South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[Ray]

with Indians (the "woo-woo kind", not the "Sanskrit kind"), but never with a "Native American". I suppose American Indian or Amer-Indian would be a bit more elegant than the "woo-woo" vs. "Sanskrit" distinction, which was taught me by my Japanese lawyer apartment sharer in the late 60s.

The term "Red Indians" had some initial validity as used by 16th and 17th century English speakers as defining the Beothuck ("human beings") of Newfoundland, who painted everything (including themselves) with red ochre (it's a good bug repellent, as well as having religious significance). The Beothuck are now extinct as a separate group, although their blood lines still run among the Innu ("human beings"; Montagnais to the French) of Labrador, and among the adjacent Anishinaabeg ("human beings") west and south of Newfoundland.

Of course, all the "woo-woo" Indians believed that all peoples were "human beings" - right ? You gotta be kidding.

Regards

Mike

You sure can be funny.

I will use Native Indians /Ameri Indians till some American tell me that is outdated and gives another one.

You people love reinventing the wheel!

[carl]

You people love reinventing the wheel!

That one made me laugh out loud. And ain't it the truth.

[jmm99]

Amer-Indians did manage independently to invent the wheel, but used them on toys. Unfortunately, for their military capabilitries, they never received the Irish saying that "guns are dangerous toys". Otherwise, Cortes would have been met by cannon - and the rest would have been His Story (that is, Montezuma's).

Anything having Indian in it is fine.

But consider Canada, where all "status Indian groups" are First Nations. So, a "status Indian" must then be a "First National".

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming !

------------------------------------
The Chinese are coming !; the Chinese are coming !

And, to illustrate that, we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China, "The Issue of South China Sea" (June 2000), in five parts - and still the official statement of the claims:

(1) Its Origin, The Issue of South China Sea

(2) Historical Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(3) Jurisprudential Evidence To Support China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(4) International Recognition Of China's Sovereignty over the Nansha Islands

(5) Basic Stance and Policy of the Chinese Government in Solving the South China Sea Issue

As a counter-point, here are two articles - viewing the Chinese claims less favorably - written by the guy (Jerome Cohen) who provided us with our Chinese Communist Law textbook in the late 60s.

2010 Cohen, China's Claims to the South China Sea

2010 Cohen, China and its Ocean Disputes

Regards

Mike

[carl]

The First Nationals are coming !; the First Nationals are coming !

THE BANKERS ARE REVOLTING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

(Ah-this if fun.)