Discussion:
16th Century Grants of Arms to Mexican Indians
(too old to reply)
s***@gmail.com
2006-03-29 03:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Hello

I thought you may like to see my new webpage with images and texts of
two dozen 16th Century Spanish Grants of Arms to Indigenous Mexican
Indians:

http://home.pacbell.net/nelsnfam/mexico.htm

Some of these grants are among the earliest, if not the earliest,
grants of arms made to individuals born in the Americas. The webpage
is written in English and Spanish, and some of the images are large, so
it may take a few seconds to load.

Enjoy!

-Sebastian Nelson

***@gmail.com
http://heraldry.freeservers.com
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 04:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Seb,

What a great undertaking! Are you going to publish this in an English
language journal? I think it is worthwhile!

Question re the Arms of Hernando Pimentel (5th large line drawing from
the top):

"...On February 21st, 1551, Emperor Charles V authorized the Spanish
Count of Benavente, Antonio Alfonso Pimentel, to grant a version of his
own arms to the Indian chieftain of Tezcuco, who adopted the name
Hernando Pimentel: quarterly of four, 1 and 4 Or three bars Gules, 2
and 3 Vert five **escallops** Argent in saltire, all within a bordure
compony with the arms of Castile and Leon....."

Although the blazon states "...escallops....", they sure look like
peppers. Is it possible those escallops are actually **pimentos** --
peppers -- and are a canting of Pimentel?
=============
PIMENTO. A large, red, heart-shaped sweet pepper that measures 3 to 4
inches long and 2 to 3 inches wide . The flesh of the pimiento (the
Spanish word for "pepper") is sweet, succulent and more aromatic than
that of the red bell pepper.. . Pimientos are the familiar red stuffing
found in green olives.
===========

Regards,
Guy
s***@slis.sjsu.edu
2006-03-29 06:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@yahoo.com
What a great undertaking! Are you going to publish this in an English
language journal? I think it is worthwhile!
No. I believe an article about this should be written by someone
capable of faithfully translating all of the grants in their entirety,
and with the funds to have attractive paintings of the arms produced.
Post by g***@yahoo.com
Although the blazon states "...escallops....", they sure look like
peppers. Is it possible those escallops are actually **pimentos** --
peppers -- and are a canting of Pimentel?
Yes I have seen both.
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-30 00:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi Seb,

You write:

"...No. I believe an article about this should be written by someone
capable of faithfully translating all of the grants in their entirety,
and with the funds to have attractive paintings of the arms produced.
..."
===========

I understand you wanting it to be the best product possible, but
sometimes a "working draft" is all that is available. I think you
could team up with someone at SJSU for translation. Nyle Monday is
library faculty in the history department -- he might know of a history
major in search of a research project.

You might be able to find a co-author(s) for translator and/or
(electronic) artist.

Fascinating work!

Regards,
--Guy
m***@yahoo.ca
2006-03-29 04:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Referring to aboriginal persons as "Indians" is both hopelessly
inaccurate and shamefully racist.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hello
I thought you may like to see my new webpage with images and texts of
two dozen 16th Century Spanish Grants of Arms to Indigenous Mexican
http://home.pacbell.net/nelsnfam/mexico.htm
Some of these grants are among the earliest, if not the earliest,
grants of arms made to individuals born in the Americas. The webpage
is written in English and Spanish, and some of the images are large, so
it may take a few seconds to load.
Enjoy!
-Sebastian Nelson
http://heraldry.freeservers.com
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 04:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Referring to aboriginal persons as "Indians" is both hopelessly inaccurate and shamefully racist.<<
Why? That's what they were/are called. I can't help it that Columbus
got his bearings mixed up and thought he landed in India and the
moniker stuck. I suppose we should start calling them "Aborigines" or
"Natives"? How silly an artifice! That sounds even worse.

--Guy
p***@hotmail.com
2006-03-29 06:43:06 UTC
Permalink
In Canada the term aboriginal and natives are respectful terms. In the
US, natives is a codescending description unless it is followed with
the word American. In the US, the word aboriginal refers almost
exclusively to the original inhabitants of Australia. Indians is the
most common term for Native Americans despite it being inaccurate.
Racist terms would be 'red skins', 'noble savages', or refering to a NA
woman as a 'squaw'.
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
Referring to aboriginal persons as "Indians" is both hopelessly
inaccurate and shamefully racist.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hello
I thought you may like to see my new webpage with images and texts of
two dozen 16th Century Spanish Grants of Arms to Indigenous Mexican
http://home.pacbell.net/nelsnfam/mexico.htm
Some of these grants are among the earliest, if not the earliest,
grants of arms made to individuals born in the Americas. The webpage
is written in English and Spanish, and some of the images are large, so
it may take a few seconds to load.
Enjoy!
-Sebastian Nelson
http://heraldry.freeservers.com
Dr
2006-03-29 07:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Same in Europe
Edward
2006-03-29 11:51:29 UTC
Permalink
If we are to take a completely politically correct approach, then we
should refer to the various Native Americans, or American Indians or
First Americans, etc. by their proper names. For example: Oneida,
Mohawk, Erie, Neutral, Mohican, Dakota, Souix, Navaho, etc. My Native
American friends typically describe themselves by their ancestral
totems/clans and their tribe (e.g., John Doe of the Wolf Clan, Oneida
"Nation"). They will refer to the all tribes as either "Native
American" or even "American Indian". By the same token, I suspect the
descendants of the original inhabitants of Mexico might refer
themselves in the aggregate as "Mexican Indians". The term "Indian" is
not necessarily racist, though I agree with David Pritchard that "red
skins", "noble savages", and "squaw" would/should raise a few eyebrows.
Indeed, I recall a movement back in the early nineties by many Native
American groups to change their collective name to "American Indians"
or "First Americans" - though this latter term is arguably
anachronistic. It was felt that "Native Americans" was inaccurate
since it has been mistakenly used by Non-Native Americans to describe
all Americans born in the U.S. Although "Indian" was argued as also
being inaccurate, it does nonetheless serve as a useful shorthand for
describing all the various tribes and nations. Also, there is less
likelihood of misusing term as is seen with "Native Americans". For
Americans with family roots in India, I have seen them describe
themselves as Americans of South Asian descent.
Joseph McMillan
2006-03-29 14:20:31 UTC
Permalink
It is worth pointing out that the most well-known activist organization
in the community of descendants of the people who were in what is now
the United States prior to the arrival of Europeans (is that a
sufficiently neutral formulation?) calls itself the "American Indian
Movement." So while some people in this community object to the
designation "American Indian," others, including some of the most
militant, do not.

BTW, US citizens with origins in India are referred to as
Indian-Americans, not American-Indians.

Joseph McMillan
Edward
2006-03-29 14:43:51 UTC
Permalink
"BTW, US citizens with origins in India are referred to as
Indian-Americans, not American-Indians".

I believe that I called them "Americans of South Asian descent" *not*
"American-Indians"! South Asians will get even more specific calling
themselves according to their dialects Gujarati, Bengali, Marathi, etc.
or their caste.
Edward
2006-03-29 15:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Getting back to heraldry, I find it strange that:

" [m]any of these arms were quartered, the first and third quarters
reflecting Indian charges, and the second and fourth quarters usually
featuring versions of the traditional Spanish arms corresponding to the
new European surnames that these Indians adopted".

I would have thought that the Spanairds would require the "versions of
the traditional Spanish arms" placed in the first quarter - the more
senior quarter. I wonder why they were placed in the second and fourth
quarter? Was it to clearly separate the Spanish armigers from their
Tlaxcalans & Aztec counterparts? (A sort of separate but equal system
of ethnic stratification as reflected in the arms)? Was there any
evidence of intermarriages as exhibited by the quarters of subsequent
Mexican armigers?
George Lucki
2006-03-29 20:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
" [m]any of these arms were quartered, the first and third quarters
reflecting Indian charges, and the second and fourth quarters usually
featuring versions of the traditional Spanish arms corresponding to the
new European surnames that these Indians adopted".
I would have thought that the Spanairds would require the "versions of
the traditional Spanish arms" placed in the first quarter - the more
senior quarter. I wonder why they were placed in the second and fourth
quarter? Was it to clearly separate the Spanish armigers from their
Tlaxcalans & Aztec counterparts? (A sort of separate but equal system
of ethnic stratification as reflected in the arms)? Was there any
evidence of intermarriages as exhibited by the quarters of subsequent
Mexican armigers?
I believe that the traditional charges reflective of family or clan would
have been appropriately placed in the senior position and that canting
charges relative to new names were helpful in bridging into the new surnames
and colonial roles. Given the mindset of the day it might have been presumed
that the higher classes of indigenous Mexican society would be in some
fashion 'armigerous' and their symbols would therefore need to be placed on
their now more conventionally Spanish styled arms. I would presume that the
goal of such grants would have made sense in the colonial mindset - to bring
more clearly into the European governing classes individuals of the local
community of appropriate stature and influence and to trade on the influence
of these individuals within their communities by highlighting whatever
trappings of power or status might carry weight among their own people.
George Lucki
Edward
2006-03-30 02:26:41 UTC
Permalink
George,

I think your explanation makes good sense. As I understand it, the
Spanish authorities recognized the nobility of conquered Mexican nobles
to free them from the system of corvee labor/slavery imposed on the
masses. Still, I would have thought the Spanish authorities would have
required the quarter reflecting the new Spanish surnames and roles of
the native elites within the first quarter. I believe that in the
Philippines, the native people often adopted Spanish surnames and
completely abandoned their native names and affiliations. Should a
member of the Filipino elite receive a grant or certification of arms,
I suspect that they would have placed the quarter reflecting their new
Spanish identity in the first quarter. I recall in Stephen Slater's
book on heraldry that the arms of a Montezuma descendant show the
armiger's shield divided per pale with the left half (senior half) of
the shield showing the granted arms, and the right half (junior half)
showing native symbols. I would have thought that this should have
been the norm. It's just a thought.
s***@slis.sjsu.edu
2006-03-29 21:12:33 UTC
Permalink
I'm not sure, but there were some early examples of intermarrying. The
conqueror Cortez's son with the indigenous woman Dona Marina (the
infamous Malinche of Mexican history), Martin Cortez, was made a Knight
of the Order of Santiago and fought in the Spanish army in Algeria,
Germany, and died fighting during a Moorish rebellion in Granada. The
mestizo daughter of the conquistador Pedro de Alvarado married a cousin
of the Duke of Alburquerque. Beatriz Clara Coya (1558-1600), daughter
of the Incan ruler Sayri Tupac, married one Martin de Loyola, nephew of
the founder of the Jesuits, St Ignatius de Loyola. The Marques de La
Floresta's publication 'Cuadernos de Ayala' has some interesting
photos of the 16th century arms granted or attributed to these Peruvian
nobles, in the July-September 2004 issue.
Post by Edward
Was there any
evidence of intermarriages as exhibited by the quarters of subsequent
Mexican armigers?
Joseph McMillan
2006-03-29 18:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
"BTW, US citizens with origins in India are referred to as
Indian-Americans, not American-Indians".
I believe that I called them "Americans of South Asian descent" *not*
"American-Indians"! South Asians will get even more specific calling
themselves according to their dialects Gujarati, Bengali, Marathi, etc.
or their caste.
I apologize for the clumsy way I put this. I did not mean to be
correcting you but to clarify for non-US participants, who might have
perceived a possible area of confusion, how the terms are commonly
used.

Joseph McMillan
Edward
2006-03-30 02:12:54 UTC
Permalink
It's perfectly okay. I apologize for improperly "snapping" back at
you. Almost immediately after hastily posting my message, your
intention became clear to me. Ahhhh, to post in haste.....

Kindest regards,

Edward
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-03-29 17:43:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Joseph
McMillan says...
Post by Joseph McMillan
It is worth pointing out that the most well-known activist organization
in the community of descendants of the people who were in what is now
the United States prior to the arrival of Europeans (is that a
sufficiently neutral formulation?) calls itself the "American Indian
Movement." So while some people in this community object to the
designation "American Indian," others, including some of the most
militant, do not.
BTW, US citizens with origins in India are referred to as
Indian-Americans, not American-Indians.
Joseph McMillan
And on a recent visit to Plymouth Rock, adorned with inscriptions by several
different groups acclaiming the wonderous "toleration" of the first settlers,
I noticed that the large monument to Massasoit bore in the legend on the
plaque below it that it had been erected by the "American Order of Red Men".

The problem is that despite changing PC fashions, old nominal usages are still
perpetuated - hence the NAACP and UNC. While African-American is the present
fashion, is it really accurate? For many black Americans their heritage in
the West Indies is what they prefer to recall, even though they too were
brought there from Africa. Recent immigrants from the African continent
who do not have the legacy of slavery cannot properly be categorised using the
same words that descendants of slaves have chosen. When many Americans sharing a
broad mix of races among their antecedents, such categorisations will
hopefully be abandoned when the US matures and everyone can simply become a US
American, without the sub categorisation that encourages sterotyping and the
perpetuation of victim status.

What is really distasteful is the kind of arrogance that lends some people to
instantly accuse someone of "racism" for failing to use the PC word of the
moment, when no offence was intended or likely given.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Joseph McMillan
2006-03-29 18:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
And on a recent visit to Plymouth Rock, adorned with inscriptions by several
different groups acclaiming the wonderous "toleration" of the first settlers,
I noticed that the large monument to Massasoit bore in the legend on the
plaque below it that it had been erected by the "American Order of Red Men".
Guy,

While I agree with the sentiments you express, this is not the most
felicitous example to cite. The various orders of "Red Men" are not in
fact associations of American Indians/Native Americans. They are
mostly white fraternal organizations similar to the Freemasons, Odd
Fellows, and similar groups, but with Native American-themed costumes,
rituals, and regalia--just the kind of thing many American Indians
perceive as derogatory parody.

Joseph McMillan
m***@yahoo.ca
2006-03-29 18:51:58 UTC
Permalink
You are not qualified to decide what i if offence was given -as it was
- because you are not an aboriginal person. Racist terms are racist on
their face. By your logic, and this: "Why? That's what they were/are
called." you must think it's acceptable to refer to persons of African
origins as "ni##ers".
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 21:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
because you are not an aboriginal person
==========
Oh? And you know my genealogy? Or with whom I associate?

=========
you must think it's acceptable to refer to persons of African origins as "ni##ers".
Why must I think that? False logic! Rather, I would say "Indian" is
no more pejorative than "Japanese"; however, I will concede that the
term "Injun" is as pejorative as is "Jap" and neither should not be
used by polite society.

Does the identifier "Indian" insult *you* personally; or are you
insulted on someone else's behalf? If you are a Native American and
*are* insulted by the word "Indian," then I promise not to refer to you
as such; and, will indeavour to use your prefered "aborigine" in any
correspondence with you on this NG in order not to insult you or hurt
your feelings. I do not purposefully insult people and go out of my
way to be polite even in heated discussion.

However, if you are a caucausoid European, I think it rather smug of
you to insist "aborigine" is prefered in the United States. As someone
earlier pointed out: in the USA, the term "aborigine" conjures visions
of Australian bushmen.

--Guy Power


--Guy Power
m***@yahoo.ca
2006-03-29 21:43:22 UTC
Permalink
"As someone
earlier pointed out: in the USA, the term "aborigine" conjures visions
of Australian bushmen. "

And yet again. Is there any racial slur you aren't prepared to use?
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 22:07:40 UTC
Permalink
I wasn't aware that "Australian" was a slur. If I have offended, I
apologise.

--Guy Power
m***@btinternet.com
2006-03-29 22:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
"As someone
earlier pointed out: in the USA, the term "aborigine" conjures visions
of Australian bushmen. "
And yet again. Is there any racial slur you aren't prepared to use?
Is "troll" a racial slur?
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-29 23:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btinternet.com
Is "troll" a racial slur?
I think not; however, if in doubt, don't use it.

Would you please be so kind as to answer my earlier questions:

(1) Does the identifier "Indian" insult *you* personally;

(2) or are you insulted on someone else's behalf?

To reiterate: if you are a Native American and *are* insulted by the
word "Indian," then I promise not to refer to you
as such; and, will indeavour to use your prefered "aborigine" in any
correspondence with you on this NG in order not to insult you or hurt
your feelings. I do not purposefully insult people and go out of my
way to be polite even in heated discussion.

Regards,
--Guy Power
k***@aol.com
2006-03-31 13:06:50 UTC
Permalink
I find this debate rather interesting as my first teaching position was
at the (then) Nebraska Indian Community College on the Winnebago
Reservation in northeast NE where I taught US History I "Foundation to
1877". I didn't choose the text and only received it the day before
class; you can imagine my horror when I saw the first chapter entitled,
"Columbus Discovers America". Needless to say, it was interesting.

As a middle-class white boy, one of my first questions was what did
they prefer...a fellow who had a purely Tribal name said, "we call each
other Indians". I cannot say that this is the universal preference, but
whenever I've encountered people from Reservations, they've reiterated
this--and this includes some friends. Again, that doesn't mean that
there is any kind of unanimity, but I find it rather strange that
non-Indians debate what Indians should be called....

I would also point out in passing that in Mexican Spanish, the word
"indio" is sometimes used as an insult.
Bill Kautt
Don Aitken
2006-03-29 22:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
"As someone
earlier pointed out: in the USA, the term "aborigine" conjures visions
of Australian bushmen. "
And yet again. Is there any racial slur you aren't prepared to use?
Since you rise so delightfully to the bait, I expect someone will
provide some more. Personally, I can't be bothered. I will observe
that you are an ignorant prat, though.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Daniel Gubler-Jones
2006-03-30 01:07:19 UTC
Permalink
It seems that Mr. Elliot is both native American and Australian
aborigine. Though I'm sure the family history of his unique
identifires is fascinating, it reminds me that there are those who are
bent on attacking anyone who unintentionally uses a term that may have
ever been misconstrued in a negative or incorrect term. Personally, I
feel that those "hypersensitive" folk (may I use that term?) only
perpetuate the negative contexts of such words. If indeed, Mr. Elliot
has neither native Amerian nor Australian aboriginal heritage, he has
no right to misconstrue the intended meaning of any other person. In
any case, I wanted to inform Mr. Elliot that I was offended by his
offendedness.
Madalch
2006-03-30 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Gubler-Jones
those "hypersensitive" folk (may I use that term?)
No! It's very offensive.
c***@virgin.net
2006-03-30 13:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
"As someone
earlier pointed out: in the USA, the term "aborigine" conjures visions
of Australian bushmen. "
The use of the word "aborigine" causes great offense in Australia. The
preferred term is Aboriginal.
g***@yahoo.com
2006-03-30 16:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@virgin.net
The use of the word "aborigine" causes great offense in Australia. The
preferred term is Aboriginal.
=========

Thank you for that clarification -- I had no idea! And will ensure I
do not unknowingly offend in the future.

Interesting, though: both words have the same root (ab + originie;
"from the origin"); therefore, it is curious that the noun offends
whereas the adjective does not.

Thank you,
Guy Power
c***@aol.com
2006-03-30 17:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Guy Power wrote:

<<Interesting, though: both words have the same root (ab + originie;
"from the origin"); therefore, it is curious that the noun offends
whereas the adjective does not. >>


And in some circles here in the USA, calling someone a "native" is
offensive, yet "Native American" is the current preferred term. This
reinforces the same point made several times already, that there is
little logic to what is offensive. In both cases, however, the
adjective is fine, whereas the noun is not. Hmm.

/Charles
Madalch
2006-03-30 18:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@aol.com
And in some circles here in the USA, calling someone a "native" is
offensive, yet "Native American" is the current preferred term.
One could make a similar case for "coloured person" or "person of
colour".

Hmmm...would that make me a person of metal? Skin Argent, hair Or?
Post by c***@aol.com
This reinforces the same point made several times already, that there is
little logic to what is offensive.
Yep. The reason a term gets considered to be offensive is that racists
use it. When a term becomes considered so offensive that the racists
are forced to stop using it, then the racists start using the more
"policitically correct" term, which then soon becomes deemed derogatory
because the racists are using it....
George Lucki
2006-03-30 19:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madalch
Post by c***@aol.com
And in some circles here in the USA, calling someone a "native" is
offensive, yet "Native American" is the current preferred term.
One could make a similar case for "coloured person" or "person of
colour".
Hmmm...would that make me a person of metal? Skin Argent, hair Or?
No, Darren - you may be an individual of some mettle but in terms of colour
I would have to say that your skin colour heraldically would be carnation (a
tincture known in French heraldry among others) or perhaps given the
introduction of heraldic pink in Canada (see the arms of the Rt. Hon. Kim
Campbell) your skin could be rendered as pink. If it is really argent then I
would recommend getting away from the computer screen and getting a bit of
sun or considering vitamin supplements because at the very least chevaux Or
on a corps Argent would be a heraldic tincture violation (unless you
coloured it and some black or brown or red roots were showing in which case
there would be an acceptable fimbriation). I'll stop here before I get far
too silly...

George
Post by Madalch
Post by c***@aol.com
This reinforces the same point made several times already, that there is
little logic to what is offensive.
Yep. The reason a term gets considered to be offensive is that racists
use it. When a term becomes considered so offensive that the racists
are forced to stop using it, then the racists start using the more
"policitically correct" term, which then soon becomes deemed derogatory
because the racists are using it....
Madalch
2006-03-30 23:54:12 UTC
Permalink
If it is really argent then I would recommend getting away from the computer screen and
getting a bit of sun...
Do you have any idea how much it rains here on the wet coast?

At least the lawn is nice and green, and I never have to mow the moss.
at the very least chevaux Or on a corps Argent would be a heraldic tincture violation
Not really- nobody ever complains that the gold mane on the unicorn
supporter in the Royal Arms (guess which ones) are a violation of the
rule of tincture.

Besides, my hair is a dingy enough blonde that is should probably be
blazoned erminois.

Cheers,
James Dempster
2006-03-31 05:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madalch
If it is really argent then I would recommend getting away from the computer screen and
getting a bit of sun...
Do you have any idea how much it rains here on the wet coast?
At least the lawn is nice and green, and I never have to mow the moss.
at the very least chevaux Or on a corps Argent would be a heraldic tincture violation
Not really- nobody ever complains that the gold mane on the unicorn
supporter in the Royal Arms (guess which ones) are a violation of the
rule of tincture.
Besides, my hair is a dingy enough blonde that is should probably be
blazoned erminois.
AFAIK Argent a chief Or would not be considered metal on metal :-)

James
James Dempster

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
George Lucki
2006-03-31 11:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dempster
Post by Madalch
If it is really argent then I would recommend getting away from the computer screen and
getting a bit of sun...
Do you have any idea how much it rains here on the wet coast?
At least the lawn is nice and green, and I never have to mow the moss.
at the very least chevaux Or on a corps Argent would be a heraldic tincture violation
Not really- nobody ever complains that the gold mane on the unicorn
supporter in the Royal Arms (guess which ones) are a violation of the
rule of tincture.
Besides, my hair is a dingy enough blonde that is should probably be
blazoned erminois.
AFAIK Argent a chief Or would not be considered metal on metal :-)
James
James Dempster
Actually it would in normal circumstances, as the chief is placed on the
field rather than parting it - hence the French notion of a 'sewn' chief
(cousu I believe) that contrives to attach the chief to the field rather
than placing it on the field and thus avoid the tincture rule problem.
George
Franz
2006-03-31 12:23:49 UTC
Permalink
'Aborigine' is a noun, whereas 'aboriginal' is an adjective. That is
the only difference.
Stan Brown
2006-03-30 13:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The problem is that despite changing PC fashions, old nominal usages are still
perpetuated - hence the NAACP and UNC.
True.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
While African-American is the present
fashion, is it really accurate?
It's no less accurate than "black". (Look at Colin Powell, for
instance.)

Which is to say that there is little or no logic in terms used to
refer to subgroups of people. (Scientists tell us that the whole idea
of "race" is bogus, so it's not surprising that racial terms don't
work well.)

The true test, as George Lucki says, is respectful dialog with the
groups concerned.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Roger Connor
2006-03-30 22:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Which is to say that there is little or no logic in terms used to
refer to subgroups of people. (Scientists tell us that the whole idea
of "race" is bogus, so it's not surprising that racial terms don't
work well.)
This is incorrect. Science, specifically biology, has long recognized
"race" as a correct and accurate term to deliniate groups within
species, all of which exhibit definitive inheritable characteristics,
but which are readily reabsorped into the mainstream genetic pool. And
in particular, forensic science both in archeology and criminology
readily makes use of these known differences.

Current science notes that we share better than 90% of our genetic
structure with mice, and that less than o.2% difference in genetic
material can cause major observable variations, which can be used as
genetic indices for race.

Regards,
Roger
George Lucki
2006-03-29 16:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
Referring to aboriginal persons as "Indians" is both hopelessly
inaccurate and shamefully racist.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hello
I thought you may like to see my new webpage with images and texts of
two dozen 16th Century Spanish Grants of Arms to Indigenous Mexican
http://home.pacbell.net/nelsnfam/mexico.htm
Some of these grants are among the earliest, if not the earliest,
grants of arms made to individuals born in the Americas. The webpage
is written in English and Spanish, and some of the images are large, so
it may take a few seconds to load.
Enjoy!
-Sebastian Nelson
http://heraldry.freeservers.com
As we wade into the waters of correctness I think it important to note that
many Indians identify themselves as such - although that should not be taken
as an invitation to others to use the same term. Preferences also evolve
over time and this has much to do with a sense of identity and also with
political considerations. The same discussions occur in other contexts
(Black, Negro, African American, etc.). In Canada we make reference to First
Nations, Inuit and Metis and among the first nations for example to the
specific nation, proplr or band. The common adjective is Native as in
'Native Friendship Centre' or 'native sprituality' but Native is used less
frequently as a noun. The same holds true for Aboriginal. The terms
themsleves are not so much the issue but rather the perjorative meanings
that have have historically tainted these terms and the racism that went
with those perjorative attributions. Used respectfully and with permission
none of these terms are inherently racist. The best way to avoid the
suggestion of racism is to enter into dialogue with people as to their own
preferences.
For a different example the term Polack, or Polak comes from the word by
which Polish people refer to themselves in Polish. In North Amrican English
it has acquired historically perjorative meaning and so my preference in
this context is for the more neutral Pole. But used resectfully Polak is
still quite correct.
Kind regards, George Lucki
t***@yahoo.com
2006-03-30 01:51:08 UTC
Permalink
I would prefer to discuss heraldry but with this foray into the world
of PCism, let me make some observations.
My children (Cherokee/Choctaw) were born in an Indian Health
Service (actual title used by the federal government) hospital which
was tribally operated. When my wife ( a Choctaw) began labor the word
"Indian" above the doors of the hospital ( run by the Chickasaw), so
fraught with centuries of cultural imperialism, did not weigh very
heavily on me. Before one obtains the "blue card" which allows one to
recieve treatment at Indian Health clinics or hospitals one must have a
CDIB card (Certificate Denoting Indian Blood). The federal agency
which is charged with mismanaging our affairs is known as the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. [Oddly enough, my little ones still play "cowboys and
Indians", not "cowboys and indigenous native American peoples" but what
do they know? Just a bunch of ignorant redskins, right?] Please note
the preponderance of the word "Indian".
If the use of the term "Indian" is racist, then the federal
government as well as the tribal governments are guilty of being such.

It is not our fault that every time the word "Indian" is used those
of a European ethnic heritage are shamefully reminded of the greatest
geographic blunder in the history of western civilization. Political
correctness has no place in history. Columbus' mistake, thinking he
was in Asia of all places when he was actually on a new continent, is
shameful. It is humiliating for those of European backgrounds to be
reminded of this every time the hateful word "Indian" is uttered. But,
it is the burden they must bear.
I hope I have not offended those of the group of European hertitage
with my refusal to bow to the politically correct sentiments and be
unusually sensitive to European sensibilities as they seek to forget
the geographical errors of their forefathers. Columbus' wrong turn
must never be forgotten.

Best regards,

Thomas Pinkney Davis
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
Referring to aboriginal persons as "Indians" is both hopelessly
inaccurate and shamefully racist.
Edward
2006-03-30 02:44:42 UTC
Permalink
"Political correctness has no place in history".

I disagree with this one sentence. Political correctness is simply
another historical/social perspective (one that favors racial, ethnic,
religious, social, political minority perspectives) and is as valid or
invalid as any other. History and socio-economic hegemony is generally
written by the conquerors. Political Correctness, when not over used
and abused, offers a different view.

What is annoying, however, is when other people (not you of course)
take a hypersensitive stance overusing/abusing political correctness
and taking it to its illogical extremes. Clearly when Sebastian Nelson
created this thread, he was not using the term "Mexican Indians" in a
racist way. I think many of us (including you) have also shown the
term "Indian" used to refer to Native Americans is not necessarily a
racist term and is indeed used by many Native American groups to refer
to their many diverse clans, tribes and nations as a collective. It
also remains a useful shorthand when refering to a diverse group of
people. In short, Political Correctness has its place in creating a
more comprehensive understanding of different perspectives, and should
not be overused or abused to simply attack others in
self-righteousness.
m***@yahoo.ca
2006-03-30 17:28:02 UTC
Permalink
"I think many of us (including you) have also shown the
term "Indian" used to refer to Native Americans is not necessarily a
racist term and is indeed used by many Native American groups to refer
to their many diverse clans, tribes and nations as a collective. It
also remains a useful shorthand when refering to a diverse group of
people."

It's always racist to impose an indentity on a group or groups.
Especially on groups which have pre-existing names for themselves.
Calling aboriginal peoples "Indians" just because it's easier for white
people is not reason to perpetuate a 500 year old mistake.
George Lucki
2006-03-30 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
"I think many of us (including you) have also shown the
term "Indian" used to refer to Native Americans is not necessarily a
racist term and is indeed used by many Native American groups to refer
to their many diverse clans, tribes and nations as a collective. It
also remains a useful shorthand when refering to a diverse group of
people."
It's always racist to impose an indentity on a group or groups.
Especially on groups which have pre-existing names for themselves.
Calling aboriginal peoples "Indians" just because it's easier for white
people is not reason to perpetuate a 500 year old mistake.
I'm not arguing with you about the problem with the problem inherent with
the word "Indian". It is a name coined by others and foreign to the people
it describes. That does not make it racist per se. If it does then I guess
that references to the Welsh or the Pennsylvania Dutch (or even the Dutch)
or calling non-Russian citizens of the former Soviet Union Russians would
also be such examples? The French call Germany - Allemagne should we be
asking what's up with that? Some of these references are based on faulty
knowledge or improper generalizations or simply long traditions of usage,
but not necessarily racism.
There is an interesting look at the names given to places (exonyms) by
others by Jacek Wesolowski from the University of Lodz, Poland at
http://www.p.lodz.pl/I35/personal/jw37/EUROPE/europe.html - Click on the
letter links to see the extent. I don't think that we can ascribe all of
this to racism. There is an advantage over the longer term to replacing to
the greatest extent possible exonyms with endonyms so that a place (or a
people) has one name (the local or indigenous one) but culturally I don't
see that happening quickly or easily.
In terms of your own knowledge of the First Nations of Canada - which name
would you suggest as the one appropriate one to describe the many nations -
the peoples of Turtle Island? something else? Aboriginal Peoples is of
course a western term as well and could as easily apply to the Irish under
British rule, etc. Was there a previously functioning name for this
collective of nations prior to the arrival of Europeans? If we look at
Aboriginal, First, Native we see all of these used - are these the best
terms? I'm back to the idea that only dialogue and respect are going to help
us answer such questions.

George Lucki
t***@yahoo.com
2006-03-31 00:27:52 UTC
Permalink
This is after all a heraldry newgroup and this thread has become
tiresome. But I have to know : if it doesn't bother us Indians ( at
least it doesn't bother this Indian and those of his close
acquaintance) to be refered to as such, what difference could it
possibly make to a non-Indian? Go tilt at other windmills. (I would ,
by the way, refrain from the racist terms "white people" in the future
since this lumps the Irish, the English, the Scots, the Welsh, the
French, the Belgians, the Germans, et al, into one easily
distinguishable group , notwithstanding that these groups had
pre-existing names for themselves and that it does make it easier for
us Indians to refer to you all, as in "White men speak with forked
tongue.")

In the United States, being an Indian is a question of legal
definition. An Indian is an individual who carries a government issued
CDIB card. To the best of my knowledge, we are the only ethnic group
in the United States required to carry identity cards stating our
ethnicity, tribal affliation, and our blood quanta.

Best regards,

Thomas Pinkney Davis
Post by m***@yahoo.ca
It's always racist to impose an indentity on a group or groups.
Especially on groups which have pre-existing names for themselves.
Calling aboriginal peoples "Indians" just because it's easier for white
people is not reason to perpetuate a 500 year old mistake.
Edward
2006-03-31 03:12:35 UTC
Permalink
"It's always racist to impose an indentity on a group or groups.
Especially on groups which have pre-existing names for themselves.
Calling aboriginal peoples "Indians" just because it's easier for white

people is not reason to perpetuate a 500 year old mistake".

I have never ever heard "American Indians/Native Americans/Native
Alaskans" refer to themselves collectively as "aboriginal people".
(Native Australians do prefer the term). Are you proposing that the
various diverse clans, tribes, nations, language groups start referring
to themselves as "aboriginal people" or "aboriginal Americans" instead
of terms they are more comfortable with like "Native American/American
Indian"? The various Native Americans call themselves "Indian".
Whether this was/is a racist label is immaterial. They as a group seem
to be content with the shorthand term. Are you giving them a new
moniker? Are you of Native American descent? If not, then aren't you
simply imposing "an identity on a group or groups"? And isn't this
racist in itself? Now if you are a Native American, then you have a
long way to go in your fight to get your fellow Native Americans to
adopt "aboriginal people" or "aboriginal American"....
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2006-03-31 03:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Some of you may be aware that in Sept. 2004 the Smithsonian opened the
National Museum of the American Indian on the National Mall. There are also
branches in New York City and in Maryland.

Native peoples from all the Americas participated in the opening ceremonies.
I believe this constitutes a double endorsement of the validity and
nonracist character of the term. For information about that opening go to
http://www.nmai.si.edu/subpage.cfm?subpage=dc&second=grand&third=celebrate.

The homepage of the NMAI is:

http://www.nmai.si.edu/
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Edward
2006-03-31 03:34:55 UTC
Permalink
"But I have to know : if it doesn't bother us Indians ( at
least it doesn't bother this Indian and those of his close
acquaintance) to be refered to as such, what difference could it
possibly make to a non-Indian"?

Dear Thomas (if I may),

Perhaps Mr. Elliot is trying to tell you that "Indian" is a racist
term, and that its use should bother you and yor fellow Indians. But,
isn't it racist to adopt such a paternalistic attitude? It's like
saying "I know what is good for you. You guys are too stupid to
understand and figure things out for yourselves. Let me set you
straight..." Such an attitude sounds very racist to me. It tells me
that "I am too stupid to figure things out for myself, and that I need
a total stranger telling me what I can/should do". I think modern day
Native Americans/American Indian leaders and intelligensia are smart
enough to decide what term(s) they want to use to describe themselves
*as a collective*. If they choose "American Indian/Native American"
(though Native American is arguably a confusing term) then I think we
should all *respect* their decision. This is part of what political
correctness is about, and that is why I am not entirely against it!

Edward
Derek Howard
2006-03-31 09:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Just to throw in an heraldic element to this discussion, I note in
today's copy of the College of Arms electronic newsletter that a recent
devisal, by Letters Patent dated 25 November 2005, of arms, crest and
supporters was made for the Senate of North Carolina, following a
petition from the President of the Senate.

The Arms are blazoned Argent on a Cross between four Escutcheons bases
inwards Gules four Escutcheons bases also inwards Argent. The Crest is
Issuant from a Coronet of a Noble of the former Province of Carolina Or
a Cap of Liberty Gules raised upon a Pole Or between two Cornucopiae in
saltire Argent replenished proper.
The Supporters are On each side an Aborigine of North Carolina as
depicted by John White in the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First that
on the dexter a Warrior supporting with his exterior hand a Long Bow
and holding an Arrow girded at his back a Quiver that on the sinister a
Woman holding in her exterior hand a Gourd all proper.

I presume the Senate was satisfied with or even requested the use of
the term aborigine. Were they refering to current usage, traditional
usage for the characters in this context, or making a historical
reference to ancient arms or to the John White depiction? Does anyone
know when the term was used first for the heraldic depiction of
non-European North American residents?

Derek Howard
Edward
2006-03-31 10:18:34 UTC
Permalink
"I presume the Senate was satisfied with or even requested the use of
the term aborigine".

I suspect that use of the term "aborigine" in the letters patent was
borrowed from the Australian aboriginal context. (The logic may go
like this: "We call our indigenous folk 'aborigines' so why don't we
call the first settlers of the New World 'aborigines' as well")?
What is important, however, is that Native Americans collectively call
themselves "American Indians" or "Native American" or by their tribal
names. The terms "aboriginal" or "aborigine" is not used in the U.S.
by the various tribes and Native American/American Indian groups....
Don Aitken
2006-03-31 16:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward
"I presume the Senate was satisfied with or even requested the use of
the term aborigine".
I suspect that use of the term "aborigine" in the letters patent was
borrowed from the Australian aboriginal context. (The logic may go
like this: "We call our indigenous folk 'aborigines' so why don't we
call the first settlers of the New World 'aborigines' as well")?
What is important, however, is that Native Americans collectively call
themselves "American Indians" or "Native American" or by their tribal
names. The terms "aboriginal" or "aborigine" is not used in the U.S.
by the various tribes and Native American/American Indian groups....
Hardly. I am, on the contrary, sure the word is taken from the
original blazon of the arms of the province; since the description is
of the supporters used for those arms, it would be odd to do it any
other way. Perhaps someone could check? In any case, the word was in
common use in the 17th century, and for long after, in the literal
meaning given to it by the 1828 Webster's:

"The first settlers in a country are called aboriginals; as the Celts
in Europe, and Indians in America." See
http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=aboriginal

The 1913 Webster's says the same:
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=aboriginal

Note that both use America as an example; neither mentions Australia.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Edward
2006-04-01 01:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Don,

The point is that American Indians do not call themselves "aboriginal"
or "aborigine" despite Mr. Elliot's insistance that they do so/must do
so. If what you say is true about the North Carolina grant/original
blazon, then the term was given to them by the American
settlers/European authorities. Modern American Indians do not use the
term, and I think Mr. Elliot, the North Carolina Senate and the
College of Arms should simply respect the decision and stop using
"aborigine".

I agree with Franz that this whole topic has become very tedious and
have on at least one occassion tried to direct the conversation back to
heraldry without much success. Sebastian Nelson has posted a very
interesting webpage on arms to 16th century indigenous Mexican leaders,
and he was attacked by Mr. Elliott for using the term "mexican
indians". Clearly Sebastian was not using the term with any racist
intent and indeed his use of the term "Indian" has been validated by
the current use of the term by Native Americans/American Indian groups
themselves.

I disagree with Franz on the value of political correctness...
Political correctness does have its place in offering different
opinions and perspectives on history, sociology, economics, religion,
etc. Albeit, political correctness can be taken too far as I think Mr.
Eliott has shown by insisting to Native Americans like Thomas above
that he must use the term "aborigine" or "aboriginal" and not "American
Indian" - a term chosen by the American Indians themselves as a group
to refer to their collective identity. While as Franz is correct in
saying a person's heart should be "in the right place",
understanding/misunderstanding can begin with the mouth and what is
said. Better not insult someone from the very beginning when meeting
them (e.g., calling the Scots or Irish "English", calling black people
"n***ger", etc).

Edward
David / Amicus
2006-04-02 02:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Don't historians refer to the pre 1492 inhabitants of the Western
Hemisphere as "Pre-Columbians"?



So why not drop the "pre" and call their post 1492 descendents
COLUMBIANS?



Spell it with a "u" so not to be confused with the citizens of the
nation of Colombia.

Franz
2006-03-31 12:39:02 UTC
Permalink
It is a most tedious and futile disucssion as to what terms are most
appropriate. What matters is conditions under which people live, that
an effort is made to understand their culture, and that opportunities
are available in am equitable way.

Political correctness in itself counts for very little. Justice and
compassion is of more value. If a person's heart is 'in the right
place' it matters not at all whether their language is 'correct'.

Some people tend to wear overt 'political correctness', as a badge
denoting how contemporary and educated they are. It is of little
benefit to the groups of people they are discussing.
M***@virgin.net
2006-03-31 13:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Franz
It is a most tedious and futile disucssion as to what terms are most
appropriate. What matters is conditions under which people live, that
an effort is made to understand their culture, and that opportunities
are available in am equitable way.
Political correctness in itself counts for very little. Justice and
compassion is of more value. If a person's heart is 'in the right
place' it matters not at all whether their language is 'correct'.
Some people tend to wear overt 'political correctness', as a badge
denoting how contemporary and educated they are. It is of little
benefit to the groups of people they are discussing.
Well said, Franz.
Common sense is refreshing, particularly where it does not prevail.
McGoo
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...