Have you ever heard of a “Native American Indian” dog? If you haven’t, you are not alone. This breed of dog (which is not recognized by the AKC) is said to be part wolf, yet some say they make great house pets. I would assume this is similar to having a farrell cat, no? Anyway, you can read an article about what recently happened when a family’s house pet behaved like the animal it is, but almost killed the family’s newborn in the process here. Why would the parents think it wise to keep a dog like that (or any dog for that matter) in their home with their brand new baby?! I love animals just as much (or more) than the next person, but I would never let my pet get anywhere near my infant! It’s sort of a matter of principal…it just doesn’t sound like a good idea!
What’s more is due to the name of this (unrecognized) breed, many are offended. Here is another article which describes the offensive nature of the name. It does seem a bit problematic that a dog is named after a group of people. But, is it the use of the terms “Native American” or “Indian” to describe the breed that is offensive? Or, is the problem that the dog is part wolf and therefore potentially dangerous that makes the name offensive? Personally, the reason why the name doesn’t sit well with me is because it makes it seem like the dog is half human-half animal. (That’s what I thought when I first read the headline at least!) Whether you find it offensive or not, the name will most likely stay. The majority of Americans seem to think naming sports mascots after a living, breathing people is okay, so why isn’t naming a dog that is part beast (okay, not “beast” but wolf) okay? Right. Well, I’m an equal opportunist…So, where are the Jewish Israeli American dogs, Latino Mexican Hispanic Chicano American dogs, Black African American dogs, Chinese Thai Japanese Korean Asian American dogs, and the White European American dogs? Okay, I admit…that was a little silly…but really, why call a wolf-dog a “Native American Indian?” It just sounds ridiculous!