Comments on: What’d you just say?

By: damali ayo

damali ayo — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:45:56 +0000

This is really good work. It is wonderful to see children have the opportunity to be educated in a non-racist way. These small steps really have a big impact- the kids of color will stop being wounded inadvertently by the language of our culture, and white kids will stop using hate and ignorance as a part of their daily vocabulary.

kudos to you.
keep up the good work! It really matters.

damali ayo

By: Miss Fox

Miss Fox — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:37:57 +0000

I guess my point is that these terms make no sense to people without pulling on stereotypes. If you’ve never seen an Indian sit, how are you supposed to know what “sitting Indian style” means? (And it is kind of silly to think that all Indians sit a particular way…)

I do agree that banning words is incredibly stupid – however, if a word or phrase makes no sense, why continue using it? If I told a child in my class, today, to sit “Indian style” they would look at me, confused. If I told them to sit cross-legged, it makes perfect sense.

And, I do think it’s funny that the term Indian Giver came about from a complete misunderstanding… the same people who think the Native Americans (why do we still call them Indians, anyway?) are so peaceful and noble for having no system of land ownership are the very same people who think “Indians” take gifts back. I suppose I just don’t like these, and other, racist phrases because they perpetuate ignorance. They’re just… wrong.

By: toyarmy

toyarmy — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:19:01 +0000

when andrea came home saying “criss cross applesauce” i was so confused.
and like you, i never thought of “indian style” as something offensive, or derogatory. but yet, being the intelligent individual i now see myself as, i can see where it would be considered as such.

and then the others. such as chinese skipping. oh the days of innocence.

By: Rowena Zane

Rowena Zane — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:06:01 +0000

Because I bristle at the idea that there are words that are taboo, my knee-jerk reaction is to say there’s nothing wrong with holding onto words that are a rich part of word history. We have all sorts of words that are no longer used how they were originally intended, “accolade” being the first example that pops to mind (originally meant a small insult, conferred upon a man – the last he’d ever have to bear before becoming a knight). So if a word that was originally racist is still used, why bother removing it and making a child feel uncomfortable, or give him ammunition?

These words are no longer meant in an injurious way. When I tell my nephew to sit cross-legged, I am not instilling racism or hate. He has no idea what that means. Just as you didn’t. Just as I didn’t until someone told me years past childhood.

It’s just not necessary, in my opinion. Though if people are very offended, then I guess I can shrug and stop using those words just as well. It’s not that hard of a step. Just a little pointless, if you ask me. Which you didn’t.

By: Elysa

Elysa — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 05:57:36 +0000

If I remember correctly, I know from where the term Indian Giver originated.

Newly arrived to the continent, Europeans would trade with a tribe for use of an area of land. In western culture, such an exchange of goods signifies that the ownership of the land is passed from the first group to the second. This barter is meant to be final and the original group relinquishes all rights to the land. I believe most Native tribes do not believe that land can be owned by any person, so they did not understand that the trade they engaged in was intended to pass the ownership of land to the Europeans. It is my understanding that there were instances where Native Americans tried to use tracts of land they had previously “sold” to Europeans; to the Europeans it seemed that the Native Peoples gave up their control of the land and then “changed their minds” and wanted to use the land again. Thus, an Indian-giver is someone who gives something and then wishes to take it back.