Print

Print


It's too bad that "aborigine" has taken on such a specialized meaning.  It
might work in the Americas as well.
Charlie

-----Original Message-----
From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of George Corley
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Native Americans

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Charles W Brickner <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On Behalf Of George Corley
>
> ...and a Mexico with no obvious mestizos or American Indians.
> =======================================================
> This reminds me of a misconception of some American Catholics.  This 
> past October the pope canonized the Algonquin-Mohawk woman Kateri
Tekakwitha.
> Immediately the press reports the canonization of the first Native 
> American, not realizing that Native Americans live from the Arctic 
> Circle to the Straits of Magellan (even beyond).  St. Kateri is the 
> first canonized Native American woman, but back in 2008, Juan Diego, a 
> Native American man of Mexico, was canonized.
>

I wonder if differences in what this group is called might feed into that.
 In the US, they are often termed Native Americans or American Indians, or
Amerindians in more technical contexts.  Canada officially uses First
Nations, though I think more specific terms like Inuit and Aleut tend to be
more common as you get into the far northern tribes.  And the usual Spanish
term is _indígena_ "indigenous", though _indio_ also appears.  All these
different terms for what many people consider to be the same (albeit widely
distributed) racial group could cause some confusion for people.

Also, don't forget that a lot of official US gov't groups throw in Hawaiians
and other Pacific islanders along with all the Amerindian groups.