Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Red Indians


This appeared in the Letters to the Editor column in today's DC (with the usual editorial butchering):


The edit page article of Sreeram Chaulia was brilliant (Cuban Revolution, March 22). However, while condemning "Uncle Sam's historical bullying of innocent Latin American nations," he forgets the butchering of the Red Indians to whom the continent originally belonged. Save a tear for them too.




1943 World War II:

Roosevelt: OK. We will help you in the war. But promise to give freedom to the Indians whom you have suppressed mercilessly for 200 years.

Churhcill: Which Indians are you talking about?...The  brown ones who have multiplied 3-fold during our benign regime, or the Red ones whom you have made extinct?

...Posted by Ishani


1 comment:

shyamala rajan said...

I enjoyed reading this post. It is both funny and sad at the same time. Churchill may have something - while both the "brown" and "red" Indians were oppressed and suppressed by Western Europeans, the "reds" decidedly fared much worse with some tribes driven to extinction and the extant ones caught in an endless downwards spiral. The "browns" on the other hand have rebounded, at least when it comes to population sizes.
Interestingly, the terms "red" and "Indians" are no longer used in referring to Native Americans or First Nation peoples or Aborigines. In fact, the former term is considered offensive and the latter deemed to have no bearing in their identification. Some professional and college sports teams in the US are under pressure to remove their Native American names and mascots as they are demeaning and offensive.