It’s like the term “Asian.” Few people identify as generic “Asian” and it would be incorrect to equate it with a nationality or specific culture. But it does work at a high level to address a group of people who have something in common on a political dimension.
1) The label was overbroad, since the attacks were on East Asians, not south Asians.
2) The whole thing was manipulated by white liberals for their own purposes. They blamed Trump and “white supremacy” for the attacks, when in reality the attacks where happening in liberal cities like SF and NYC, and most of the attackers were non-white themselves.
In fact, the “Asian” label and identity was used to undermine the interests of Asians. Progressive identity activists used it as an opportunity to attack white conservatives, while reaffirming the need for reduced policing. But that’s not what actual Asian voters in these cities wanted: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang. They wanted more policing and measures to control the homeless. In NYC, for example, Asians overwhelmingly supported Andrew Yang, who was attacked for expressing moderately law and order views. And in the general election, heavily Asian communities in NYC voted in significant numbers for the Republican candidate, even though the Democrat also ran on a law and order platform: https://www.thecity.nyc/politics/2021/11/11/22777346/chinese.... The Republican candidate was otherwise a complete joke (even the NY Post endorsed the Democrat). But he got 46% of the vote in Brooklyn’s 70% Asian China town.
Sometimes these broad, politically constructed group labels are unavoidable. But labeling a group and getting people to identify with that label is also a tool for manipulating people. Indeed the term “Asian” to refer to a bunch of unrelated nationalities—who often have deep animosity towards each other—was coined by Berkeley political activists: https://time.com/5837805/asian-american-history/
I'm not. I'm reiterating what has been told to me by close to a dozen Navajo, Hopi, and Zuni indians.
Why would some random archaeologist decide for a large group of people what they should be called, when they call themselves something else?
I happen to have the January 6, 2020 edition of The Navajo Times on my desk. Just skimming the headlines (because I haven't read it yet), I see the following:
"Phoenix Indian Center," "Gallup Indian Medical Center," "Indian Health Service," "Santa Fe Indian."
The Four Corners region of the United States is called "Indian Country" by the indians who live there.
What give you the right to tell people what they can call themselves?
Part of this whole respecting preferences is that individual terms have to be treated separately. "Indian" is different than "American Indian" which is again different from "Indian country" or "Indian law". Someone may dislike some or most of these without necessarily disliking the others. The ones with specific technical meanings we're unfortunately stuck with in context.
Another popular example of this sort of issue is "Navajo" itself, as many would prefer to be called Diné or some derivative thereof.
He's also put out a number of tangentially related videos inspired by his research work on Indians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABMV4wXx6Xo
Well....maybe. 2 years is a long gap, even for Grey. I would assume he had hoped to put out much more by now. That he didn't is probably a reflection not just to COVID productivity but also lost motivation.
I hope that's not the case, but who knows...
Always awkward after conquests.