It's a very impolite but common way that Americans differentiate the two groups of people that are called Indians when the context isn't clear. Native Americans (feathers) and people from India (dots). Feathers refers to Native headdress and dot refers to a bindi, the decoration commonly worn by Hindu women.
I understand that the dot/feather thing is considered crass, but I will say it's a bit overboard to be offended at it. The idea isn't that all India Indians have dots or whatever, it's just synechdoche, where one aspect of the broader culture stands in for the whole. Like if you said, "He's from America - suit not cowboy boots." (Referring to urban vs rural America) it would hardly be offensive as a stereotype.
"Yankee" or simply "Yank" is a synechdoche that the British use for people from the US.
Tell a 6th generation Georgian whose family farm was destroyed by Sherman's March to the Sea that he's a "Yankee" and see what response you'll get.
And your 'suit not cowboy boots' comparison doesn't even make sense. In the parts of the US where cowboy boots are popular in rural areas, they are also popular in urban areas. Visit Dallas and see that dress cowboy boots go just fine with a suit. Governors and legislators, President Bush and innumerable wedding party members, have all paired cowboy boots and suits.
Lets start with nobody said they were offended, just pointed out the GP was using a racial stereotype. Calling a racial stereotype a racial stereotype when asked for clarification isn't the same as "I'm offended," that is jumping to unfounded conclusions.
Saying "Indian (dots)" doesn't make sense out of context unless you are American or very familiar with American stereotypes. You also need the "feathers" part to be able to compare the two to give it some context for those who are familiar with American stereotypes but haven't been asked "dots or feathers?" before. Saying it in an international form is confusing and unclear thus a bad use of language no matter if its offensive or not. Additionally using racially charged language unnecessarily detracts from the overall message the poster was trying to convey and their post is now hidden behind [flagged].
>Visit Dallas and see that dress cowboy boots go just fine with a suit.
I just went to a wedding a few weeks ago where the entire wedding party (including the bride) were formally dressed and wore cowboy boots and I don't even live in the south or a rural area!
> And your 'suit not cowboy boots' comparison doesn't even make sense. In the parts of the US where cowboy boots are popular in rural areas, they are also popular in urban areas. Visit Dallas and see that dress cowboy boots go just fine with a suit. Governors and legislators, President Bush and innumerable wedding party members, have all paired cowboy boots and suits.
Sounds like it makes perfect sense to me, given that my whole point was that synechdoche is about using a salient feature, not necessarily a universal one. That's what I was trying to say about the dots/feathers thing - cowboy boots are associated with (mostly southern) rural areas - they're even called cowboy boots, even if they are used other places and even if most people in the south or in rural areas don't wear them most of the time. Suits are associated with big metropolitan companies, even though people in rural areas still wear suits.
> cowboy boots are associated with (mostly southern) rural areas
Your expression seems to become less meaningful as you clarify it.
Cowboy boots are part of Western wear. The specific style (as differing from general equestrian boots) started during the cattle drive era of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the late 1800s.
It spread, certainly. Cowboy boots are a much more salient aspect of Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming - decidedly non-Southern states - than Virginia, Florida, or North Carolina. What cotton farmer, tobacco farmer, or citrus grower works in cowboy boots? The traditional Florida cowboy wasn't even called a "cowboy", which is the western term, but a cowman or cracker.
I'll say this again, they are indeed called cowboy boots, which means they come from the area where there are cowboys. That's the West, not the South. (The two areas overlap in Texas and Oklahoma.)
So 1) are cowboy boots a salient feature of rural life in the US? No. They are not common to rural life in Michigan, New York, Maine, and other non-plains states.
3) Is the south the area where cowboy boots are the most salient feature? No. That would be the West. In the South you buy cowboy boots at places which sell Western wear. You don't buy cowboy boots at a places which sells "Southern clothing."
On the other hand, in the West, where cowboy boots are a salient feature, you are also likely to find people in the cities wearing dress cowboy boots with a suit.
So "cowboy boots" means someone from the West, and "suit" means someone dressed formally, "suit and cowboy boots" means someone dressed formally in the Western clothing tradition.
While "suit not cowboy boots" tells someone in the Western US to dress in the standard US/European business tradition.
But "cowboy boots not suit" makes little sense as a disjunctive. It certainly doesn't characterize someone from the rural US, or characterize someone from the rural South in the US, with someone from the city.
I'd like to chime in for future readers of this thread, a passive observation. In 2016 Seattle tech, I hear the "dots not feathers" formulation (or rarely the reverse), at least monthly, always in professional settings and nearly always used by a person in describing him or herself. Subjectively it would ring very odd and impolite to hear it from someone not describing his own ethnicity.
Clarification: Americans confuse Indians between those from Bharat/India and Native Americans. Dots and feathers is a common way to differentiate between both. I am from India.
I am from the US. "Dots and feathers" is not a common way in the US. It feels pejorative as well.
If it's ambiguous, I say "Indian (from India)" or "Indian (subcontinent)" vs. "Indian (Native American)". Or I'll just say "from India" or "Native American", and avoid that ambiguity.
Plus, I think many in the US don't know about the bindi, so referring to "dot" in that context may not help as much as you, someone from India, may think.
>I am from the US. "Dots and feathers" is not a common way in the US.
I am from the US, I have heard people say things like "I picked up some Indian artwork this weekend, dots not feathers." I've also been asked "dots or feathers?" when I was talking about something Indian. I've also been asked in gestures, pointing to the forehead to represent a bindi then saying "or" and covering and uncovering the mouth while making a noise to do that mock Indian battle cry (see the scene in Peter Pan if you are unfamiliar with it)(1).
Its not super common (for obvious reasons) but I've heard to several times from several different people so its common enough in at least some parts of the United States. Being casually racist in informal conversation is still a "thing" in the United States.
That being said, its impolite racially charged language thus very inappropriate in most cases and should be avoided especially in formal communication.
(1) I am ashamed to admit that I did that while playing "cowboys and Indians" as a child before I knew better.
A Google Book search finds only a 2002 Weekly World News opinion piece by "Ed Anger" and a 2009 book "Stealing Ganymede: A Novel".
There are ~150 hits in DDG for "Indian" plus any of the four combination of order and choice of {"and", "or", or "not"}. There are 94 hits in Google for "dots or feathers" and 120 "dots and feathers". This includes "polka dots and feathers."
Almost every single one referring to people uses that phrase in a derogatory way.
None of the 6 phrases exist in Google's n-grams.
That makes it decidedly not common, at least in the written word.
> Being casually racist in informal conversation ...
Correct, I never, ever, ever said it was appropriate, it is decidedly not. If you look up a couple posts I highlighted the problems with using it on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11985794). I don't expect that it would be in written word to often either. Point is its common enough that I've heard it several times over many years from several different people. Perhaps you don't talk to too many casually racist people or it is regional.
I still don't think it's common, though I agree it's not rare. I provided counter-evidence that my observations are not solely biased by the people I know nor the regions I've lived in. To flip your question around, perhaps you are in the one region of the US where people do that?
The other part of my response was because I didn't like the wriggle room in your paragraph describing how being 'casually racist in informal conversation is still a "thing" in the United States' and that such uses are 'very inappropriate in most cases and should be avoided especially in formal communication.'
HN is full of informal conversation. Is HN casual enough that it's one of the few places where this "thing" is appropriate? I don't think that's what you meant. I wanted to make a more firm statement which removes that possible interpretation.
I wouldn't claim that the phrase is PC, and it is indeed lazy in written form, but people need to get over being so easily offended on behalf of others.
Yes, it seems that phrase is more common than I originally assumed. That said, movies use derogatory terms, even Oscar winning movies.
People need to get over the word "PC". It's a nearly meaningless term because it comes with the pejorative assumption that the reasoning behind it is always excessive.
Do you have any word for "politically correct but not excessively so, so I think I'll change my language"? Or is every such suggestion inherently based on offense and therefore easily dismissed?
Because my statement above was to show pictures of Puebloans in Santa Fe from now and from 100 years ago, and argue that "feather" makes about as much sense as calling a 6th generation true son of Georgia a Yankee.
Are you going to go to the South and start calling everyone Yankees? Or would that not be politically correct?
