How to Classified a Death by Being Shot

We had talked about creating a Killed by Indians project, but no one has done it yet.

Can we please not call it "Killed by Indians" if somebody will create it? And it's not only because of political correctness, but actually would be very misleading, since there are actually people who call themselves Indians, and they comprise more than 1/6 of the world population.

there are https://www.geni.com/projects/Captured-by-Indians/18623
https://www.geni.com/projects/Cause-of-death-portal/27730
https://www.geni.com/projects/Homicide-by-gunshot/28000

Any term other than "Indians" will cause even more confusion. Activists in America fought this battle to a draw in the 1990s and early 2000s. No one is particularly happy with the word "Indians" but everything is offensive to someone.

Note also that "Shot by Indians" is not necessarily the same thing as being shot with a gun, and certainly doesn't cover all cases of being killed by Indians ;)

Agreed. That is why I suggested "Death By Gunshot" . That pretty much covers all areas. Who, how, when, where.

Death by gunshot, with different projects for death by arrows, death by tomahawk, and death by smashing a head against a rock or wall?

;)

My apologies. I understood the question to be what to name a project if someone died as the result of a gunshot. Not to classify people that had been killed by Indians. As in Stephen Otis-shot and died during an indian raid. This implies that an indian shot him but doesn't state that. Only that it was during a raid and it was a gun shot. As with my grandfather. It implies that he was shot by his own gun by an indian but doesn't say that. I gave my opinion to a discussion that I misunderstood.

No need to apologize. I'm giving you a hard time because of what other people have said, not because of what you have said. You're absolutely on topic for the piece you're talking about.

Silas Mercer Parker

Is part of the American Old West

How about this/

Indian Raids - Native American
Cocheco Massacre of 1689
Fort Parker massacre http://www.geni.com/projects/Fort-Parker-massacre/32543

or American Indian Raids

Justin Durand,

I said nothing about "American Indian", i believe that would be a reasonable term. But could we please *stop* seeing the world as something that stops at the borders of a single country (USA)?

If you say "Indians" to anybody outside of the US almost everybody will think that you are talking about people who live in India, unless the context is specified in some other way.

If politics make it difficult to understand the point, think about the term "Football". Nowhere (outside of the USA, and maybe Canada) does it mean "American Football", and the argument along the lines of "Calling it anything other than football will cause confusion" is ... well... silly. I don't think that anybody would misunderstand "American Football" or "American Indian".

how about this
http://www.geni.com/projects/American-Indian-Wars/32544

Volodya, I don't think you need to assume that every American thinks the world stops at the US border.

This might be an opportunity to explain some of the problems involved in this type of question.

1. Native American is offensive to many Anglos in the US, who feel that being born here makes them natives.

2. Indigenous People is offensive to many Indians because it implies that all people with non-European ancestry are interchangeable.

3. American Indian is offensive to two groups. First, to U.S. Indians who feel that it implies that "real" Indians are from India and they are a kind of fake. Second, to Indians in the western hemisphere but outside the US because it implies they are not "real" Indians but also implies that only people in the US are Americans.

Most of us in the US who supported Indian rights through the turbulent years came to the conclusion long ago that "Indian" is an unfortunate label but it is what it is.

Just as all world citizens have to live with the idea, for example, that Georgia might mean a country or a state, in the same way everyone has to understand that the word Indian also has two meanings.

Perhaps I should add that I am not personally offended by any of these terms. I'm just keen on being sensitive to the feelings of my Indian cousins against these kinds of continued European colonial discourse.

I want to stress that i can honestly care less about who is and who isn't offended. The point of genealogy is to record what is and was as accurately as possible, with no care about how people "feel" about reality. Columbus was an idiot, and he named the local population "indians", and the name stuck, it's an unfortunate fact, but a fact. However, using the term that will be confusing to anybody who didn't live in the States is a big no no for an international website.

Trust me, if i wanted to find offensive things on Geni, there are quite a few (only two genders listed as options, no way to record polyamorous relationships correctly, etc, etc, etc, etc). Here i am not talking about offense! I am talking about internationality.

This is exactly why i've brought up "american football", it would be simply ridiculous to demand that everybody in the world would be confused by the project "football players" or somesuch. If it were created, i (and about 9 out of 10 people) would assume that we are talking about international football game where you kick the ball with your foot... the one with goalie. And if some american footballer will get offended because we are "suggesting that he/she is not a 'real' football player", so be it. I would tell that person to grow up and find real things to think about.

The naming convention as it was proposed and created is confusing, your three points do nothing to even address this point, and instead talk about "feelings" of one group of people or another.

P.S. A minor point about addressing a person here. It is usually considered impolite to write out the name, rather you should use '@' symbol, as is suggested to the right of the box where you type your reply. This way a person can chose to make one's name private if it is needed. By retyping the name, you have published it for everybody (even those who aren't logged in). Personally i find that acceptable, and please leave your message as is, but please know that there will be people who will not only be offended, but who will actually have a legitimate complaint to make.

It seems we have a disagreement that cannot be reconciled. The keystone of your argument is that people do not have the right to label their own ethnic identities, or to decide what is offensive. You are also suggesting that educated people are not capable to distinguishing between two different meanings of the same word. I can't accept either of those ideas.

Please do not say what is a keystone of my argument, when your intention is to misrepresent what i am saying.

The keystone of your argument is that we should use incorrect titles just to please US centric views.

See how stupid this sounds? That's because this is not your point, but an intentional misrepresentation of it. Just like what you have said about my "keystone".