Talk:American Indian Movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
|
|
|
This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
I'm curious about Pine Ridge. It states here that it included the "alleged taking of 11 hostages". How do you only allegedly take hostages? I suppose it was never proven in court that they had? I know nothing right now, except what is written here. Perhaps an expansion of the article is in order.... --Habap 19:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Some thing I'm confused about
There seems to be some factional squabbling within AIM, and I beleive that another organiztion - not the Grand Governing Council, but Union of Internal Chapters of something - split off, with Ward Churchill in a prominent role in the new group. I think it goes down ideological lines, with the GGC faction more oriented to Indian spiritual traditions, and the new group more of a Marxist National Liberation slant. This confuses me still more when I read Churchills article in the "Encyclopedia of the American India" denoucing "National Liberationism" and the AIMs support of the Sandinistas. Could some one explain the origins of these sectarian divides within AIM?--70.112.236.174 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changing the terms used to identify Indigenous or "Native" or "Indian" people
Being "Native" simply means that one was born within a certain region or country. Being "Indian" can be confused with actual Indian people living, or hailing from, India. I have reworded the parts of the article that use this terminology. -- VinnyCee 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The widely accepted terms are "Native American" and "American Indian." Deciding that people should use the term "Indigenous American" doesn't mean that they do, and doesn't make proper the introduction of a term that isn't generally known. Dcandeto 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
There is in reality only one American Indian Movement. The group remains with much of its original founders and leadership (Clyde Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, Mary Jane Wilson, Patricia Bellanger etc).
There is agroup of individuals, most of whom had little association with AIM, that have taken since 1993 to calling themselves the "Autonomous AIM". Again most of this group has no historical tie or community tie to AIM.
Ward Churchill utilized a divergence of opinion of how to address the collateral killing of innocent Miskito-Sumo and Rama people and some Miskito Sumo and Rama working with the Contra's by the Sandanista's fighting the Contra's. William A. Means of AIM/IITC and Vernon Bellecourt of AIM had worked out a dialouge with the Sandanista's to address the concern which did not suit former AIM leader (he resigned six times since 1974)Russell Means. Means was enranged at slights-real and perceived, the Sandanista's had given to the Miskito Sumo and Rama and wanted more. Ward Churchill inflammed this dispute and coordinated a meeting with Elliot Abrams, Russell Means and the pro-Contra MISURASATA under the name of AIM which lead to a public war of words.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolakota (talk • contribs).
[edit] Need to be careful
Somebody edited the 6/26/1975 events and thoroughly confused what happened. (I added the date, because the article really needs better chronology). You need to check published sources before editing, because it's a really complex story. Aquash was not killed in the 6/26 Jumping Bull shootout: Stunz, Coler and Williams were. If you haven't got Matthiessen's book - it's a very well-documented account - try the Peltier site, http://www.freepeltier.org.
As I noted in the article today, Peltier's release has been advocated by dozens of well-known people and org's throughout the world.
Twang 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Objectivity
The phrase
"The autonomous chapters within AIM, while also spiritually guided by indigenous ceremonialism, tend more toward third world national liberation strategies and indigenous nationalism, as recently embodied in the movement of the Zapatistas in Mexico, and in the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia."
Needs a reference. And is contradictory. If the autonomous chapters have no centralized policy, how can they all speak with one voice? Further how is defined that they tend "more" towards third world national liberation strategies and indigenous nationalism. Many AIM leaders including Jimbo Simmons and them were down in Chiapas, while it may be that autonomous AIM groups are very supportive of those struggles, how can it be quanitified that they are tending "more" to them than those who follow the national AIM office? Wolakota
