Locals only

Your yiddish is showing...I have the same blood.

Your assumption about my heritage is incorrect.

So, locals(dark) is so dam offensive that you & Pam think less of me(as if I could give a @#$% or either of your opinions?).
I do hope we can one day respect each other though, I do have a much lower opinion of the two of you at the moment...

Just HOW MORE politically correct can you get than "locals(dark)"

I don't think less of you, and I'm sorry you have a lower opinion of me. I consider word choice less a matter of political correctness and more a matter of human respect. Since you're so fond of quotes I will illustrate my perspective using one: "Watch your thoughts, they become your words. Watch your words, they become you."

Like "darky"

I was brought up that the N word was offensive. Darky seems to be offensive but was never heard in Az, I thought it went out after the Civil War.

Colored was the proper term. Then they wanted to be called Black, which I thought sounded offensive but I guess not.

Now they wanted to be called African-American, which as an American I find offensive unless they are directly from Africa. I find any _ _ _ _ - American term politically incorrect if they were born in the US. IMHO.

The term always seems to be changing, which is confusing.

That is one other thing I like about STX, I don't think I have yet to hear a local call them selves African - American, they are Crusans or West Indians and as proud of that as Texas-ans are of being form their great state.

I would think that African-American is proper just like Irish-American, Polish-American, Italian-American etc. I think that a Crucian or Texan is more about turf not ancestral heritage. There is really no such thing as An American-American. I Know your going to say American Indian but I think they should be called inhabitants of the New world or maybe by tribe name. Chris Columbus thought they were Indians from India, there was no map quest then.

My father is Cherokee, so I can address the "American Indian" thing. It is ALWAYS more polite to use the name of the nation (not tribe--that's another "look at the poor primitive" term that most of us find extremely annoying) than to use a generic term.

My father is Cherokee, so I can address the "American Indian" thing. It is ALWAYS more polite to use the name of the nation (not tribe--that's another "look at the poor primitive" term that most of us find extremely annoying) than to use a generic term.

I'm not following. Are you saying it is better to say American-Indian than Cherokee Indian? What is a "generic term"?

http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/3621/?Things_NEVER_to_Say_to_American_Indian_Coworkers

After I posted, I googled the question and found the above. Interesting.

I've lived on STX for 6 years and consider myself a "local". What else would I be?

I have heard the term "Continental" used and have used it myself. I find it to be a useful term to describe someone such as myself who was originally from the continental US and now lives here full time. Using this, it means that everyone who lives in the Virgin Islands ends up falling into the category of local, continental, or tourist. Others have brought up the point though of those from other islands originally but personally I haven't seen any animosity between decendents of differing caribbean islands (Those from Haiti and the Dominican Republic maybe being an exception). I suppose the moral of all of this is what's in a name?

A small town is a small town, and I can recall an obituary back home where a 92 year-old woman died after living in the same small town since she was 2, but was still listed as a "local of [town that she was born in]." 90 years she lived there and still wasn't a local.

I hear statesider more than continental but we statesiders will never really be considered local by most here. I've had employees from STT along with down-islanders & while they might get along OK, they definitely divide along which island they come from. I guess that';s normal since they have more in common.

Stephyjh,
I don't get what you're saying. Are you saying (Cherokee-American or Cherokee-Nation American)? I am an Irish- American not a Irish Ireland American. Irish only refers to my ancestral heritage. Would a Indian-American be from India. I also don't get the poor primitive thing?

vicaptain,
Your talking turf not heritage.

I think in terms of resident, snowbird (part-time resident) or tourist. I do realize that under the resident category are several different categories.

Having read many of the comments, I feel this board hides racism behind a thin veil of political correctness that is unwittingly telling. Locals should not be a euphemism for 'dark' as one has put it.

I'm local. I'm not dark. But, I am black. How's that?

Anywho, 'local' and 'native' are two different things. Why would anyone read 'local' and interpret that as meaning, 'black islander'? I interpret it as non-tourist, period. And, have been told the same thing about Hull Bay beach, as to being local. When I go there I never see 'black islanders', just in case that is supposed to be a euphemism for 'native'. :/

Also, is 'black islander' supposed to be the opposite of the French descendants? Note: the French descendants did not come until much later. This is all very interesting, because every island in the Caribbean has black natives either by race or by color. Everyone else is either a local or a tourist - it just depends on how long you are staying.

My $.02.

I agree that "locals" are non-tourists, but "natives" is more confusing.

Just as Native Americans are American Indian, I think Native Virgin Islanders are of Arawak/Taino descent. Next on the scale of nativeness would be descendants of whites who imported black slaves; whites had to be here before blacks in order to determine that it would be useful to import slaves, so blacks can not be more native than whites who are related to VI slave owners. Next would be descendants of VI slaves. Then people born in the USVI who do not qualify under one of the previous groupings. And then decisions have to be made: should people born here and still living here, but not descended from slave owners or slaves, rank higher or lower than descendants of slaves/slave owners who were born here but have left the territory?

This sort of scale of nativeness serves no other purpose than to divide people, and it seems foolhardy to think that such divisions will benefit anyone. All locals lose when this sort of labeling is permitted, because the labels end up lobbed as weapons, making it impossible to have any meaningful political conversation.

I agree that everyone is either a local or a tourist, and would very much like to see political discussion limited to that differentiation.

I agree, for most purposes "I live here" or "I'm on vacation" is all that is necessary.

Anywho, 'local' and 'native' are two different things. Why would anyone read 'local' and interpret that as meaning, 'black islander'? I interpret it as non-tourist, period. And, have been told the same thing about Hull Bay beach, as to being local. When I go there I never see 'black islanders', just in case that is supposed to be a euphemism for 'native'. :/

That was my initial question, though - to which I still got no clear answer. So, if I read correctly what you are saying, then , say, if I go back down to Caret bay, and a few guys (perhaps authors of that sign) see me, even though I am originally from a European country (so I am not even a US "native" per-se 🙂 ), I can tell them that "I live here" (which I do), may be show a drivers license - and thereby I am in no danger of being "r..ed"?

Honestly, I would very much like to believe that because it would be a pretty sad and scary life otherwise. But at the same time a skeptic in me keeps saying there must be more to it. Please note that it is not about "what I think of other people" . It is about: is it safe for me (real person) to visit that place based on the information on that sign vs. what people here know.

or just visiting

Having read many of the comments, I feel this board hides racism behind a thin veil of political correctness that is unwittingly telling. Locals should not be a euphemism for 'dark' as one has put it.

I'm local. I'm not dark. But, I am black. How's that?

Anywho, 'local' and 'native' are two different things. Why would anyone read 'local' and interpret that as meaning, 'black islander'? I interpret it as non-tourist, period. And, have been told the same thing about Hull Bay beach, as to being local. When I go there I never see 'black islanders', just in case that is supposed to be a euphemism for 'native'. :/

Also, is 'black islander' supposed to be the opposite of the French descendants? Note: the French descendants did not come until much later. This is all very interesting, because every island in the Caribbean has black natives either by race or by color. Everyone else is either a local or a tourist - it just depends on how long you are staying.

My $.02.

How can anyone named "LoisLane" be against euphemisms for describing people? 😉
And I'm also chuckling that someone who identifies themself as "black" chose the name Lois Lane, who was perhaps only a little less white than Donna Reed.

This is a complicated subject, so here are just a few of my thoughts....

I've never liked the term "black" because it seemed to play into a segregationist's view of race.... lump many shades into one, as in, "if you're not white you are black."

We were talking about this the other day with friends... whether "statesider" was a euphemism for "white", when we all knew "black" people here who had come from the states.

I pointed out that I do not like the term "continental" -which some people substitute for "statesider"... because "continental" makes me think of The French, or Christopher Walken in that "The Continental" SNL skit. I have never owned a smoking jacket.

As a person of European descent, I tend to use the term "local" to describe those who have grown up here on STX and 95% of the time, that means a person of color. But I've lived in a number of different places, and used the term "local" in each of those places. Locals do tend to have a different attitude, and here, they also have a different culture and manner of speaking, --so it is often a good short-hand term in conversation. Whereas "black" is too broad a term to describe all locals, because many locals are not "black" but hispanic.

I have no problem with being politically correct if it means paying people the courtesy of calling them by their preferred designation. But the hard part is knowing what people prefer to be called! It changes depending on the times, and depending on who you are speaking to, and whether or not you are friends with that person.

I have no problem with being politically correct if it means paying people the courtesy of calling them by their preferred designation. But the hard part is knowing what people prefer to be called! It changes depending on the times, and depending on who you are speaking to, and whether or not you are friends with that person.

Couldn't agree with you more, Neil.

I agree too. Well said, Neil.

Just what I am aware of.
I work with all locals. After asking them,this question, What do you prefer to be called. They all say, dark. When I asked if they identified as balck they said yes that Black is the name of all the people in their race. They generally describe people as white, light or dark or even black if a person is very dark.
A lot of these people are from down island

My 6 year old son refers to people as lite, tan or brown. He only uses the term white for extremely white skin. If you ask him if someone is black he will say no that they are tan or brown. He does not understand the use of white or black to describe race. To him there is no race other than human. He will tell you what color someone is only to describe them.

My father is Cherokee, so I can address the "American Indian" thing. It is ALWAYS more polite to use the name of the nation (not tribe--that's another "look at the poor primitive" term that most of us find extremely annoying) than to use a generic term.

I'm not following. Are you saying it is better to say American-Indian than Cherokee Indian? What is a "generic term"?

http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/3621/?Things_NEVER_to_Say_to_American_Indian_Coworkers

After I posted, I googled the question and found the above. Interesting.

I prefer to be simply called Cherokee. Maybe that's just me, but I doubt a German or Italian person would say "German European" or "Italian European" rather than simply the name of the nation.

Just what I am aware of.
I work with all locals. After asking them,this question, What do you prefer to be called. They all say, dark. When I asked if they identified as balck they said yes that Black is the name of all the people in their race. They generally describe people as white, light or dark or even black if a person is very dark.
A lot of these people are from down island

So, dark is acceptable, right?

So, why all the hoopla over me describing a certain group as dark??

And it does get confusing as to how to refer to different people.
And in conversation, I think the content is more important than being politically correct(I really don`t think you could make ALL happy).

So, again, all this is splitting hairs.
The best way i could agree, would be to take Neil, Dwt, & Trades comments above, but it still would be confusing.

While some would call me white, I`m actually quite tan, others would call me olive.

My statement that we are too subservient to others feelings seems to hold true as we are still discussing it...
Happy Turkey day all!

I do think we should refer to individuals in the way they prefer. For example if a married woman wants to be referred to as MRS. Jones, that's what I call her. But if she wants, MS. Smith, her maiden name, well that's ok with me too.

So those of you who know me can refer to me as an old, white, local! lol.

My father is Cherokee, so I can address the "American Indian" thing. It is ALWAYS more polite to use the name of the nation (not tribe--that's another "look at the poor primitive" term that most of us find extremely annoying) than to use a generic term.

I'm not following. Are you saying it is better to say American-Indian than Cherokee Indian? What is a "generic term"?

http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/3621/?Things_NEVER_to_Say_to_American_Indian_Coworkers

After I posted, I googled the question and found the above. Interesting.

I prefer to be simply called Cherokee. Maybe that's just me, but I doubt a German or Italian person would say "German European" or "Italian European" rather than simply the name of the nation.

Stephyjh,
European denotes Geography (Turf) You are not a citizen of Europe, so German or Italian is the correct term. A German-American and Italian -American denotes ancestral Heritage and Citizenship in the USA. We do not say German -North American or Italian North American. North America denotes Geography. I would say that Cherokee-American would be more correct than Cherokee Indian-American. Blame Chris Columbus for the confusion.

To answer the original question, as exit zero said, the locals referred to in the sign are local surfers. It has absolutely nothing to do with race or nationality . It is a turf thing. The local surfers, which are a pretty tight bunch, don't want anybody surfing "their" spot. Its just the same as spots in California. There are "locals" that feel they "own" a particular spot and they don't want tourists or anyone else at their spot.

I asked around yesterday while at a few Thanksgiving gatherings and it was a consensus on the 'local surfers ' as the sign makers.