Cowboys and Indians.....offensive?

[mrgrouper]

Yesterday was the teachers strike, so I took my son to Gulliver's World in Warrington. Gulliver's world has hardly been updated since the 1980s, however I like this because it has a retro feel to it and reminds me of when I went there as a child. Most of the signage is from the eighties.
Anyhow there was a couple there who were clearly unimpressed by its dated appearance. We were in the Wild West part of the park and there is a large sign that says Cowboys and Indians. The woman started pointing and said she could not believe in 2016 they would have such a politically incorrect sign.
I was a bit surprised. Is Cowboys and Indians now racist and offensive? It is the first I have heard of this.

"Cowboys and Indians" is indeed offensive. I'm American and I can tell you that it was considered offensive when my children were young, which was in the 1980s.

But as others have said "Indian" is not an offensive term and many indigenous people in the US prefer it. It's not offensive for non-Indians to use it either. American Indian is the only ethnicity we name with "American" first in the name. All the rest of us have our origin named first as in Scottish-American, Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, African American, etc.

Generally speaking though it is better to refer to the specific tribe when talking about an individual.

An interesting discussion on the question:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html

Rainchancer - Cowboys and Indians, a game now consigned to the history books, but generations of children (including me) grew up thinking cowboys were the goodies and the Indians were the baddies. When something is deeply entrenched in your childhood as this game was the blame should lie elsewhere if someone doesnt always realise how offensive it was*

I was also brought up being taught the same: Cowboys = Goodies, Indians = Baddies. The blame lay elsewhere then. NOW, however, we know better, as we are hopefully better educated, and are able to educate ourselves.

Actually the suggestion that not knowing about the extermination of practically an entire race of people practically in living memory is a "generational thing" is incredibly depressing.........

TBH - I should imagine a lot of children would have no idea what you were talking about if you asked them about cowboys and Indians. I think it dates from an earlier era.

Probably more the Dark side and the rebels now.

I do wonder though how toys such as pistols and bows and arrows are still marketed to children nowadays. What images are on the front?

(off to Google)

Actually the suggestion that not knowing about the extermination of practically an entire race of people practically in living memory is a generational thing

True - but I bet there are many things that are similar that people aren't aware of. The unknown unknowns. Is it because it's in North America that people should know about it? What about parts of Africa? Chinese and Asian history?

Oops, somehow I missed quencher's posting of the same article. The Russell Means quotation is the heart of what many American Indians think about the use of the terms.

My kids have never heard of Cowboys & Indians (though The Light Side vs Darth Vader etc seems exactly the same...), and even when I was a kid in the 70s we usually thought the Indians sounded more exciting and romantic.

But then we also played Berlin Wall, where you climbed over stuff quietly trying to avoid being pointed at by the eyes-closed 'guards'. Given half ds's class are from Eastern Europe, funnily enough they don't play that any more!

My local ice hockey team were called the Redskins but decided to change the name last year - those arguing that history shouldn't be altered shut up when they realised the word was only added in 1973!

We didn't do any American history at school apart from the Vietnam war.
I've never seen a western, never seen Pocahontas so it's just never crossed my mind really to look into it. I've learnt a lot today though. I do love history, was my favourite subject at school.

Actually the suggestion that not knowing about the extermination of practically an entire race of people practically in living memory is a "generational thing" is incredibly depressing.........

I agree Bertrand. This thread has made me feel very sad indeed. I don't think it is a generational thing, tbh, I think (hope) it's just an ignorance thing. Depressing, nonetheless.

My son did a project at school when he was six yrs old (about 12 yrs ago) Subject was famous people in history, he chose Crazy Horse

You said yourself though, that this was because your children have been discussing it at home with you and not because of school. So it's obviously something you have an interest in to be learning about it in the first place.
History is a huge subject, and there's so many periods to cover. It's not possible to know about them all, however much you try to read up on stuff as an adult (which as a voracious reader who always wants to know more, I'm always doing!)

So how much knowledge should be crammed into a child's head?

I'm in my late 50s, we never covered any American history at school (not even the Vietnam war), my DC are in their early 20s, they never did any American history either. But they know about most of the historical atrocities - how can you not? How can anyone living in the First World not know how the USA came to be? How any Native Americans are now living on controlled reservations? The persecution of indigenous peoples is at the forefront of it all. I am truly, utterly gobsmacked.

At least this thread might lead some posters to a bit of research. That's a good thing.

First Nations typically refers to Canadian rather than American people's.

I was going to try and explain the use of 'Native American' but it looks like Wiki has done a good job so I'll just copy and paste

The Native American name controversy is an ongoing discussion about the changing terminology used by indigenous peoples of the Americas to describe themselves, as well as how they prefer to be referred to by others. Preferred terms vary primarily by region and age. As indigenous people and communities are diverse, there is no consensus on naming, aside from the fact that most people prefer to be referred to by their specific nation or tribe (terms which are themselves contentious)

BTW the first European settlers in US were undoubtedly barbaric but the native people were hardly peaceful themselves. They practised many barbaric practices such as human sacrifices and slavery within their own populations. No one comes out well in this

I actually think the problem with the phrase 'Cowboys and Indians' is not the use of the word Indian so much as the presumption that the 'Indians' are the 'baddies'. I don't think the comparison with 'cops and robbers' or even the suggestion of 'Jews and Nazis' is useful as it's clear who the 'baddies' are in those examples.

I don't think I've ever been so boggled at the ignorance of some people. No, I didn't study this at school, nor did I study the Holocaust. To be ignorant of both these things is inexcusable.

SamWheat - actually no, he chose it himself, simply because he had the Playmobil Western people and playscenes, and it followed on from there, at his own request. I helped him with his research for his project and he was utterly fascinated.

How can anyone living in the First World not know how the USA came to be

I should imagine that it's because it's America. Or Australia - out of sight, out of mind.

I must confess that I only know a bit about Irish history and the troubles in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. But I bet there's loads I don't know. And the same with Scotland.

And that's on my doorstep and is relevant to people living in the UK today.

I am horrified not only by the lack of awareness on this thread, but by the implication that if you don't do it at school you can't be expected to know it. Thoroughly depressing indeed.

My friend who is "native American" refers to herself as "First Nation", fwiw.

So how much knowledge should be crammed into a child's head?

As much as the child can take, I'd think. Any head is receptive to as much knowledge as it wants to take.

I do like the term 'First Nation'.

But you don't stop learning when you leave school. Or you shouldn't, clearly some people do .

When we went to the Plimouth Plantation in Boston we were told by the native people there that the only phrase they like to use is Native People.

Not Native Americans, nor any mention of Indians or tribe.

I read about everything I come across. It's not my fault I had just never come across this before. I'm sure not many people would know much about my countries history.

I should imagine that it's because it's America. Or Australia - out of sight, out of mind

Oh my Goodness - unbelievable!
So have you never heard of the Holocaust, because it didn't happen in the UK? Or Nelson Mandela, because he wasn't imprisoned in the UK? Or what's happening in the Middle East now - because it's not within your sight?

Oh my Goodness - unbelievable

That's an incredibly patronising answer. I would say that there are events that are well known such as the ones you have mentioned and there are ones that are not as well known.

I presume you are aware of the Lucknow massacre, Amritsar, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, Tianemann square, the invasion of China by Japan, the salt march in India , the role of Churchill in the formation of Syria and the formation of Pakistan and India.

eden

Heard of the Armenian genocide?
Belgium and the Congo?
The Boer war and concentration camps?