Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Indigenous people

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,147
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon's Tail View Post
    ...my favorite rig might shock you... was Chevron...
    Chevron is rotten up and down, out and in... sure they take care of their "white culture homeboys"... sorry, but Chevron is a fucking disgusting company, and they all deserve to go to jail.

    Check out this website: www.chevrontoxico.com



    Also Hillary can suck my dick... if I was into beastiality that is...

    Last edited by Awani; 08-03-2018 at 10:40 PM.
    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    7
    American Scythian's. A lost culture.

    John Smith, 131 years old.

    https://imgur.com/a/C1EHP

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Sounds like a nice trip & experience.

    I don't have the mentality of "They are wiser" or "They live better"... I simply think that our culture is important and it is sad that so many cultures were destroyed (and others are currently being destroyed), because it is similar to the destruction of the library of Alexandria; a knowledge that gets lost forever and can't be recovered.

    Other than that... you obviously wrote with admiration and in a tender way, but remember that "indigenous", "indian", etc can be very derogative terms when they are used to describe aboriginal cultures (unless you are actually talking about India).
    I saw that in the USA the term is actually used by the aboriginals to describe themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement ... so maybe it is an acceptable term in the USA?
    ... but in Latin America, the term is considered very derogative... and "aboriginal" is the term that is used.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,147
    Blog Entries
    2
    Indigenous is the only politically correct term and its Spanish equivalent. Now there might be individual opinion, but that is the correct term. Although if you want to be really correct you call them by their tribe/people name. Indigenous in the USA call themselves Indian, although I would advice white people to call them either indigenous or by their people name. Aboriginal is the term used for the indigenous in Australia.

    Our culture is not that important.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    Indigenous is the only politically correct term and its Spanish equivalent. Now there might be individual opinion, but that is the correct term. Although if you want to be really correct you call them by their tribe/people name. Indigenous in the USA call themselves Indian, although I would advice white people to call them either indigenous or by their people name. Aboriginal is the term used for the indigenous in Australia.

    Our culture is not that important.
    I feel like I am derailing the thread... my intention is not to correct you, but to explain you.
    I live in Latin america (as you know)... the term "Indians" (indios) is in Latin America considered EXTREMELY derogative and "aboriginals" (aborŪgenes) is used.
    "Native" (nativos) is not used in Latin America as to talk about the aboriginals because it has a different meaning (in example, in Spanish if you talk about the Brazilian Natives, it simply means everyone who was born in Brazil... not the aborigines of Brazil).

    So do not take it as a "correction", but as an explanation.

    I saw that in the USA the term "indians" is acceptable, in Latin America it sounds similar to talking about african-descendants by calling them "fucking niggers", it is really considered very very very derogative. Even the people who is a bit racist would not use the term "indians" in Latin America unless they want to get completely out of the "racist closet".

    So it is not a "correction", but an explanation... because I know that one of your passions is the Latin American aboriginal cultures and you may end up saying something very offensive by a "cultural mistake" (which is simply cause because you don't live in this area and you obviously don't know some silly things about this place,just like I do not know some etiquette rules of the northern countries of Europe... because I do not live there).

    When I said that our culture is important... I meant the whole of our culture or the whole culture of mankind.... and I know that you agree with me there. You are an "anthropologist" in your own special way.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,147
    Blog Entries
    2
    I do not know about that word in your city, but in Peru and Ecuador and Colombia the term is indigenous i.e. "indigena". It is not "indian" and aboriginal is the same word as indigenous, but the latter is most often used for those in Australia. The indigenous call themselves indigenous.

    Maybe Argentina is different, but the whole Amazon and in the rest of the world the term is indigenous and its translated equivelant.

    Indigenous is not an offensive word. Indian might be. Although most indigenous define themselves as Achuar, Kichwa, Shipibo, Apache etc.

    I agree with you on the word "indian", but the word "indigenous" is not wrong. I never used the term "indian".

    I object because you wrote that "indigenous" is derogatory. It is not.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,954
    Quote Originally Posted by Awani View Post
    I do not know about that word in your city, but in Peru and Ecuador and Colombia the term is indigenous i.e. "indigena". It is not "indian" and aboriginal is the same word as indigenous, but the latter is most often used for those in Australia. The indigenous call themselves indigenous.

    Maybe Argentina is different, but the whole Amazon and in the rest of the world the term is indigenous and its translated equivelant.

    Indigenous is not an offensive word. Indian might be. Although most indigenous define themselves as Achuar, Kichwa, Shipibo, Apache etc.

    I agree with you on the word "indian", but the word "indigenous" is not wrong. I never used the term "indian".

    I object because you wrote that "indigenous" is derogatory. It is not.

    But even the term "Indian" should not be considered "derogatory", unless one thinks that being confused for people from India is "offensive". At worst, the term "Indian" for indigenous peoples of the New World should be considered "silly" and "inaccurate", as it comes from a historical case of mistaken identity. Early European explorers had severely underestimated the size of the world and thought they had reached India by sailing west. Little did they suspect that in between there actually was a huge landmass inhabited by other peoples that had nothing to do with India and its inhabitants.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,147
    Blog Entries
    2
    Well it is the "indians" that decide what is good and bad to call them, then it is up to others to follow that or not.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,470
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But even the term "Indian" should not be considered "derogatory", unless one thinks that being confused for people from India is "offensive". At worst, the term "Indian" for indigenous peoples of the New World should be considered "silly" and "inaccurate", as it comes from a historical case of mistaken identity. Early European explorers had severely underestimated the size of the world and thought they had reached India by sailing west. Little did they suspect that in between there actually was a huge landmass inhabited by other peoples that had nothing to do with India and its inhabitants.
    What you say is logical, but the reasons are more historical than logical.
    Of course the term comes from the confusion of Columbus, who thought he had arrived to India... and for some time the Spanish Empire thought that America was India, until they found out that they were wrong.... but the aboriginals kept on being called "indians". I think we all know such thing.

    Anyway... the problem has never been the confusion with the people who lives or was born in india (which could hardly be a problem, mostly because the aboriginals had absolutely no contact with anyone from India and probably didn't have any opinion about the culture of India)

    The problem is historical. The Spanish Empire organized a system of castes in Latin America, which was quite similar to the Nazi system of classification of people (not using a Godwin, they were truly very similar). Here's a description of this caste system in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta
    The situation under the Portuguese empire was somehow similar.

    The "Indians" were, in this caste system, the ones with pure "aboriginal blood" and the "lower caste".

    The term was used in a derogative way.

    Then, some centuries later, the independences began to take place. The main reason behind these independences was economical rather than political (in most cases very related to the will to have a commerce with England and the Spanish prohibition to do so). So they were very much independences that were born from the bourgeoisie that wanted to expand their commercial opportunities.

    The independences brought a new "genre" of literature, quite close to the literature of the European Enlightenment... because there was an obvious need to organize something new, the State. This "new literature" was also very derogative against the "indians" (even with texts explaining why it was necessary to exterminate all the "indians", because it was considered that they were never going to fit into a "civilized culture").

    So there is a long history of a derogative use of the term "indian" in Latin America... which is completely unrelated to a confusion between the aboriginals of America and the aboriginals of India.

    From time to time it happens that a "negative" term can be switched into a "positive" one (the example of the word "queer" came to my mind... it was an offensive term, but the gays began to use it in a positive way and switched its negative connotations).

    Such thing did not happen in Latin America and the word "Indian"; it is considered a pejorative term (unless you are talking about people from India, of course).

    You can find some cases in which it is used in a "positive" way... but it is rare... and it is similar to what happens with the word "nigger" in the USA (i.e, that there are cases in which the word is used in a positive way, but it is still a controversial expression).

    I am not trying to "correct" anything, but to explain... because I live here.
    In the same way that some people in this forum is very interested in the alchemical ways of India.... and yet a person who lives in India and knows nothing about alchemy would certainly be able to correct several "cultural mistakes" of some things which are written about it... simply because the person lives in that cultural context and knows some things which may be hard to figure out if you don't live in that cultural context, but very obvious if you live there.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts