View Message

This is a reply within a larger thread: view the whole thread

[Opinions] Re: Savannah
Many of the names that groups of Indigenous people go by or went by in the past were given to them by neighbours, friends or even enemies. My ex-husband and daughter are Mohawk, for example. “Mohawk” is not the name their people called themselves, nor is it accurate or flattering. But they consider it no less a part of their history and culture, and it’s still an important word. If there is a name, or many names, regardless of origin, it’s proof that they were there and that they were acknowledged. In a culture where many things have been stripped away, names and words are important, even if they’re defunct or were bestowed by someone else. I just know it’s an entire area I personally avoid, and I like to point it out because sometimes people don’t consider things from that perspective. You can come to your own conclusions. I’m of the mind that with so many names out there, there’s no reason to pick one adapted from A long-marginalized culture.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
vote up1

Replies

I understand it usually. I was confused though because in this case (it's not adapted from a marginalized culture? It would have been an English descriptor borrowed from Spanish in this context) saying Savannah Indians would be like saying Plains Indians, except more southern/Spanish influenced, and it's not appropriative or a particularly unique thing to live in savannahs or plains...or generally controversial to use nature words as names...right?? At some point words are just words and history is shared? I don't understand where you're drawing a line...like to me not using Savannah specifically for this reason seems about like swearing off tomatoes, chocolate, canoeing, or pajamas for this reason, or at least more so than it would be like not using Shawnee, Cheyenne, Mohawk, India, etc, as a name.

This message was edited 4/13/2022, 1:59 PM

vote up1