New Post
Search
HelpRe: Dakota and Cheyenne
in reply to a message by jeziana
Why are these not legitimate names, in your opinion?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I don't know if they are legit or no,t but I like them, I wouldn't use them though [don't like them enough]. My nephew & niece I come find out are partly Native American (Don't know what tribe)! I thought that was neat. My brother-in-law doesn't mind when people use tribe names (I asked just to make sure) cause if I ever "used" one I'd feel comfy. lol. I doubt I would though.
Do you think they are legit Lillian? :)
Do you think they are legit Lillian? :)
This message was edited 7/4/2007, 10:37 AM
1
Yes, Sabrina, I do
as I was just saying below, they seem like mere word names to me, perfectly legitimate. Not trying to make a fuss over it.
as I was just saying below, they seem like mere word names to me, perfectly legitimate. Not trying to make a fuss over it.
1
fine by me, lol just curious [m]
that are more word names now that I think of it, kind of like place names IMO, many people dislike them because they aren't "names", but I personally look at it as they are "names" of a place, so there are names IMO.
that are more word names now that I think of it, kind of like place names IMO, many people dislike them because they aren't "names", but I personally look at it as they are "names" of a place, so there are names IMO.
1
You and I clearly have a broader sense of what are "legitimate" names than others might
Obviously you and I feel, if I may say, that legitimacy is largely conferred by the namer, regardless of others' opinions, though I know I don't, and I presume you don't, choose names that others consider "illegitimate" just to piss them off. ;p
I don't intend to speak for anyone else, including you, when I say that, to me, Dakota and Cheyenne are as legitimate as Saxon (tribe name) and Paris (place name). Nor do I intend to start an argument (though I don't see why it's such a big deal that it could start one).
Obviously you and I feel, if I may say, that legitimacy is largely conferred by the namer, regardless of others' opinions, though I know I don't, and I presume you don't, choose names that others consider "illegitimate" just to piss them off. ;p
I don't intend to speak for anyone else, including you, when I say that, to me, Dakota and Cheyenne are as legitimate as Saxon (tribe name) and Paris (place name). Nor do I intend to start an argument (though I don't see why it's such a big deal that it could start one).
1
oh I agree good points :)
1
Yes, the names Sakota and Cheyenne are as legitimate as Saxon or Paris but what I think some people might want to convey is whether they should be used as names or not based on the offense it may/may not create for people.
I think it is good that you mentioned other names besides tribal names though.
I think it is good that you mentioned other names besides tribal names though.
1
I always believed them to be names of tribes, and not actually names of people. Sorry if that's incorrect.
1
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.
1
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
But why does that eliminate them as legitimate names?
Honestly, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. The fact that they are the names of tribes only makes them word names, to me, at the bottom line. There are so many legitimate word names, why not these two? How do you feel about word names in general?
Honestly, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. The fact that they are the names of tribes only makes them word names, to me, at the bottom line. There are so many legitimate word names, why not these two? How do you feel about word names in general?
1
I agree that they are names of tribes and not people, and are therefore not legitimate in my opinion either. They can also be seen as offensive, not just illegitimate. I think for the sake of keeping this conversation civil you may just want to pop over to one of the many conversations (or feuds as some may think) on the name.
Here is one:
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/arcview.php?id=782408&board=baby
Enjoy!
Here is one:
http://www.behindthename.com/bb/arcview.php?id=782408&board=baby
Enjoy!
1
Thanks for that, but...
no one is being uncivil.
no one is being uncivil.
1
Oh, I know no one is uncivil, but I just thought it might get out of hand like all the other past conversations about those names being "offensive" or "illegitimate." I just thought that since this post was about American names, and not about whether Cheyenne and Dakota are okay or not that those that wanted to talke about them may want to check out the previous post about those names.
1
Thanks again, kind of you to do the legwork for us :-)
1