Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Plus, is there any mention of genocide here? KyuuA4 23:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, under the "Removal and Reservations" section. Asarelah 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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? --C S (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)

I never said there was "by far a more common usage". So I don't know why you put "by far" in quotes like that. I said that American Indian is most preferred by far by those described. --C S (Talk) 08:22, 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....--C S (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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

A start. Have at it. --Mashford 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Early history dissection

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)

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)

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)

European Colonization dissection

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

...so you're using a wikipedia article to prove that wikipedia is correct?

"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)

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)

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)

See my comments here.[2] --Kmsiever 15:56, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some Native surnames came from generals, colonels, etc, in the US army and/or army officials "gave" their surnames to Natives for whatever reason (perhaps for the same reason Asarelah mentioned). This is how my family came to have its surname. Oncamera 11:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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". 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 Americans" 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. Those passing as white might use the slightly more acceptable Native American ancestry to explain inconvenient details.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, that really is his name: ASSINIBOIN BOY-"Natyinehitha"[4] Rmhermen 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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).

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)

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. + - signed by anon IP

Maybe the purpose for most Eastern US tribes' new years start in the autumn (Sep. and Oct.) is having to do with their harvest crop is ready, thus an important basis for the tribes' survival well into the new year. Their religious viewpoint matches that of the Siberian Asians like the Japanese faith of Shintoism developed from pan-Siberian ancestors' strong connection with natural spirits and forces. But the North American Indians don't have a religious link with Shintoism nor the Japanese, and there isn't a pan/polytheistic link between pan-African tribes like once speculated by anthropologists. Like Sub-saharan African tribes, the Native American tribes had a simple theological system of values and beliefs untouched by western Monotheism until a millennia ago. Coincidence? + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. I'm unsure if that's a factor to develop such a connection with other minority communities.

It's more popular after all for white Euro 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 any light-skinned black person or white person with evident African features, it was convenient to adapt the phrase "I'm part-(American) Indian" to avoid the stigma or to lie about their racial origins. But the American Indian in the 20th century were equally discriminated in public places that "don't serve non-whites" in the Western US until the 1960's and the self-shame by many descendants of American Indians brought on by racial stereotypes.

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)

I fixed my commentary to make better sense of what I'm trying to get at. There's a section about the strong intra-racial relationship between Native Americans and African Americans dating back to the 1700's when runaway slaves went to Southeastern US tribes whom also practiced black slavery until the end of the civil war. But in recent years such as the Haskell Indian School in Lawrence, Kansas there was a rise of racism by American Indians directed at black Americans in ways to shock their parents and the black community whom had less friction with American Indian students for over a century. In California, local Indian tribes are becoming hostile to Mexican and Hispanic immigrants, including fights and gang violence on Indian reservations across the state, despite the historic relationship one of amity between the state's Hispanic and American Indian populations. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Size split?

Split - Article is well over 100 kB, and should be split starting with "Society, language, and culture", "Contemporary Issues" and "History". Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as you leave a summary of any sections you split out in situ.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I split out History of Native Americans in the United States today. Still working on summarizing here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian Orthodox ?

Are a part of the Native Americans, really Russian Orthodox ?--Albanianp (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the some of the Aleut people of Alaska, who were colonized by Russians.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Alutiiq people (Kodiak Sugpiaq and Chugach) and Dena'ina people are Orthodox --Kmoksy (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

History of Native Americans in the United States

I have created History of Native Americans in the United States using the content of the History section in this article. Additional work needs to be done with respect to identifying references in History of Native Americans in the United States and in summarizing the subsections of the History section here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

References in History of Native Americans in the United States are done. I'll start summarizing the history section here now. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done; 30k removed; obviously it could be done better; feel free, but please don't expand volume. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A Social Work Approach to Suicide Prevention for American Indians

I've also removed it. The article is too big - although we can have articles this size I don't think it's justified, and I'm guessing that a lot of its readership may have slow broad band.

Then there's the title - a social work approach -- a topic that I definitely don't think belongs in the article.

There's a fairly easy solution - an article on Suicide among Native Americans in the US with a summary in this article. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment and the proposed solution, perhaps something along the lines of Native American disease and epidemics, American Indian alcoholism, or Modern social statistics of Native Americans, possibly even merging into one of these if it is appropriate (not the alcohol one). Heiro 06:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could have an article on Suicide among Native Americans + such an article would not however advocate any specific "approach" as the inserted material does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Material has been provisionally included in Contemporary Native American issues in the United States. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary Native American issues in the United States

New article with content from Native Americans in the United States#Contemporary issues. References at Contemporary Native American issues in the United States need to be located and edited. Native Americans in the United States#Contemporary issues needs to be edited and summarized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Native Americans of the United States

Also Culture of Native Americans of the United States. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From Native Americans in the United States#Society, language, and culture User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a good title. There are many cultures, not a single one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Part of a good article on the subject. Please suggest a better alternate title. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Maunus. Could it not simply be Native American cultures with the "United States" part spelled out in the lead sentence? -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Please keep in mind that it has the content of Native Americans in the United States#Society, language, and culture. It's title and content needs to function as a replacement for Native Americans in the United States#Society, language, and culture which will be summarized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Language is an aspect of culture. There's articles such as Native American civil rights, Native American gaming, Native American mascot controversy, Native American reservation politics, Native American studies, Native American Renaissance, Native American use of fire, etc. that establish a precedent for not including the redundant phrase "in the Untied States." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Not a good precedent since some of those are about U.S. Native Americans and some are about North American Native Americans and some possibly on all Native Americans. Rmhermen (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

modifying collage

Hi, I was wondering if it'd be possible to include Maria Tallchief on the list of people in the NA collage. It would help represent native american women and she is pretty famous. She was given a National Medal of Arts and would be a good candidate for 20th century representatives. Just a thought, there's not many women in the collage. --Turn685 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the title term

Sentence 1 of the lede says

Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii.

I have two comments/questions about this:

1. It's not sourced, and it is unclear as to whether Native Hawaiians count as Native Americans. On the one hand it refers to "the indigenous peoples in (sic; of?) North America", apparently excluding Native Hawaiians, but on the other hand it mentions "within the boundaries of ... and the island state of Hawaii", apparently including them. They appear to be excluded in both the info graphic in the lede ("Total population" only has the sub-heading "American Indian and Alaska Native") and in the later "Historical population" sub-section, whose chart is entitled " American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut % of Population by U.S. State (1890-2010)" with no mention of Native Hawaiians. Yet the section "Distribution by US States" has a chart for the distribution of people of Native Hawaiian of Pacific Islander ancestry. Then in "Population by tribal grouping", they're not included.

2. The inclusion by the above quote of Alaskan Natives seems to be contradicted by the following passage in the last paragraph of the lede:

Native American and Alaskan Native authors have been increasingly published....

which implies that the latter are not part of the former.

Can someone provide sources and clarification for the scope of the term Native American? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We already have an entire article on the Native American naming controversy. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That article addresses the question of what terms are appropriate or inappropriate, and thus is irrelevant to my comments. My comments above simply point out that this article is self-contradictory in various places as to what its chosen term means. It needs to pick a definition of Native American and then stick with it. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Traditional Medicine

Wikipedia project traditional medicine needs your held to get started. The current coverage of traditional medicines on Wikipedia is terrible for all peoples. Although the alternative medicine project tries to cover this topic they have failed terribly; most of what they cover lacks any basis in tradition so it does not assist multi-cultural anthropology. A detailed pharmacopoeia must be constructed of all medicinal treatments prescribed by indigenous healers, the projects goal is to have this information available on the pages of the diseases treated, the tribes that recommend it, and the organisms or minerals used. I have heard anecdotal evidence that certain treatments are not shared with clip board holding anthropologists, but if we are all willing to hold hands and work together we can make the world a better place for everyone; people need to be reminded of the importance of environmental conservation and understanding other cultures. Please help make Wikipedia, and the world a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remove foreign terminology & biases (good or bad) from this article on the USA (i.e., Indigenous)

The very first sentence in this article insults us with, "Native Americans are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii." This is a term currently in use in Canada, NOT the USA. Several editors of this article that persist in removing any corrections that try to edit this insulting term are from Canada no less. This is not a good faith action, even if unintended. This first paragraph of the article then goes on to clearly state, "According to a 1995 U.S. Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians (or simply Indians – see Native American name controversy), and this term has been adopted by major newspapers and some academic groups"

There is a fundamental flaw and conflict in the article, even setting aside the cited "Indian" vs. "Native American" discussion. The use of the pejorative term "indigenous" to our people, to most American Indians of the USA, and the weaving of references to separate "indigenous" articles into this article needs to be corrected. This article is supposedly not about Indians/natives in Canada or Mexico, or South America for that matter. This is our article - it's about Indians/natives in the USA. Consequently, the name we call OURSELVES collectively, by and large, should be more than a mere footnote or alluded to as a 'controversy' aside. The 1st paragraph clearly states what we call ourselves, and then the article proceeds to call us Native Americans (and all the revisionist baggage that drags in) and then worst of all, 'indigenous'. We are not Canadians (no disrespect intended to our Canadian brothers and sisters that may embrace the term, but that is for them to decide amongst themselves in their own country).

Tell us then what gives YOU (non-Indians, and that is said without malice) any right to decide for us what articles on us should call us?

If you are not from the USA, please respectfully allow people actually from the USA to decide on the content for articles on the USA.

Regardless of where you're from, why do you not respect American Indians of the USA as you presumably respect yourself or other peoples around this globe of ours (never mind honor the spirit of Wikipedia to spread truth freely) and persist in not allowing foreign terms for us be edited that so many of us feel is pejorative (i.e., indigenous).

Why persist in calling us anything and everything rather than allowing us to be known as what we call ourselves collectively (and by a wide margin): American Indians

Do the right thing Wikipedia and wikipedians from around the world. Do not dismiss what we call ourselves as some controversial aside. It is only a controversy for non-Indians and it is what the majority of us call ourselves... Rename this article "American Indians", or for the love of pete and all that is right at least call it "American Indians or Native Americans"

Respectfully,70.61.192.67 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

comment added by 70.61.192.67 (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Indigenous" is widely used in the United States, as these published books illustrate. I am an enrolled Native American from the United States and personally have no problem with the term "indigenous"; however, decisions on Wikipedia aren't made by personal preference, they are made by what secondary, published sources say. As I just pointed out above, there are certain Alaskan Native groups that are not American Indian. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

'Personal preference'? That's right, it's the 'personal preference' of the majority of us. Please respectfully read this article's own cited census data that clearly indicates what the majority of us call ourselves, and not by a little. 'Indigenous' is the term de jour up north in Canada, not the USA. We can play duelling citations, but the fact remains that 'indigenous' is NOT widely used or the accepted term in the USA at this point, 'Native' sadly is among non-Indians. Of course the recent mass immigration of asian Indians will likely make "Indian" (alone) fall out of favor, but American Indian is who and what we are and is the name most of us call ourselves. I respect your right to call yourself anything you want, but the majority of our community today, never mind our history, should be respected.70.61.192.67 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the term is used in the United States as I illustrated. To have "dueling citations," you would have to actually furnish a citation that states "indigenous" is not used in the United States and is considered pejorative. The fact remains that several Native Alaskan groups are not American Indian—Alaska being part of the United States. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Interesting, but what about the census link in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Census_Bureau), or the fact that the US government also calls us American Indians, including in Alaska http://www.census.gov/aian/census_2010/ http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/special/AIANWall2010/AIAN_AK_2010.pdf http://www.census.gov/geo/partnerships/aian_tsap.html

Then if you really want to be precise (per the US Government) this article should be called, "American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Hawaiians" 70.61.192.67 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

...indigenous as pejorative: The term ‘indigenous’ comes from a Latin root which also gives the words ‘gender’, ‘genitals’, generation’ and ‘Genesis’. In other words, it is connected with birth, reproduction, and descent. It means the same as ‘native’, but in many places that word is not used now because it carries too many negative colonial associations.

"Arguments against the use of the term "Indigenous Peoples" are that ...it lumps all indigenous world groups into a single "other," and that it fails to recognize migratory groups who do not technically meet the definition of "indigenous." The term is also less favored among some Canadian Indians; the French equivalent indigène has historically been used in a derogatory sense toward them." -John Abbink, 2011, Land Law and Politics p. 92 (http://books.google.com/books?id=zriEXuUZbPUC&lpg=PA92)

Bear in mind that French traders and missionaries as well as French-speaking Iroquois ranged widely across the west and there are many tales passed down among our own people, for what its worth, of some particularly disturbing abuses (at least in the case of the traders) so that may well be part of the shudders that term "indigenous" sends down the spine of many of us, at least in the Northern Rockies (which had a strong French influence) speaking personally, but foisting any label on any people that is not accepted by the majority of the people themselves (and is ahistorical by the way) is fundamentally disrespectful.

To name a thing or another human being is to act as though you have power over them... and worst of all when you know but wilfully disregard or disparage what they call themselves... that makes said term(s) pejorative to any one, by definition 70.61.192.67 (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to argue that "Indigenous" is pejorative, so you want to use the term "Eskimo" in the title?!! I don't think so. Obviously, you have an issue with the term; however, you have failed to create a convincing argument that the term is widely seen as pejorative. No one is suggesting use of the term "indigène," and, as you repeatedly pointed out, this is not an article about Canada. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Calving off population/demographic section

This article appears to just be getting longer and more unwieldy than shorter. One section that could be broken off into its own article would be the "demographics" section. Along the lines of Population of Native California and Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, we could start Demographics of Native Americans in the United States, which would be different than Modern social statistics of Native Americans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Strong oppose. If you were going to split off a demographics page, it would have to merge with the "modern social statistics" one, since it would subsume the topic. — LlywelynII 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Moving the tabular data to another article, whether by split or merge would improve the readability of the article.FriendlyFred (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Support but writing the the summary to leave behind will be a bit tricky. Rmhermen (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Population numbers and Death by Disease

it says |Puget Sound area populations, once estimated as high as 37,000 people| that number is absurdly low. The Duawamish tribe alone, all by itself, probably had that many people. There are documented accounts of huge longhouses. As far as Deaths by Disease, these numbers are also much too low. Based on still surviving oral traditions I'd estimate that the death rates for the Chinook tribe were closer to 80 to 90 percent, it is said that so many died that there was no one left to bury the dead. About ten years ago, near Port Townsend a burial site was found containing thousands of people who had died of disease. The deaths had been so traumatic that the location had been forgotten and was only found due to construction. These are the things that my elders have taught me, Ah Nee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.4.32 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers are taken (indirectly) from "Robert Boyd, The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence (Vancouver, BC: UBC Press, 1999)". You could look for other research on the subject. Rmhermen (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Change of article title to 'Indigenous Americans of the United States'

Since there is much discrepancy over the term Native, as it relates to those of first nation ancestry verses anyone else born here, as well as over the term Indian, which can also refer to South East Asians, I am proposing the title of this article be changed. There already exists Indigenous peoples of the Americas which covers all first nation peoples of the Americas. In my opinion, this article title should reflect the term applied in the main article. Bab-a-lot (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be moved because the most commonly used terms are "Native American" or "American Indian".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that would be against policy, see WP:COMMONNAME. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This all depends on what side of the boundary you are referring to. In Canada, the term Indigenous is currently in vogue, and in Mexico, other terms still are commonly applied to their native peoples (which is further complicated by their unique history and genetics south of the border independent of both the US and CA). In the USA though, the Indian Nations call themselves American Indians by a very wide margin. Historically (until revisionism and internationalism have became the flavors of the month for non-Indians), society at large in the USA also almost universally referred to us as Indians or American Indians. That is who we are. This article should never be referred to as Indigenous... anything. There are articles for Indians in Canada. This article is about the USA and the term should correctly be AMERICAN INDIAN in the USA. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.192.67 (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Except using the term "American Indian" would exclude non-Indian Alaska Natives, including Iñupiat, Aleut, and Yupik peoples. The title should remain as it due to WP:COMMONNAME, as Maunus and Dougweller pointed out. Oppose any moves. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Native American does NOT apply to ALASKA NATIVES who are not genetically, culturally, linguistically or in any other way Native American. ALASKA NATIVES don't have the same relationship with the United States as Native Americans. That's why the United States identifies them as ALASKA NATIVES.

1. INDIAN is the collective term of all pre-colonial inhabitants of the Americas (usually said in the language of the country).

2. In the United States AMERICAN INDIAN designates RACE.

- AMERICAN INDIAN as a RACE was judicially determined and is reflected in United States LAW.

The designation of “AMERICAN INDIAN” as a “RACE” can be seen in the US CENSUS, which states.

AMERICAN INDIAN or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who “maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment”.

http://www.census.gov/population/race/about/

The designation as a RACE can also be seen in the "free passage" provision codified in Section 289 of the IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. Sec. 289 [8 U.S.C. 1359]. . . . Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the right of AMERICAN INDIANS born in Canada . . . . But such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the AMERICAN INDIAN "RACE”.

http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green-card-american-indian-born-canada

3. The term NATIVE AMERICAN does NOT designate RACE. NATIVE AMERICAN identifies the citizens of FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES within the borders of the United States. Tribes, who through TREATIES have a government-to-government relationship with the United States, as a result; various programs and services are available to NATIVE AMERICANS. These programs and services are NOT available to AMERICAN INDIANS, who do not qualify as members of FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES.

Here is an example:

For a student to be eligible for many NATIVE AMERICAN scholarships, the student should be an enrolled member of a FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBE. Otherwise funding will most likely be denied.

http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/natamind.phtml

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Indian Affairs, through its government-to-government relationship with FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES, carries out the Federal Government's unique and continuing relationship with and responsibility to tribes and Indian people. Indian Affairs programs support and assist FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES.

http://www.doi.gov/tribes/benefits.cfm]Benefits and Service.

All pre-colonial people/communities/tribes throughout the Americas have criteria to identify their members, which is usually based on recognized kinship, lineal decent and interpersonal bonds held by the community. This is what is stated by the South American Indigenous people which are similar to the criteria of all pre-colonial people of the Americas.

Who is Indian?

• An Indian is any member of an indigenous community, recognized by the latter as such.

• An indigenous community is any community founded on kinship or coresidence relations between its members, who maintain historical-cultural ties with pre-Colombian indigenous social organizations.

http://pib.socioambiental.org/en/c/no-brasil-atual/quem-sao/quem-e-indio

This explains who the NATIVE AMERICANS and INDIANS (American Indians) are.

First Nations or First Nations people designate a specific group of people in Canada. That term does not apply to Native Americans or the Indians of any other Country.Niineta (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Biological Warfare

I believe the article would be improved if the following was added as the second paragraph in the "1.2.1 Impact on native populations" section:

The extent to which the Native American population was intentionally infected with disease through biological warfare, as opposed to accidental infection, is unknown. In 1763, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of the British Army, wrote praising the use of smallpox infected blankets to “extirpate” the Indian race. There is clear evidence that both biological warfare and accidental infection were factors in the Indigenous holocaust.

Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oral History / Literature

I once read the Winnebago Trickster Cycle - a collection of tales. I liked it very much. Why is there no reference to literature whatsoever? I am no expert in this field, merely interested.84.113.215.82 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

See Mythologies of the indigenous peoples of North America -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Needs serious work

Some of the changes I've made were unsourced; however, the content I'm repairing was not sourced either. Additionally, sourced content was removed wholesale by Rmhermen‎. Let's discuss it here rather than just revert each other. - CorbieV^☊ 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

poor article on wikipedia

boo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4E00:931:90BE:92B8:B858:303F (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It will be more helpful if you could be more detailed about what you find lacking. Rmhermen (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

brevity is the soul of wit..the opposite of rhetoric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

is there anything 'pre-columbian'... is THAT a valid meaning?

i'm not sure i understand that... term... 'pre-columbian?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.136.238 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

1

The current lede reads

"Native Americans are the indigenous peoples within the boundaries of the present-day United States, including those in Alaska and Hawaii"

I'm fairly sure that's accurate w/r/t Alaska ("Indian" sometimes excludes Eskimos; "Native American" doesn't) but is it actually accurate for Hawai`ians? I'm fairly sure that the United States Census lists Asian and Pacific Islander separately; does "Pacific Islander" really exclude the Hawai`ians or does "Native American"? — LlywelynII 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

2

Obviously, it's much too long and yet still doesn't address the major known pre-Colombian history and cultures or the actual Europeans involved in colonizing the United States. I don't want to get involved in a protracted edit war here, but I do request that one of the local page monitors restructure and condense the existing lede so that it has a five paragraph structure: 1, lede with definitions; 2, an overview of pre-contact Indians; 3, an overview of the initial conquest; 4, an overview of American behavior post-independence; and 5, an overview of the present situation since the granting of citizenship or since the '60s. Long boilerplate (especially questionably accurate or relevant boilerplate like contrasting "matrilinear" with "patriarchy") should ideally be avoided in favor of shorter sentences with lots of links to the relevant sections or articles. — LlywelynII 05:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Depends on context. The census has separate "Native American and Alaskan Native" and "Native Hawaiian" (sometimes put under "Asian-Pacific Islander"). But the U.S. law sometimes defines Native Americans as all of those groups (see [7], [8], definition 3 at [9]) Rmhermen (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What`s a lede? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.102.242 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. You couldn't look it up yourself? Okay, for you and other lazy people, "lede" is a deliberate re-spelling of "lead," to prevent confusion between lead, for the opening of an article, with lead, the thin piece of metal typographers use to set type. (It's the spacing between lines of text.) It would've have been so much easier and faster for you to have simply typed lede in the wiki search box - you do understand how Wikipedia works, don't you?.__209.179.8.124 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Red Indians?

Why is there no reference to the fact that they were popularly referred to as "Red Indians" until at least the 1970s, together with an explanation of why that term was suddenly dropped? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because there is a link to this article: Native American name controversy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 07:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that really cuts it. My understanding is that historically (for decades) that was the most common name for most of the native American tribes, far more so than the other names mentioned in the controversy article, and so this article ought to mention that as part of its faithful historical coverage. Otherwise we're just brushing history under the carpet. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your understanding is in error. "Red Indian" has never been the most common term, plain "Indian" and "American Indian" have always been most common and continue to be used. Ideally the naming controversy article should be summarized in the section where the link is found, but given that "Red Indian" is not a very prominent topic within that controversy I doubt it merits any coverage in this article at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else have a view? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I support Maunus view. I think the only reference to "red Indians" were made by "ignorant Hollywood Cowboys" Mlpearc (open channel) 19:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, then, that the Oxford Dictionary of English states: "Red Indian - noun - old-fashioned term for American Indian. Usage: The term Red Indian, first recorded in the early 19th century, has largely fallen out of use, associated as it is with an earlier period and the corresponding sterotypes of cowboys and Indians and the Wild West. If used today, the term may cause offence..." Surely something on those lines is worth recording in an encyclopaedic article? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the Oxford dictionary merely records the existence of the word and that it is no longer in use, it doesnt suggest it was ever common or prominent relative to other terms.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

May I use that for a reference for my previous statement ? Mlpearc (open channel) 20:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if you found a reference that supported your statement or, more constructively, worked on appropriately article wording that reflects the references. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit this article, I was responding to your query. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The participants here might be interested in this discussion, if it is worthy of the name. Many people do seem to have this concern; best to have a comprehensive discussion, even if nothing changes in the end. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the first comment. I was brought up to use the term Red Indian and I use the term regularly with my grandson when we talk about Hiawatha, Crazy Horse etc. I know that in some quarters it is not now thought quite politically correct. But that isn't the point: it's still a commonplace term where I come from. And I'm sure it is for millions of other ordinary folk all across the English-speaking world. Given that the term is unquestionably still current I'd add 'also referred to as Red Indians' in the text. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.107.219 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Just Googled the term 'Red Indian' to make sure it's not just me. The name is very much alive and kicking, with thousands upon thousands of hits. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.107.219 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here are three ngrams of "Red Indian" compared to "Native American" in British English[10], American English[11], and all English[12] publications on Google from 1800 to 2000. The trend is clear - "Red Indian" has no currency, even though apparently Britain has been slower to give it up.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a logical conclusion. One can't say that 'Red Indian has no currency' unless its use has actually ceased. Factually one can only say that its use has declined. I suspect that it's mainly Americans who are sensitive about this. But of course Wiki's job is just to report the facts not be judgemental - or sensitive. Writing from a British perspective, but also as someone with a lifelong respect and admiration for Indian culture I can't say that on this side of the Atlantic that the term 'Red Indian' has any negative or perjorative overtones at all. It is however a useful way to distnguish native Americans from West Indians and Indians from India. But, regardless of anyone's views or feelings, since it is still very much a current term it strikes me that it should therefore be recorded as such. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.107.177 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A term will never get a currency of zero, because it will get repeated in quotes and in place names such as "Red Indian Lake". And since the shift in Britain occurred around 40 years ago it will also continue to be in use among older generations untill they die out. That does not mean that the word is current it means that it is obsolete. The fact that you admire Native Americans really has nothing to do with the possible overtones of the word. this article is not about terminology, if any reliable sources can be found describing the term it would be appropriate to write about the usage of "red indian" in the article on the Native American naming controversy but not here. One more thing: Historically "Red Indian" was in fact used as a specific term to describe the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who had the custom of painting their faces with ochre.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't pay much attention to this thread previously, and when I did, I initially thought Bermicourt was wrong about this. However, the data presented by Maunus suggests the OP actually has a point - it seems that RI was more prevalent than NA in British usage until approx. 1978, and for most of its history was roughly equally prevalent as AI (until around 1955).[13] So on the basis of prevalence in historical usage in BE, the complaint seems to be justified. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was making 'a complaint', simply making an observation. Factually in the UK today one can buy Red Indian Headresses, Red Indian costumes etc. in any toyshop. These are advertsied without embarrassment or seemingly any recognition that the name is now thought by some to be a perjorative term (Eskimo is commonly used too, even though most folk know that Inuit is the preferred term these days). The OED quote is quite correct, but of course most folk don't read the OED. The use of the RI name does indeed seem to be declining, but it remains in common informal usage, if not in formal writings. All of us happily and thoughtlessly call Greeks 'Greeks' even though they haven't called themselves that for the best part of three thousand years. We have no sense that we might be insulting the inhabitants of Greece - and from the UK the Red Indian thing seems, in some ways, rather like that; it is obviously a much more sensitive issue in North America. However since to assert that RI is no longer used is factually untrue, I'd be inclined to include something like 'In British English the older term Red Indian remains in common use informally, though its use is declining.' Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.117 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Just one further observation. Words often look the same but mean different things to different people. 'Red Indian' is presumably seen as a perjorative term in North America because of historical conflicts there. 'Red Indian' is/was associated with negative words such as savage, barbaric, hostile and dangerous. By contrast elswhere, and in the UK in particular, the word associations instead tend to be positive ones: e.g. noble, free, adventurous, heroic, dignified and romantic. Thus I suggest the reason the term continues to be commonplace, at least informally, outside North America is simply because linguistically it isn't universally seen as perjorative, in particular not in the UK. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.41 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

By coincidence a full page article appeared in the British Daily Mail newspaper on 6th November 2014 which uses the term 'Red Indian' no fewer than seven times (it also uses the term 'Native American') . The op-ed piece by Richard Littlejohn is headlined 'Next, these idiots will stop children playing Cowboys and Indians'. The article is about the harrassing of one Ellie Goulding who has been accused by her critics of being 'racist, ignorant and insensitive', and guilty of 'cultural appropriation' after she was photographed wearing an Indian headress. Whatever ones views on the matter, the term 'Red Indian' is unquestionably in current British usage. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.49.121 (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure, there will always be those who use the term. The author of that piece also made the false claim that public funds were used to teach Asian women hopscotch, and when a teacher changed sex and was allowed to keep her job, attacked the decision. The teacher died a probable suicide and the coroner said that Littlejohn " "...carried out what can only be described as a character assassination, having sought to ridicule and humiliate Lucy Meadows and bring into question her right to pursue her career as a teacher". So him using 'red Indian' proves that bigots will continue to use such terms. Dougweller (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether Mr Littlejohn is a bigot or not. The point is that one of Britain's largest circulation national daily newspapers saw nothing wrong in using the term 'Red Indian'. The Daily Mail habitually employs asterisks in place of words deemed unsuitable for publication, not least racist terms. The logical conclusion is that (i) Red Indian is a current term in British English and (ii) it is not generally thought of as offensive. The implication that only bigots would use the term is a false conclusion - though logically even it were true it would not alter the fact that the term does still enjoy indisputable currency. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.17.232 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Origins Theory

Native Americans arrived from Polynesia to south, central, and north America from islands such as Easter Island, Hawaii, and other pacific Islands, being decedents of the Samoans and Polynesians, and were able to settle the continents in a short period through the use of canoes through the continental rivers, similar to the viking explorations and expansions of northern and eastern Europe. Anthropologists should conduct a DNA test of the two societies to confirm this plausible theory. Although northern tribes such as the Inuits, may have migrated from Siberia through the land bridge theory as well. Yet Hawaains and Northern Californians such as Shinooks and Pomo, tend to have greater similarities then norhtern inuits and Siberian Asiatic tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.55.242 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Wikipedia calls native americans Indians? Do you have any clue about geography or you are lost like colombus? Indians are from India. 70.113.102.161 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is very obvious that Native Americans are commonly referred to as Indians. There is a section in this article about this. Cannolis (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention at all of Native American Government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:FFC0:6A:353A:A4D8:6E1A:A392 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Native American redirect

Shouldn't Native American redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas rather than here? Native Americans aren't just from the US. 2601:9:4301:EFA0:F8F7:3CFC:255E:6A55 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

American Indian also redirects here, so I added a disambiguation hatnote to this article. Jarble (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unclear language in attribution plus potentially inadequate citation info

From "Native American and African relations"

He contends that because of European fears of a unified revolt of Native Americans and African Americans, the colonists encouraged hostility between the ethnic groups:

Who contends? Back in 2011, some indirect attribution ("The hostility has been attributed to") was changed to this less-than-useless phrasing referring to a "he" who was not (and never is) introduced. The reference provided appears to be the proceedings of a symposium conducted by the Southern Anthropology Society in 1970, but the citation is otherwise lacking. Only the title ("Red, white, and Black"), page numbers and ISBN are provided. It was enough to confirm it's a legitimate source, but—and correct me if I'm wrong—shouldn't there be more info? 72.200.151.13 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert, why

The content being removed is sourced, and the removal entirely shifts the meaning of the paragraph; from "extent unknown, few instances known" to "there are only a few instances." Besides, there is no unanimity among sources about the extent of biological warfare. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Native Americans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610172558/http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/SECC/sld008.htm to http://www.siu.edu/~anthro/muller/SECC/sld008.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090510034518/http://www.tanasijournal.com:80/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=1&ed=53 to http://www.tanasijournal.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=365&Itemid=1&ed=53
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120618091306/http://www.bluecloud.org/medicine.html to http://www.bluecloud.org/medicine.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061031200938/http://www.rlnn.com/ArtOct06/MoreBlacksAfricanAmerNativeAmerConnection.html to http://www.rlnn.com/ArtOct06/MoreBlacksAfricanAmerNativeAmerConnection.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513235755/http://www.williamlkatz.com/Essays/History/AfricansIndians.php to http://www.williamlkatz.com/Essays/History/AfricansIndians.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130731093628/http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics,race,and%20ancestry/5.html to http://www.racesci.org/racescinow/genetics,race,and%20ancestry/5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.

Rgds

Mahitgar (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I was struggling to wonder why mythological Polishmen were being discussed here. That article is now titled Ceremonial pole with a header that says "not totem poles". The only other pole in Native American use that springs to my mind is in the Sun Dance but that is probably mostly a practical use than a religious object. Any other ideas? Rmhermen (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)