[NA-Discuss] Geographic Regions Statement
evan at telly.org
Fri Jan 28 02:03:37 UTC 2011
Enough. Any point you've been trying to make in your long description has
been obliterated by
a level of personal insult this list hasn't seen in a long time - if ever.
You owe Darlene an apology.
You also have yet to make any connection whatsoever between your stories of
disenfranchisement and how ICANN would benefit from having just one region
for the americas rather than two. But if you intend to answer me like you
did Darlene, don't bother.
- Evan (sent from my Android phone)
On 2011-01-27 8:46 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
Get yourself straight any way you can, the exclusion of Mexico from North
America ensures that Anglophones, and perhaps the token Francophone
(singular), will be preferentially selected every time ICANN attempts to
meet a regional diversity goal.
This leaves 50 million residents of the United States and Canada, only
represented through a second European language.
I pointed out the fact that the Greenland Home Rule government, while a
dependency of the Danish State, is an Indigenous government of the Americas.
This drew a confused response from Darlene Thompson who apparently confuses
governments, like the one she works for, with immigrant non-European
languages. The geographic region issue is about iso3166 states, not
languages, and the exclusion of Mexico from "North America" is as irrational
as putting Greenland or Quebec in "Europe".
I pointed out the fact that migration has changed the largest indigenous
language in the US from Dine (Navajo) to Nahuatl, Mixtex and Zapotec,
approximating the unified Ojib-Crees in Canada as a group, and separating
Indigenous migrants along the hyper-militarized US frontier is as absurd as
Canada's refusal to abide by the Jay Treaty (1794), allowing free passage of
Indians between the US and Canada. This drew the surprising
21st-century-Indians-speak-English response from John Levine, utterly
missing the importance of language and cultural de-assimilation to
assimilated Indians, and the reality that Indian migrants from Indian
communities in Mexico retain locality in North America, due to the ease of
first-language and shared values.
I don't know what to do with mention-Indians-get-Hindi. I don't know what to
do with mention-migration-get-English-only either.
I do know that today Jefferson Keel, Chickasaw Nation, delivered the State
of Indian Nations address, and today is a really lame ass day to subordinate
Indian interests to non-Indian interests, for something as ephemeral as the
ITU boogie man, or Anglo self-preference.
I understand most of NARALO is Anglophone, and Anglophones have their issues
with non-Anglophones, but where I grew up Spanish was as common as English
and was Mexico until the middle of the 19th century.
My pointing out that Indians are structurally overlooked by ICANN's North
American centric structure hasn't changed that a wit in ten years. Mexican
Indians are Indians. It doesn't do Indians in the Americas a wit of good to
ignore the largest population of Indians in the Americas north of Panama, or
ignore the largest population of Indians speaking Indian languages in the
More information about the NA-Discuss