babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NY Times article: "Hispanics Identifying Themselves as Indians"
July 4, 2011 - 9:05am
Came across this article, and found it interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/nyregion/more-hispanics-in-us-calling-...
" “Hispanic is not a race, ” said Mr. Quiroz, whose ancestors were the Quechua people, of the Central Andes. “Hispanic is not a culture. Hispanic is an invention by some people who wanted to erase the identity of indigenous communities in America.”
“We don’t believe we have to accept this identity just because we speak Spanish,” Mr. Quiroz added."
Interesting article, thanks! However, I think your thread title is a bit of a Canadianism as I don't see them call themselves native anywhere
Yes, well, different nations have different sensibilities. I just try to use names that people I'm talking to prefer. I don't call my friend Jane, "Bruce".
Yes, I'd agree in pretty much any case except an article about how a group is identifying themselves as ____. It doesn't seem to make as much sense to substitute your own terminology. Anyways, good article. I wonder if indigenous "Latin Americans" living in Canada will ever get recognition as indigenous people and not simply as immigrants.
Tommy, Lachine has a point. In the article the term used is "American Indian". And if a mod pops in to change the thread title, please fix the typo in "NY Times".
Calling Aboriginal people from Mexico, Central and South America "Hispanic" makes as much sense as calling Aboriginal people who live in Canada "English".
Speaking the language of the colonizers doesn't change one's culture and ethnicity. Good for them.
I wonder if indigenous 'eastern americans" like the Cree or Mohawks will ever get recognition as a BC FN or whether they will simply always be immigrants to the Salish Sea.
We don't need to wonder if indigenous Metis on the prairies will ever get recognition as indigenous people and not simply be immigrants since it is in the constitution. However I have met some Crees who don't think of that recognition as proper and just see Metis as immigrants.
The use of descriptive language to talk about various peoples and their descendants who have lived in the same geographic areas for hundreds of years gets a bit complicated.
In Courtenay they have the Native Sons Hall and the Native Sons is a old school white settlers group promoting settler history of the area. So I do agree the choice of the word native often leads to unintended irony.
Geez, didn't even see that typo until you pointed it out.
Typo fixed and added a slight edit to the thread title to reflect this discussion.
Mostly the article is just dumb.
Sure, living in North American society, they are going to call themselves Mexicans.... and may have heard the official term Hispanic.
But let alone Indians, no Mexican or Mexican-American is going to referr to themselves as Hispanics.
Among Mexicans it is vey simple and straightforward- these people are Indio. And it has always been that way- whether the word is used as slur or spoken with pride.
Haha, good point.
At a UN conference on American First Peoples, reps from a number of Nations decided on American Indian as a group terminology. Still, groups and individuals from outside a Nation(s) and/or culture(s) who insist upon a monolithic view of the Nation/culture viewed as "other", will use inaccurate and sometimes offensive generic terms to avoid understanding the complexity and nuanced views on naming.
For example, an individual may have an enormously complex understanding of automobiles, their history, models, etc., but will insist upon calling all people of East Asian descent "Chinese", despite knowing otherwise. Even those with the best intentions make mistakes or are uneducated about all the complexities - no one can be expected to know how each and every group, and all the individuals within that group, wish to be called.
Best rule of thumb around naming is to use the term you are most familiar with (and unless you have lived all your life shut off from the outside world you should have a good general idea of what's acceptible and what's not), and if that is incorrect or outdated and you are given the correct/updated naming by someone who has more knowledge or is a stakeholder in the naming, simply thank them and act accordingly.
There are many reasons for not knowing, and many opportunities to learn more. There is no excuse for knowing and continuing to refuse to acknowledge a people's right to self-indentification.