Native American?

[victorcharlie]

The census is on the way, so I have a question to ask you fellows.

After the stir about the word negro being included in the race section of the census it got me thinking.

My family, or my sir name, has been here 11 generations coming to the new world in 1680.

Do you think it would be correct for me to check the box that says "Native American"?

I mean, if not now, then when?

It might increase the minority count in my district and get us more federal money too.

What say you?

[pastorp]

I think you know the answer to that.  But nice try..........

Regards,

[gwhilikerz]

What a novel idea! My ancestor came over on the "Primrose" in 1635. How long did the "Native" Americans have to be here before they were called native?

[BUGEYE]

what were you before you were born?? so I say, since I was born here, I'm a native american.

[Questor]

If you were born in either North America, South America, or Central America, then you are a native American.

[Cabin4]

I don't think so. Native Americans are from a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas that took place via Beringia, a land bridge which formerly connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The minimum time depth by which this migration had taken place is confirmed at about 12,000 years ago. So 1680 just don't cut it but nice try.

[billy_56081]

I have always claimed Native American on the census. I was born here in America.

[norman]

I don't think so. Native Americans are from a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas that took place via Beringia, a land bridge which formerly connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The minimum time depth by which this migration had taken place is confirmed at about 12,000 years ago. So 1680 just don't cut it but nice try.

So other words the only difference between "us" and a Native American is there was NO Ellis Island when they got here?  When they crossed the land bridge did they find people here allready?  And if they did who was here first?  Apache, Navajo or did they all cross at the same time?  Maybe we should have slogans like "America for the Mastadon"  or "T-rex for pres."  So instead of "Native American" they should be called Eurasia-American?   

[Cabin4]

I don't think so. Native Americans are from a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas that took place via Beringia, a land bridge which formerly connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The minimum time depth by which this migration had taken place is confirmed at about 12,000 years ago. So 1680 just don't cut it but nice try.

So other words the only difference between "us" and a Native American is there was NO Ellis Island when they got here?  When they crossed the land bridge did they find people here allready?  And if they did who was here first?  Apache, Navajo or did they all cross at the same time?  Maybe we should have slogans like "America for the Mastadon"  or "T-rex for pres."  So instead of "Native American" they should be called Eurasia-American?  

The other question should be did these native Americans cross the Beringia land bridge and properlly apply for citizenship? If not, technically they are all still illegal aliens!

[45-70.gov]

i saw  a TV  show once
said  aboridginy  were  here before indians

so  no  native ameicans are  here

depends on your definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native

[slim rem 7]

 im a native north carolinian..my daddy was ,his daddy was.. some where back there, ancesters came from irland ,
england,germany,africa,yep its told to me by my daddy..he had black hair.. he said the black hair coulda been from the indian blood we had a portion of,, but the almost kinky curly hair he had,,[the women loved it] had to come from the african ancester..
 everybody bleeds the same red color..
 anyway being as how im a native tarheel an its in america ..im native american.. at least as far as im concerned..
     at least for now ,,im still proud to be in america..could come a time ,,if things continue to sour here..i might be proud i am from america ,,when it was america.. when the words of the song..god bless america land of the free ..no longer apply..it ll sure be a sad day for this country boy..

[Old Fart]

I always just considered my self an indian.
Not very politically correct of me is it?

And to answer the question the Potawatomi's were the original indians.

[gwhilikerz]

LOL Slim, could be our ancestors lived next door in NC. We were in England, migrated to VA (1635), then NC, then KY. In fact I claim a big chunk of the University of North Carolina since they stole over 3,000 acres from my family. They went to court and had several witnesses claim that "Capt. Eli was killed during the Revolutionary War and had no heirs." So they grabbed the land.  He wasn't dead. Old family stories claim he came home from that war and after a couple of shootings he moved to KY.
 So we were here before Ellis Island, were pushed of our lands by big government and greedy new comers. Guess that makes us Native Americans.

[blind ear]

Aborigionals are the first humans to inhabit an area. If your ancestors made arrowheads and spear points to hunt with and not for fun or the tourist trade, you are probably a Native American.

[MGMorden]

I always just considered my self an indian.
Not very politically correct of me is it?

Not really a matter of political correctness as it is downright confusing.  The original peoples of North America were called "Indians" by ignorant European explorers who incorrectly thought they'd landed in India.  The colloquial name stuck around for a good while because MOST people in the US at the time had virtual no dealings with India (and it's population who are correctly called Indians).

These days though, particularly in the technology sector, 99% of the time if someone is referred to as an Indian, then they are actually from India, not North America.  Having the same name for two groups of people is confusing and ambiguous, and since it just plain makes more sense to call people from India Indians, we have to find a different name for the original inhabitants of this continent.  Native Americans makes about as much sense as anything else to me, though if they'd like to be called something different I wouldn't mind.  Either way though we need a term to describe the group, and Indians isn't a good one.  IF it's prefixed as "American Indian" though that's a little more acceptable.  The reference to India at all is a bit out of place, but at least it kills the ambiguity.

[blind ear]

Extinctors, of the mastadons, saber tooth cat, god bear, themselves? eddie

[AtlLaw]

I don't think so. Native Americans are from a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas that took place via Beringia, a land bridge which formerly connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The minimum time depth by which this migration had taken place is confirmed at about 12,000 years ago. So 1680 just don't cut it but nice try.

So other words the only difference between "us" and a Native American is there was NO Ellis Island when they got here?  When they crossed the land bridge did they find people here allready?  And if they did who was here first?  Apache, Navajo or did they all cross at the same time?  Maybe we should have slogans like "America for the Mastadon"  or "T-rex for pres."  So instead of "Native American" they should be called Eurasia-American?   

Hummmmm    Lessee here...    by y'alls way of thinkin, as much of it as I can follow anyways, there is only one really correct name for us homer sapins... 

Since Science believes the cradel of humanity is Africa, then all of us must be...

WAIT FOR IT

HERE IT COMES



All of us must be AFRICAN AMERICANS!   

[norman]

OK since we're on the African-American thing how about:
Black in England= African-English or African-Saxon? African-Norman?  African-Limey?
Black in France=African-French or French African?
Black in Canada=African-Canadian?
And to go one further, would an American born in Africa be an American-African?     I'm sooooooo confused??!!??

When the Germans went to Africa are they German-Africans or African-Germans and finally who really gives a rats arse anywho??  

Whuzat toto, you dont think were in Kansas anymore??  You think we are Kansan-Africans??  Shut up toto! 

[Old Fart]

I always just considered my self an indian.
Not very politically correct of me is it?

Not really a matter of political correctness as it is downright confusing.  The original peoples of North America were called "Indians" by ignorant European explorers who incorrectly thought they'd landed in India.  The colloquial name stuck around for a good while because MOST people in the US at the time had virtual no dealings with India (and it's population who are correctly called Indians).

These days though, particularly in the technology sector, 99% of the time if someone is referred to as an Indian, then they are actually from India, not North America.  Having the same name for two groups of people is confusing and ambiguous, and since it just plain makes more sense to call people from India Indians, we have to find a different name for the original inhabitants of this continent.  Native Americans makes about as much sense as anything else to me, though if they'd like to be called something different I wouldn't mind.  Either way though we need a term to describe the group, and Indians isn't a good one.  IF it's prefixed as "American Indian" though that's a little more acceptable.  The reference to India at all is a bit out of place, but at least it kills the ambiguity.

I understand all that. But here in Oklahoma most of my friends still refer to eachother as indians.
I think most of the political correctness is coming from somewhere else.

[victorcharlie]

So, could I check the "other" race box and write in Confederate american?

[teamnelson]

I checked "other" and wrote in North Atlantic Islander. Hawaiians didn't get the joke.

[sagegrouse715]

The Beringia/land bridge crossing by the American Indians K(somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 B.C.) is a theory. The Clovis, New Mexico spear point has been carbon-dated around 11,500 B.c which was always the accepted date of Indian people existing on the continent. However, archeologocal findings keep showing evidence that the Indian people were here earlier and earlier. Also, Indian people's teeth are scooped on the distal incisors (front backside) as are Asian peoples teeth.  Likewise Indo/European teeth are flat.  However, Indian oral history says they have always been here.

I must assume someone is "speaking tongue in cheek" in asking if Indian people properly applied for citizenship.   To me, one of the amazing things in our history is that Indian people were not eligible for citizenship and voting rights until 1924.

The American Indians I personal know are comfortable with Native American or Indian.  In Canada they are known First Nation.

[Cabin4]

Well, lets go back in time a bit and look at impact of plate tectonics. About 1 billion years ago, there was only one super continent named Rodina which encompased all the continents we know of today. The movement of plates, through plate tectonics has caused the formation and break-up of continents over time to about 600 million years ago they reformed to create a new super continent named Pangaea. Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents) we have today.

So technically, we here are all Rodina's and later we became Pangaea's and then we bacame Laurasia's and know we are North Americans. So what the heck are we?  

 

[sagegrouse715]

Human beings.  Off course, the existence of Rodina would be theory. 

[nw_hunter]

Human beings.  Off course, the existence of Rodina would be theory. 

I'm getting a headache

[Cabin4]

Human beings.  Off course, the existence of Rodina would be theory. 

I'm getting a headache

So am I

[MGMorden]

Human beings.  Off course, the existence of Rodina would be theory.  

A theory with enough mountains of evidence to support it that no serious scientists would argue against it.  It's merely down to working out minute details now.  I mean really - plate tectonics itself is a theory and we can watch it in action.  We can MEASURE the continents moving apart from each other.  We can look at the way the plates work and cause earthquakes and volcanoes, and how they emerge (the fault at the middle of the Atlantic) or drift underneath each other (the pacific plate bordering California).  It's absolutely trivial to take the observations and run them backwards.  It's like seeing a guy in a hardhat falling beneath a lift a second before he hits the ground.  You might not have directly observed him at the moment he fell, but anybody with half a brain can piece together that he fell from the lift above.  

As I posted in another thread, as far as science goes, a theory is about as far as ANYTHING gets that isn't a simple mathematical equation. It's the hypothesis that are guesses.  A theory has a lot of weight and evidence behind it. Put it this way, the THEORY of relativity is used to correct the clocks on GPS satellites every day.  Without applying this (well researched and heavily supported by evidence) theory, the clocks get off by roughly 8 seconds every day.  But hells bells when this "theory" is applied they stay right on track.

Too many people are trying to use the word "theory" to brush off things these days and it just has no place in rational thought.  Theory does NOT mean guess.

[sagegrouse715]

Me too. 

[sagegrouse715]

So you are saying the Big Bang Theory is of equal standing and is just down to minute details?

[Oldshooter]

My people were brought  to Louisiana against their will from Nova Scotia. We were Nova Scotians, From France originally. Now I have been in Texas since 1958  Wondering what that makes me unless its a Texas Cajun Refugee! Is that in the Census?