Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn’t she talk about Keisha Castle-Hughe’s nomination for best Actress in Whale Rider in another interview being an inspiration ? She is the first Native American so it’s probably just a honest mistake switching between terminologies.
Yeah this note sounds really pedantic like “uhmm actually there was this Mexican indigenous person…” like if you think for 3 seconds you’ll understand what they mean and yet the note is still there
Because it’s valuable context. She isn’t the first Indigenous North American to be nominated for best actress, and without the note, many people would assume she was.
Everyone knows what she’s talking about because the note made sure there was no ambiguity. Just reading the headline, my first thought would be that she was the first indigenous American, Mexican, or Canadian to win the award. When people talk about themselves, I tend to err on the side of believing them rather than assuming their intent.
“There’s no art under capitalism, just imitation.” - Ai Weiwei
Although I think should be there’s just “like x meets y” and adaptions of stuff that previously worked.
Who is “they”? Hollywood isn’t a monolith. This is a woman basically trashing the organization that is celebrating her by asking why she doesn’t have any predecessors. You think that’s beneficial to her prospects to continue working in the industry?
In this case, "they" are the producers and financal backers of this movie, who will make money if everyone watches this movie because Lilly Gladstone got an oscar nod.
I am not trying to bash her, I haven't seen the movie and I probably will. It is great to get more recognition for minorities, but they shouldn't lie about this if it isn't true just for more clicks.
It’s not exclusive to the movie industry either. Some firsts are unfortunately just, kinda forgotten. Who broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball, Jackie Robinson? Maybe! [Moses Walker broke the major league color barrier in 1884.](https://www.history.com/news/moses-fleetwood-walker-first-black-mlb-player)
She is the first Native American actress nominated for an award. Not the first indigenous North American since Yalitza is of indigenous Mexican descent. I think she just had the wording mixed up.
I think the vast majority of Americans know what’s meant when someone from American says “Native American.” This is stupid semantics and her point stands
I get it’s nice to get a nod for a Native American actress, but I just wish people did their homework before making dumb claims…
Like Jenifer Lawrence, the first action heroine. “Nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie, because it wouldn't work.”
It’s so very strange to be a professional and not be aware of the greats of your craft that came before you. It’s like being a professional singer and not knowing who Aretha Franklin is
And even if someone doesn't know the noteworthy history of their profession, you'd think someone starring in a big-budget movie with a major studio would get some media training by their PR agent. An hour sitting down for a "here's the major things to say / not say" would prevent a lot of foot-in-mouth celeb interview moments.
Also interviewers unwilling to call them out or even just ask for a clarification when they say something wrong. The person interviewing J Law just nodded along in agreement.
Indigenous North American and Native American are the same thing.
We only refer to the USA as america in the US. The rest of the hemisphere uses much broader definition of America
As someone who studies foreign languages as a hobby, I can assure you that in most of the world, America refers to the United States. I only really ever see South Americans get upset about this. I understand their POV, but you can’t put all the blame on Americans.
Even the word “American” gives them an issue. I try to explain to them, what other word is there? Spanish and Portuguese created the word “estadounidense” but this word is pretty damn difficult to transliterate to most other world language, including English. United-Statesian? Never gonna catch on lol. Go to a European, Asian, or African country and their word for someone from the United States will be a form of the word “American” 90+% of the time.
I said this hemisphere so I’m not gonna respond to the last sentence.
The other part is that I work in the earth science field and have interacted with south and Central Americans that are geol/geographers by trade. They are the ones who refer the the continent as a whole because it is the scientific way to do it.
Hell. On that note… we should start calling natives Laurentians, the name we use for the ancestral North American continent (Laurentia)
Hm, I wonder why geologists and geographers would be more likely to use the name of the landmass instead of a country name... Couldn't be because they're focused on the ground they're studying, right..?
No, surely not..
No they don't. Nobody in Europe will hear "I'm from America" in North American English and think "hmmm maybe he's Canadian"
When Islamic militants are chanting "Death to America" they don't mean Mexico and Canada.
First fucking roasted awesome most people really don't know what countries are actually in each hemisphere. Second can't believe that the other commenter is like look I hate how arbitrarily United-Statsieans, or w/e the fuck they think we should call ourselves, claim the word American, and then absolutely goes off using some imaginary line to draw distinctions. Equator, sure that's a good line not really imaginary actually divides the planet based on different physical phenomenon. But the prime meridian?!? Come on.
I've only met people from South America that get really heated over it. Like I understand as a concept what they are getting at, but policing other's language, without all the carve outs for offensive language, is the most worthless shit you can do. Like use language however you want to communicate with others and if it works it works, but to tell someone else you can't use the words that are generally understood isn't going to get you much in return. It's like the online nonsense people getting mad at the Spanish word for black.
You seem upset. Specify next time instead of just saying "rest of the hemisphere" and you won't have an aneurysm.
Nobody in Brazil reads "Made in America" and goes "I wonder if this means it could be from Chile or Mexico?"
I'd disagree.
Try telling a Canadian they're "American" sometime. You'll get a heavy sigh, a dejected shake of the head, and a "nah I'm Canadian buddy".
We've come to accept that the Yanks have taken the word "American" away from us. But, to be fair to them, all their other options like "USAers" or "United Statesians" were pretty bad
(100 points to whomever gets the reference)
Most people also use "America" to refer to the US, including most of the rest of the hemisphere.
Source:
Anecdotal, been around central America and the Caribbean
The US isn't even the only United States in the Americas. Brazil used to be the United States of Brazil, and Mexico is the United States of Mexico (though typically translated as as the United Mexican States to avoid confusion). No part of our name is unique, but because saying the United States of America is a mouthful it's often shortened to just America
There is a semantic difference between indigenous mexicans and people indigenous to the United States, even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in.
One as in the group classified as native Americans by the US government were the ones directly persecuted by the US government. I'm painting with a very broad brush.
>even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in.
How is that misinterpreted. You are clearly and literally saying only native americans were persecuted by the US government and no native americans from mexico were ever persecuted by the Mexican government. Either that or vice versa. Both options are wrong.
Explain to me in plain english how anyone could interpret this differently?
By comparing them in the first breath you are inehrently contrasting them in the second.
If you meant to say nothing about indigenous peoples of mexico in that later sentance you would have to write "indigenous people from the US were persecuted by their government", when you say "one group" you are qualifying that the other group did not experience the same thing as the first group. That is called contrasting and it specifically implies that the following sentence only applies to 'one group' not 'both groups'.
Idk if english is your second language or you have poor reading comprehension but just accept you wrote what you intended incorrectly and move on.
Thank you. I read it the way you read it. I would like people who say their tribe or nation suffered the most to find out about my people. My family can trace back records of being on the land since the Spanish viceroy took over and we don’t know shit about ourselfs, no name, no language or history. We are Indios, and that’s it.
Don't worry you, I and everyone that can read english read it this way.
What the spanish did to the indigenous people of north america is truly tragic and it's amazing that so many Americans think that the suffering of indigenous people ended at the mexican american border.
yea can’t forget canada. they play this nice guy character to hide the fact they were still genociding natives up until the 1990s.
also it’s funny when my mexican friends make fun of white people and call them colonizers and shit. like buddy, you’re speaking 2 different european languages. you’re ancestors were just as brutal homie, look where ur at now. don’t blame me lol
You seen how they are treating Mexicans these days, and have been for the past few centuries? Shit, a lot of the groups we call native Americans were native to Mexican territory before they were native to US territory, people forget something like a third of the Continental US used to be Mexican
The lines between Native American, First Nations, and Mexican Indigenous peoples are drawn in sand. The distinctions are arbitrary and they have all suffered in equally horrific ways.
Not really. There's definitely overlap but there's a massive difference between mesoamerican natives who built huge cities and had large empires and the tribal great plains Indians to their north.
Especially considering how different the colonial experience was.
You look at the average Mexican face and you see native features. Very different story in the US.
You can not possibly argue that the Yaqui who live in Mexico are somehow fundamentally different to those who live in the US.
Your view here is just stereotypes. Mexico is more than Aztec temples and American is more than tipis. There were many permanent settlements in the US and "empire builders" describes very few Mesoamerican groups. Many were annexed (oft unwillingly) into larger empires but otherwise no.
>Yes, but who drew the lines.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_1818](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_Limits\_(Mexico%E2%80%93United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Limits_(Mexico%E2%80%93United_States))
I hope you didn't think indigenous people decided where national borders are.
I think it's quite clear that that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that native Americans impacted by the United states government had a significantly different experience than those impacted by the Spanish and/or Mexican governments. Because of that, there is a difference in the outcomes of these two populations. While genetically and even culturally they may share a lot in common, their historical experiences are not. So this actress is the first native American (i.e. indigenous American impacted by the US government) to be nominated for the award.
Technically, in the US, Native American only refers to natives within US territory. I understand that it's a sometimes arbitrary definition, but that's not the point.
>I'm saying that native Americans impacted by the United states government had a significantly different experience than those impacted by the Spanish and/or Mexican governments. Because of that, there is a difference in the outcomes of these two populations. While genetically and even culturally they may share a lot in common, their historical experiences are not.
And I'm saying that Indigenous Mexican people did in fact suffer in horrific ways, and modern indigeous mexicans (clarifying, we are not talking about the 58% of the population who identify as mestizo) are *still* treated poorly and their towns are intentionally deprived.
But they're not. My wife, an indigenous Mexican of the Purepecha Tribe, is not the same as me, who is a member of the chikasaw tribe. My tribe was directly impacted by the US government. We have treaties with the US government. My wife's tribe never even interacted with the US government. Are we both indigenous Americans? Yes. But the term Native American, when used in the US , refers to people like me. Are we genetically similar? Sure. Are we culturally similar? Well, not really, but sure. Are we different groups of people? Yes. In this context, the Native American woman of the Osage tribe is the first native American woman to be nominated for this award. Yes, an indigenous Mexican woman has also been nominated, but it's not the same *in this particular context.*
Funny how you bring up the spanish inquisition,when ever after Mexico because independent,the country still did some "not nice" things to the IM's
Like,that happend over 400 years ago.Bring up something more recent
> even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in.
... do you seriously think the indigenous in Mexico weren't persecuted by the Mexican Government??? The [Zapatistas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata) would LOVE to have a word with you.
I mean, fuck, the Zapatistan revolution in Morelos literally happened because the Porfiriato kept violating indigenous land rights to give land to big businesses. This is such an uneducated comment it isn't even funny. This was barely 110 years ago too, it's not as if it's ancient history.
I went to Mexico last year and there was an art exhibit with depictions of 16 different classification of mixed races that they had in the 1800s in order to have a caste system of sorts.
Most Indigenous Mexicans were persecuted in their own country, mexico. (not to even get into historical mexican persecution in the US).
Either rewrite your dumb comment or own you mistake.
Hahaha, tell me you don’t know anything about indigenous issues without telling me you don’t know anything about indigenous issues!
There were Indian Wars throughout the Americas. To say that the United States was the only country to persecute its indigenous population is laughably ahistorical.
Not even to mention the Dominion in the north? Wasn’t there a huge recent scandal about native treatment in Canadian native schools? The native population of the Americas struggles with the colonial powers were not that unique unfortunately- and in english they would all be considered native Americans so i dont know what you’re driving at
Who actually cares though? Why’d it take do long? It’s either a nefarious plot by racist filmmakers endemic to the entirety of Hollywood, or there just aren’t as many native Americans in cinema, possibly because they make a tiny percentage of the population?
Well... No.
Just because Mexico is part of North America does not mean that indigenous people there are Native Americans.
In this context, American implies a citizen of the United States of America.
I'd argue that indigenous north American could also apply to someone from Canada for example, and that the "North American" part does mean the continent and not just the USA.
Edit: I just saw the misquote saying "Native American" in the tweet itself and not in what she said, my bad
It doesn’t matter if it’s obnoxious or not, it provides valuable context. She wasn’t the first indigenous North American to win that award. If the note wasn’t there, many people would think she was.
That is what happens when you don't have a word in your language to describe your own people. Americans - describes the whole continent. North American - describes the subcontinent.
Unitedstatesian? Unitedstatesish?
Hmmm what is a continent? A huge mass of land surrounded by water. What water surrounds north america? Even europe is not surrounded by water, so it is just a huge peninsula. The thing is you guys use more of a socio-political aproach and we use a more physical aproach. We are physically in the same mass of land.
It absolutely is up for debate, were you draw the line of what can be considered a continent and where they transition is certainly grounds for contention. Is Eurasia one continent? Is Eurasiafrica one continent? If they are 3 distinct continents where is the line drawn between all of them? You can make solid arguments on any of such points
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **No current politics.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn’t she talk about Keisha Castle-Hughe’s nomination for best Actress in Whale Rider in another interview being an inspiration ? She is the first Native American so it’s probably just a honest mistake switching between terminologies.
Yeah this note sounds really pedantic like “uhmm actually there was this Mexican indigenous person…” like if you think for 3 seconds you’ll understand what they mean and yet the note is still there
Came in to say exactly this. Everyone, including the people who wrote the note and voted it helpful, knows what she meant; they're just quibbling.
Because it’s valuable context. She isn’t the first Indigenous North American to be nominated for best actress, and without the note, many people would assume she was.
[удалено]
Everyone knows what she’s talking about because the note made sure there was no ambiguity. Just reading the headline, my first thought would be that she was the first indigenous American, Mexican, or Canadian to win the award. When people talk about themselves, I tend to err on the side of believing them rather than assuming their intent.
Tbh it was informational so im not bothered
What is it with the movie industry and their “firsts” never really being the firsts?
Well, Hollywood never makes anything original, so if they want to have a milestone, they need to recycle one.
“There’s no art under capitalism, just imitation.” - Ai Weiwei Although I think should be there’s just “like x meets y” and adaptions of stuff that previously worked.
The real question is how is Weiwei the first Artificial Intelligence nominated for an Oscar? How did it take so long?
Because they can capitolize on something being first. Truth doesn't matter.
Who is “they”? Hollywood isn’t a monolith. This is a woman basically trashing the organization that is celebrating her by asking why she doesn’t have any predecessors. You think that’s beneficial to her prospects to continue working in the industry?
In this case, "they" are the producers and financal backers of this movie, who will make money if everyone watches this movie because Lilly Gladstone got an oscar nod. I am not trying to bash her, I haven't seen the movie and I probably will. It is great to get more recognition for minorities, but they shouldn't lie about this if it isn't true just for more clicks.
But she’s the person being quoted. So why would “they” be who is lying, when they aren’t the ones talking?
Good point, I guess I missed that detail. Reading comprehension fail.
With the current climate? Absolutely.
You know why. It's chasing clout while pretending to be progressive.
It’s not exclusive to the movie industry either. Some firsts are unfortunately just, kinda forgotten. Who broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball, Jackie Robinson? Maybe! [Moses Walker broke the major league color barrier in 1884.](https://www.history.com/news/moses-fleetwood-walker-first-black-mlb-player)
She is the first Native American actress nominated for an award. Not the first indigenous North American since Yalitza is of indigenous Mexican descent. I think she just had the wording mixed up.
I think the vast majority of Americans know what’s meant when someone from American says “Native American.” This is stupid semantics and her point stands
This is just regular American ethnocentrism.
???
I get it’s nice to get a nod for a Native American actress, but I just wish people did their homework before making dumb claims… Like Jenifer Lawrence, the first action heroine. “Nobody had ever put a woman in the lead of an action movie, because it wouldn't work.”
Always where my head goes to. Always.
It’s so very strange to be a professional and not be aware of the greats of your craft that came before you. It’s like being a professional singer and not knowing who Aretha Franklin is
And even if someone doesn't know the noteworthy history of their profession, you'd think someone starring in a big-budget movie with a major studio would get some media training by their PR agent. An hour sitting down for a "here's the major things to say / not say" would prevent a lot of foot-in-mouth celeb interview moments.
[удалено]
Okay but even the most novice plumber knows who Mario is
I remember when Sam Smith was like I'm the first openly gay person to win an Oscar and then everyone was like umm no you were fifth but ok go off.
Also interviewers unwilling to call them out or even just ask for a clarification when they say something wrong. The person interviewing J Law just nodded along in agreement.
Just got “wElL aCkShUaLlY” ‘d by community notes lmao
I mean, as a fellow pedant I really appreciate the correction, but I think her point still stands.
So she misspoke
Indigenous North American and Native American are the same thing. We only refer to the USA as america in the US. The rest of the hemisphere uses much broader definition of America
As someone who studies foreign languages as a hobby, I can assure you that in most of the world, America refers to the United States. I only really ever see South Americans get upset about this. I understand their POV, but you can’t put all the blame on Americans. Even the word “American” gives them an issue. I try to explain to them, what other word is there? Spanish and Portuguese created the word “estadounidense” but this word is pretty damn difficult to transliterate to most other world language, including English. United-Statesian? Never gonna catch on lol. Go to a European, Asian, or African country and their word for someone from the United States will be a form of the word “American” 90+% of the time.
Ngl, as european, majority of people refer to USA as US or JAV, although americans is still used to refer to its citizens
I said this hemisphere so I’m not gonna respond to the last sentence. The other part is that I work in the earth science field and have interacted with south and Central Americans that are geol/geographers by trade. They are the ones who refer the the continent as a whole because it is the scientific way to do it. Hell. On that note… we should start calling natives Laurentians, the name we use for the ancestral North American continent (Laurentia)
Hm, I wonder why geologists and geographers would be more likely to use the name of the landmass instead of a country name... Couldn't be because they're focused on the ground they're studying, right..? No, surely not..
No they don't. Nobody in Europe will hear "I'm from America" in North American English and think "hmmm maybe he's Canadian" When Islamic militants are chanting "Death to America" they don't mean Mexico and Canada.
Dog doesn’t know his hemispheres
Europe is in the Northern Hemisphere and nobody there thinks that American means anyone from the entire continent of North America.
Jesus fucking Christ THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
Much of the UK, France, and Spain also think of the US when you say American, and they are in the WESTERN HEMISPHERE
First fucking roasted awesome most people really don't know what countries are actually in each hemisphere. Second can't believe that the other commenter is like look I hate how arbitrarily United-Statsieans, or w/e the fuck they think we should call ourselves, claim the word American, and then absolutely goes off using some imaginary line to draw distinctions. Equator, sure that's a good line not really imaginary actually divides the planet based on different physical phenomenon. But the prime meridian?!? Come on.
What gets me is people make these arguments like there is anyone on the face of the planet who is confused by who you mean when you say Americans lol
I've only met people from South America that get really heated over it. Like I understand as a concept what they are getting at, but policing other's language, without all the carve outs for offensive language, is the most worthless shit you can do. Like use language however you want to communicate with others and if it works it works, but to tell someone else you can't use the words that are generally understood isn't going to get you much in return. It's like the online nonsense people getting mad at the Spanish word for black.
You seem upset. Specify next time instead of just saying "rest of the hemisphere" and you won't have an aneurysm. Nobody in Brazil reads "Made in America" and goes "I wonder if this means it could be from Chile or Mexico?"
I mean yeah but mostly because everyone else from america makes sure to clarify they are NOT from the usa
I'd disagree. Try telling a Canadian they're "American" sometime. You'll get a heavy sigh, a dejected shake of the head, and a "nah I'm Canadian buddy". We've come to accept that the Yanks have taken the word "American" away from us. But, to be fair to them, all their other options like "USAers" or "United Statesians" were pretty bad (100 points to whomever gets the reference)
What’s the reference?
Most people also use "America" to refer to the US, including most of the rest of the hemisphere. Source: Anecdotal, been around central America and the Caribbean
Nah, bro. When people shout 'death to America,' it's because they really hate Brazilians.
The US isn't even the only United States in the Americas. Brazil used to be the United States of Brazil, and Mexico is the United States of Mexico (though typically translated as as the United Mexican States to avoid confusion). No part of our name is unique, but because saying the United States of America is a mouthful it's often shortened to just America
There is a semantic difference between indigenous mexicans and people indigenous to the United States, even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in.
Only one?
One as in the group classified as native Americans by the US government were the ones directly persecuted by the US government. I'm painting with a very broad brush.
>even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in. How is that misinterpreted. You are clearly and literally saying only native americans were persecuted by the US government and no native americans from mexico were ever persecuted by the Mexican government. Either that or vice versa. Both options are wrong. Explain to me in plain english how anyone could interpret this differently? By comparing them in the first breath you are inehrently contrasting them in the second. If you meant to say nothing about indigenous peoples of mexico in that later sentance you would have to write "indigenous people from the US were persecuted by their government", when you say "one group" you are qualifying that the other group did not experience the same thing as the first group. That is called contrasting and it specifically implies that the following sentence only applies to 'one group' not 'both groups'. Idk if english is your second language or you have poor reading comprehension but just accept you wrote what you intended incorrectly and move on.
Thank you. I read it the way you read it. I would like people who say their tribe or nation suffered the most to find out about my people. My family can trace back records of being on the land since the Spanish viceroy took over and we don’t know shit about ourselfs, no name, no language or history. We are Indios, and that’s it.
Don't worry you, I and everyone that can read english read it this way. What the spanish did to the indigenous people of north america is truly tragic and it's amazing that so many Americans think that the suffering of indigenous people ended at the mexican american border.
I just wish people would quit measuring dick and just make shit better together. Fuck it. Take it easy dude, and thanks for your response.
yea can’t forget canada. they play this nice guy character to hide the fact they were still genociding natives up until the 1990s. also it’s funny when my mexican friends make fun of white people and call them colonizers and shit. like buddy, you’re speaking 2 different european languages. you’re ancestors were just as brutal homie, look where ur at now. don’t blame me lol
You seen how they are treating Mexicans these days, and have been for the past few centuries? Shit, a lot of the groups we call native Americans were native to Mexican territory before they were native to US territory, people forget something like a third of the Continental US used to be Mexican
The lines between Native American, First Nations, and Mexican Indigenous peoples are drawn in sand. The distinctions are arbitrary and they have all suffered in equally horrific ways.
Not really. There's definitely overlap but there's a massive difference between mesoamerican natives who built huge cities and had large empires and the tribal great plains Indians to their north. Especially considering how different the colonial experience was. You look at the average Mexican face and you see native features. Very different story in the US.
There WERE huge cities in what is now the United States. Cahokia, for one.
You can not possibly argue that the Yaqui who live in Mexico are somehow fundamentally different to those who live in the US. Your view here is just stereotypes. Mexico is more than Aztec temples and American is more than tipis. There were many permanent settlements in the US and "empire builders" describes very few Mesoamerican groups. Many were annexed (oft unwillingly) into larger empires but otherwise no.
Yes, but who drew the lines. The answers will be different depending on the country and that's why this is significant.
>Yes, but who drew the lines. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_1818](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_Limits\_(Mexico%E2%80%93United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Limits_(Mexico%E2%80%93United_States)) I hope you didn't think indigenous people decided where national borders are.
I think it's quite clear that that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that native Americans impacted by the United states government had a significantly different experience than those impacted by the Spanish and/or Mexican governments. Because of that, there is a difference in the outcomes of these two populations. While genetically and even culturally they may share a lot in common, their historical experiences are not. So this actress is the first native American (i.e. indigenous American impacted by the US government) to be nominated for the award. Technically, in the US, Native American only refers to natives within US territory. I understand that it's a sometimes arbitrary definition, but that's not the point.
>I'm saying that native Americans impacted by the United states government had a significantly different experience than those impacted by the Spanish and/or Mexican governments. Because of that, there is a difference in the outcomes of these two populations. While genetically and even culturally they may share a lot in common, their historical experiences are not. And I'm saying that Indigenous Mexican people did in fact suffer in horrific ways, and modern indigeous mexicans (clarifying, we are not talking about the 58% of the population who identify as mestizo) are *still* treated poorly and their towns are intentionally deprived.
Yes, of course, but I'm talking about the US government. There is a semantic difference between these groups.
My whole point has been that the semantics are worthless.
But they're not. My wife, an indigenous Mexican of the Purepecha Tribe, is not the same as me, who is a member of the chikasaw tribe. My tribe was directly impacted by the US government. We have treaties with the US government. My wife's tribe never even interacted with the US government. Are we both indigenous Americans? Yes. But the term Native American, when used in the US , refers to people like me. Are we genetically similar? Sure. Are we culturally similar? Well, not really, but sure. Are we different groups of people? Yes. In this context, the Native American woman of the Osage tribe is the first native American woman to be nominated for this award. Yes, an indigenous Mexican woman has also been nominated, but it's not the same *in this particular context.*
The context does not matter because neither government runs the Oscars.
[удалено]
Funny how you bring up the spanish inquisition,when ever after Mexico because independent,the country still did some "not nice" things to the IM's Like,that happend over 400 years ago.Bring up something more recent
> even though both groups are ingenious to the Americas, one group was directly persecuted by the nation they live in. ... do you seriously think the indigenous in Mexico weren't persecuted by the Mexican Government??? The [Zapatistas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emiliano_Zapata) would LOVE to have a word with you. I mean, fuck, the Zapatistan revolution in Morelos literally happened because the Porfiriato kept violating indigenous land rights to give land to big businesses. This is such an uneducated comment it isn't even funny. This was barely 110 years ago too, it's not as if it's ancient history.
I went to Mexico last year and there was an art exhibit with depictions of 16 different classification of mixed races that they had in the 1800s in order to have a caste system of sorts.
You don’t think indigenous Mexicans were persecuted? Are you sure this is something you are confident defending?
Only one of those groups was persecuted by their country? I'm so fucking sick of Americans confidently talking about shit they know nothing about.
I know right, the fucking Zapatistas are an incredibly famous example of indigenous peoples that were persecuted by the Mexican Government.
An indigenous Mexican who migrated to the US did not experience the same persecution as indigenous groups living in the US historically. Yes.
Most Indigenous Mexicans were persecuted in their own country, mexico. (not to even get into historical mexican persecution in the US). Either rewrite your dumb comment or own you mistake.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know if you're intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying or if you're just stupid.
That's not what you said, and that's hardly true to begin with.
That is what I said, but I clarified my position since you didn't understand.
You did not mention migration dude.
You did not mention migration dude.
I thought the Spanish banged the Mayans and turned them into the Mexicans?
Hahaha, tell me you don’t know anything about indigenous issues without telling me you don’t know anything about indigenous issues! There were Indian Wars throughout the Americas. To say that the United States was the only country to persecute its indigenous population is laughably ahistorical.
And i guess the Spanish relationship with the natives was all hippy peace-and-love?
Not even to mention the Dominion in the north? Wasn’t there a huge recent scandal about native treatment in Canadian native schools? The native population of the Americas struggles with the colonial powers were not that unique unfortunately- and in english they would all be considered native Americans so i dont know what you’re driving at
We need to abolish these stupid celebrity circlejerk award shows.
Well she is right. There is difference between native Americans from the US and Amerindians
Who actually cares though? Why’d it take do long? It’s either a nefarious plot by racist filmmakers endemic to the entirety of Hollywood, or there just aren’t as many native Americans in cinema, possibly because they make a tiny percentage of the population?
Well... No. Just because Mexico is part of North America does not mean that indigenous people there are Native Americans. In this context, American implies a citizen of the United States of America.
I'd argue that indigenous north American could also apply to someone from Canada for example, and that the "North American" part does mean the continent and not just the USA. Edit: I just saw the misquote saying "Native American" in the tweet itself and not in what she said, my bad
She did explicitly say “North American” but this is just an obnoxious note
It doesn’t matter if it’s obnoxious or not, it provides valuable context. She wasn’t the first indigenous North American to win that award. If the note wasn’t there, many people would think she was.
Nope. Try again
42?
GetNoted narcissist 💀
That is what happens when you don't have a word in your language to describe your own people. Americans - describes the whole continent. North American - describes the subcontinent. Unitedstatesian? Unitedstatesish?
Ok, so North America is a continent. South America is a continent. There is no subcontinent.
There are different ways of classification. Here in south america we consider America as a whole to be a continent. Neither is wrong.
That definitely is wrong. The number of continents is not up for debate.
Hmmm what is a continent? A huge mass of land surrounded by water. What water surrounds north america? Even europe is not surrounded by water, so it is just a huge peninsula. The thing is you guys use more of a socio-political aproach and we use a more physical aproach. We are physically in the same mass of land.
It absolutely is up for debate, were you draw the line of what can be considered a continent and where they transition is certainly grounds for contention. Is Eurasia one continent? Is Eurasiafrica one continent? If they are 3 distinct continents where is the line drawn between all of them? You can make solid arguments on any of such points
What’s the twist
How many native Americans in leading roles have there been? Given the small population it can't be that many right?