From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lasse Karlsson" > Subject: Re: OT: North Americans > > > From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Since it's our language I would think that we can call > Indians anything > > > we want to as long as no offense is intended, and if > it is there's really > > > nothing that can be done about it anyway. > > > > I think the above is a very interesting statement. > > It's funny and it is amusing. > > > > Since the Indians are comfortable enough with the term to > use it in the names of both their political organizations > and their universities, just what is your problem, Lasse?
1). I don't have the funds to buy an D*ist... 2) Nor the second hand studio lights that I was offered locally the other day... 3) I haven't got.... (well never mind) 4) Got another flat tyre on my bike today, and streets are in a snowy, icy mess... 5) I don't have the adapters and cords to get my 500ftz off the Mz5, nor a second flash for the same purpose... As for my previous post, you misinterpreted it. I have no problem whatsoever with calling Indians "Indians". However, the poster said "we can call Indians a n y t h i n g" since it's "o u r language", and if there is offense taken or intended "there is nothing that can be done about it anyway". What I found very interesting is 1) who the "we" in "our language" are; 2) which "language" is specifically referred to; 3) who owns this language; 4) why any "ownership" of any language would give any "owner" of it the right to call any people or anybody just anything he/she - or "we" - wish, 5) that the poster claims that if offense is caused, nothing can be done about it anyway. Through history many peoples of the world have been called many different names. Most readers can easily come up with lists of earlier names of peoples in their part of the world, that now will need a footnoted explanation to avoid misunderstanding as to the writer's intentions. Lasse
