Indeed. There are legitimate, challenging conversations about how to move away from the Indian Act structure which basically everyone agrees should be done. This of course has been a huge part of the reconcilliation process, and indigenous people have a range of clearly defined points here. That's great. We can go there. We SHOULD go there.

But if people are using disgusting, racist terminology it is just a non-starter. You can't begin a meaningful discussion about black poverty, say, with someone who comes into the discussion calling them the N word.

Your first point I pretty much agree on as I personally think everyone has a little bit of not racism but.... not sure the word.

Now your second point I disagree with a lot. Calling someone the N word differs way more than using the word Indian. We can not even type the N word even if were discussing the use of it.

As for his statement that Indigenous people get lighter sentences than whites and blacks. That may statistically correct. These sentences often take the environment they grew up in. That tends to be a common factor in many crimes.

Of course I do not use the word Indian anymore I go with Indigenous till someone finds that racist or in tolerant like the did native.

The reservation system as a whole has not worked nor has the Indian Act. Governments have failed the indigenous communities on both sides. JT when he was going to give Indigenous Services Minister position to Jody Wilson or not fulfilling his clean water promise. Just as did Harper fail them other than ending residential schools. We have to tear down John A Mcdonalds statue based on his treatment of the Indigenous . Yet we do not say that about Pierre Elliot Trudeau or the need to burn down the catholic churches


Though the reservation system as a whole has failed the people as well. Drugs, Gangs, Alcoholism and corrupt chiefs have made life on the reservation difficult. There is no easy answer but until all sides take the blame for the outcome things will never change

the term black is offensive, I demand you refer to them as Afro-Canadians or you are wacist

As much as you may be joking this is todays reality if a small group are offended and many times not part of the group they say are being offended we must change. Technically black may be now offensive. I am curious if Indian is offensive why is East Indian not offensive?

It was like the whole debate over the Edmonton Eskimos. They could not even call them the Edmonton Empire as that was offensive

Who says east Indian- it's South Asian. Unless my calendar is wrong and we are in fact in 18th century England

If a group of people say something is offensive then it IS offensive. If as a privelaged white male you fail to understand how they are offended then a) society is working as was intended b) while not your problem the least you can do is accept you're clueless and respect their pov c) stfu and enjoy white privelage without mocking and steam rolling over another group's experience

This is just a general rant, and not directed solely at lozen. Poker playing gamble not even spelling racist correctly is a great highlight of how easy it is to gloss over, dismiss and discount. As if the whole thing is some kind of joke and these cry babies better stop crying or else.

Everyone says Eat Indian . I have never heard South Asian. Who says its a joke?

Sadly if a white person has an opinion Its shut up and enjoy your white privilege. Myself I treat everyone equal I really do not care about your color or heritage. Canada differs so much from the USA when it comes to systemic racism. Reality is you will never end Racism as you will never end murder or homelessness. All you can do is reduce it.

East Indian is definitely not appropriate and no, "everyone" does not say it. It is from a time back when Canadians used the racist term "Indian" to refer to indigenous people and thus needed to add in the east to "East Indian" to refer to people who actually were from India. Nobody in India or elsewhere says they are "East Indian", it is purely a north american construct because we, wrongly, used the racist term "Indian" to refer to indigenous peoples in North America. It's true, some old people (like my dad) still occasionally say "let's order East Indian" but it is definitely not the correct term.

For the people who are still very confused
1) Refer to indigenous peoples as indigenous, aboriginal, or first nations. There are some smaller differences between the three and preferences why you might say one in each context, but you are pretty safe here with indigenous. Definitely don't use the extremely racist term "Indian".
2) Refer to people from India as "Indian". SHOCKING. If you want to refer to that part of the world more generally and not just India specifically then you can say South Asian. For instance people from Sri Lanka or Bangladesh are frequently mislabled as being Indian, so if you aren't sure they are from India then you are better off with South Asian.

Learning these basic terms is a really, really basic responsibility, especially for priviledged white people who ostensibly would like to not keep perpetuating racist terminology.

Is this specific to Canada, because this is not my impression in the US? When I was in college (admittedly 20 years ago) one of my professors (history) was an active member in her indigeneous tribe, including organizing a powwow that was held on campus. Her preference was to be called American Indian or First Nations. I lived in New Mexico for a year and worked with several American Indians, who, insofar as they had a preference, usually used "Indian."

It's not specific to anywhere, social justice warriors just want to make people kowtow to political correctness because when their arguments are considered on their merits they are found sorely lacking.

I'm not AS confident about the US as Canada, but my impression is that it is more true in Canada, yet still somewhat true in the US - absence indication from a specific group otherwise. American Indian is more accepted I think (including legally). Times have also changed in 20 years. For instance, a weird thing in your post is that "First Nations" is a pretty Canadian term I believe as opposed to "Native Americans" which is the more American term, so I think her view might be non-standard. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and groups to define things as they wish. In Canada, at least, it is basically non-existent to see indigenous groups self identify as Indians EXCEPT in the legal sense of "status indian" as per the Indian Act which basically everyone acknowledges needs to change but which we are currently stuck with.

Ill be honest I never knew that about East Indian.

Also I thought Aboriginal was also a no no now

This one is a bit more subtle. There are definitely indigenous groups who have pushed back against this terminology. It is a colonial era word, and lacks the connection to the global indigenous peoples movement, for instance. I believe a lot of indigenous people in Canada previously would put Aboriginal in their titles but there is movement away from this and indigenous is probably better. However, I think it is one of those "thoughtful people can discuss the best word choice" type of scenarios where as Indian is just clearly, objectively, indisputably wrong in Canada.

Ok I asked my sister whom is a teacher in an area in Edmonton called Millwoods about East Indian and it was news to her and 1/2 her class was as you say South Asian.
It was news to her as well. She says a group of people from India is Indian

Now I have to ask a few of my trades that are SE Asians

Fwiw as someone not from North America I wasn't even certain what was being referred to by "East Indian" until uke's post. I've literally never heard people from India being referred to as anything other than simply Indian and using some variation of Indian to refer to people from other countries in the area seems incredibly ignorant and probably very offensive.

I don't think nutella was trying to imply it is wrong to call people from India Indians. Yes, they are part of the more general group of South Asians, kinda like how France is part of Europe, but nobody thinks calling them Indian is wrong and no need to phone a sister imo.

I phone her everyday and I am always trying to educate myself. I asked my Asian buddy and he was yes it is offensive but many do not know.

When I am wrong I learn from it and change just as I changed my opinion on the Covid App

I meant the region is South Asia. Ofc a person from India is in fact Indian (thought that went without saying)

But Indian is offensive?

Not if someone is from the country of India

This is a tough video to watch. The band voted 80% to allow the ring road and sell the land . I applaud that they allowed him to speak but I feel for him.
Though this occurs in cities as well though I sense the band left him high and dry . At least cities buy the land.

https://youtu.be/h47zK6b6B0Y

For sure I agree with your view and used regional bc "east asia" is a regional term

I remember attending a job interview talk, and the candidate afterwards went up to a faculty member from the audience and asked them not a question about mathematical research, not a question about teaching of mathematics - what they were being interviewed for - but instead "are you from India?". The faculty member was sri lankan, not that the question would be appropriate even if they were Indian.

I don't support a norm against asking about people's ethnic background during social conversation. If this was a question asked while the person was being interviewed for a job, that would seem inappropriate, but asking it while mingling afterwards seems fine to me. Obviously this is context dependent, and there are certainly situations or ways of asking about someone's ethnicity in a social conversation that would be inappropriate, but not as a general rule imo. I'm guessing that math faculty at university are unusually cosmopolitan anyway.

Yeah I thought the same thing. If it was during a conversation I have no issue with it but if it was the first thing he asked I find that inappropriate

This is a strange response. I didn't suggest a norm or rule that one could never inquire about someone's ethnic background in a conversation. The specific connection to this conversation was as an anecdote about South Asians, as non-Indian South Asians are commonly mislabeled as Indians. Anyways, while I similarly agree this question can be appropriate in some contexts, I think it fairly clearly wasn't in this case, and indeed is a pretty decent example of a microaggression.

First I should clarify the scenario. The candidate finished their talk, walked up to the Sri-Lankan person, said hello, and then said "Are you from India?". So it wasn't, for instance, something that came up organically in a back and forth conversation about their personal lives. Secondly, I think that mingling after a job talk is absolutely part of the interview and provides relevant information about the candidates potential collegiality and I would expect audience members to submit negative feedback if in the mingling they clearly were unable to speak about their research or teaching with some effectiveness.

Now why do I find this inappropriate? Many POC report that this kind of question is a persistent and annoying part of their lives. It puts their ethnicity up front in how people perceive them, as opposed to small talk that focuses on, say, their research or teaching interests. Why in an academic job interview would you ask "are you from india" and not "what courses are you teaching this semester"? Asking the former centers the conversation on a persons ethnicity and not other aspects of their identity. If someone was making small talk and said they went back home for vacation over the summer I'd have zero problems asking "are you from India?", for example, but that is a significantly different context.

For interest sake, their response was immediate and blunt: "You shouldn't have asked me that". I agree.