Thanks, but how was I spreading hate? The way I figure it, the native americans always knew the white man was crazy, or at least ignorant. Why would they care what crazy people called them. Or more to the point, after sufferring theft, rape, massacre, betrayal, bio warefare, and near genecide at the europeans hands I would think a little (or a lot of) name calling wouldn't seem like a big deal to them.
Yeah, but it is because it's in official teaching, taught everyday to the unsuspecting. I just think that kind of slander should be recognized for what it is.
No argument there. Incidently, I wasn't trying to bag on the Lakota since, as you said, "sioux" doesn't actually equal Lakota. I was just making fun of the word.
Bah, just being a grumpy old man I am. Humor is a virtue. Kind of like 'sweet grass' which actually is 'bitter root'. First time on a drum: "Hey chew this sweet grass for your voice" me, "alright, sweet grass, cool" , my bros begin snickering and I wondered why till I put it in my mouth. But it makes for great facial contortions.
Just curious here. So, we should say Lakota instead of Sioux. What about the Dakotas? Are they a subgroup of the Lakota, or what? I thought "Sioux" was a blanket term for the various tribes of that group, such as Lakota and Dakota (are there others?). And what should we call the language group that is currently named Siouxian? Lakotian?
Well, since I stepped all over the thread previous was trying to stay away. The blanket term 'Sioux' is still derived from the same place and it covers the Sioux nation as you say.