Mama’s Note: This was left as a comment to your article ““Hostile to the United States” Part B: Internal countries, organizations, and individuals“
You seem to be very knowledgeable on the matter, so let me ask, why is the term “native American” disrespectful? At one time, in the ’60′s or ’70′s, it was demanded as the ONLY acceptable term by a number of vocal members of [that group]. It is of course true that their ancestors arrived only a few tens of thousands of years ago, the blink of an eye in geologic , or even human evolutionary terms, but they were in fact “native” when explorers and settlers arrived from Europe.
Nathan: Actually, the term became common in the late ’70s and ’80s, and was not used in the 1960s. Indeed the most radical and vocal “Native American” group in that period (2nd Wounded Knee, Alcatraz, etc.) Called themselves the American Indian Movement (AIM), not the “Native American Movement.” Like many politically correct terms, “Native American” was invented by academic and political elites, to try and ingratiate themselves with the community, like “black” and “African-American” and “Afro-American” and so many others. These terms are used, quite often, in the most asinine of ways – example, referring to a German of Namibian heritage as a “German African-American” or speaking of the large “Afro-American population” of Belgium (which is mostly black-skinned people from the Congo (Zaire) and nearby countries). And of course, REFUSING to refer to an American whose parents were Afrikaaner as an African-American because he has “white skin.”
Why is “native American” disrespectful? Let me first answer that from my own perspective, and then from that of a good many enrolled members of various tribes. But I warn you, I am an engineer and a geologist, and I do not believe in either evolution nor the standard “historical geology” fantasies.
Native, as in “native-born” refers to someone who is born in a given land, usually of parents also born in that specific land: it is usually a legal term. Native also has a negative connotation, as in primitive, local (hicks, yokels, etc.) So the PC term itself has issues and is confusing. I for example, am a “native” of Colorado because I was born in that state. Although I lived outside that state, I was a state resident (“citizen”) from my age of majority (18) until I gave up my Colorado citizenship in 1990 to become a South Dakota resident or citizen. However, my parents were NOT native Coloradoans; one was born in New Mexico and one in Texas. Under the laws of those states, I can claim to be a “Native Texan” and a “Native New Mexican” because my parents were born and lived in both those states. I can also claim to be a Native Texan AND a Native “Texican” or “Texian” because I have several Anglo ancestors who were citizens of the Republic of Texas, and were naturalized (back to being) Americans when Texas was admitted. But I can also be called “Native American” by the PC crowd because some of my ancestors were Cherokee from the Carolinas, Chiricahua (one of the Apache bands), and Quahadi Numu (Comanche). (The Comanche was originally “Texan” and the Chricuahua “Arizonan” but both tribes ended up in what is now Oklahoma. So the phrase is, at best, confusing and often misleading.
That, of course, is the problem with “native American” and “American Indian” and even the general term “AmerInd.” It is like introducing a Lapp, a Basque, a Hellene, and a Manxman and telling them that they must be “Native Europeans” or “European Whiteskins” and that they all have to wear Greek kilts, eat Lapp-style Reindeer steak, and use the Suomi sauna, wear Phyrgian caps, and have Roman-style government! Lumping everyone together IS demeaning and judgmental and certainly does not further liberty.
Closely related to this is the confusion of “Native American” versus “Native Canadian” and “Native Mexican” (and so on for every nation in the Americas – mainland and islands included. I have seen Canadian tribal members called “Native American” when rather, they are “Native Canadians” (where, by the way, the politically correct term is “First Nations.”)
Also, many enrolled members of tribes consider it demeaning because of the connotations of “native” (as made popular by the colonial powers of the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s) for people in Asia and Africa – backwards and primitive. (There is a similar negative connotation to the term “Aboriginal.”) And they do NOT consider themselves to be all mashed together in some mass, instead preferring (as do I) to be identified by their nation(s) (tribe(s)). Even so, they do take more pride in being called “American Indians” because they ARE Americans, and overall, most tribal members I know are very patriotic, and usually (despite their votes for Democrats and Republicans) pretty conservative.
Continuing your question:
And how is the term “American Indian” appropriate or non-disrespectful? India is, as I’m sure you’re aware, an actual country far far away from America, which is not in any way connected to the people who settled in America. Why does Christopher Columbus’s brain fart carry so much weight, and the patina of legitimacy?
Nathan: First off, “American Indian” or just plain “Indian” is NOT a reference to the subcontinent (or nation) of India, but rather to the “Indies,” which was the Spanish name referring to all of southern Asia, including what has been for centuries known as the “East Indies” – which today is mostly the nation of Indonesia. This was based on the miscalculation as to the diameter of the planet, which is why the islands of the Caribbean are now the “West Indies.” Since these were the first long-term inhabitants to be encountered by Europeans (well, Spanish, though commanded by an “Italian” who was actually a Genoan), the name stuck, was NOT derogatory, and makes sense if you are dealing with multiple nations (tribes) and cultures.
This is similar to the fact that most Brits and Americans refer to the Low Lands (Nederland or Netherlands) as “Holland” even though that is just one small (if important) province of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Koninkrijk der Nederlanden).) Or referring to a Scot or Manxman as a “Brit” (short for British subject). Or even referring to Britain as “England” as so many Americans do, including those who claim to be “PC.”
Second, the term American Indian was not originally derogatory, disrespectful, or non-appropriate. It was simply descriptive. And for that matter, the use of just the word “Indian” when its meaning is clear in context should not be a problem. It is simply a name, and not intended to be derogatory in any way. Do we have a problem with “titmouse” even though it is not a mouse and does not have teats?
As for Columbus himself, he didn’t establish any legitimacy; indeed, he was long dead before the term “American Indian” came into common use in English. But consider how the name America even came about: from a relatively unimportant explorer, who discovered (as known even in his day) pretty much nothing. If we want to be so politically correct, then let us use the English translation of the most common term for the two continents used by the pre-Columbian inhabitants: “Turtle.” So it would be “these United States of Turtle,” and we would be “Turtleans?”
I don’t think disrespect has anything to do with the use of the term: anymore than it would be disrespectful to call Johnny Cash’s “boy named Sue” by the name his parents gave him. It is not the name, but how the name is used, that constitutes disrespect.
My own preference (which I normally use) in referring to people from several different tribes or culture groups is an anthropological term, “AmerInd.” It is both simple, it removes at least some of the confusion and sting of the full terms, and can be neutral. It has customarily been applied to ALL pre-1492 inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. And people understand it. Still, whenever possible, I will use the common name or the people’s own name for themselves: Navajo or Dineh, Inde or Apache, Comanche or Numu, and Sioux or L/D/Nakota. (Actually, the best term in my opinion is Ahkota for the Seven Council Fires, since it includes (like “Sioux”) all three dialects.) I know and work with many people who are mostly (by blood) and culturally Lakota, and while about 1 in 10 prefer “Native American,” more accept “American Indian”
Obviously, people’s personal attitude can vary. But I do not think that refusing to use a term (or terms) that is clearly understood and accepted by most of the people so described makes sense. Even the term “Redskin” falls into that category: it is nothing more than descriptive, just like “White” or “Black” unless it is used with the intent to demean. Those are unlike words such as “squaw” or “buck” which were derogatory from the git-go. (Which is why words like “brave” or “warrior” are, to me and many others are acceptable.) The fact is, it is to the advantage of politicians and statists to denigrate the use of certain words.
I hope this answers your questions. Thanks for asking!

Libertarian Commentary on the News, #14-02B: Theft by government and killer cops
Theft by government
Census: D.C. Suburbs, With All Those Gov’t Workers, Have Highest Median Income
(CNSNews.com)
Nathan: This is not new news, just a reminder. My family, back when I was getting off active duty, could have been some of those government workers, but chose more freedom and less temptation. We must remember that government workers enjoy very high levels of security, and while they once, as a result, had lower incomes, that has changed. Today, government workers still do not attain the rarified levels of the very successful entrepreneurs with their high-risk, high-income jobs and businesses, or of the top-of-the-pyramid corporate executives and managers, but are far and above the average American white-or blue-collar worker, and the total of the rest of the service sector (which is theoretically what “government” is supposed to be, right?). Part of this is the Praetorian system: keeping the people who keep the leaders/elite in power happy, as dating from Tiberius on. Part of this is corruption and spoils. And part of it is purely “we can get away with it, and we will,” like the thugs in Bell, California and Detroit and Chicago.
Stupid government – National Defense
Marines Delay Female Fitness Plan After Half of Women Fail
(CNSNews.com)
Nathan: Shucks, sounds like high school and college: if the students don’t pass the class, lower the standards. How many Marines, male and female, will die because standards are lower? And please do not tell me that machines and equipment can substitute for upper body strength. That is garbage. Now, tell me, if the government hires (recruits) people who are unable to do the jobs for which they hired them, and instead reduces the standards, is that not yet ANOTHER form of theft by government? As well as fraud and corruption on the part of the officials?
Home front – Nazgul and their minions
Illegal Immigrant Hopes His New Law License Will Help Others Like Him
(CSNNews.com)
Nathan: An illegal lawyer, how fun! This kid in California is obviously more foreign than he claims (that he was brought illegally to the US as an infant, and didn’t know better, but became a poster child for letting illegal immigrants practice law in California). Why do I say more foreign? Even illegals know that becoming a lawyer isn’t going to make you more liked – indeed, it is normally the opposite. Later stories say that even though the California Assembly passing this law gives him a license, he may still not be able to be hired to work as an attorney, due to OTHER federal and state laws. Apparently he either refuses to apply for legal status or citizenship (can he be his own client?) or has been denied that. I can picture him standing outside a Home Depot or Lowes in a three-piece suit with a sign “Looking for Legal Work” together with those looking for day jobs for other things, like digging ditches or cleaning out basements.
Stupid political commentators
Buchanan trashes potsmokers and AR-15 buyers/owners
(Political Outcast)
Nathan: Pat Buchanan (as always) exhibits a wide streak of insane paranoia and a hypocrisy that is astonishing. The comments by the reporter are very interesting to read, and make a lot of sense. For one thing, Buchanan is just plain wrong: It was not some mythical majority of “potheads” in Colorado that voted to legalize recreational cannabis, but a LOT of people who are sick and tired of government trying to control their lives and those of everyone around them. And who did not have a chance to vote on General Assembly gun laws and about 90 other stupid things. To try to equate libertarians with all this garbage means that after all these years, he does not understand either minarchists OR anarchists.
Mama’s Note: It seems to me that many people are starting to accept the fact that if the “rulers” can dictate the use of a plant or any food, relationships with their doctors, steal whatever part of their productivity they please, threaten them with jail or death for defending themselves, or for owning inanimate objects of their choice… they’re starting to get the idea that these dictators will stop at nothing to control everything and everyone eventually. About darn time.
Stupid Political Tricks
Retired officers call for peaceful revolt against DC
(Freedom Outpost)
Nathan: I am of very mixed thoughts (and emotions) about this. On the one hand, this is really disturbing: they are trying to create a “Street Senate” – a mob that will attempt to force tyranny against ALL of us, starting with Congress. Of course, I don’t think that they will get a million, much less multiple millions. What they ARE likely to get is a bullet in the head, and an excuse for more cancellation of liberty and rights. But on the other hand, I have to ask, what are the reasonable alternatives? What alternatives will make sense? Armed revolt is a very-low-probability success strategy. I believe that a broad (say, 3-5 million participants) armed revolt against federal and state (and most local) governments COULD succeed with the right propaganda and reasonably moderate planning and coordination. But only “succeed” in collapsing the current system. I do NOT think that success would lead to more liberty, but rather could open the door for French/Russian/Iranian style successor dictatorships. And waiting, for things to get worse, is nothing more than the boiling frog strategy: we will slide into deeper and deeper tyranny. Voting, letter and petition writing, and moaning to each other on the Internet is folly. Will efforts like this be the trigger for massive and brutal response that will require resistance and self-defense?
Mama’s Note: I suspect that the collapse of the economy and the final devaluation of the dollar to zero will accomplish the revolution, with no one group or entity either the victim or the villain, and no planned armed insurrection for the most part. The only mass action I can foresee is that of the suddenly bereft entitlement class, from the welfare/unemployment people to the “public servants” at all levels, who will suddenly find themselves without an income. Most will not have made any rational provisions for this eventuality, as proven by many natural disasters, and without a “bailout” of stolen money and bogus “credit,” the war will be on. I suspect that once the paychecks and perks are gone, the government won’t have all that many actually working for it. Unfortunately, those parts of that parasite class who are now armed and deadly will simply become more so. The arms will be in the hands of the predators, and those who are prepared and willing to defend themselves from them.
Now, what will be built on the ashes of this collapse, nobody knows. I suspect that the key will be how many survive who actually accept self ownership and non-aggression. No guarantees, of course, and utopia is not an option. Going to be a long, long century, I fear.
Home front: killer cop
North Carolina: Cop executes disturbed teen in front of parents
(WECT via Political Outcast) WECT: Wilsey said his family called the police to help with his schizophrenic son Keith Vidal who had a small screwdriver in his hand. Officers used at Taser on Vidal and then shot him, according to Wilsey. Wilsey said officers came into their home after they called for backup help when Vidal was having a schizophrenic incident. Wilsey said officers had his son down on the ground after the teen was tased a few times and an officer said, “we don’t have time for this.” That’s when Wilsey says the officer shot in between the officers holding the teen down, killing his son.
Nathan: This is what North Carolina cops must refer to as “cleaning up the streets.” Murder, pure and simple: 95-pound, 5’3″ kid: certainly no Trevon Martin. Murder because this cop couldn’t be bothered after HE intervened illegally and unnecessarily. Of course, the parents must take some of the blame because they so STUPIDLY called for law enforcement intervention in a situation that SHOULD have been handled among family and friends. With all the news we have about cops killing and beating and maiming more and more people for virtually ANY reason, why would ANY parent do this?