Jeez, excuse me :(

[transemacabre]

In this post on little_details, a poster named littl3ghost inquired about what life might be like for his/her character, who is a male dressing as female in the Civil War-era South (Georgia, specifically). I added a little to the discussion, and then seeing the OP mention her character is half-Native American, I chimed in, asked a question, made a comment on how the Indian Removal Act might've affected her character's family, and then offered my assistance if any was needed*.

The OP's reply was sorta... testy. S/he replied that s/he is full-blooded NA and teaches NA history, so s/he's very aware of the Indian Removal Act and Native Americans in the South. Okay. I didn't KNOW that the OP was a teacher/professor of NA Studies, only that s/he was Native American. I didn't want to assume that s/he would know anything and everything about all Native Americans across the continent. I mean, I feel like that might be a little offensive, like assuming that all NA cultures were interchangeable, so if you know one you know them all. I wouldn't expect every European to be an expert on Europe, or every Asian to be an expert on Asia.

S/he also didn't like my use of the term 'Indian'. Okay. I didn't know 'Indian' was offensive, and I was using the word in the context of that place and time, but perhaps I shouldn't have used it. I asked his/her pardon. I don't feel like his/her subsequent comment of "I don't think anyone would like it if I used the term for African American people that would likely have been used at the place and time" was entirely warranted.

I will confess to finding this statement (once again, about the Civil War-era South) a little puzzling: "After all, anything was better than being black, German or Jewish."

Black, that I will give you. The South was an amazingly racist society at this time, and it would remain so for many, many years. But Germans seemed to do well enough; I have quite a few German ancestors who melded into Southern society and did just fine. Perhaps if they were German Catholics outside the traditionally Catholic areas, such as Louisiana, they might've had a harder time making a go of it in the hardcore Baptist areas like Mississippi. But that was religious, not racial, as German Protestants did okay for themselves. And I won't argue that Jews weren't an oppressed minority, but they were definitely more accepted into mainstream (ie white) society of that time than either blacks or Native Americans. Jews were prosperous merchants, and notably Stein Mart (the department store) started out as a little business run by a Jewish merchant in Greenville, MS. Several Jews served as mayors in Mississippi and many fought for the CSA. I would go so far as to say they were as assimilated as any obvious minority could've been in the pre-Civil Rights-era Deep South. It wasn't until the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and '60s (which was widely supported by Jewish people) that the whites went ape-shit against them. What happened is deplorable. However, I would say that in the Civil War era, a Jew had an easier time than a mixed-race or Indian/NA person.

*My mother's family is Mestee -- white, Melungeon, and black, from the Deep South. I thought I might could help out.

Comments

[eva-roisin.livejournal.com]

I don't feel like his/her subsequent comment of "I don't think anyone would like it if I used the term for African American people that would likely have been used at the place and time" was entirely warranted.

No, it wasn't warranted. The term "Indian" is currently not equivalent to the quote-unquote term that would have been used for African Americans at the time. (I'm assuming s/he means Negro?) Many people embrace the term. A lot of people actually prefer Amerindian these days for various reasons.

I also heart it when people assume things about another person's level of awareness based on his or her race. It's one of those "only in fandom/LJ" type of things. I can't even conceptualize a situation in my daily life where someone would make sweeping generalizations about someone's thought processes based on race--or even culture! "You must be more aware of racial prejudice or a certain historical narrative simply because you're x"--what.is.that. I really get grossed out when people essentialize other people like that. It throws us right back to square one in terms of identity. It's not liberating. It's neo-racialization.

Call yourself any damn thing you want.

[transemacabre.livejournal.com]

I thought s/he meant 'Nigger'. Which I felt was needlessly inflammatory; perhaps 'Indian' is outdated, but I sincerely doubt its as offensive all-around as 'Nigger' is to practically everyone. There are some people who still identify as Indians, some even as Negro or Colored, but probably very few if any that would seriously identify as being 'Niggers'.

In any case I was sorta o.O about his/her comments on Germans and Jews in the Old South, so I sincerely hope that s/he really is more of an expert on NAs than s/he is on them.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

There are some people who still identify as Indians

And as far as I'm aware, in the Spanish-speaking Americas, it's still common usage.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

"You must be more aware of racial prejudice or a certain historical narrative simply because you're x"--what.is.that. I really get grossed out when people essentialize other people like that. It throws us right back to square one in terms of identity. It's not liberating. It's neo-racialization.

It also assumes there is only one 'correct' way that people should experience their ethnic/cultural identity, when in reality, individuals have different experiences and perspectives.

[kirke-novak.livejournal.com]

I hazte when people do that - when they ask for help and then attack you when you are trying to help. I mean, I get why she didn't want and need your help for that bit but yeah, would it kill her if she wasn't so PA about it?