Paris Notes (2)

Mxsmanic extrapolated from data available...

writes:

But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.

So must it remain so for eternity? It is rather glaringly incorrect.

Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
native Canadians?

They are aborigines. Aborigine means "from the beginning," and is the
correct word for someone who is of native ancestry since time
immemorial. A "native American," in contrast, is simply anyone who was
born in America, irrespective of ancestry.


A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock. Current research has begun to conclude that there
were likely some others here before them (and even the earliest of their
type disappared as successive groups gained hegemeony over areas of the
Americas). The remains recovered and dated in the US Pacific Northwest
several years back became subject of a furor, After modest research and
dating had proved them to be quite different than any known Native
American/Indian types (and older), the local tribes as much as to protect
their traditional early bird status, demanded and recived the remains for
reburial (and concealment from those devilish scientists).

B. I don't know why you conclude that they are calling themselves
"Indians" these days to any greatere xtent that they ever did. While we in
the US went through the "Native American" stage and the political
correctness binge which followed (which caused most folks to use the term),
most of the tribes and their associations continued to employ the
traditional generic term. As for your employment of "Native American",
since that includes everybody born between ice-covered Canadian islands and
Patagonia, the "all inclusivness" thereof renders it pretty inexact.

After all, are Canadians born in Canada any less "Native" Americans.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans". After all, we've not gotten around to
changing the Atlases to do something about that big misprint, the "West
Indies", and in much of the US and Canada, "West Indians" remains pretty
clear and includes neither Caribs, Taino or folks from Mumbai.

"PreColumbians" wouldn't be bad, but would offend some folks from
Minnesota, Norwegians, Swedes and some Danes plus descendants of wandering
Scandinavians and people named Ericson. But you never know about things
like that. After all, we old folks grew up with "Eskimo" and overnight
most of them became "Inuit" (but kept the poor Eskimo dogs). Blacks may
choose to be called so, but woe unto him who hauls out "Redskins" and is
not speaking of a professional football team, all the amateurs haveing been
forced to surrender to PC.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

TMO

TMO

Mxsmanic extrapolated from data available...

writes:

But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.

So must it remain so for eternity? It is rather glaringly incorrect.

Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
native Canadians?

They are aborigines. Aborigine means "from the beginning," and is the
correct word for someone who is of native ancestry since time
immemorial. A "native American," in contrast, is simply anyone who was
born in America, irrespective of ancestry.


A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock. Current research has begun to conclude that there
were likely some others here before them (and even the earliest of their
type disappared as successive groups gained hegemeony over areas of the
Americas). The remains recovered and dated in the US Pacific Northwest
several years back became subject of a furor, After modest research and
dating had proved them to be quite different than any known Native
American/Indian types (and older), the local tribes as much as to protect
their traditional early bird status, demanded and recived the remains for
reburial (and concealment from those devilish scientists).

B. I don't know why you conclude that they are calling themselves
"Indians" these days to any greatere xtent that they ever did. While we in
the US went through the "Native American" stage and the political
correctness binge which followed (which caused most folks to use the term),
most of the tribes and their associations continued to employ the
traditional generic term. As for your employment of "Native American",
since that includes everybody born between ice-covered Canadian islands and
Patagonia, the "all inclusivness" thereof renders it pretty inexact.

After all, are Canadians born in Canada any less "Native" Americans.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans". After all, we've not gotten around to
changing the Atlases to do something about that big misprint, the "West
Indies", and in much of the US and Canada, "West Indians" remains pretty
clear and includes neither Caribs, Taino or folks from Mumbai.

"PreColumbians" wouldn't be bad, but would offend some folks from
Minnesota, Norwegians, Swedes and some Danes plus descendants of wandering
Scandinavians and people named Ericson. But you never know about things
like that. After all, we old folks grew up with "Eskimo" and overnight
most of them became "Inuit" (but kept the poor Eskimo dogs). Blacks may
choose to be called so, but woe unto him who hauls out "Redskins" and is
not speaking of a professional football team, all the amateurs haveing been
forced to surrender to PC.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

TMO

TMO

Mxsmanic extrapolated from data available...

writes:

But as you well know it was a common usage at one time.

So must it remain so for eternity? It is rather glaringly incorrect.

Anyway, aren't they First Peoples or something now? Or is that just
native Canadians?

They are aborigines. Aborigine means "from the beginning," and is the
correct word for someone who is of native ancestry since time
immemorial. A "native American," in contrast, is simply anyone who was
born in America, irrespective of ancestry.


A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock. Current research has begun to conclude that there
were likely some others here before them (and even the earliest of their
type disappared as successive groups gained hegemeony over areas of the
Americas). The remains recovered and dated in the US Pacific Northwest
several years back became subject of a furor, After modest research and
dating had proved them to be quite different than any known Native
American/Indian types (and older), the local tribes as much as to protect
their traditional early bird status, demanded and recived the remains for
reburial (and concealment from those devilish scientists).

B. I don't know why you conclude that they are calling themselves
"Indians" these days to any greatere xtent that they ever did. While we in
the US went through the "Native American" stage and the political
correctness binge which followed (which caused most folks to use the term),
most of the tribes and their associations continued to employ the
traditional generic term. As for your employment of "Native American",
since that includes everybody born between ice-covered Canadian islands and
Patagonia, the "all inclusivness" thereof renders it pretty inexact.

After all, are Canadians born in Canada any less "Native" Americans.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans". After all, we've not gotten around to
changing the Atlases to do something about that big misprint, the "West
Indies", and in much of the US and Canada, "West Indians" remains pretty
clear and includes neither Caribs, Taino or folks from Mumbai.

"PreColumbians" wouldn't be bad, but would offend some folks from
Minnesota, Norwegians, Swedes and some Danes plus descendants of wandering
Scandinavians and people named Ericson. But you never know about things
like that. After all, we old folks grew up with "Eskimo" and overnight
most of them became "Inuit" (but kept the poor Eskimo dogs). Blacks may
choose to be called so, but woe unto him who hauls out "Redskins" and is
not speaking of a professional football team, all the amateurs haveing been
forced to surrender to PC.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

TMO

TMO

The Reids extrapolated from data available...

Following up to randee

Milan
There are supposedly two Mexican restaurants in Milan owned by somebody
from Roswell, New Mexico, USA. I have not tried them, and rather doubt
I will ever actually get to Milan in our travels in northern Italy, but
I wonder if anybody has tried either the Louisiana Bistro or the El
Tropico Latino? Supposedly the Bistro is a hangout for the Delta pilots
on the Atlanta/Milan run.

I wouldn't go to Milan for Mexican food!

Chilis
You can get a feel for the heat of a Mexican/Spanish restaurant by
asking the cook what varieties of chilis he uses - if he uses Big Jims
for rellenos and either Barker or Sandia for the salsa, you know you are
in good hands....................

Spanish food does not use much in the way of chillis.

You're right. I really think of Italian food as actually more often
employing red chiles (chiles is the more common English for the peppers)
than would a Spanish chef. Unfortunately, Big Jims, Barkers and Sandias
are not varieties of chiles but trade/growing area names from Southern New
Mexico (as is "Hatch") and would be entirely unknown among Mexicans or
Mexican Markets. Chile Rellenos usually are done with Poblano chiles, a
dark green variety with very modest heat. Mexican table sauces depend on
fresh jalapenos and serranos, and lately chipotle (a smoked ripe jalapeno),
pequins and such oddities as the Scotch bonnet/Habanero. Mole Verde, green
sauces, use several, usually locally grown, species in types matching such
US breeds as Hatch, Anaheim, etc., often combined with tomatillos, almost
unknown in New Mexico. It's a long way and alot of kitchens and gardens
bewteen the Green Chile Stew of Northern New Mexico and Pibil from the
Yucatan.

TMO

Most "Mexicans" speak of New Mexico's cuisine as being too hot, preferring
their "heat" in condement form, raw and cooked salsas or even chiles.

The Reids extrapolated from data available...

Following up to randee

Milan
There are supposedly two Mexican restaurants in Milan owned by somebody
from Roswell, New Mexico, USA. I have not tried them, and rather doubt
I will ever actually get to Milan in our travels in northern Italy, but
I wonder if anybody has tried either the Louisiana Bistro or the El
Tropico Latino? Supposedly the Bistro is a hangout for the Delta pilots
on the Atlanta/Milan run.

I wouldn't go to Milan for Mexican food!

Chilis
You can get a feel for the heat of a Mexican/Spanish restaurant by
asking the cook what varieties of chilis he uses - if he uses Big Jims
for rellenos and either Barker or Sandia for the salsa, you know you are
in good hands....................

Spanish food does not use much in the way of chillis.

You're right. I really think of Italian food as actually more often
employing red chiles (chiles is the more common English for the peppers)
than would a Spanish chef. Unfortunately, Big Jims, Barkers and Sandias
are not varieties of chiles but trade/growing area names from Southern New
Mexico (as is "Hatch") and would be entirely unknown among Mexicans or
Mexican Markets. Chile Rellenos usually are done with Poblano chiles, a
dark green variety with very modest heat. Mexican table sauces depend on
fresh jalapenos and serranos, and lately chipotle (a smoked ripe jalapeno),
pequins and such oddities as the Scotch bonnet/Habanero. Mole Verde, green
sauces, use several, usually locally grown, species in types matching such
US breeds as Hatch, Anaheim, etc., often combined with tomatillos, almost
unknown in New Mexico. It's a long way and alot of kitchens and gardens
bewteen the Green Chile Stew of Northern New Mexico and Pibil from the
Yucatan.

TMO

Most "Mexicans" speak of New Mexico's cuisine as being too hot, preferring
their "heat" in condement form, raw and cooked salsas or even chiles.

Olivers writes:

A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock.

They are descendants of immemorial stock (one without a clear written
record of its immigration), which is a pretty good dividing line.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans".

The problem is that there are more and more real Indians in the world,
and with two completely different groups sharing the same name, it can
get pretty confusing.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

But wasn't Scarlet a slave owner?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Olivers writes:

A. They likely weren't "aborigines" as they are descendants of a fairly
late-arriving stock.

They are descendants of immemorial stock (one without a clear written
record of its immigration), which is a pretty good dividing line.

There's nothing really wrong with "Indian", and as you write, it's better
choice than "Native Americans".

The problem is that there are more and more real Indians in the world,
and with two completely different groups sharing the same name, it can
get pretty confusing.

Do you suppose that the Atlanta Braves will soon be "gone with the wind",
renamed the Atlanta Scarlets?

But wasn't Scarlet a slave owner?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Growing up, I used to hang at my Mexican friend's place all the time.

They bought tons of corn tortillas (no they didn't grind their own with
those little pestle stones).

They steamed them and wrapped them around hot dogs for a quick snack.

Yeah corn tortillas do seem rarer, esp. at restaurants.

Growing up, I used to hang at my Mexican friend's place all the time.

They bought tons of corn tortillas (no they didn't grind their own with
those little pestle stones).

They steamed them and wrapped them around hot dogs for a quick snack.

Yeah corn tortillas do seem rarer, esp. at restaurants.

NO, Big Jim, Barker, and Sandia, among others, are indeed varieties of
chili, AFAIR all developed at New Mexico State University. Just as
Rutgers and Manalucie are varieties of tomatoes. But you are correct
that Hatch chili is a generic term for a chili growing area, not a
variety. In fact many of the canned chilis you buy as Hatch chilis were
probably not grown near Hatch. Several varieties are used for 'Hatch'
chilis. Although I don't grow them, most of my neighbors do, so in fact
tomatilllos are quite well known in New Mexico.

It is my understanding that the two places in Milan I mentioned import
their tortillas and jalapenos from New Mexico, but get their green chili
from somewhere in Europe. As I said, I haven't eaten at either, so
can't comment on the style of the food (I'd probably opt for Brek's if I
wanted a quick meal in Milan).

Actually my Mexican barber had the opposite complaint this morning - he
said they usually cook at home since the restaurant food here in New
Mexico is usually too bland.............. We decided it was the influx
of all the snowbirds from the northern US who couldn't take the hot
food.
--
wf.

Olivers wrote:

The Reids extrapolated from data available...

Following up to randee

Milan
There are supposedly two Mexican restaurants in Milan owned by somebody
from Roswell, New Mexico, USA. I have not tried them, and rather doubt
I will ever actually get to Milan in our travels in northern Italy, but
I wonder if anybody has tried either the Louisiana Bistro or the El
Tropico Latino? Supposedly the Bistro is a hangout for the Delta pilots
on the Atlanta/Milan run.

I wouldn't go to Milan for Mexican food!

Chilis
You can get a feel for the heat of a Mexican/Spanish restaurant by
asking the cook what varieties of chilis he uses - if he uses Big Jims
for rellenos and either Barker or Sandia for the salsa, you know you are
in good hands....................

Spanish food does not use much in the way of chillis.

You're right. I really think of Italian food as actually more often
employing red chiles (chiles is the more common English for the peppers)
than would a Spanish chef. Unfortunately, Big Jims, Barkers and Sandias
are not varieties of chiles but trade/growing area names from Southern New
Mexico (as is "Hatch") and would be entirely unknown among Mexicans or
Mexican Markets. Chile Rellenos usually are done with Poblano chiles, a
dark green variety with very modest heat. Mexican table sauces depend on
fresh jalapenos and serranos, and lately chipotle (a smoked ripe jalapeno),
pequins and such oddities as the Scotch bonnet/Habanero. Mole Verde, green
sauces, use several, usually locally grown, species in types matching such
US breeds as Hatch, Anaheim, etc., often combined with tomatillos, almost
unknown in New Mexico. It's a long way and alot of kitchens and gardens
bewteen the Green Chile Stew of Northern New Mexico and Pibil from the
Yucatan.

TMO

Most "Mexicans" speak of New Mexico's cuisine as being too hot, preferring
their "heat" in condement form, raw and cooked salsas or even chiles.