read any good books lately?

From what I can tell, what offends one person will not another. What is ok today may be offensive tomorrow. Some terms will probably always be offensive, however. It will always be evolving depending on the tribe, society, academia, individuals, etc. All I can do is try to stay informed enough to know what is proper or acceptable for the culture and people I am interacting with.

This discussion has been bugging me and I figured out why.  The importance of using terms that are both historically accurate and culturally respectful is not just about hyper-PC guilt (and Ron, my of tolerance level for at least some of that stuff might surprise you ).  The important thing is that these terms become ingrained in the public consciousness, and accepted at face value.  Whatever the reasons for the Five Civilized Tribes still using that term themselves, it's their prerogative.  But how many people who see the term in mainstream publications, and who are unfamiliar with Native American history, automatically take it to mean that those 5 tribes are "civilized" and the rest were a bunch of stereotypical Western-movie scalpers and marauders?  It's almost like saying, "these are the good Indians - the rest, not so much" - which is not true.  I was just reading a review of a new book about Cortez and Montezuma, and instead of using the term Spanish Conquest (which sounds all heroic and majestic) he uses Spanish-Aztec war, which is really what it was.  It's more historically accurate and gives the Aztec a more active role.  Personally, I think it should be called a genocide as should the American Indian Wars.

So, the question is, do we want future generations to think there were only 5 civilized tribes? Or that there was something noble about Europeans subjugating indigenous peoples on their own land? Because that's what these terms convey.  I think it's preferable to try to describe things as accurately as possible, and to promote a more accurate understanding of history (and therefore of the present, such as poor conditions on Reservations, continued government land grabs, etc.).  

I agree that the term "The Five Civilized Tribes" is a derogatory one, but do you also object to books that refer to the Germanic tribes that sacked Rome as 'barbarians"?  How about using a painting of an Hispanic man as an avatar along with a username which means "boy" in Spanish ... or using the word "Hispanic" instead of "Latino" for that matter.  I'm not trying to be difficult, just continuing the discussion.

I believe in being respectful of all people and question everything I hear or read, but wouldn't single out a book written before the age of political correctness for using an historical designation once in common use.

[As a side note, I have Delaware (Lenni Lenape) ancestry on one side of my family, and Tidewater Virginia/Eastern North Carolina Native American ancestry on another.]

Haha, well, let's see....  Good point about the Germans, especially considering the "barbaric" activities the Romans engaged in when they're the ones who came up with the term.  I'd probably prefer something like "Germanic Tribes."  

As for my avatar, it's actually a self-portrait by German expressionist Max Pechstein.  He does make himself look Hispanic, though, and the woman looks Afro-Caribbean, maybe? I have no problem if someone paints pictures of people from a culture different from theirs, as long as they're not intended to be racial caricatures.  I also see no problem with using the avatar, even though I'm a 1/2 Hispanic-Native man myself, and not a German!  I just see it as an interesting and appealing picture of a guy smoking a pipe next to a woman.  I use a picture of monkey from a 19th century French painting on another forum - I don't feel like only French monkeys should have the right to use it!    "Chico" is a common male nickname, and I'm unaware of it being used in a derogatory way (it's not really the same as calling a Black man "boy", for example, if that's what you're getting at). As far as I understand, "Hispanic" more specifically refers to people of Spanish origins, while "Latino" is more specific to people of Latin America.  But I think these are all totally different issues, because they're not value-laden terms like "civilized" or "barbaric". 

And yes, I think we definitely need to consider the times in which a book was written.  I'm not blaming writers in the past for using terms that later come to be considered problematic, and I don't think their work is useless because of it.  "Colored" and "negro" used to be the preferred terms and I wouldn't judge a book for using them if the book was written in those eras.... But I would judge on that basis if it were published now.  The author would seems totally out of touch.  So in the same way, if a recent book uses the "civilized" term I'd be wary, and wonder if the author is on top of the latest developments in his/her field.  

Sad but true - because the pettiness often obscures the bigger issues.  It's a real tragedy that "social justice" has become a term of mockery.... but I'll leave it at that!

Wise words.  I grew up hearing stories about my grandfather who drove a tank in WWII and helped liberate a concentration camp... then was refused service in restaurants when he returned because he had brown skin.  But of course who knows what his Spanish ancestors might have done to Native Americans....  One could develop a very dim view of human beings, but thankfully there's a lot of good out there, too.

Im reading the catcher in the rye for like the 5000th time... I never get tired of it. Its... the book of the ages.

After plodding through the trevails of the 14th Century with Barbara Tuchman in A Distant Mirror,  I am reading her book on woodenheadness, The March of Folly.

The Robber Barons pub 1934 by Josephson. I like books written at the correct time instead of some ones perspective a jillion years later. Books like this are a snap shot of time.

Reading The Club Dumas, by Arturo Pérez-Reverte.

Kind of a Dan Brown book. If you like Dan Brown you will like Club Dumas. If you kind of liked Dan Brown but really wanted a bit more, you will love Club Dumas.



And, as long as we are talking about this kind of book, you will like The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova.

Presently reading "Fear" by Bob Woodward. Very insightful, very fair, very scary.

Currently finishing up "The Howling" trilogy by Gary Brandner. Love werewolves and "The Howling" movie, but the novels are much darker and more dramatic that the movie.👍

Well, yes actually. In a way. The 5 civilized tribes were so called because they lived in houses, not tepees, wore European clothing, read and wrote English, went to college, farmed, fought in the white man's wars, paid taxes, etc. The Sioux, Apaches, Comanche, etc were the ones that you see in the cowboy and Indian movies being slaughtered for fighting back. I admire the fact that they fought back. But there was no way to win against the Europeans. The 5CT were the ones that did everything that was asked of them and still got robbed and murdered. I liked it for a while when I thought I had Comanche blood. Oh well, at least the blood of Robert the Bruce runs through my veins. My Indian side is peaceful, but my European side is the bloodiest imaginable.
I believe that the tribes use the term Five Civilized Tribes more to rub it in the governments face as a rather useless gesture.

Currently working through Harry Harrison’s The Stainless Steel Rat series. A bit dated but still lots of fun.