Talk:Native Americans in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details |
|||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Native Americans in the United States as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
 |
Native Americans in the United States has been a U.S. Collaboration of the Week on the two weeks starting from June 5, 2006. Please feel free to help contribute to the article in any way possible. |
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
To-do list for Native Americans in the United States: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
*Featured Article Candidacy information - remove as corrected :)
|
||
[edit] A new beginning
Thanks to all who have helped in the efforts thus far to resolve the ambiguity issues. I have made a start to re-edit this page so that it reflects its new scope, Native Americans in the United States. There is more to be done, however!--cjllw | TALK 08:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Scope
I'm a bit confused about the scope of this article. It begins by saying, "Native Americans in the United States ... are those indigenous peoples within the territory which is now encompassed by the continental United States, and their descendants in modern times." Now, it seems to me that the terms "Native Americans" and "American Indians" have slightly different meanings: "Native American", unless I'm mistaken, usually includes Inuits, Yupik Eskimos, and Aleuts, whereas these people are usually excluded from "American Indians". Therefore, I don't think the article should state that they are not "Native Americans in the United States" (although it's fine to say later on that we don't plan to discuss them in any detail here and that one should refer to Alaska Native or the various specific articles). Moreover, the definition given above doesn't apply precisely to "American Indians in the United States", either, because there are some people living in Alaska (primarily in the panhandle) who are not Inuits, Yupik Eskimos, Aleuts, or any other kind of Eskimo-Aleut people, and are, therefore, American Indians: Alaska Natives lists Eyak, Athabascan, Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian as indigenous Alaskan Indian tribes. I'll modify the article accordingly, but I wanted to mention it here first in case there is to be discussion. - Nat Krause 09:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- The article is in transition from Native Americans (which had a lot of material which was redundant with Indigenous peoples of the Americas and other sources) to a U.S.-specific article. See the discussion at Talk:Native Americans. -Harmil 12:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, one more thing: generally Alaskan and Pacific Island natives are not refered to as "Native Americans" or "American Indians". This is for several reasons, but among them is the idea that these peoples were not traditionally associated with North America at all. Alaska was Russian for a very long time, and Hawaii and the U.S. territories/protectorates in the South Pacific are South Seas Islands, not even geographically associated with North America the way Alaska is. For more detail, see Native American name controversy, which dives a bit deeper into those topics. -Harmil 12:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, I find it quite odd that "Native Americans" supposedly does not include Alaska Natives, although it appears that Britannica agrees with you, at least as far as Eskimos and Aleuts are concerned. I find it odd because it seems like a completely arbitrary distinction that was introduced at some point in the distant past between "Indian" and "Eskimo" (eskimos are, of course, quite distinct from their neighbors, but one can say the same of many other native groups). Since "Native Americans" is a neologism, you would expect it to make more sense. In any event, Britannica does not agree that the non-Eskimo/Aleut peoples of Alaska are excluded from "Native Americans"; and the Eyak, Athabascans, Tlingit, etc. are certainly so-called Indians. So, I think it is very likely incorrect to claim that they are not Native Americans. - Nat Krause 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Since there hasn't been any further discussion on this, I've attempted to clarify the scope described in the intro. I also corrected this sentence, "This includes groups such as the Alaska Natives commonly known as the Eskimo (i.e., the Inuit, Yupik, Aleut, etc.)". This was wrong on two levels: 1) not all Alaska Natives are Inuit, Yupik, or Aleut; and 2) Aleuts are not usually considered to be Eskimoes. I don't know why, but people usually refer to "Eskimoes and Aleuts" as distinct. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Vandalism watch
Today, the featured article's very first link goes to this page, so if you have a moment to look at the article history and see if there's been any vandalism recently, that would be greatly appreciated. -Harmil 12:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Parring down redundant content
There is a lot of duplication here, both as a result of separating out the regional articles which are now referrenced by Native Americans and because of the duplication that was already present before that split. I've been reading some of the other articles referenced here, and trying to make sure that any duplication is as a direct result of the need for context in this article. My first pass effort in the history section should give you a sense of what I'm trying to accomplish.
Please, feel free to bring any concerns to me, or to contribute. It's slow going because I have to read the primary source articles first, and then determine how to procede. Hopefully, this will result in a cleaner, shorter article that helps readers by directing them more quickly to the specialized articles that they might be interested in, while providing complete coverage of the U.S.-related history and culture here. -Harmil 15:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Call for Peer Review
I submitted Economics of the Iroquois for peer review. Please take a look over it and make suggestions.--Bkwillwm 20:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Confirmation
I can confirm an assertion in the following paragraph that begins"In the state of Virginia, Native Americans face a unique problem.... " I can confirm that Native Americans in Virginia have at least some Black heritage. My family is decended from the first black people who were brough to jamestown virginian in the 1620's. One of them took a local Native woman for a wife and the rest is history. Though my family has since about 1830 moved west and mingled with the Natives there we remember this. The sad thing is that being mixed with black would bee seen as a bad thing my some. --Hfarmer 00:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] To PC or not to PC
Pretty heavy on the political correctness, or am I the only one who thinks so? JoachimK 03:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Descent from "Indian braves" is rarely claimed, in line with the racial prejudice that led to the fears of black men involved with white women." PC or nonsensical. I vote for the latter.
[edit] Preferred name
Am I the only one that thinks it strange that when "American Indian" is by far the most preferred name by those described (as compared to "Native American", etc.), and even the U.S. census (2000) has used the term, we have this title instead? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. Especially considering that the Indians arrived in America across the Bering Strait; they're not "native" either. More native than us marauding Europeans, but not native. I'm considering a WP:RM en masse for everything Native American–related. Does anyone know if that's been tried in the past, and if so, why it didn't work? —BorgHunter (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- The whole issue has been extensively discussed earlier- see Talk:Native Americans for the gory details. Assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, there exist a plurality of views over the preferred nomenclature, each with some valid points and none demonstrating "by far" a more common usage. One or the other term had to be chosen, in the end. The argument that because the ancestors of these peoples "migrated" to the Americas from another continent disallows them to be called "native" is IMO a furphy— the passage of at least 12-14,000 years is surely long enough to be considered native in the context of human (pre-)history. Going by that logic, we should all be considered "native" to Africa and nowhere else given the ultimate origin of modern humans from that continent as per the most widely-accepted view on human origins. Restricting its use in that sense is therefore meaningless. As descendents of the original human inhabitants of the Americas, "native" is a perfectly acceptable designation, and its contemporary and specific use along with such terms as indigenous are quite valid, and what's more attested to by very many references.--cjllw | TALK 07:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Except that it ("American Indian") is not "by far the most preferred name by those described", at least according to a 1995 US Census Bureau survey- see here, just under half the respondents surveyed indicated this preference. Sure there are many individuals and groups who dislike "Native American", but there are also sizable numbers who don't, or would even rather be identified as per specific heritages rather than collective 'pan-American' terms. Both are generally acceptable and noted as such in a few style guides, for eg here and also this sensible account here. There's also the Native American name controversy article which covers some of these points.--cjllw | TALK 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I'll retract the "by far" since 50% to 38% doesn't appear to warrant that. But it's still a decent margin. Sure, the best is to avoid using some umbrella term and highlight the uniqueness of each culture, but unfortunately this is not often possible, as you realize. I've read Native American name controversy before. Now that I've reread it, it strongly indicates to me that it's better to use American Indian instead of Native Americans in the United States. Given the margin of preference and the points made in your referenced Wikipedia article, I'd have to say all this discussion has done is reaffirm that the title Native Americans in the United States is a worse choice than American Indian.
Your point seems to be that "Native American" is well-accepted and not offensive to a good number of American Indians. I agree; I never thought otherwise. But given the problems with it and the particular circumlocution of "Native Americans in the United States", and the margin of preference for American Indian....--Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- Chan-Ho, I actually don't disagree with you that "American Indians" is a suitable term, with several good points to recommend it. If you take a read through the discussion on Talk:Native Americans, you'll see that I and several other participants in the move discussion were not really that fussed about which of "Native American" or "American Indian" appeared in the title. Some did have a preference for one over the other, but in the end it was established that there were no grounds to eliminate either as being unworthy for the task. The article itself had been at Native Americans for quite some time (at least since 2002), and American Indians redirected there since at least 2003. The Native Americans article did originally have the scope of covering indigenous peoples from all parts of the Americas, and the bulk of the discussion concerned whether and how to split off the US-specific information from the rest, as an article with this scope was wanting. It also became quite clear during the discussions that when used in isolation, the perceived scope of the terms "Native American" and "American Indian" depended on where you were in the english-speaking world- some sources use these terms to refer only or primarily to peoples in the US, other sources the US and Canada, still others all of the Americas in general. In the end the solution arrived at was to have indigenous peoples of the Americas to cover all such peoples, indigenous peoples in the United States to survey such peoples in all US territories (including 'non-Indian' peoples such as Chamorros, Aleuts, etc), and this article Native Americans in the United States (or "American Indians in the US", if you prefer). It may not be ideal, but given the undeniable ambiguity over the respective terms —and "American Indians" does have its ambiguities and controversies as well— it seemed at least to accomplish the task.
- All this is not to dissuade you from proposing a further name change if you see fit, but rather to advise (or more likely confirm what you already realise) that doing so is not a trivial task. Given the diversity of views on the subject it took several months to arrive at some sort of consensus, and then (importantly) a couple more to fix up the several thousand links after the moves and scope changes were effected. There are between 3500-4000 links to the present page alone, and easily a dozen or more name-variant redirects with more links to them— American Indians, American indian, Amerind, Amerindians, Native American, etc. I for one do not oppose such a move out of hand, but any such proposal would need some forethought, explanation and buy-in.--cjllw | TALK 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that people are in disagreement as to the preferred name by the American Indians themselves. I submit the question: is the involved group's preference the final word? I argue that it shouldn't be. Not only does this allow different races to propose biased names (I imagine many 1930's Germans would think "the master race" had a nice ring to it), but it totally ignores the logical arguments for a name. For example, while I am largely mixed-european descent, I claim to be a Native American, as I was born and raised in North America. Or consider the Native Americans of Guatemala or Mexico; the term Native American is too vague when giving an impression of location. While the term "American Indian" may have origins that were mistaken, the term clearly identifies the subject to the reader with no possible misinterpretation. On these grounds, and as someone mentioned previously, even the American Indians are no more native than Europeans (having immigrated via the Bering Strait), it makes the most etymological sense to use the term American Indian. Jwigton 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is clearly established that Indian by itself would refer to someone from India and American Indian would refer to someone belonging to the Tribes of the Americas. I personally feel a little offened if someone were to call me a Native American and it is only WHITE people that do that. A bit of a correction, It is only WHITE ENGLISH SPEAKERS that do that. I really don't see the need to force another word onto my people and if it is going to be forced then how about some of the words we have your y'all pale faces coming from us being forced onto anglos. I could spend a lot of time at the computer making sure every article mentioned the Indian name for every race. Is Wikipedia only for "the bearded man" (white people)? That would be a very sad state of affairs if that were true. I can see that it is not just for English speakers but maybe it really is just to use terminology that makes Whites happy. Then is Wikipedia RACIST? This would be very alarming and I would have to withdraw my support. If Wikipedia really wants to be the most accurate it can be then I suggest not refering to Indians as Indians or or the newly coined and slightly offensive Native but for Wikipedia to actually take the time to be respectful of the people talked about and find out which tribe that person belonged to and post only that which really would be the most accurate and most respectful. Saying a blanket term like "Native American" makes assumptions in the language that Indians are so small and weak that we should only ever be thought of as an entire group--Billiot 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seems to be
quite politically correct toward whites settlers : "U.S. government authorities entered numerous treaties during this period, but later abrogated many for various reasons". The treaties were not respected by the white-americans, that's all.
[edit] Bering Land Bridge, etc.
Rmhermen and I, along with an unnamed contributor, have been editing the Bering Strait Land Bridge theory, and I realized there are two problems with it. 1. It is redundant within the article and with the related articles at Models of migration to the New World and Indigenous people of the Americas, and 2. Its organization is poor, with unrelated materials juxtaposed. I suggest that everything in that section after the third migration described should be removed. The mitochondrial evidence doesn't belong in this article. The nomadic lifestyle paragraph is redundant with the "settling down" section. The Topper material is relevant, but really addresses a different question- the dating, not the migration route. It should be pared down to a small summary, since the same material is covered in Models of migration to the New World. In place of this material, short summaries of the way of life of Native Americans before they settled down might work. TriNotch 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize we had such an extensive separate article on the subject. I am all for paring this section down. Rmhermen 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, per TriNotch's points, much here is redundant or better suited for other articles which can cover the material in more depth (the similar coverage of Bering land bridge/origins over at Indigenous peoples of the Americas is also overdone). All that needs to be done here is to succinctly describe the prevailing Bering migration model, mention (but not go into) there are some competing but not-established ideas, and give a pointer to the other articles where the pros and cons are covered in detail. I don't think we need to mention Topper, or any of the other suggested pre-Clovis sites (of which there have been hundreds, but only one or two like Monte Verde have survived as serious contenders and the jury is still out on these). The Clovis/pre-Clovis late arrival/early arrival debate belongs elsewhere.--cjllw | TALK 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Don't like the article title
I understand the reasoning behind it, but I wonder if a better title might be found for this article. The current one is a redundancy and opens the door for some smart alec to create an article like Native Americans in Equatorial Guinea or some such thing. 23skidoo 15:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone could find enough material for the article you suggest, but having an article on First Nations in Canada, Native Americans in Mexico or Native Americans in Peru would all seem like perfectly reasonable articles to me, and could follow a similar pattern to this one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The current title is not redundant and is the results of a long discussion to sort this material out. I believe most of the related talk is still at Indigenous people of the Americas. Rmhermen 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's at Talk:Native_Americans#Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas and subsequent sections, if you want to wade through more than a month's worth of discussions. :-) Luigizanasi 05:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- The current title is not redundant and is the results of a long discussion to sort this material out. I believe most of the related talk is still at Indigenous people of the Americas. Rmhermen 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It's not redundant provided that you can take the hint from the fact that it is counterposed with "United States" to realise that "American" here does not mean a person from the U.S. I think I see what 23skidoo means about "opens the door", which is that "in" doesn't establish much of a relationship between the other two arguments in the title. That is, "Native Americans in the United States" could in theory just as well discuss people of Zapotec or Mayan or Pirahã people who immigrate to the United States. That said, I don't think this is a very significant problem, and I don't know of any preferable options. - Nat Krause(Talk!)`
- I don't see any reason that that should be outside the scope of this article. Rmhermen 15:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I remember coming across a chapter in a collected work on Native Americans (in the US) which dealt with the growing Guatemalan Mayan community in southern Florida, and the identity issues (they are classed as Hispanic even though most of them don't speak Spanish at home, but actually a Mayan dialect). Guettarda 16:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well (with the caveat that it doesn't seem pressingly important and I'm not trying to be argumentative), I don't see any reason why they would be within the scope of this article. Indigenous people are indigenous to a particular place, i.e. in this case, the essentially arbitrary land area of the U.S. (or just the lower 48). I have been operating under the assumption that "Native Americans in the United States" is short for "Native Americans who are indigenous to places that are now in the United States", which seems like a sensible subject. Otherwise, by the same logic, we would wind up including on indigenous peoples in the United States any groups of Americans who are indigenous to anywhere: Irish Americans, Saami Americans, Sorb Americans, Assyrian Americans, Zulu Americans, Montagnard Americans, etc. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not redundant provided that you can take the hint from the fact that it is counterposed with "United States" to realise that "American" here does not mean a person from the U.S. I think I see what 23skidoo means about "opens the door", which is that "in" doesn't establish much of a relationship between the other two arguments in the title. That is, "Native Americans in the United States" could in theory just as well discuss people of Zapotec or Mayan or Pirahã people who immigrate to the United States. That said, I don't think this is a very significant problem, and I don't know of any preferable options. - Nat Krause(Talk!)`
- The page title isn't Indigenous peoples, its Native Americans which refers to all the Natives in the Americas, so if they happen to live in the US as well, they would fall within the subject of this page. Rmhermen 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree: I think the literal meaning of the title is slightly at odds with the subject of the article. However, we can debate that question more fully if and when it reflects an editing dispute. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
I'm not sure you understand the perception of many whose ancestors preceded. Mohawk is Mohawk not Canadian Mohawk or American Mohawk. First Nations borders do not necessarily coincide with current geographic divisions. I think that when talk about American Indigenous peoples you need to understand that there are many peoples whose territory crosses current borders. You are describing First Nations in European terms not in our terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.78.191.245 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.
- I'm not sure you understand what the title of the article says. It is not "Native Americans of the United States"; it is "Native Americans in the United states". This means that Mohawk fits here because they are both Native American and in the United States (at least partly). --Kmsiever 18:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] missing article
Wapasha has been a requested article for more than a year. I've found a web page with some source material, http://www.dlncoalition.org/dln_nation/chief_wapasha1.htm. I suspect someone watching this page might be able to make a better start of this article than me, but if no one does I'll do the best I can (in, say, a week). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I looked him up in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. He does have a biography there under the Wahpasha] spelling. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography is a pretty good and authoritative resource for the biographies of many First Nations/Native Americans. You might also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Luigizanasi 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early relations
This section used to be a misnamed, imho, because it did not tell anything about the White-Native relations before the Revolutionary Wars. I renamed this topic and, not having a clue about this issue, placed a stub entry into the now empty "early relations" section. Please complete this.
- I've added some stuff but it still needs work, I don't know anything about the relations with the tribes around St. Augustine, for instance. Also, what is the source for this:
-
- In 1620, a group of Puritans, who were heading for Virginia, got blown off-course and landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, instead. In the autumn of 1621, they celebrated a three-day thanksgiving feast with the native Wampanoag people, without whom they would not have survived the winter of 1620.
- namely the blown off course part? I'm not familiar with that. It might be right, I just don't know. Also, this needs to be expanded because if memory serves me right, things didn't continue all rosy like this paragraph intones. Anyone have more expertise here? plange 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] from thewolfstar
23skidoo said he didn't like the article title and I agree. I don't like it because it's insulting to the native people, and it doesn't make any sense. The abroginal people were here before the Europeans got here and eventually called it America. They were here before Amerigo Vespucci got here, the one the United States was named for. So native Americans is an impossibility. One other possibility is Indigenous Peoples which is stated as an alterenative name right at the beginning of the article. Thanks. Maggiethewolfstar 07:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not really sure just which bit you are objecting to- "Americans"..? There's quite a discussion history behind the current article name, see talk:Native Americans.--cjllw | TALK 08:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] alternate names
I think the list of alternate names at the beginning is a bit on the long side. As far as I am aware, the only terms for these peoples that are in common usage are "Indian", "Native American", and "indigenous", as well as variations thereof. "Aboriginal Americans" gets 24,000 google hits, which doesn't seem like very many in this context. I think that "first Americans" and "original Americans" are more commonly used to refer to hypothetical peoples that might have lived in the New World before the ancestors of those that were here in 1491. I'm going to do a bit of chopping, although I'll leave in aboriginal for the moment in deference to Canadian usage. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- It looks much better now, IMO. Sunray 03:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beauty
This page so far is a beautiful thing to see. Congratulations to everyone who's put so much work into it! I hear that sound here.
As for the title, does it matter so much? How deep is the surface? Whatever brings people here is okay.
Twang 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello there!
You know what really pisses me off?
I happen to be Native American myself, and I almost go mad over the fact that all the blacks and whites alike call us Indians, despite the fact that we are not from India. Why won't say our name properly?
(Sigh). Even in schools, as the teachers shovel crap into the heads of little children, even THEY call us Indians. GOD DAMMIT. At least, I will always keep the heart of the Pocassets within my soul... SilentWind 19:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind
[edit] United States article on featured candidate nominations list
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States
Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title or text is misleading
Intro says that Native Americans in the United States includes natives in Canada. I think either the title or the text needs changing. As it stands it is too non-descriptive, too counter-intutitive, too misleading, too US-centric, and too plainly "bonkers". --JimWae 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Is the intent to include ALL tribes within Canada, even if they are only in Canada? --JimWae 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly the definition in this article was incorrect. I've amended it. Sunray 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name?
I know this may be contentious, but with a quick glance through the article the term "Native American" doesn not seem to be used with consistancy (e.g. Amerindians being used in one of the early sections). I'm not talking about the lead, which most definately needs to touch on the many names this diverse group of people had been given and taken on, but the rest of the article. Since the title of the article contains "Native Americans," I suggest that term be used throughout, after the lead, of course. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 03:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Edit at will. Sunray 17:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early history dissection
[edit] What does everyone think of
- It is worth noting that many Aboriginal peoples or "Indians" of North and South America reject theories about their "arrival" in the western hemisphere. They maintain instead that they have always lived here (at least for ten thousand years). All scientific evidence points to the ancient origin of Native Americans compared to other immigrants. Any theory that holds otherwise is likely to be perceived by most Aboriginal peoples as irrelevant
Sounds like both scientific and Native Americans agree, so why do we state the first sentence? Especially given the qualifier in parentheses and then the last sentence. --plange 22:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Many Native Americans believe that their god created them out of the local earth, etc. They reject any story of immigration. There is no agreement. Rmhermen 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- so then should we reword it to make that clearer? plange 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Theory of the original intent of that phrasing: perhaps some believe they were created from the local earth ~ten thousand years ago? --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- so then should we reword it to make that clearer? plange 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Settling Down
- Eventually, in the last eleven hundred years, the Mexican crops of corn and beans were adapted to the shorter summers of eastern North America and replaced the indigenous crops.
Should we change this to:
- Eventually, since 900 AD, the....
so that the phrase "last eleven hundred years" isn't tied to our present time? Was going to change it, but don't know source, so source could have been 1980 and so it would then be 880 AD. plange 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is intentionally vague. Either version should be fine. Rmhermen 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Also....
- While exhibiting widely divergent social, cultural, and artistic expressions, all Native American groups worked with materials available to them and employed social arrangements that augmented their means of subsistence and survival.
don't we all work with materials available to us? Even things we invent are made of material available to us. Should it be rephrased as "existing materials"? But I'm not up on whether they forged metal, etc... Thoughts? plange 23:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- In the U.S., I don't believe they forged or refined metals - they used "native" nuggets of gold, copper and silver. However extensive trade networks existed, bringing exotic materials in that did not exist in the local area. The second half of the sentence is even worse - unless it is expanded on further in the text. Rmhermen 01:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Am wondering if we should just cut this out completely. It seems self-evident, esp. last part, as you say. plange 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates for Eras
What do we want to establish? I know both BC and BCE are acceptable but shouldn't be both used in same article (which this does), so which should we stick with? plange 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Put me down for "I don't care." Is there more of one than the other? --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 02:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- appears to be evenly split plange 02:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Use BCE throughout (and CE where necessary) as this article is/should not be based on European cultural ideas. Thanks Hmains 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] European Colonization dissection
[edit] Relations during and after the American Revolutionary war
- Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, hoping to use the war to halt further colonial expansion onto Native American land
I thought this might be expanded a little to include the fact that these tensions were attributable in part because some colonies had demarcated a line that colonists were not supposed to cross when making settlements, which they violated. In fact, some analysts have said this was one of the grievances of the colonists with the English crown, because England was stopping them from expanding. I remember Virginia was one, but am going from memory so didn't want to include. Anyone have this handy? Thoughts?plange 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, the line was a British imposition on all the colonies. See Proclamation of 1763. Rmhermen 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for jogging my memory on that! So should we include that? plange 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal and reservations
- Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership
Was wondering if we should mention the most notable leader of the Treaty Party, Major Ridge, and his reasons for signing it? (he'd fought against removal but after exhausting all legal means (since Jackson even ignored the law on this), he thought it was in the Cherokee's best interest. Thoughts? Chief John Ross isn't exactly the hero he's painted to be. See John Ehle's book "Trail of Tears" plange 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current status
- In order to receive federal recognition and the benefits it confers, tribes must prove their continuous existence since 1900. The federal government has so far refused to bend on this bureaucratic requirement. [18] A bill currently before U.S. Congress to ease this requirement has been favorably reported out of a key Senate committee, being supported by both of Virginia's senators, George Allen and John Warner, but faces opposition in the House from Representative Virgil Goode, who has expressed concerns that federal recognition could open the door to gambling in the state. [19].
I was confused when first reading this because I didn't realize it was still talking about the Virginia tribes. Also, looks like footnote 18 goes with the preceding graph? Also, need to change language of saying "currently" -- following footnote it looks like 2006 so it is currently, but won't be next year. Does anyone have an update on this bill or even what the number is? plange 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2003 which doesn't appear to have ever been voted on. [1]. Rmhermen 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blood Quanta dissection
some of this stuff is coevered in current status, so it seems like it's out of place. should it be merged? or maybe made a subhead of Current Status and merged with the relevant info? Thoughts?
- This "safe" descent from Native Americans was seen as fashionable not only among whites claiming prestigious colonial descent but also among whites seeking to claim connection to groups with distinct folkways that would differentiate them from the mass culture
might be good to clarify when it was fashionable as it wasn't always. Tracing ancestry for whites that have Native American blood is difficult for this very reason, because "back then" it wasn't fashionable. plange 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- It has been fashionable to claim Cherokee or Pocahontas descent since at least the late 1800s. Some mulattoes also claimed Indian descent instead of black when it was advantageous. Rmhermen 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- how about this then:
- This "safe" descent from Native Americans has been seen as fashionable since the 1800s, not only among whites claiming prestigious colonial descent but also among whites seeking to claim connection to groups with distinct folkways that would differentiate them from the mass culture
- this clarifies time range of when it was fashionable, since contemporaneous to Pocahontas, it wasn't, hence why it's hard to trace. plange 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- how about this then:
[edit] Cultural Aspects dissection
I agree with the to-do list, this is a hodge-podge and jumps from present-day to past. Recapping to-do points from list so we can discuss (plange 02:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)):
- In the "Cultural aspects" section, the scope of coverage is almost wildly inconsistent from subsection to subsection.
- In "Society", three groups are mentioned, Iroquois, Navajo and Pueblo. Are these three groups representative of "Native Americans"? And the various descriptions of arts and crafts, tribal stories, and relationships with the spirit world is kind of random and hardly seems to describe "society", then or now.
- "Religion", entirely ignores the past and only says something about the "most widespread religion at the present time".
- "Gender roles" hardly says anything--"social and clan relationships were matrilinear and matriarchal" with no elaboration--and ends after all of two sentences with: "The cradle board was used by mothers to carry their baby whilst working or traveling"?
- "Music and art" is jumps about from contemporary popular music (Shania Twain?!), to pow-wows, to Johnny Cash as fake Indian? Finally,
- "Economy" is a mash-up of references to dugouts, agriculture, tobacco, firearms and alcoholic beverages. This all seems very hastily written, doesn't summarize anything, and is in parts quite bizarre: Shania Twain? Johnny Cash?
-
- should we take out reference to the Inuit also, since this article states in opening graph:
- Some of these other indigenous peoples in the United States, including the Inuit, Yupik Eskimoes, and Aleuts, are not usually counted as Native Americans--plange 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- should we take out reference to the Inuit also, since this article states in opening graph:
[edit] Terminology differences dissection
- When Christopher Columbus arrived in the "New World", he described the people he encountered as Indians because he mistakenly believed that he had reached India, the original destination of his voyage. Despite Columbus's mistake, the name Indian (or American Indian) stuck, and for centuries the native people of the Americas were collectively called Indians in America, and similar terms in Europe.
do we have a source for this? I know this is popular mythology, but I remember reading somewhere, will have to dig up, that he noted in a diary that the natives lived "in dios" as in "close to God" in their way of living. plange 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- There probably should be a source. But the "in dios" version appears to be some sort of folk etymology. See Talk:Native American/Archive01#What is the best name for this group of people? and Talk:Native American/Archive02#Origin of the term "Indians". older ≠ wiser 02:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article Organization
per to-do list if we didn't have the current categories to work with, what would be everyone's ideal organization? Maybe working with what we have might be hampering us? Since it's probably bad form to ask this without making a suggestion myself, I'll start the ball rolling:
1 Early history
1.1 Bering Strait Land Bridge theory
1.2 Pre-Columbian ("settling down" seemed weird to me)
1.2.1 History
1.2.2 Culture
2 European colonization
2.1 Initial impacts
2.2 Early relations
2.3 Relations during and after the American Revolutionary war
2.4 Removal and reservations
3 Native American's Today
3.1 Legal status
3.2 Cultural aspects
3.2.1 Society
3.2.2 Religion
3.2.3 Gender roles
3.2.4 Music and art
3.2.5 Economy
4 Terminology differences
4.1 Common usage in the U.S.
and of course the notes, refs etc..... not sure where to pit the Indian Princess stuff -plange 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Minor stuff:
- Is Bering Strait Land Bridge Theory a proper noun? That is, should it all be capitalized?
- I would make 3 Native Americans in the twenty-first century or some such to avoid abiguity.
- --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 04:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is a good basic framework. I would change "2.4" to something like "Removal, reservations, and resistance" because many N.A. groups put up quite a fight, and this is an important part of their story. I would add "2.5 Changing relations and the American Indian Movement" to cover 20th-century history. For "3," I would use "Native Americans in the 21st century". Finally, I would add "5 Native American peoples", which could just be a list of links to articles on the various nations. Marco polo 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] place names
'List of places in the Americas named after Native American tribes or peoples' is listed in the article as a Link, but no such article of this name exists. Does such an article exist under some other name? Should such an article exist? Thanks Hmains 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I looked and couldn't find anything like it. Rmhermen 22:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] article organization
I think that 'Native American history' (under some name) should be placed in a separate article, with a Main reference from this article. Not only is there much to write about, but the history article can then be properly used in the 'History of the United States' article and series, where the current article is NOW included (with culture info that is not inclouded in any of the other history articles therein) Thanks Hmains 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Did Columbia really think he had reached India?
The article repeats the common belief that Columbus mistakenly thought he was in what we now call "India" when he reached the Caribbean. This seems a bit anachronistic, since India as we know it today did not exist as a politucal or cultural entity. Moreover, the term "Indies" was applied to any tropical non-European place at the time. Even today, there is a country called "Indonesia" which is quite far from India, whose name means "Indian Archipelago." The Indies was, and still is, a much bigger place than just the Indian Subcontinent.
Also, Columbus had a very good idea of how big the Earth was and what shape it was, as well as a reasonably good idea of how far he had gone: good enough so he would know that the South Asian mainland was still many thousands of kilometres west of where he landed.
User: TimothyHorrigan Timothy Horrigan 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, please read the Christopher Columbus article for what he thought. Rmhermen 22:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Important religious movement needs mention
It seems to me that the Ghost Dance should be mentioned in the religious section of this article, having been a short-lived but important movement.
[edit] Last week of collaboration
This is my first collaboration, so wasn't sure how this works? This is our last week and there's several unresolved topics on the Talk page, so was going to see if anyone had any input.... thanks! plange 19:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Indigenous peoples of the Americas
Simple browsing leads me to believe that this article should be merged with Indigenous peoples of the Americas--Dustin Asby 00:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, no. That article is about all Indigenous peoples in all of the Americas; this one is about Native Americans, only, and only in the USA. Rmhermen 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
But the search term 'American Indian' should lead to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, not this article. 165.146.165.195 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discrimination and prejudice
Shouldnt there be a section about that? Luka Jačov 21:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe, but be aware of stereotypes. The two predominant early stereotypes of American Indians — the noble savage and the "bloodythirsty savage" (or "ignoble savage") — were replaced in the 20th century with the stereotype of the "noble victim". Well-meaning writers often unwittingly put American Indians into this category, which is as artificial as the previous ones. To be sure, American Indians were victims of discrimination and prejudice, and that should be thoroughly covered in their history, but to create a special section on this potentially portrays them as perpetual victims in a way that articles on other ethnic groups do not. Wikipedia — and this article — is full of this sort of depiction. Writing about American Indians simply as people rather than perennial victims is a challenge many writers never meet, but it should be a goal. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The greatest Genicide in the World History
It is not even arguable to say the opposite. The mass destruction of the Native Americans has been underestimated. I use the therm Genocide because of the number of people died during the invasion of Americas. You cannot see the big thing or what?(cantikadam 12:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
- Perhaps "The greatest die-off" since it was disease that caused most of the deaths. Haiduc 13:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, do you think so? Well, to tell the truth your comment ,which is rather raw, is simply a hinder one compared to the systematic massacre of A.Indians everyone knows the fact.(cantikadam 12:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
- Actually not everyone knows the "fact" you claim. In fact many disagree with you and we have an entire article on the subject: Population history of American indigenous peoples. Rmhermen 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "American Indian princesses"
Regardless of internal motive, most African Americans CAN truly claim minor to substantial Native American descent (and European, for that matter). Its ridiculous to suggest that if they claim such descent, then they necessarily do so in order to diminish their "blackness" (whatever THAT means). Very few people are "racially pure," and African Americans are no exception. The term "African American" does not suggest "pure" African heritage, but it is a convenient cultural term that historically includes anyone of known African descent born in the United States who identifies himself as part of this group. Kemet 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- In recent years, the debate of racial categorization as unscientific and only a social construct (for egocentric/political, other than righteous and compensative reasons) has included the murky claims of American Indian ancestry. For African Americans holding any Native American descent, the issue of racial self-titles and cultural integrity gets more complicated. And the so-called "black" ancestry of some White Americans, if its discovered is replaced with "Native American" to make themselves look more acceptable in a racial conscious society is dubious. For a black American to suggest they are only half-Indians was to improve their social status, but is it necessary in today's world, where racial discrimination is outlawed yet remains practiced? You don't hear whites say "I'm part-black" very much, but they prefer to say "part-Indian" or nowadays, "part Japanese" or "part Spanish", same goes to more African Americans tried to catch in the multi-cultural trend of racial mixed ancestry, esp. the popular choice to go for "part-Indian". Is it always a white Americans' claim of Native American descent is truthful..or they hide something else on lineage from a black/African slave intercegenated with their white/Caucasian masters a long time ago? +207.200.116.69 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oncamera removed my new edit...the song is inspired by Cher (Cherilyn Sarkisian)'s experiences and tales of her Cherokee grandmother (I never found out the blood quantum, but we know her father is Armenian from India who came to Imperial Valley, US near the Mexican border, and her own mother is American of Irish/French/American Indian descent). Her 1973 hit Half-breed (a deragatory term, just like "mulatto" is, but not the same as "Amerasian"-a child born to an American servicemen and Asian woman, or "mischelinge"- the 1930's Nazi term for gentiles of any Jewish ancestry.) and the lyrics aren't "inappropriate", though many people may dislike the song's language and controversial nature on how people of mixed-race ancestry struggled the way they are social outcasts. The story carries a moral lesson for anyone who cares to listen: People who are mixed-race, either of white, Amerindian, African, etc. parentage mistreated by a bigoted white society around them, and had difficult issues on connections with their family roots, as the "half-breed" woman's Cherokee tribe won't accept her as their own. The song foretells the painful events of this woman's life caused by racism and discrimination, and please read Cher's article of her Cherokee ancestry but I understood she's not an official member of the Cherokee Nation. 63.3.14.1 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History?
I was looking for history of the Native American peoples, less than their history with white men. Is this somewhere else on wikipedia, or simply overlooked? --Sophistifunk 12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging with First Nations, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Aboriginal Land Claimswithdrawn68.148.165.213 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC) and Indigenous peoples of the Americas
These distinctions are only political, maybe it might be required to make the distinctions in the merged article, but defintely not by separting these & each of these articles. And if there are any articles along these lines please merge them.
It seems to me that the articles were separted [if they were once a single article] because the how First Nations were treated differently in US & in Canada. If that was the reason the article was broken up, then the article title is off. It should be The Treatment Of First Nations In Canada, & The Treatment of First Nations In US.
Also, First Nations Land Claims [it should also be renamed as] is a fundamental part of the history & politcal landscape of the First Nations; it just makes sense that it should merged with the article.withdrawn68.148.165.213 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
68.148.165.213 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- This article should not be merged with any of the other articles. This is a history of Native Americans 'in in the United States' as the article title shows and not something else. Each country and each sub-group within a country deserves its own history article. Thanks Hmains 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm glad you feel that way; me too! Well, I hope that this is a history article, but the title doesn't mean that; I guess this warrants a cut & paste of this article with in to the article The History Of Native Americans In The United States, & then delete.
-
- 68.148.165.213 16:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that we should have a 'pure' history article' That would better fit where this article is currently referenced, such as the pre-European section of the 'History of the United States' article. I suppose questions would arise, however, whether the article should stop when the Europeans arrive or continue up to the present. On the other hand, I have not studied the existing articles on indigenous peoples of America, North America, U.S., Canada, etc. I suppose there should be a separate article on each tribe or similar group (origin, culture, history, etc), all placed in an overall category, and with a single general article on information and trends that are super-tribal. Thanks Hmains 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sounds great; great idea,; could agree with you more!
-
-
- I feel really strongly that we need an article covering at least the prehistory of the United States or perhaps the prehistory of North America. There is next to nothing at U.S. History, and it really isn't covered here. Marco polo 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 68.148.165.213 06:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose the merge. Again, just like either other it has come up. It took us months of discussion over many pages of talk to come up with this system. If anything there need to be further break-outs of text into additional pages but merging is not appropriate for length and overlarge topic reasons. Rmhermen 21:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Once again the tags have been removed, but I'm back again from my hiatus. The information and accuracy of ANY CANNOT! be comprimised because of length; I'm sorry I really don't know how I could explain that.
-
- 68.148.165.213 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding Native Americans, because its obvious, & indigenous peoples of Mexico because of the fact Mexico is just a political division, & the tribes themselves are not divided between U.S. & Mexico. In any case, its consistent with my policy.
68.148.165.213 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- You seems to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Division of articles does not have anything to do with dividing their importance but merely to do with coherent subject matter and length. Please read Wikipedia:Article size and for the history of this set of articles see the various talk pages, especially Talk:Native American/Archive02. Rmhermen 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Your contradicting yourself. These articles do have Coherent subject matter, yet you don't take my side. And now your saying that articles are split up because of article size. Have you looked at the race and intelligence article? Article size does not matter, it's if the title and content correspond with each other.
-
-
-
-
-
- 68.148.165.213 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- There does seem to be some need here for a larger framework on native american populations in north america, if not a merge. In terms of this article, while Native Americans in the United States can be isolated as a topic, the language distribution map shows that the border of the United States poorly corresponds with pre-European population distributions. I suggest, then, that this article focus on issues related to the interaction between native americans and the government of the United States, and thus leave pre-revolutionary war history to a different article (native americans and the 13 colonies, or something similar)
Dialectric 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Angry
Whoever the editor is that continues to make changes to this article, please try to leave out the POV. Your edits show a consistent and deliberate slant. The horrible treatment of the indigenous population is clearly on record. Several of your edits are factually incorrect as well. I am going to revert to the last 'sane' version and perhaps you can keep the POV agenda to yourself. Thanks! Sukiari 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nations
I tend to agree with the idea of having my own national history rather then the history of a foreign countries and their interactions with my nation. I have read the many posts in this talk page, and although most of them are at least trying to expand their knowledge of the Indigenous Nations of this hemisphere, i find it still somewhat biased in the descriptions and overall knowledge of us, perhaps if you asked us what are history, culture/languages, identity are besides just reading it all in books written by outsiders, then this wiki will be truly representative of both sides and showing the overall picture of us Indigenous Nations.
- Yes I'd totally agree too, & if there are people who know the perspectives of your people, I'd hope they put their 2 cents into all articles.
- In fact, you could put your 2 cents into all the articles in wikipedia.
- 68.148.165.213 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that we certainly should have articles on each of the First Nations/Native American peoples. It is also useful to have an article on all First Nations/Native American peoples with links to the individual articles for those not familiar with the individual articles. Marco polo 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are asking for. We already have both List of Native American tribes and Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas which link to hundreds of articles on individual tribes. Rmhermen 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] White Buffalo
I would like to see the meaning of certain symbols and beliefs of the Native American people. Such as the recent birth of a white buffalo in Janesville, Wisconsin.
Another plus to this catagory would be the language of the various people so that it could be learned through reading and hearing. example... Boogat (short a sound) is Potawatami for fart.--70.224.244.46 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It would probably be better to put that information in the articles specific to each particular tribe, rather than trying to fit them all into an article about Native Americans in general. Asarelah 04:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] native american surnames
quick question, forgive my ignorance but did native americans in the united states and canada come to adopt to european sounding names or were these names forced upon them? just a little curious how native americans today have surnames such as "schmidt" and "weiss". 205.188.116.74 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Intermarriage mostly. For many or most tribes, traditionally children became part of the mother's clan. In earlier contact times, Indians with a European father and an Indian mother often had both a traditional Indian name and a European name with their father's surname, such as Sequoyah aka George Guess. Pfly 05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I remember reading about a Native American who had no last name, but need to appear before a judge. The court needed to give him a last name for the records, so he chose the last name of the judge as his last name. There may be a fair amount of natives who took a European name purely for recordkeeping and census purposes. Asarelah 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes.. and a lot of Indian surnames today look like translations of Indian names, perhaps an ancestor's name was adopted as a surname as the need for surnames grew -- names like, for example, Heather Tallchief, of Seneca ancestry. Still I have to wonder what would make an Indian purposefully choose a name like Schmidt or Weiss. ;-) Pfly 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Please read carefully before re-editing
I was told my edits on the segment "American Indian princesses" wasn't in line in wikipedia rules. Here's a copied sample and let's see if it can be more researched, but this is common knowledge among the NA/AI community for a long time. I await approval for any changes in the paragraph and won't stray too far from the subject we're discussing, since it also focused on racial identity, and how come American Indian descent is more popular to identify. The commonality of Native Americans used to hearing any white person saying he/she has "a bit of Indian in them" can be irritating, especially when the white person has NO clear idea or awareness of their culture. The "Indian princess" title is confusing, since chiefs don't possess the same qualities as European kings, though a chief's children had some regard of "royality" or what's universally observed in tribal hierarchies of other cultures. +
<<< In the 20th century, among white ethnic groups, it was popular to claim descent from an "American Indian princess", often a Cherokee. The trend gained momentum in the 1980's in order to appear multicultural and racial miscegenation was considered no longer taboo, more white Americans wanted to explore their possible "native" or non-Caucasian ancestry. The prototypical "American Indian princess" was Pocahontas, and, in fact, descent from her is a frequent claim. However, the American Indian princess is a false concept, derived from the application of European concepts to Native Americans, as also seen in the naming of war chiefs as "kings".[1] Descent from "Indian braves" is rarely claimed. A documented increase of Native Americans and those "non-Indians" began to openly identify their heritage, new self-title names like Cherokee American competes well. [3]</ref> Descent from "Indian braves" is rarely claimed.And a minority of those invented self-designed identity of "Navajo Nationals" or "Lakota Citizens" in the late 20th century not yet popular by Americans of possible "Native" or "Indian" ancestry.
- This "safe" descent from Native Americans was seen as fashionable not only among whites claiming prestigious colonial descent but also among whites seeking to claim connection to groups with distinct folkways that would differentiate them from the mass culture. Large influxes of recent immigrants with unique social customs may have been partially an object of envy. Among Latinos of partial African descent and African-Americans, the desire to be un-black was sometimes expressed in claims of Native American descent. [2] Those passing as white might use the slightly more acceptable Native American ancestry to explain inconvenient details.[citation needed] In the PBS program "African American Lives", Oprah Winfrey described childhood taunting where being Native American was preferable to being all black. Genetic tests done for the program showed that she and Chris Tucker both probably had Native American ancestors. Out of all ancestries a white American can identify as "Native American", also from sociocultural groups (i.e. Irish, Jewish, Asian and Latino) are popular, but only African American is less favorable to identify ancestral lineage from a racial minority group. When in fact the "safe" or trendy position for whites as "part Indians" is skeptical and questionable by tribal nations, who may (or not) accept them as one of their own. >>>
OK, it appears now the article won't be restored. The problem is can one be right or accurate on implication of self-designation as Native Americans, full-blooded or by ancestry? The racial identity issue is problematic for any people, but this was the special case of Native Americans after they watch their ancient cultures diminished, lands/properties confiscated to white or European settlers, replaced onto reservations without actual sovereignity, and are treated like "black people" since Native Americans are of another race in the eyes of a mostly white majority. Although miscegenation of Native Americans with whites and to a lesser extent, blacks in North America took place, there was a great deal of racial intermarriage, and their mixed (part-Indian) descendants are brought up to recognize their heritage, but few or none have a clue of what's of their tribal culture. It was very shameful for Native Americans to possess leftover relics of their tribal cultures in most of the 20th century, but they knew much of their racial ancestry within their supposedly assimilated status. Native Americans experienced racism and color-coded discrimination, as well the forced acculturation guaranteed to take the "Indian savage out of them and save the man" concept in BIA schools, has made it impossible to retain a cultural basis. How can a Native American out of the "REZ" (reservation) maintained their cultural integrity while they adapted the Western culture that conquered them, but still rejected them as a "non-white" race of people? In other words, even for a Native American in various blood quantums while they qualify for tribal membership roll, want to bring back the actual heritage and are beginning to get sick and tired of any white American, black American, etc. with no knowledge or other suspicious motives, cut in line to become tribal members ahead of those with 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 blood quantum. This is a scandal in most Native American communities and tribal nations to examine who's Indian enough ... or who's not gets the tribal ID card? And for a black person to defend himself from racism is to reinstate himself as "native American", would it possible for a white Anglo American to do the same to get multicultural? Same issue, different results. +207.200.116.69 05:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New category
I just made a new category for Native American veterans. Please help populate this important category. Thanks. Wachholder0 21:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
I have been reading this page and have seen the revisions that have occurred for a long while. In its present form, it is a great jumping-off point for a tremendous number of interesting articles. The consensus that has been reached here through diligent effort serves as a great example for other articles that attract some controversy. As a non-Native with Ojibway in my family through marriage and with Navaho friends, I appreciate the information presented here. Sukiari 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Native American is a misnomer, nor are they "indigenous"
1. "Native American" simply means born in America, which means anyone born in the United States is a native American. Get a dictionary.
2. "Native Americans" are hardly indigenous to the Americas. They only arrived in the past few millennia. The Americas were unoccupied for millions of years prior to people, presumably from Asia, crossing the land bridge that connected what are now Russia and Alaska.
However, under that theory, nobody is native to any country on earth, save for the original humans from south eastern Africa. So technically, if American Indians are not native to the Americas, then Europeans are not native to Europe, and so have no claim to the land, as they only arrived a few thousand years ago, and Europe was uninhabited for millions of years.
- See Native American name controversy. Pfly 03:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Smallpox blankets
I removed the sentence: "The introduction of these diseases was often exacerbated when soldiers handed out blankets and other supplies, which were infested with viruses, to the natives." Not only did it have no reference citation, but unless I'm mistaken there is only one documented case of such a thing, and it may not have had any effect, making this sentence inaccurate in a few ways. See Pontiac's Rebellion for many details on the smallbox blankets thing. The topic is worthy of inclusion in this article, but not in the way that sentence described it, I think. Pfly 19:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It did not mentioned smallpox specifically in that sentence and an article I found off of google says much about that discussion: Discussion: Smallpox and Further More. But also, the spread of diseases among the Natives had to begin because of contact with Old World explorers, so the sentence: "The introduction of these diseases was often exacerbated when soldiers handed out blankets and other supplies, which were infested with viruses, to the natives," can still be held true; in the Pontiac case, that seems like a deliberate attack, whereas among other tribes, it probably wasn't anything more than soldiers unknowingly handing out supplies that happen to have diseases in which the Natives had no immunities. Oncamera 15:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh you are right.. I jumped to conclusions when seeing the word blankets, I think; sorry! Pfly 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lawsuit vs. Dept. of the Interior
A 10-year-old lawsuit by Native Americans contending that they have not been adequately compensated for mineral rights administered by the Dept. of the Interior, continues. Our government has shamelessly lied, covered up, and destroyed and blocked access to relevant records, and has now finally managed to get the judge who heard all this, removed from the case. Billions of dollars are at stake. See, e.g., Indian Trust Why no reference here? --Wfaxon 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The lead photo
It strikes me that "Assiniboin Boy" is the title of the photograph, not the name of the subject, as the caption claims. Any comments? --Smack (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Native Americans and Islam
Someone keeps removing the links and references to this section. The Paragraph on Islam in the section of Religion describes the african american relationship, and it is part of that paragraph to give estimates of the number of African Americans who came over as slaves who were Muslims. Do not vandalise the article, and discuss it on here if you wish to change it 62.129.121.63 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- This section is on the religions of Native Americans. The relationship of Native Americans with African American slaves seems plausibly worth mentioning, but as far as I can tell there's no claim here that Islam in any way influenced Native American religion. I'll add a new header. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- And, wikis are not acceptable references. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
But sylvion dioufs book is, and also the reference expands on the native americans who adopted Islam, etc. You can either have a whole 20 page paragraph describing it in detail, or you can have a small one line reference . If you remove it again it will be construed as vandalism . Reach an agreement here before you make changes. Thank you 81.179.130.237 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The specific statements now included in the article do not seem to be supported by the references offered.
- There is a growing conversion to Islam amongst Native Americans The reference, http://www.masnet.org/prof_community.asp?id=527, mentions one Muslim Native American, but says nothing at all about "growing conversion". I'm sure there are small numbers of Native Americans of many religions. Mentioning Islam in this fashion implies there are significant numbers.
- the beginnings of research into the early adoption of Native Americans into Islam based on the historic records showing interaction between early Turkish Colonies, referenced with http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/5621/melungeons.html. Although interesting, the reference basically says that there is some speculative evidence of early Moorish contact (and perhaps settlements) with the New World. Again, this reference offers no statistics or other evidence showing there's any non-negligible number of Muslim Native Americans.
- also frequent contact and mixing with African American Slaves (of which studies estimate 30% were Muslim), referenced as Sylvian Diouf Servants of Allah African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas New York University Press ISBN 0-8147-1905-8. I agree this may be a fine reference, but does it say anything about the religion of Native Americans (if so, please cite a specific page)? Or are you suggesting that "contact and mixing" implies some non-negligible adoption of Islam by Native Americans?
- I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make, but it currently comes across as some bizarre pro-Muslim POV. If there are significant numbers of Muslim Native Americans, please provide a reference that shows the percentage. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, to add to this discussion, is there anyway you can list/mention a tribe or tribes that are associated with Islam? It seems too vague as it is. Oncamera 08:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a new one to me -- although there are always exceptions, I do not know of any specific instances of this in the Navajo tribe (currently the largest). I agree that this seems to be an attempt to interject a pro-Muslim POV. LotR 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Based on lack of response to the above mentioned issues, I've deleted this paragraph:
- There is a growing conversion to Islam amongst Native Americans[5], and the beginnings of research into the early adoption of Native Americans into Islam based on the historic records showing interaction between early Turkish Colonies [6], and also frequent contact and mixing with African American Slaves (of which studies estimate 30% were Muslim)[3].
If anyone has an issue with this, please respond here. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- No problem with the issue of Native American converts to Islam, or if any cultural contacts with African slaves in the Americas had anything to do with adherence to Islam (obviously the majority religion in northern and western Africa for over 1,200 years). What about the fact Islam is represented by every racial group on earth?...the religion spans across 5 or 6 continents, and the list includes white Europeans (esp. the Balkan Slavs or Bosniaks, and Mozarabics or Moros in 15th century Spain) in the list of a billion Muslims. 63.3.14.1 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't understand the point. Is there anything about the fact that Islam is represented by every racial group on earth that is appropriate to include in this article? I'm sure some Native Americans are Muslim, just as I'm sure some are Christian and Hindu and many other religions. Unless there is some reliable, verifiable source indicating a significant percentage are Muslim I don't see how it has any relevance to this article. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Native American spiritualism and pre-Roman era Judaism
There was always a controversy on the "Hebrew/Israelite/Phoenician" origin of Native Americans for many centuries (the Book of Mormon used to hold a doctrine on the Amerindians are descendants of the tribes of Lehi and Nephi lived in North America about 1,500 to 3,000 years ago). Anthropologists theorized the strong connections of Judaism and Native Americans may be evident and studies on this matter was documented for much of the late 20th century. For example, the Native Americans of the eastern seaboard (US and Canada) held new years' events and harvest rituals in September/October on the sight of a new moon (also the "Rosh Hashanah" events observed in the Jewish religion)...and some speculations on the Cherokee were one of the lost ten tribes of Israel is a radical theory on whether or not Judeo-theological influence ever reached the Americans before the time of Christ or the arrival of Columbus. 63.3.14.1 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Any sort of speculation like what you mentioned would need verifiable citations and sources by reputable authors/publishers, otherwise, it wouldn't seem notable/believable. Oncamera 05:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This theory has been thoroughly debunked. Genetic and archaeological evidence clearly shows that native people are descended from Siberian hunters who arrived approximately 15,000 years ago. Also, their religions were largely nature based paganism based on their hunter-gatherer cultural roots, not Hebrew style monotheism born out of life in the war ravaged middle east. They have little to no connection to Israelite tribes, save for having the same common ancestors from Africa that all humans on Earth have.
[edit] Eastern influences in Native American religion
A major subject of anthropological study on the possibility of contacts with Chinese or East Asians and the religious structures of Native Americans in western parts of North America, especially in the Pacific Northwest coasts long spoke of visitations by yellow-skinned merchants and their possible descendants, from ships from "a land to the west" between 500 and 1300 AD, and if there's a genetic marker of Native Americans with Chinese Asians.
We may never know despite a number of discoveries of shipwrecks in Northern California "not of indigenous origin" and "the coins, ship material and decorations don't seem to come from or aren't from Europeans". I read a non-fictional book on the subject: 1321, evidence of Chinese visitations onto North America documented the shipwreck that looked more like a Chinese or Japanese seaship on a beach near Mendocino, California, and attempts to find if it's related to sagas of Asian visitors actually came to California?
There's a debate going on for over 40 years on a missing link to connect pre-Columbian cultures or MesoAmerican empires of the Aztecs, Mayas and Zapotecs with verbal or written texts in Hinduism in India and Buddhism via China, after all the great Mexican empires had features to remind archaeologists on studies in India, China and Southeast Asia. The uncovery of several "Chinese-Oriental-styled" glazed pots/bowls, sculptures of gods came out of a flower reminiscent of Hindu texts of "the lotus" in India, and ceremonial practices (dresses, dances and performance of rituals) are akin (or resembled) that of cultural features in East and South Asia.
Genetic studies of Native Americans of Alaska, Canada, the western US and the Mexican pacific coasts try to solve a puzzle on how come indigenous peoples shared a high degree of raciological traits and linguistic similarities with northern or eastern Asians? Have the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Indonesians, Malaysians and Indians discovered or inhabited the western coasts of North America over 1,000 years ago?...and how come the mysterious peoples from "the west" abdandoned and forgotten these lands (North America), but dismissed by western scholars as "legends" or "myths" that hold a great deal of truth?
Like the Chinese text scripts on a 11th century budhdist monk claimed to visited a landmass "on the other side of the great sea", found red or brown- skinned people in animal hides or feather hats (a semiaccurate description of Native Americans in the west coast?), toured a very deep canyon in a dry desert (the Grand Canyon in Arizona?) and collected information on desert plants or animals...was a "tall, strange-spiked-flowery plant" a cactus in the Sonoran desert... and how did the monks and ship crew able to not only landed in the new land and easily returned to China? 63.3.14.1 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- This seems better suited for discussion on Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Oncamera 05:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Native Americans and other minorities
Can somebody write a new paragraph on the 20th century inter-relationship of Native Americans "got along fine with" African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans in urban areas? I would say each minority group experienced racism and discrimination in their own ways, different and similar to that of Native Americans. It's more popular after all for white Americans to claim "American Indian" ancestry, not black ancestry...and the increasing level of white Euro Americans have Hispanic or Asian ancestry is widely noted. For a subjugated race of people to become further assimilated into the Euro American majority, but retained a separate cultural identity despite their ancient traditions were being destroyed, is commonly shared by blacks and Native Americans for hundreds of years, one group through slavery and segregation and the other by removal and acculturation, and both of them were oppressed by white racism to produce an ever-lasting effect of the majority to live in poverty. + 63.3.14.1 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link to muslimwikipedia.com
I've deleted the link to http://muslimwikipedia.com/mw/index.php/Native_Americans_and_Islam, because this site qualifies in the "Links normally to be avoided" list at Wikipedia:External links (specifically, points 2 and 12, and perhaps point 3). Please discuss here before adding this link again. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- 2 the site does not mislead and provides verifiable links , which conform to Reliable Sources
- 12 the site has substanital history - 6 months and is the largest islam related wiki, with other 1200 articles.
- 3 not relevant
This issue has been discussed extensively at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oncamera&oldid=101188720
In addition wikipedia will be breaking the gnu copyright regulations by not linking to a site that was used for part of its content, namely the african american section.
If we are to make decisions about what is acceptable in regard to 2 and 12, then the criteria has to be set, and other wikis which are extensively linked such as orthodoxwiki.com will have to be questioned.
For now the link has to remain in order to meet gnu licence regulations of the muslimwikipedia site Do not remove the link as this will be exposing wikipedia to a copyright infringement. 81.178.68.147 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is issue was not "discussed extensively" at my talk page and I'm annoyed that you try to make it seem like I am the only person here who has a word in it. I've already said that just because the sites have a reference that is the same, that it does not mean it can be used as a reference. Other wikis cannot be used as a reference. If they share similar information, you cannot apply that is a copyright violation.
- Since you want me to repeat everything I already said, I will do so. That other wiki has lots of "information" that isn't correct or verified or simply twisted around words for whatever reasons. It is not a reliable source. It is not the exception to the WP:EL. And there isn't anything about Islam in this article so it has no relevance. There is a paragraph in this article that speaks about African American slaves running away to join tribes, but nothing that warrants the link to the muslim wikipedia. The link seems like a POV edit and should not be included.
- What specific part of this article is supposedly copyrighted to the Muslim Wiki so that it could be removed or rewritten? on camera 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- This link does not belong on an introductory, NPOV encyclopedia page about Native Americans. It also qualifies under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided , as user:Rick Block has correctly pointed out. LotR 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- haha this seems funny to me. I dont see how this article has info from the muslimwiki but 81.178.68.147 keeps on crying about it, keep on pushing your POV son, maybe you'll go through....hahaha UyghurKid023
[edit] Images
I think it's important on a page about an group of people to, if possible identify the individuals in images by name. When people are shown without names it can be de-humanizing. I'm going to see if I can add names to some of the images here.
Also, I think it'd be a good idea to add an image gallery like the one a Black people (I hope it's not vandalized at the moment! That could show the great diversity of the Native Americans. (As well has help counter stereotypes and ideas of Indians being a fixed "race" rather than a 'macro-ethnic group')--futurebird 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not saying a gallery is a bad idea, but this article is already long enough. Perhaps read the pros and cons here, first. And good luck representing the great diversity of Natives with a few pictures. on camera 06:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] history category
a small but important aspect of native american history seems to be missing from this article: the termination of the federal government's relationship with the tribes in 1953. the specific legislation is house concurrent resolution 108. not really sure how this would fit into the general discussion here, but this small part of history has had a tremendous impact on making the tribes the way they are today. also not sure where to find specific documentation of that legislation to validate. 72.33.68.61 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, it's easy to google that resolution number and get the text: House Concurrent Resolution 108. If that is included, one should probably also add information about the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act from 1975 which "reversed" Res. 108. oncamera(t) 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- We probably need a separate article on the history of the legal status of Native Americans in the United States. There is a whole more than just two that could be covered. Rmhermen 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Transatlantic view
Forgive me in advance, but as an outsider I find it very hard to take this and related articles, including the one on the United States. The United States of America has, of course, a very short history - by European standards - though it would be certain that a history of Great Britain would begin with the Romans at the latest. Histories before that are difficult to construct. Likewise, even the high cultures of Native Americans before the European invasion, may deliver little history though I imagine that equivelants of the Icelandic sagas exist. I find nothing about the tribes about which I know little more than names. Everything is written from a European perspective. I would expect that there would be huge amounts about the tribes and their histories and culture. When I look at the article on Native Americans I face material on the invasions almost immediately. I don't understand. I feel that I should be presented with links to articles on all the known tribes together with material expressing their point of view as a balance to the material presented. I can add nothing myself since I know little. Surely there are Native Americans who can correct what I regard as gross distortion. I am sorry to be so fierce; I was just very surprised that a nation that prides itself on its breadth of view should not see that, even if the population of pre-invasion North America were only ten million, it requires extensive treatment; if it were over a hundred million with a history of thousands of years it requires equal treatment. If someone can show me that I have failed to use links properly and that my view is myopic, I should be delighted. Roger Arguile 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're looking for something like Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is prominently linked. This article is specifically for those in the United States. I would not expect an article on "Britons in the United States" to mention Roman times. I agree that the treatment seems very deficient in areas, but I don't think it quite warrants a POV warning. --Golbez 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would be interested in the article about the pre-Columbian era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-columbian and the other articles in the category of Pre-Columbian cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pre-Columbian_cultures
I do agree that there should be more information about Pre-Columbian cultures in the United States, but I don't think that automatically makes the article POV. Its just deficient in that area and needs to be improved. Asarelah 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in regards to your concerns of lack of Natives looking at this article, I'm fully 'Native American' and I don't find this article to be too POV either or which way; so I don't agree with the POV warning either. If you look in the "see also" section, you will find the Classification of Native Americans (which is also found in the opening sentence of this article wikilinked as large number), which shows an organised list of tribes. Is that something you were looking for? oncamera(t) 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have looked at the referred articles and here is my report: in Pre-Columbian (sic) therre are 10 lines on North America; in History.. there are eleven; in United States there are three lines; in Indigenous peoples... there are six lines. In Classification... there are lists but no overview. If native Americans such as Mr. Oncamera are happy with this, I am surprised. From here it looks very exocentric. Roger Arguile 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Don't refer to me as "mister," and just because something is inadequate doesn't make it POV. I'm sure someone who really was interested in this sort of thing would refer to a history book, rather than an encyclopedia. oncamera(t) 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
O h yes: I forgot to say: westindians are not from India; gypsies are not from Egypt; Australian aboriginees are not aboriginal; though I am English I am not an Angle - they were German; I don't know whether you still use the word WASP, but some of them are Catholics. And as for Americans, most Americans speak Spanish or Portugese and live south of the Rio Grande but I get into terrible trouble when I say so. It's a funny old world. Roger Arguile 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I had thought that the opening section should give an overview. This article simply engages in a definitional discussion. I know that nomenclature is now a very sensitive subject, but I would have thought the whole of that section could be reserved as a footnote. My reason for feeling that POV is justly deserved is that, as I have shown, decent presentation of the history of North America before the conquests is marginalised. I understand that articles about the United States could be thought as only referring to the union, but that has added states in my lifetime and it seems arbitrary not write about the land and people rather than only the political unit.
I do confess that from over here it looks very unbalanced and, as the lawyers used to say 'Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi'. There is, it appears to me, no room at the inn in any mainstream articles about the United States for native Americans.Roger Arguile 12:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
After nearly 72 hours it appears that WP editors are of the opinion that 29 lines (see above) is quite enough space to give to the culture and hisotyr of Native Americans in the United States prior to the European invasions. The most I have been offered is to expand the article curiously and obscurely entitled Pre-Columbian(sic). I shall defer to the opinions offered, but with a heavy heart. Roger Arguile 19:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to add more about the pre-Columbian cultures to this article, then by all means do so. Nobody is stopping you. Asarelah 03:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Words mean things
I find it very inapropriate that people are posting comments that make the claim that American Indians are not from the Americas. I also feel a little offended as to the want of change for he termonology. If wikipedia really wants to be accurate then they should only list the Tribe of the person talked about and not force a group catagory, and if they do use a group catagory then it should be what Indians call themselve. WHITE people have no right to have a say in the term for Indians. Haven't y'all done enough?!!! So let me see if I understand, because of the Bering Straight theory you can claim that Indians aren't Native to this land. How many Indians accept this idea. I suppose then that we can go back to the tower of Babel and say that Whites aren't from Europe. Asians aren't from Asia. We are all really just Africans. Well thank you but NO. I just might be possible that people were here in the Americas before there were people in Europe. I just might be possible. Here is another one for you, some of use (though not me in particular) feel that the Bering Straight theory is a RACIST plot to remove the sacred status of the Indians in connection to the land from them and force more assimilation (which is really just anialation). I see the the English Language site has many problems. You will notice that many of the other languages supported by Wikipedia do not have this kind of irregularity.--Billiot 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This quote was written by an Indian and can be viewed at www.allthingscherokee.com.
- The reasons are diverse and personal, but there are two popular reasons. The first reason is habit. Many Indians have been Indians all their lives. The Native people of this continent have been called Indian throughout all of post-Columbian history. Why change now? The second reason is far more political. While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by giving them a name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it also enabled America to ease its conscience. The term Native American is so recent that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not suffer through countless trails of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -- Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore we do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is what the term Native American essentially does -- it white-washes history. It cleans the slate.
I hope this can be illistrative to English Speakers.--Billiot 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are you suggesting that excise the Bering Strait theory from this article? Are you saying that the use of the word Native American on Wikipedia is innappropriate and must be changed? I'm sorry but it just isn't clear to me as to what your point is. Asarelah 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class United States articles | Unknown-importance United States articles | Unassessed Ethnic groups articles | WikiProject Ethnic groups articles | Unassigned-importance Ethnic groups articles | Unassessed Indigenous peoples of North America articles | WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles | Unassessed Oklahoma articles | Unknown-importance Oklahoma articles | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (French) | Past U.S. collaborations of the week | Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested) | To do | To do, priority undefined
