Into the Wardrobe

Looking again at the essay On Stories in Of Other Worlds I notice that Lewis says, "Dangers of course, there must be: how else can you keep a story going? But they must (in the mood which led one to such a book) be Redskin dangers". Probably the stories that Lewis referred to were the original Indian myths and legends rather than the conventional stereotyped westerns. I guess we have to forgive Lewis for calling American Indians "Redskins", a name now considered offensive by many American Indians. At the time that essay was written few people would have objected to the use that word, and Lewis did not mean anything derogatory when he wrote it. But it is wise to be careful of our language when talking about people's races or ethnic groups. So it would be better to replace the term "Redskinnery" with "American Indian Mythology" or something similar to that with positive implications.

Larry W.

I think it's "Christian" to give a people the respect of calling them by whatever name they choose, rather than "calling a spade a spade". What identity issues do handicapped people have as a result of not being called cripples? Calling a handicapped person a cripple isn't "calling a spade a spade," and it's not "Christian," it's rude and hurtful.

When people are brutalized and subjugated, and forced onto reservations, many of their descendants can still feel that pain in their own lives. It's Christian and compassionate to recognize that. We won't have to answer before God for our trifling sense of accuracy, or the strength of a melting pot, but for our love and compassion.

I know this is off-topic, so beyond that, I'll let common sense and courtesy answer.

I actually agree, Joshua, in general with according people the name they desire. But when we resort to common nouns, rather than proper nouns, we are actually defining something. What if I want to define my ethnicity as "Real American"? Is that OK? Probably not, because it implies that everyone else isn't, just as "Native American" implies that I am not.
I'm not advocating calling anyone hurtful names. I oppose it. I brought up the terms for 'African-Americans' and folks with disabilities to point out that when people figure out who the term is referring to, it gradually becomes pejorative in these cases. They're doomed to infinite name-changing. I am a Christian. I encourage love and compassion to all people. We are commanded to love our neighbors. I oppose racism and discrimination. I also happen to believe that playing favorites with ethnic groups will increase, not decrease animosity. That's all.

Ethnicity isn't necessarily about birthplace.

Some years ago, I attended a conference on Western Literature out in New Mexico ("Western" meaning literature of the American West--literature about cowboys, Indians, etc.). In a panel on the topic of writing by Native Americans, someone asked the panel members what they wanted to be called.

They said, without exception (eight of them): Indians.

They said they prefered to be called by their tribal names, but after that they prefer to be called Indians and don't like the term Native American. One guy said it sounded like a species of elk.

If you see the film Smoke Signals (in my opinion, one the best movies of all time) the characters in that film call themselves "Indians." It was based on the book The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist-Fight in Heaven by Sherman Alexi, who is probably the top "Native American" poet and writer living today.

So that's my two cents.

Lewis quotes some laws in the section on Tao in The Abolition of Man that are from "redskin," as he calls it, sources.

Okay... <sigh>... so it has been determined that contemporary and future (thanks, Linda, BTW) Indians prefer the label Indians, but what about the ones that were around when the settlers were just arriving?