Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Either that or you're just a racist twat.
|
Russel Means said:
Quote:
|
(You notice I use the term American Indian rather than Native American or Native indigenous people or Amerindian when referring to my people. There has been some controversy about such terms, and frankly, at this point, I find it absurd. Primarily it seems that American Indian is being rejected as European in origin–which is true. But all the above terms are European in origin; the only non-European way is to speak of Lakota–or, more precisely, of Oglala, Brule, etc.–and of the Dineh, the Miccousukee, and all the rest of the several hundred correct tribal names.
|
link
In otherwords, because many various tribes of the Indians are still existent, to group them all together as "Native Americans" is fallacious because it implies a commonality of history and current circumstance which simply does not exist. It's the implication of this imaginary totality which these terms reference which is problematic, not the terms themselves. This is why your post is problematic, because you're insisting on the reality of the imaginary.