The terms 'indigenous' and 'Gentrification'

MHA wrote: By the way, the word 'indigene' means indigenous, and in 'Espanol' the g is silent; Indian = Indigene. What we now call the 'West Indian' area of the world, and the 'American Indian' were initially words that denoted how the Spanish invaders perceived the people who lived 'over there' -- in relation to them...

Or as many reference sources place it, it comes from Late Latin indigenus, from Latin indigena, noun, native, from Old Latin indu, endo "in, within" + Latin gignere "to beget," having nothing to do with speculation about what Spaniards thought of "Indians."

But that might not be convenient for the point you were attempting to make.

It is true that Europeans thought they were arriving on the West Coast of Asia, the Indonesian and Indian subcontinents, hence the term "Indians" and 'Indies."

How the jump was made above to ignore Latin word roots and retro-actively try to apply a term from another word that merely sounds the same in some language-- irrespective of actual word etymology -- is the more accurate point I'm addressing.

Kind of like saying that the term "aboriginal" is not drawn from the Latin roots meaning "from the beginning."

Ha, just maybe.

MHA wrote: Well, Jeffrey, where you are wrong is presuming that the term 'indus' is latin in derivation.

Er, what that...

I never said anything of the kind.

I merely quoted Merriam Webster and just about everyone else out there with regard to the old Latin roots indu and endo meaning "in, within" as the root of indigenous.

Not all this babble you pieced together claiming different hypotheses that it's from recent Spanish, wait, no I mean ancient Sanskrit, meaning "Indian" because you found some word "indus" in the interwebs (Induswebs?) that look similar.

Again, your problem is not with me or my interpretation.

I merely quoted Webster etc.

You are more than welcome try your "Indian" hypothesis for other meanings of the term "indiginous" with them. (which is it, "sounds like some word in Spanish," or "comes from ancient Sanskrit," btw...)

:roll:

Happy hooray if indus comes from Sanskrit. That has absolutely no bearing on it's relation to the word indigenous other than your hypothesis, Webster and most other language references notwithstanding.

Funny thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points you make about gentrification.

But using linguistic "techniques" like the above and

MHA wrote: (Hmmm, if the g on gentry is silent, then 'gentry' becomes 'entry'.)

... to make further leaps, well..c'mon.

Subject: Re: The terms 'indigenous' and 'Gentrification'

MHA wrote: (MOD NOTE: Split from the film screening announcement thread into tangential discussion)

By the way, the word 'indigene' means indigenous, and in 'Espanol' the g is silent; Indian = Indigene. .

The g isn't silent in Spanish. Followed by an e or i it is either "h" or "zh" depending on the accent. It is the "h" which is silent in Spanish.

As in this is all very funny ""orseshit." Nice spoof MHA!

My disagreement with how you support your opening statement and misinformed (in conflict with Webster, OED and other expert resources) other claims you go on to make as about the derivation and roots of words to support your hypothesis of a negative gaze is all that is at issue here.

To be clear, I fully support your hypothesis that some gentrifiers look at existing residents in a negative way and wish the neighborhood would rather quickly replace hair and nail salons, jerk chicken stands and storefront churches with yoga studios, sophisticated foodie (food snob) type restaurants and espresso cafes.

I just disagree with the assumptions you make here to arrive at that point.

Please allow me to review.

Your first sentence:

I think the renaming of anything is done by the namer to hold power over the object/concept being named."

Yes, I totally agree. Similarly, "history" as we know it is in many cases just a reflection of who was in power at various points and able to write or rewrite or omit events and personalities to their liking. One need only look at the present-day Texas Board of Education meetings (that by default decide what does and does not make it into our entire nation's textbooks) for that, but it's usually a top-down ruler or ruling class thing, especially for anything older than the last 100 years.

You continue on with the following assertions:

Similarly for instance, the terms 'West Indies' was placarded to the region by the European explorers...
...
By the way, the word 'indigene' means indigenous, and in 'Espanol' the g is silent; Indian = Indigene. What we now call the 'West Indian' area of the world, and the 'American Indian' were initially words that denoted how the Spanish invaders perceived the people who lived 'over there' -- in relation to them...

(emphasis above is mine)

I refuted the above theory twofold with the following:

1) Europeans actually thought they were arriving on the Western shores of the Indian subcontinent. They actually wrote about this at the time. That, and nothing else, is the reason why they called the area "West Indies" and it's inhabitants "Indians."

2) Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary and all other linguistic and etymological sources I was able to find are in sharp disagreement with your assertion that "Indian = Indigene" and to your larger point that root and derivation of the word "indigenous" in any way supports the idea that the word "indigenous" was created (as per your initial point quoted above) to assert power over language to give a group of people lesser status.

I am not sure how to state this otherwise or more clearly, but Webster, OED and just about any other reputable source out there on the matter demonstrate that there was no hidden agenda behind the creation and initial use of this particular word indigenous like there is behind other words created by those in power to assign lower status.

It was simply an objective combination of two root words making the latin word Latin indigena as follows:

--> from Old Latin indu/endo ("in, within) + Latin gignere ("to beget").

Literally, "begotten within."

And again, aboriginal is in no way derived from the roots meaning "begotten within."

Aboriginal comes from the Latin word aborigines..

--> from the Latin roots ab ("from") + origine ("origin" or "beginning")

After I've already cited the roots of Indigenous as ("begotten within") I fail to see how one would go on to state "From what I can tell, the word aboriginal means 'begotten within' in Latin,"

...especially as "ab" and "origine" are so obviously "from" and "origin" (or "beginning") to anyone with even a basic sense of Latin roots, even if one has never set foot in a Latin language class.

Yes, indigenous is a synonym meaning "native." Synonyms are logic in the form of a posteriori, comparing the end results.

To state incorrectly that "indigenous" finds its roots as a word chosen to mean "Indian" (Indegene=Indian as you wrote), and then to go on to ascribe "Indian" connotations of the word "native" to the word indigenous as a priori conclusion claiming it comes from the very inception of the word, it's very roots...is completely backwards and false.

And the insertion and substitution in of the unrelated root "indus" (with a tome of text taking that back to Sanskrit) to support your claim "Indigene = Indian" was completely incorrect and I called it out as such.

To summarize:

1) Yes, in many cases people create negative labels for other people as a means of using power over language to subjugate other groups

2) No, Webster, OED and the very journals of European explorers themselves disprove your claim that indigenous or indigene comes from the word meaning Indian (your claim that "Indigene=Indian") and your further hypothesis therefore this is clearly proof that the term "indigenous" was created and used to refer negatively to Indians.

But it seems we have different views of etymology and linguistics, and the difference between the roots that form words and other words that merely become synonyms after creation and broad use, perhaps only linked at some point by some negative connotations in common.

I prefer to err on the side of Webster, OED and other leading resources that have assembled the results of thousands of years of detailed studies of actual word roots and lineage of language.

You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise.

And by the way, also central to your assumption that "Indigene=Indian" and that Indigene in Spanish means 'Indian," "Indian" in Spanish is "Indio" and no roots of the word "Indian" have anything to do with the formation of the word "Indigene" (which itself is merely a translation of the word indigenous).

If the point of your posts here was just satire and spoofing as another above has suggested, well, then it has had a pretty good run.

The step from word 5 to word 6 is false. “Indikon” in Greek is “indicum” in Latin.

So when many neighborhoods in Brooklyn went from majority white and middle class to poor and Caribbean, was it called slumification? A lot of neighborhoods in cities around the world go through peaks and troughs, it is part of the lifecycle of a city. If you look at the architecture of a neighborhood you should be able to tell whether it started out life as a place for the wealth, the middle class or the working poor. In any event, home ownership is a hedge against being priced out of a neighborhood you happen to like living in. It is not a safe assumption that the current level of rent is going to remain the same forever, I would not even assume that rent stabilization will be around forever - one day the politicians are going to find themselves in a budget hole and get rid of RS so that landlords will invest in their properties and pay more taxes, and the state and city can spend less money enforcing RS laws.

People move around. Sometimes other people don't like it. It's not that complicated.