,alongside Dr. Johnson's "Letter to Lord Chesterfield".cheers,Rolf > -- Honorary Research FellowDepartment of StatisticsUniversity of AucklandPhone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > To Rolf's excellent example, I would add Mandy Rice-Davies' immortal words from the witness box. > > > > - T. Arthur Milne > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > ______________________________________________ > R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
inline - David Wright wrote on 19.11.2020 12:39:> Appropriation of Indian Red as 'Chestnut' (or other alternative) will > be viewed by some as 'making appropriate' the label for a colour, and > no doubt by other groups as cultural theft by excising reference to > its origin. > > Seems the best option is to recognise the actual etymology carries no > semblance of offense whatsoever, and leave well alone. >One may remember that people who might feel offended by "Indian Red" (Native Americans) make up less than 0.5 percent of all "Indians". It is hardly the fault of the people of India that Native Americans were called Indians by an Italian navigator who thought he had landed in India.
I see a lot of reasoning in this thread that I consider specious at best. What seems clear to me, writing as a cis-gendered grey white male, is that we need to make more room. How do we do this? We do it by listening, reflecting, and responding. If words that we use are hurtful, then we must change them. This process will not be perfect. It will be messy. Our feelings may be hurt, our principles outraged. Treasured words may disappear. That is how we make room. I find appeals to etymology to be irrelevant. History is rife with examples of innocent symbols and words being co-opted. We abandon those symbols and words, rightly, because the taint clings to them, rightly or wrongly. I find appeals to broad usage to also be irrelevant. Change starts where and when we all decide that it starts. The R community is its own thing. Finally, I find appeals to stakeholder group size to be irrelevant. The point is not to count the people who won't be offended. Here's a personal example: more than 10 years ago, a co-author and I submitted a package to CRAN that was designed to make R a little easier to use. We called it R-assist. It sailed through all the checks, and was published on CRAN. We were then besieged with complaints from native German speakers. So we changed the name. Best wishes, Andrew -- Andrew Robinson Director, CEBRA and Professor of Biosecurity, School/s of BioSciences and Mathematics & Statistics University of Melbourne, VIC 3010 Australia Tel: (+61) 0403 138 955 Email: apro at unimelb.edu.au Website: https://researchers.ms.unimelb.edu.au/~apro at unimelb/ I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land I inhabit, and pay my respects to their Elders. On Nov 20, 2020, 9:28 AM +1100, Heinz Tuechler <tuechler at gmx.at>, wrote: UoM notice: External email. Be cautious of links, attachments, or impersonation attempts inline - David Wright wrote on 19.11.2020 12:39: Appropriation of Indian Red as 'Chestnut' (or other alternative) will be viewed by some as 'making appropriate' the label for a colour, and no doubt by other groups as cultural theft by excising reference to its origin. Seems the best option is to recognise the actual etymology carries no semblance of offense whatsoever, and leave well alone. One may remember that people who might feel offended by "Indian Red" (Native Americans) make up less than 0.5 percent of all "Indians". It is hardly the fault of the people of India that Native Americans were called Indians by an Italian navigator who thought he had landed in India. ______________________________________________ R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 23:27:29 +0100 Heinz Tuechler <tuechler at gmx.at> wrote:> One may remember that people who might feel offended by "Indian Red" > (Native Americans) make up less than 0.5 percent of all "Indians". > It is hardly the fault of the people of India that Native Americans > were called Indians by an Italian navigator who thought he had landed > in India.I have worked with and know or knew probably somewhere near 100 American Indians. None of them were "offended" by "Indian," most referred to themselves as "Indian," particularly when few outsiders could even pronounce their tribal names. Several of them referred me to the works and words of Russel Means, Ogalala Lakota, an actor and activist, who mocked the use of phrases such as "Native American" as silly, and easily as offensive and racist in its failure to distinguish among tribal peoples as any such sweeping label could be.