Those are some mighty silly, twisted statements. BTW India does not allow dual citizenship with the US so it may be difficult to apply politically correct terminology via your somewhat pompous definition.

By your definition am I a Native American? (Disregard the fact that both of my grandmothers said family tradition held that we had or probably had Indian ancestors.) My ancestors were here, in the present US, before the Sioux (Lakota) tribes. According to family tree research all my ancestors arrived here between the early 1630's to 1730's. The Sioux arrived in the 1770's.

Your definition appears to be rooted in elitism at its finest---create a poor abused victim and then "save and protect" him. The Indians that I know, born and raised in this country (some on reservations), laugh at the "back easters" who pretend to know what they want to be called and how they wish to be treated.

Year's ago I knew at least one Indian who liked the name Blackhawks** for the Chgo hockey team because it was a name honoring Chief Black Hawk who was and is an Indian hero. Naturally libs now want to change it because it doesn't agree with their dogma that any Indian reference is insulting and demeaning.
Granted, some are succumbing to the overwhelming propaganda campaigns and their converted Indian cohorts.

For your info, they prefer, first of all, to be called by their tribal names such as Lakota, Ogallala etc.

They were unhappy when east coaster do-gooders forced North Dakota University to change its nickname from Fighting Sioux to something else and I can't blame them. The same holds true for schools, diners and hardware stores that are criticised for their names derived from horrendous words like Apache. They thought the demands to do so were hypocritical and ridiculous.

They are not offended by being called Indian and seem to be half divided about being called Native American. A goodly number of them see that as a patronizing term emanating from hypocrites, the others don't GAS.

This might be starting to sound a little pedantic so I will just end it now, with a question. Do you suppose Big Foot is offended when he is called Sasquatch?

**Actually, the Blackhawks were named that because that was the name of the bar/restaurant that the owners were imbibing at while trying to come up with a name for the team. The restaurant name, however, was honoring Chief Black Hawk.

Those are some mighty silly, twisted statements. BTW India does not allow dual citizenship with the US so it may be difficult to apply politically correct terminology via your somewhat pompous definition.

By your definition am I a Native American? (Disregard the fact that both of my grandmothers said family tradition held that we had or probably had Indian ancestors.) My ancestors were here, in the present US, before the Sioux (Lakota) tribes. According to family tree research all my ancestors arrived here between the early 1630's to 1730's. The Sioux arrived in the 1770's.

Your definition appears to be rooted in elitism at its finest---create a poor abused victim and then "save and protect" him. The Indians that I know, born and raised in this country (some on reservations), laugh at the "back easters" who pretend to know what they want to be called and how they wish to be treated.

Year's ago I knew at least one Indian who liked the name Blackhawks** for the Chgo hockey team because it was a name honoring Chief Black Hawk who was and is an Indian hero. Naturally libs now want to change it because it doesn't agree with their dogma that any Indian reference is insulting and demeaning.
Granted, some are succumbing to the overwhelming propaganda campaigns and their converted Indian cohorts.

For your info, they prefer, first of all, to be called by their tribal names such as Lakota, Ogallala etc.

They were unhappy when east coaster do-gooders forced North Dakota University to change its nickname from Fighting Sioux to something else and I can't blame them. The same holds true for schools, diners and hardware stores that are criticised for their names derived from horrendous words like Apache. They thought the demands to do so were hypocritical and ridiculous.

They are not offended by being called Indian and seem to be half divided about being called Native American. A goodly number of them see that as a patronizing term emanating from hypocrites, the others don't GAS.

This might be starting to sound a little pedantic so I will just end it now, with a question. Do you suppose Big Foot is offended when he is called Sasquatch?

**Actually, the Blackhawks were named that because that was the name of the bar/restaurant that the owners were imbibing at while trying to come up with a name for the team. The restaurant name, however, was honoring Chief Black Hawk.