New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Dakota and Cheyenne
in reply to a message by jeziana
But how does that make them not ligit? It might make them disrespectful in your eyes, but regardless of your opinion these names are being given to children and used as names. Hence, they're names. Whether one feels they should be or not.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I meant, that people did not use them before. People use them, and in some cases people are ignorant about them. I guess they are legit names, but not names Native Americans used themselves, at least to my knowledge. There's been a lot of arguments about it on this board before, and it's not a subject I am fully aware on, sorry if my comments offended anyone.
1
No, no, you gave no offense, and I hope I didn't either
(if I may butt in here; sorry, Arcadia)
I was just curious as to your rationale, jeziana. I have no vested interest in the names, and took no offense.
It does strike me odd, though, that these names in particular seem to be "hot button" names that spark controversy, when the arguments against them can usually be applied to so many other "acceptable" names. I am always interested when I perceive a double standard (not singlin you out, I'm just sayin).
Thank you for answering our question.
:-)
(if I may butt in here; sorry, Arcadia)
I was just curious as to your rationale, jeziana. I have no vested interest in the names, and took no offense.
It does strike me odd, though, that these names in particular seem to be "hot button" names that spark controversy, when the arguments against them can usually be applied to so many other "acceptable" names. I am always interested when I perceive a double standard (not singlin you out, I'm just sayin).
Thank you for answering our question.
:-)
1
I think it's because so many people use them with ignorance. If I were to use another word name, say Grace, then it wouldn't be as bad as to use Dakota "just because it sounded nice" and I think that is what annoys so many people, of course people have there own individual reasons, or it may offend them that such names are being used just because they are in fashion, instead of considering what the name truly is. Sorry is my argument is a bit hard to understand.
1
Now, that's interesting too
I find it interesting that you used Grace as your example of just another word name, and said "it wouldn't be as bad as to use Dakota 'just because it sounded nice.'" That makes it sound as though Dakota is too special or sacred to be used lightly, whereas Grace (your example) is not. The irony for me being, I find Grace an extremely sacred name(/word/thing), God's Grace being His greatest Gift to Mankind (in my estimation and that of some others). I realize that Grace also refers to the Greek Graces, as well as to the trait of human grace, as in movement, or courtesy, or whatever, but for me, Grace is incredibly special and sacred, whereas Dakota is not. Which is not to say I don't respect that others feel the word Dakota is special.
My point is that I don't think Dakota and Cheyenne deserve to be singled out as hot button names arbitrarily, which they very often are, mystifyingly to me.
I don't mean to babble. Perhaps I should just leave it alone, but I sincerely want to understand.
I find it interesting that you used Grace as your example of just another word name, and said "it wouldn't be as bad as to use Dakota 'just because it sounded nice.'" That makes it sound as though Dakota is too special or sacred to be used lightly, whereas Grace (your example) is not. The irony for me being, I find Grace an extremely sacred name(/word/thing), God's Grace being His greatest Gift to Mankind (in my estimation and that of some others). I realize that Grace also refers to the Greek Graces, as well as to the trait of human grace, as in movement, or courtesy, or whatever, but for me, Grace is incredibly special and sacred, whereas Dakota is not. Which is not to say I don't respect that others feel the word Dakota is special.
My point is that I don't think Dakota and Cheyenne deserve to be singled out as hot button names arbitrarily, which they very often are, mystifyingly to me.
I don't mean to babble. Perhaps I should just leave it alone, but I sincerely want to understand.
1
this reminds me of the Jesus debate. Are some names to loaded that to use them on your child would be disrespectful? Some feel that it is disrespectful, while others feel that nameing a child Jesus (for example, mind you) is highly respectful as they are naming their child- the most prexious person in their lives- in homage to their savior. It's interesting that people go two oposite ways.
1
As I understand it, word names like Grace and Jade, et al., are obviously words, and their meanings are clear. Word names like Dakota (and many place-names) are used solely for the sound (in many, not all, cases) and usually the giver is ignorant of the meaning and history. I think that's where the distinction lies.
This message was edited 7/4/2007, 5:48 PM
1
I agree. It isn't just Cheyenne and Dakota that are hot button names. There are also other hot button names, but many people don't tend to bring them up as there are not hundreds of people who want to name their kid Saxon (mentioned in another part of the thread along with any following names), as there are who want to name their kid Cheyenne or Dakota. Paris is not a hot button name because it is a character in a Shakespeare play. Grace is also a hot button name for me, but I don't worry too much about it because it has so many other meanings to it and not just the God's grace part.
1