New Post
Search
HelpDakota- girl or boy?
I have been thinking about the name Dakota, and am wondering if it is more for a boy or a girl. I know Dakota Fanning is a famous child actress, but I have heard it on boy's as well. I am usually aginst unisex nams, but this name is not to bad. WDYT?
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 2:52 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Yuck, neither.
1
Both, although it's not a favorite.
1
Girl
I can only picture the name on a girl personally. The name is clearly ideologically loaded. I have heard of Jakota (as an alternative) before if it's any help.
:o)
I can only picture the name on a girl personally. The name is clearly ideologically loaded. I have heard of Jakota (as an alternative) before if it's any help.
:o)
1
neither
1
Ugh....(m)
I don't know if this is just me, but when people name their child Dakotah or Cheyenne or any other name like that I tend to find it a bit rude. I mean, in my opinion it is just like mocking the tribe. I am not Native American though, so I wouldn't know how they actually feel about it. I do know many Native Americans though, and they have always told me that someone naming their child with one of those monikers just seems a little ignorant about how important tribe names are and how proud the tribes are of those names. Just using the name frivolously is sort of a little annoying. That is what most of them have told me anyway.
Anyway, to answer your question now that I have ranted a bit: I think that since the original name Dakota and Dakotah are not assigned genders it wouldn't matter what gender you use the name on. You can always search for the name and see what percent of each gender it has been on over the years.
I don't know if this is just me, but when people name their child Dakotah or Cheyenne or any other name like that I tend to find it a bit rude. I mean, in my opinion it is just like mocking the tribe. I am not Native American though, so I wouldn't know how they actually feel about it. I do know many Native Americans though, and they have always told me that someone naming their child with one of those monikers just seems a little ignorant about how important tribe names are and how proud the tribes are of those names. Just using the name frivolously is sort of a little annoying. That is what most of them have told me anyway.
Anyway, to answer your question now that I have ranted a bit: I think that since the original name Dakota and Dakotah are not assigned genders it wouldn't matter what gender you use the name on. You can always search for the name and see what percent of each gender it has been on over the years.
1
Girl but that's purely because I heard of Dakota Fanning before I knew it was even a name let alone unisex. I can see it on a boy though.
1
Girl
1
I prefer it on a girl, though I know both a boy and a girl with this name. It seems that I prefer most unisex names on girls but that's not always the case.
1
Boy!
Its always annoying when people get upset about this name being after an Indian Tribe. I don't really understand what the problem is. I personally like the name Dakota, and Cheyenne to. I used to think of it as a girl's name, I had never heard of it on a boy. But a few years ago I met a boy named Dakota who was really sweet and nice, and I also met a boy named Dakota who occasionally went by the nn Cody, which made me love it even more. I definetely preffer this name for a boy. Before I thought the name was okay, but now I love it. Theres a nice air to it. It sounds nice and I love the way it looks written down.
Its always annoying when people get upset about this name being after an Indian Tribe. I don't really understand what the problem is. I personally like the name Dakota, and Cheyenne to. I used to think of it as a girl's name, I had never heard of it on a boy. But a few years ago I met a boy named Dakota who was really sweet and nice, and I also met a boy named Dakota who occasionally went by the nn Cody, which made me love it even more. I definetely preffer this name for a boy. Before I thought the name was okay, but now I love it. Theres a nice air to it. It sounds nice and I love the way it looks written down.
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 4:33 PM
1
girl
But its NMSAA
But its NMSAA
1
This one really can go both ways, but I'd probably use it on a girl.
1
I don't really like it, but I prefer it for a boy.
1
i like it on either
1
It's a tribe.
1
Exactly, so neither.
1
So you don't like Saxon, Norman and Frank as well?
I mean they're tribes, but I haven't heard people creating problems over them because of that. I think Dakota is used so often that it's now become a name and a tribe. I don't really care for it, but I wouldn't ban it just because it's a tribe; it could also be given in reference to the states as well.
I mean they're tribes, but I haven't heard people creating problems over them because of that. I think Dakota is used so often that it's now become a name and a tribe. I don't really care for it, but I wouldn't ban it just because it's a tribe; it could also be given in reference to the states as well.
1
I agree.
To me, Dakota has made the transition from being the name of a nation to a name that could be carried by an individual person. Same with names like Hunter and India; I don't particularly like them, but at least I'm used to the idea now of them being names as well as things and places.
To each their own, though. I can understand why someone would find Dakota offensive, but I'm personally not moved one way or the other by it.
To me, Dakota has made the transition from being the name of a nation to a name that could be carried by an individual person. Same with names like Hunter and India; I don't particularly like them, but at least I'm used to the idea now of them being names as well as things and places.
To each their own, though. I can understand why someone would find Dakota offensive, but I'm personally not moved one way or the other by it.
This message was edited 1/21/2007, 7:39 AM
1
Given what Native history in the United States looks like, I find it rather offensive to use the names of Native American tribes without any good reason. There is a huge difference between the Normans (who conquered England, for God's sake) and the Dakota.
Think of a marginalized group in the Netherlands, Mar. Would you find it even a tad disrespectful-sounding if someone with no connection, knowledge, or particular amount of respect for their culture used the name of their group as a name for their child simply because it sounded cool? Or would that be fine, for the dominant culture just to take up the name of their group?
Think about it.
Array (really rather incensed)
Think of a marginalized group in the Netherlands, Mar. Would you find it even a tad disrespectful-sounding if someone with no connection, knowledge, or particular amount of respect for their culture used the name of their group as a name for their child simply because it sounded cool? Or would that be fine, for the dominant culture just to take up the name of their group?
Think about it.
Array (really rather incensed)
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 8:03 PM
1
OK, I uderstand that. I wouldn't find it a problem though if someone from let's say South-Dakota and moved to let's say California and then would name his/her child after the state they were from, I don't have a problem, with that. If someone would name their child Dakota, just because it sounds cool, I'd advise them to think twice. (I remember a a discussion about the name Adonai and how a lot of people would be offeded to see that as a name, and if there are people who are equally offended by Dakota, I'd rather not see it used)
I do think that with time, this will change. Dakota will become less sensitive to use in my opinion, because I do believe time will make a wound hurt less. And maybe I just feel less strongly about these things, for one thing because I probably know less about this than you do and for another reason because Dutch people in general are more 'dowto earth' / 'get less worked up over things like this'(those are all not the exact terms I want to use, but I'm having trouble translating what I mean, for anyone who can read Dutch, I'm referring to nuchter).
As for how I would feel if something comparable would happen here. I wouldn't mind it to be honest, because I think it creates a bridge in some way. I think if someone is named the name of a certain group, the attention will turn towards the history that group, creating more understanding. But this is just how I would feel if this happened in the NL, I don't know how the people in group in question would feel.
Mar (who has no idea what incensed means, assuming your not referring to scents...)
I do think that with time, this will change. Dakota will become less sensitive to use in my opinion, because I do believe time will make a wound hurt less. And maybe I just feel less strongly about these things, for one thing because I probably know less about this than you do and for another reason because Dutch people in general are more 'dowto earth' / 'get less worked up over things like this'(those are all not the exact terms I want to use, but I'm having trouble translating what I mean, for anyone who can read Dutch, I'm referring to nuchter).
As for how I would feel if something comparable would happen here. I wouldn't mind it to be honest, because I think it creates a bridge in some way. I think if someone is named the name of a certain group, the attention will turn towards the history that group, creating more understanding. But this is just how I would feel if this happened in the NL, I don't know how the people in group in question would feel.
Mar (who has no idea what incensed means, assuming your not referring to scents...)
1
Incensed
Has nothing to do with scents, LOL (not laughing at you per se, but it was amusing).
It basically means very annoyed.
Has nothing to do with scents, LOL (not laughing at you per se, but it was amusing).
It basically means very annoyed.
1
I agree whole heartedly!
1
question [m]
what if someone has no connection to Native Americans but has knowledge, or particular amount of respect for their culture to use a name from a certain tribe or a tribal name.
I have a few friends who are part, or full native american, and they have no problem with people using their names [I asked because I like certain names [my friends are: Cherokee, Hopi, Cheyenne, and a few others]. As long as they have a knowledge, and respect for them in general.
Then again it can go for any culture if you *really* think about it. People use names from different cultures all the time without even thinking that it could be offensive or disrespectful to that culture. When it comes to Native American names the names are off limits to most (I could understand a bit of it though, in not using the names) but why is not not disrespectful in other situations?
I guess it depends on the actual person though. To each their own.
what if someone has no connection to Native Americans but has knowledge, or particular amount of respect for their culture to use a name from a certain tribe or a tribal name.
I have a few friends who are part, or full native american, and they have no problem with people using their names [I asked because I like certain names [my friends are: Cherokee, Hopi, Cheyenne, and a few others]. As long as they have a knowledge, and respect for them in general.
Then again it can go for any culture if you *really* think about it. People use names from different cultures all the time without even thinking that it could be offensive or disrespectful to that culture. When it comes to Native American names the names are off limits to most (I could understand a bit of it though, in not using the names) but why is not not disrespectful in other situations?
I guess it depends on the actual person though. To each their own.
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 8:24 PM
1
differences...(m)
There are differences between names more commonly associated with a certain country or region and names that are labels for groups of people. I think that is why the question comes up, otherwise it would be a different matter.
There are differences between names more commonly associated with a certain country or region and names that are labels for groups of people. I think that is why the question comes up, otherwise it would be a different matter.
1
what if someone has no connection to Native Americans but has knowledge, or particular amount of respect for their culture to use a name from a certain tribe or a tribal name.
If that person has such a great connection to Native Americans in general, why would they use Dakota? Dakota's a name for the Santee Sioux. It's the name for a language. Do you realize that most people who identify as a part of the group known as the Dakota wouldn't actually refer to themselves as Dakota?
I have a hard time believing someone has such a deep and significant bond to Native peoples and would choose a generic, tryndee designation rather than a Native name with meaning, heritage, and history of use. "I use Dakota because I'm so into Native American heritage!" strikes me as a lame way of saying "I like a tryndee name but need an excuse to make myself feel better."
Array
If that person has such a great connection to Native Americans in general, why would they use Dakota? Dakota's a name for the Santee Sioux. It's the name for a language. Do you realize that most people who identify as a part of the group known as the Dakota wouldn't actually refer to themselves as Dakota?
I have a hard time believing someone has such a deep and significant bond to Native peoples and would choose a generic, tryndee designation rather than a Native name with meaning, heritage, and history of use. "I use Dakota because I'm so into Native American heritage!" strikes me as a lame way of saying "I like a tryndee name but need an excuse to make myself feel better."
Array
1
...So, uh. What's your point?
Array
ETA: A better explanation of my reaction to your response:
This threadlet of sorts is a discussion on the use of Dakota as a name and whether it's disrespectful and ignorant or not. It is not a discussion of what Sabrina Fair thinks of the name Dakota, or whether Sabrina Fair would use it. Quite frankly, I don't care. Do you have any relevant arguments left?
Array
ETA: A better explanation of my reaction to your response:
This threadlet of sorts is a discussion on the use of Dakota as a name and whether it's disrespectful and ignorant or not. It is not a discussion of what Sabrina Fair thinks of the name Dakota, or whether Sabrina Fair would use it. Quite frankly, I don't care. Do you have any relevant arguments left?
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 8:37 PM
1
it answers your question in this post
my point is, as long as someone has respect for the people, and culture (regardless of what culture it is) then it's fine to use it.
ETA: I don't care that you don't care what I think, however why should people care what other people name their kids, it's their children not anyone elses. Even if it's considered 'ignorant, and rude' to someone or a Native American, it doesn't mean it's offensive to all Native Americans, or even other people. That's just my opinion though. If people dislike Dakota, that's their opinion everyone had dislikes, and likes or is offended by certain names, and some others are fine.
my point is, as long as someone has respect for the people, and culture (regardless of what culture it is) then it's fine to use it.
ETA: I don't care that you don't care what I think, however why should people care what other people name their kids, it's their children not anyone elses. Even if it's considered 'ignorant, and rude' to someone or a Native American, it doesn't mean it's offensive to all Native Americans, or even other people. That's just my opinion though. If people dislike Dakota, that's their opinion everyone had dislikes, and likes or is offended by certain names, and some others are fine.
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 11:00 PM
1
I agree that anyone can use a name from another culture, but most people don't use the name of the other culture.
I would rather see Pocahontas used than Cherokee.
I would rather see Pocahontas used than Cherokee.
1
Would be fine imo.
1
To me . . .
I have tried not to get involved in the political / ideological side of this debate because I just don't find Dakota an appealing name in and of itself, the politics notwithstanding, but I am inclined to agree with Array and the others who have said it is disrespectful. It is a name that tryndee Yuppie types have latched onto to be "exotic" or "unique" without thinking about it. It is slightly comprable to a German naming their child Pollack. That's to the extreme, and I realize that currect Germans do not share the oppression that their ancestors adopted during that time, but I think the analogy makes its point.
I have tried not to get involved in the political / ideological side of this debate because I just don't find Dakota an appealing name in and of itself, the politics notwithstanding, but I am inclined to agree with Array and the others who have said it is disrespectful. It is a name that tryndee Yuppie types have latched onto to be "exotic" or "unique" without thinking about it. It is slightly comprable to a German naming their child Pollack. That's to the extreme, and I realize that currect Germans do not share the oppression that their ancestors adopted during that time, but I think the analogy makes its point.
1
Um . . .
Giving it in reference to state doesn't change anything. I think you misunderstood my reason for not liking it.
Anyone who has read any number of my posts would know that I don't like word names. I don't much care for place names, virtue names, flower names, etc., so why would I treat a tribe name any differently? Unless you're confusing mine and Array's replies with the replies about it being disrespectful, I don't see any reason to argue this point. I didn't say it was disrespectful, or that the characteristics of the tribe render it unusuable; I wouldn't use it because it is a word "name," the name of a tribe. I don't like Brooklyn, London, Boston, Cheyenne, Grace, etc., etc., and I classify Dakota as such.
And no, I don't particularly like Norman, Saxon or Frank; their sounds are unappealing. Francis is nice, though.
Giving it in reference to state doesn't change anything. I think you misunderstood my reason for not liking it.
Anyone who has read any number of my posts would know that I don't like word names. I don't much care for place names, virtue names, flower names, etc., so why would I treat a tribe name any differently? Unless you're confusing mine and Array's replies with the replies about it being disrespectful, I don't see any reason to argue this point. I didn't say it was disrespectful, or that the characteristics of the tribe render it unusuable; I wouldn't use it because it is a word "name," the name of a tribe. I don't like Brooklyn, London, Boston, Cheyenne, Grace, etc., etc., and I classify Dakota as such.
And no, I don't particularly like Norman, Saxon or Frank; their sounds are unappealing. Francis is nice, though.
1
Yes, I put it in the wrong place. But I meant it to everyone who dittoed as well, to people who see it that being a tribe is a reason not to use it, but then don't have a problem with a name like Norman. If you don't like any word names, that's a good reason to me not to like Dakota, but I find it hypocritical if people have problems word-names and with one word name 'Dakota' tehy say do't liek it because of this and then in the next post say that they think 'River' is cute... Like I said if you never like any word-names, ad this qualifies, I have no problems with that. (sorry I put it in the wrong place!)
1
i think she might have meant Array or the ones opposing the name not sure
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 7:45 PM
1
Big Ditto
I don't understand people disliking the use of a name because it is the name of a tribe.
I don't understand people disliking the use of a name because it is the name of a tribe.
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 7:14 PM
1
Big Tritto [m]
besides I'm not trying to sound rude at all but many Natives use non Native American names (I do understand the special meanings of certain names though). It's also a state [Dakota] which I'm sure most people got the name from in the first place. They probably weren't thinking of the Tribe.
There are many many tribes that are non-native american that are used as names but no one complains about those as Mar has said.
besides I'm not trying to sound rude at all but many Natives use non Native American names (I do understand the special meanings of certain names though). It's also a state [Dakota] which I'm sure most people got the name from in the first place. They probably weren't thinking of the Tribe.
There are many many tribes that are non-native american that are used as names but no one complains about those as Mar has said.
This message was edited 1/20/2007, 7:33 PM
1
I think so too
1
Ditto
If ANYTHING - dog (either female or male)
If ANYTHING - dog (either female or male)
1
Agreed.
1
I love Dakota, for a girl...if it's on a boy, I think of a native american boy, because they use it as a boy's name.
1