Indian Sign Talk (1893)

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/indian-sign-talk

by tintinnabula • 3 years ago

18 13 3 years ago

> desired that his book be put to use as a tool to convert Native Americans to Christianity comes from a section entitled "Receive Jesus Now".

That just about sums up a few centuries of history. I am all for documenting an recording traditions, but I am totally against appropriating traditions for the express purpose of defeating them.

_a_a_a_• 3 years ago

People change, societies and norms change what once was de rigueur is now rightly held repugnant. Religion back then is very different from religion now, what happened then wouldn't now. No point getting angry at the past.

(atheist)

the_third_wave3• 3 years ago

In the eyes of most of those who intended to convert people they were doing them a favour since they were convinced that heaven only awaited those who followed their faith. Compare it to vegans who try to convert people to their dietary choices - they may be annoying but they're not evil.

nine_k• 3 years ago

Compare it to converting people to washing hands with soap, and to taking vaccines against deadly diseases. Both ideas require some rather elaborate mental framework which can't be trivially proven and requires study (and thus language proficiency). Both require some outwardly weird actions. Both ideas most literally save lives and stave off a lot of suffering. People actually go out and send expeditions into poorest regions of the world to bring these benefits there, at no cost to the locals, and at a significant cost to themselves.

Now imagine that instead of saving people from cholera and plague you save them from death altogether. It should feel like a huge moral duty, and like the most important thing to ever do to those unenlightened.

ganarajpr2• 3 years ago

Why has no one come up with a different name for the Native Americans? I know Columbus confused it to be India and called them Indians - but do we need to persist in his ignorance? To be honest if I had only read the title of this story I would have assumed that it dealt with a sign language invented in India.

I know this is the wrong place to complain about this, but hey, you need to start the conversation somewhere!

mat_epice• 3 years ago

There is no need to come up with a new term, they already exist. You call the group what they want (e.g., Dine’e, tribe name, etc.), or indigenous American if referring to several groups.

You may be shocked to learn that many indigenous groups are perfectly ok being called American Indians, and some don’t like the term Native American[1].

[1] https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/faq/did-you-know

manquer• 3 years ago

There is the other side of the equation , Indians have to fine with it too.

I can’t speak for all 1.4B, but I find this misappropriation of my identity at best annoying and many times offensive .

Just identifying ethnically in say a form is a complex dance in the US .

- Identify as an Asian is considered inaccurate and also not acceptable for East Asians who already find it difficult enough being grouped as one big AAPI bucket which have vast differences

- Identify as Indian could mean indigenous American or people from my country , so ambiguous.

- Identify as Indian American and have nuanced differences between American Indian understood, that is assuming label is accurate - for residents who are not naturalized citizens it is not and that’s most Indians in the US

- Identify as East Indian, that have different interpretation in India and America

It just not our identity it is the swastika, or turbans symbols of my culture are just appropriated to be abused or misunderstood at least our name should be ours ?

quechimba• 3 years ago

One time I saw a sign in Iquitos saying "Authentic Indian Food" and I was hoping to get a nice curry but all they had was fried fish and green plantains.

the_third_wave3• 3 years ago

Who feels the discussion needs to be started? Are you an American Indian? If not, why do you feel the need to speak out for them? They - as in "each and every one of them, individually" as opposed to "one of them claiming to represent all American Indians without having been voted to be such by each and everyone of them" - are perfectly capable of voicing their own opinion on this subject after all. If you are the question still remains: do you speak for all American Indians? I know that there are plenty American Indians who don't have any problems with being called American Indians so you seem to not speak for them at least. I also know that there are many American Indians who are not at all pleased with the way these self-proclaimed representatives keep on succeeding in removing references to their martial history from sports teams since they understand - rightly so in my opinion - that teams did not call themselves "Braves" or "Chiefs" or other such names because they thought American Indians were a bunch of sissies - they took these names because they wanted to catch some of the shine of the reputation for martial prowess American Indians had.

I'm a Dutchman. It has come to my ears that Americans often abuse the term "Dutch" to indicate (perceived) negatives:

- Dutch courage: liquid courage, bravery only due to intoxication

- Dutch treat/Going Dutch: everyone pays their own expenses

- Dutch Uncle: a besserwisser giving "stern but well-meaning" advice

- Double Dutch/High Dutch: unintelligible speech

I could claim to represent all Dutchmen and -women and demand that these terms be replaced with others not referring to my nationality even though I know this is the wrong place to complain about this, but hey, you need to start the conversation somewhere!.

I won't do so because a) I don't care and b) I do not represent anyone else but myself.

magarnicle2• 3 years ago

FYI, from what I understand the use of "dutch" in this way comes from the Anglo-Dutch wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_courage

Indian Sign Talk (1893)

Related Stories