http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071127/ts_al...pologymigration

Question for debate:

Does this mean Native Americans should no longer be called "Native Americans", but rather Indians, or some other group name that more accurately describes their true heritage? Siberian-Americans, perhaps?

I believe that the term "native american" extends to them, not because of their ancestry, but because they were here first.

The British are descended from the early germainic tribes that inhabited the scattered lands the followed Rome's terrible fall. Should we call them the Celtic-Vandal-Northern Europeans?

The native americans have accepted this name, since it is, A) much easier to remember than thirty names from thirty different tribes, and B ) One heck of a lot easier to pronounce. Should you suddenly wish to start calling them by their true ten-syllable names, feel free.

Nope.

Actually, modern genetic evidence indicates that most of the people called "British" have pretty much always been here - arriving somewhere between 7,500 and 14,000 years ago*. Prospect Magazine article And that, when they did, they came from a group whose closest modern relatives are the modern Basques of Northwestern Spain and Southwest France.

The Basques are thought to have been there for a very long time, so the assumption is made that the "original" Britons came from roughly the same area

The Germanic (and indeed Celtic) "invasions", as discussed in the linked article (and - notably in this thread context - very unlike the experience of Native Americans) were more cultural, linguistic and political invasions by rather small numbers of people. South Eastern England, the region of the British Isles most exposed to waves of immigration (mainly because of it's proximity to continental Europe) is still two thirds descended from those "original" Basquo-Brits.

*Allowing for estimation band sizes on migration dates, this means that, if anything, Native Americans have more claim to call themselves "native" that than Britons. They've been there a loooong time, much longer than the idea of liberty or the USA. Or the ideas of the wheel, the city, forged metal, settled agriculture and organised religion, for that matter.

So, if the moniker "Native American" needs reviewing in light of the latest research, the characteristic self-identification of white Americans of Anglo-British descent as "Anglo-Saxon" as a racial type needs modification with greater urgency; if anything it should be Britanno-Basque. This, of course, doesn't apply to Americans descended from the original Angles or Saxons, though in the light of the above that's much more likely to be true if your ancestors came to America from Germany or Denmark than from the British Isles (a 15% chance at maximum, and only then if your forebears came from East Anglia), and I daresay that's a small minority among white Americans.

Does this mean Native Americans should no longer be called "Native Americans", but rather Indians, or some other group name that more accurately describes their true heritage? Siberian-Americans, perhaps?

No. If they have to be grouped together at all (rather than using the various tribal names they themselves use) then Native Americans is the best term, since they were the people who were native in America when white Europeans first "discovered" it. After all, the continents now called North and South America were only given those names by the white explorers.

Never forget that Native Americans have more right to call themselves that than any descendant of imported races (whether their ancestors arrived willingly or not). And also, never forget that a Canadian, a Jamaican or Patagonian has as much right to refer to themselves as an "American" as anyone from the United States. They all live on a continent called America, therefore they are "American" in a very literal and real way.

Of course, the usage of "American" to mean "a citizen of the United States of America" has muddied these waters a fair bit, as has the modern habit of hypenating different groups to make distinctions between Americans (in the "American" sense).

It's all a bit confusing. To keep things simple, why don't you just ask the "Native Americans" what they would like you to call them and then start using that?

I don't know, if I am needing to call out ethnicity in my area, we are pretty specific, because there is so much diversity, and mixing of races here- so, if someone asks me, say, "hey, you know mark? He is heading to Metlekatla, is he athabascin or Tlingit/Haida?"

We have big drum circle all races ceremonies, and we always call out a blessing to all ethnicities during one of the early songs, and pretty much any alaskan has been to one at some point, so, if there is a need to be race or ethnicity specific in a conversation, we are pretty specific.

We don't really use "native american" in conversation is what I am trying to say, as a region here. Since your specific kind of "native american" in Alaska denotes a region that their family comes from.

An Eskimo won't call himself Eskimoe here, it doesn't give really any detail.

For instance, he would say "Hey, I am Bob, my family is Inupiat, and we are mostly in the Yukon-Kusko valley" - and you would know quite a bit about his lifestyle and how he came up in the world. Since the majority of Alaskan natives live in Anchorage- it is pretty well used in conversation, if you are meeting someone that is Alaskan native, they will usually tell you something like that- or, as my friend mark would say "Hey, I am Mark, I am Athabascan, I am in the CIRI corp, I lived in Metlakatla most of my childhood"- that tells an entire story to another Alaskan!

We don't use "native Americans" in conversation discussing "lower 48" tribes- and that is how we would describe what you are calling "native Americans"- "Lower 48 tribes" -

This is already known, we known this for decades, is it news in the U.S?

This happen, if i remember correctly, the last 100k years. As you know, we all 'come from' Africa, but that does not change the fact that the Native Americans are the FIRST PEOPLE being in the area.

Their 'True heritage' is native american. And if you would try to change that (?), then all White Males in United States are Africans, youknow, once coming from there. (Same logic).


I think our usage of words are quite correct, as well as we change it if new light comes into the field. I see no problem, and i dont understand the topic.

Alright- let me throw a monkey wrench into all this- where do indigenous rights begin and end, how many times removed are you still considered "indigenous"- and should you still be eligible for "indigenous" goverment progams and entitlements, sometimes under treaty- according to all this debate? For instance- an Athabascan family I know has lived now in Washington state, without a single member of thier family setting foot in Alaska for 3 generations now- and the grandchildren are 1/16th Athabascan for one line of that family.

My daughter and son are both born in Alaska, and same with my nephews, and so was my sister and brother. I am the only one born "outside" - though technically a state citizen since birth- since my dad was on orders in texas at the time.

Why are those poeple in Washington given more rights to access our state's resources than my own kids? Those washington state raised but ethnically partially Athabascan can recieve, if they choose: free healthcare, free college and a host of other daycare, welfare assistance etc- sometimes without ever even sitting foot in this state! My kids, being "white" *but curiously- they are also siberian- as their mom is russian jew, whose family had lived several generations in Siberia, before moving to the Tartarish region

but anyway- they don't get a dime for any of those resources

is it racist to exclude my kids?

Now- recognize- the ANSCLA ( Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) negotiated these benefits as part of something to do away from the "tribes" and "reservation" set ups that have done "lower 48 natives" no good to speak of. This was an agreement, entered into by the natives here and the federal goverment, in exchange for some lands- so it is not a giveaway like welfare- but something negotiated for- a contract if you will.

Consider this- mathematically- we go back 2000 years into our generational history- we are ALL related to one another.

So how to proceed here?

Look at Israel- the majority of "rights of return" jews are not ethnically nor indigenous to that area- and the Kosovar/Albanians are actively ethnically cleansing the Serbian indigenous populations from Kosovo- and, in fact, are voting on independence with a heavily- invader friendly population.

All this "indigenous" population stuff has to be dropped at some point, because it gets a bit ridiculous as to whom is related to whom!