4 ms·

If the Indians would have gone the King route alone rather than being on reservations they'd have been annihilated and you wouldn't even have been born. The to

If the Indians would have gone the King route alone rather than being on reservations they'd have been annihilated and you wouldn't even have been born. The token offering of the reservation was what they got in exchange for not fighting a losing battle to the last man, but the exchange wouldn't have happened had that not been on the table.

paavope 10mo ago
I think the ”Indian” there referred to India the country and Gandhi’s nonviolent protest as background
- mothballed 10mo ago
  Excellent point. Though I find it distasteful when someone uses an ambiguous word counting on you to be able to figure it out from context, then "ha ha you are wrong" downvotes follow when I make a good faith effort to respond to it. It's certainly a weaponization of the word if it is implied the counterparty is naïve when they guessed the wrong one.
et-al 10mo ago
The poster you're responding to might be from the Indian subcontinent and not Native/Indigenous American.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  In US Native/Indigenous usually call themselves either by their tribe or "Indian." White people are the ones that generally use native/indigenous more even though natives call themselves Indian more. Since the context was US civil rights you can see how I came to the conclusion, since it didn't make any sense someone could simply declare their heritage is from an extra-continental nationality and thus I was wrong. In any case in the context of US civil rights, the Indians (native) are a far more reasonable conclusion than Indian (Asian) so at best it is a shared failure of communication.
  - triceratops 10mo ago
    > In any case in the context of US civil rights, the Indians (native) are a far more reasonable conclusion than Indian (Asian) Why? There's a very direct link between India and the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_visit_by_Martin_Luther_King_Jr._to_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_visit_by_Martin_Luther_Ki... I understand your confusion and I didn't downvote you. But the answer to "Which Indian?" is at the very least a coin flip in this context.

paavope 10mo ago

I think the ”Indian” there referred to India the country and Gandhi’s nonviolent protest as background

mothballed 10mo ago
Excellent point. Though I find it distasteful when someone uses an ambiguous word counting on you to be able to figure it out from context, then "ha ha you are wrong" downvotes follow when I make a good faith effort to respond to it. It's certainly a weaponization of the word if it is implied the counterparty is naïve when they guessed the wrong one.

et-al 10mo ago

The poster you're responding to might be from the Indian subcontinent and not Native/Indigenous American.

mothballed 10mo ago
In US Native/Indigenous usually call themselves either by their tribe or "Indian." White people are the ones that generally use native/indigenous more even though natives call themselves Indian more. Since the context was US civil rights you can see how I came to the conclusion, since it didn't make any sense someone could simply declare their heritage is from an extra-continental nationality and thus I was wrong. In any case in the context of US civil rights, the Indians (native) are a far more reasonable conclusion than Indian (Asian) so at best it is a shared failure of communication.
- triceratops 10mo ago
  > In any case in the context of US civil rights, the Indians (native) are a far more reasonable conclusion than Indian (Asian) Why? There's a very direct link between India and the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_visit_by_Martin_Luther_King_Jr._to_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_visit_by_Martin_Luther_Ki... I understand your confusion and I didn't downvote you. But the answer to "Which Indian?" is at the very least a coin flip in this context.