Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between the first talk comment and March 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Native American/Archive03.

---

Rename?

This was mentioned below, but I believe we need to decide on an action to take.

I find the 1977 United Nations conference [1] to be of great significance. “American Indian” appears to be the most common term American Indians use to describe themselves. I believe that this article should be renamed American Indian as it is the more culturally correct term and is the most common self-identifying term. Portions not relating to peoples who would fit under the term should be moved to a different page. --SecretAgent 01:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A 1977 source is hardly a guide to modern usage, especially considering the political movements active among the groups at that time period. The article notes the diverse usages and no title can ever be "correct" in everyone's eyes because of these differences. Rmhermen 15:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal American?

The term "Aboriginal peoples" has been added to the header section as a synonym of "Native American". Also a page has been created with that sense, titled "Aboriginal American", and linked to by "Aboriginal Americans" and "American Aborigines" (plural) . However that term is not discussed in the "What name?" section, and I have never heard of it before in that sense. ("Aborigines" seems to be used almost exclusively for the pre-European population of Australia.) Was it just made up on the spot?

In fact, there was alaready a page titled "American Aborigine" (singular) with a very different (if obscure) meaning: a people with distinctive African or Autralian Aborigine traits, who, according to some Brazilian archaeologists, reached the Americas several millenia before the Siberian hunters. (While this theory is still very controversial, it is backed by some 70 dated skeletons from Brazil and similar finds in Baja California, so methinks that it deserves a page.) Unfortunately the new "American Aborigine" page and its links are largely shadowing that earlier page, and induced at least one wrong link.

So, if no one objects, I would like to remove the new Aboriginal American page, and redirect those titles to the preexisting American Aborigine page. Is that OK?
Jorge Stolfi 19:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The term "Aboriginal American" is not unique to that article and has a fairly long, if not widespread history. A small selection from the top Google hits: contemporary state of North Dakota site Sapir in 1916 1883 book a contemporary site. older≠wiser 20:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Can you provide more details about when/where/by whom that term was/is used? How does it meaning and connotations compare to "Native American" and the other names listed in the "What name?" section? Thanks,
Jorge Stolfi 21:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the first dictionary definition of aboriginal is "Having existed in a region from the beginning". [2] Similarly, the definition for aborigine is not restricted to Australian aborigines. [3] The etymology suggests it was a latin folk etymology of a pre-Roman tribal name. I've no specific familiarity about the hows, whens, whos, etc. I've heard the term used in reference to Native Americans before, I think mostly in anthropological contexts, but my memory is fuzzy on that. I've really no idea as to just how widespread use of the term is. older≠wiser 21:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

You can cite textbooks and dictionaries, but when you get right down to it aboriginal means the last ones that were there in prehistoric times. We know there was lots of warring, kidnapping, enslavement, displacement immediately before and during the European colonization. The oral histories are not adequate to tell us what happened to the original occupiers of a location.

Tribes and states

I find it amazing that most tribes' territory seems to respect yet to be defined state boundaries. Perhaps more attention/precision/description/? to the geographic locations might improve this 'pedia entry.

North American bias

This article's focus is very much on North America. 213.51.209.230 10:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Cultural characteristics

I removed the head cultural characteristics because the various cultures of North and South America were far too diverse to be discussed in general. Characteristics should be described on a culture by culture basis.

North and South America - bogus distinction?

Before European colonization, there was "North America" and "South America" did not exist. So why rely on a post-colonization distinction to define the descendents of pre-colonization peoples? The current definition would include the indigenes of Mexico as "Native Americans," but not the indigenous of Guatemala. Are the Indians of Guatemala so much more different from Indians of Mexico as they are from Indians of Chile, or so much more different than Indians of Mexico are from Indians of Maine? -- SR

Actually, yes. The further south that you go, the greater the difference. The differences are cultural, historical, and genetic. ErikFP 19:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, although the changes from extreme North to extreme South are gradual (or many-stepped) and have little to do with the conventional geographical boundaries between North/Central/South America. On this subject, one should always read those terms only as very broad regions. The main cultural boundaries seem to be somewhere in Northern Candada, somewhere in Southern US (the edges of the third and second migratory waves from Siberia, respectively), the Panama isthmus, and the Andes massif.
Jorge Stolfi 19:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed material

The following was moved from the article Native American:

Text moved back into article

Fredbauder - what were your reasons for removing this material from the article? It looks fine to me. Enchanter

I agree with Enchanter; why was the text removed? --maveric149

This material is mainly talk about the topic and what the topic ought to be:

What is the best name for this group of people?

I do believe that the word Indian comes from the Italian word indios which means from God, India was not a country in the time of Colombus, it was Hindustan.Ryan Hayes

Anthropologists originated the term, and prefer it to the former apellations of "Indian" or "American Indian", which they consider inaccurate, as these terms bear no relationship to the actual origins of aboriginal Americans, and were born of the misapprehension on the part of Christopher Columbus, arriving at islands off the east coast of the North American continent, that he had reached the Indies. Of course, "Indian" and "American Indian" continue to be widely used in North America, even by Native Americans themselves, many of whom are not offended by the terms.

One minority view has been that a more accurate term might be "Asiatic Americans" because of the popular theory that such peoples migrated to the Americas from Asia accross an ice bridge covering the Bering Straits some 20,000 years ago. There is competent fossil evidence that this may have been the case. The strong tradition among archaeologists and anthropologists, however, is to indicate the geographic origins of a people as relating to the region where they (or their remains) were first encountered by researchers.

One difficulty with the term, however, as a substitute for "American Indian," is that there are at least two peoples who certainly are natives of the Americas, but who are not properly considered American Indians: the Inuit and the Aleut people of the far north of the continent. Another difficulty is that many Native American groups migrated to their current locations after the start of European colonization, and therefore it can be argued that they are no more native to their current locations than the Europeans.

Another difficulty with the term comes from the fact that many Indian religious traditions hold that their people have been on their land since the beginning of time. Theories that hold that Indians migrated to North America are contrary to this religious teaching and hence offensive to many Indians -BuddhaInside

In Canada the term "First Nations" is now in general use. In Alaska, because of legal use (in ANSCA) and because of the Eskimo peoples, the term "Alaskan Native]] is used.

Fred Bauder

---

Most of the Indians I've talked to and also some books I've read. People prefer the name Indian precisly because it can be traced to Indios from God. And also because technically any person who is born in a country is a "Native" of that country. The idea of calling them Native Americians came out of the desire for "political correctness" and however well intentioned it may be, the change was made unilaterally without getting a consensus from the people who would be affected by that change.

ErikFP 15:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

ErikFP, there is no way that "Indios" has anything to do with "in Dios" -- which, by the way, would be Spanish not Italian, and would mean "in God" not "from God". For one thing, the stress is on the wrong syllable, and in Spanish those two words would never be written joined. But, more importantly, there are plenty (really plenty) of documents, before and after Columbus, that confirm the "indios" (or "indígenas") = "people from India" story.
All the best,Jorge Stolfi 07:35, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...................

ErikFP 23:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Update: my previous comments were based on this discussion page rather then the actual article page. I just reread the article page to do with "What Name" and I feel that it does a good job as it is written now. So the only thing that is to be debated is the name of the webpage itself. I believe this quote to be totally relevant.[4]

At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian.

...................

Hi Jorge,
I am not at all intending to dispute the "people from India" story. I fully agree that it is the most probable explaination. As for the spelling, I was quoting the spelling from above. My reason for quoting it was to be in agreement with it, on the basis that I have read a book (unfortunatly don't recall which one) in which the Indian author discussed the orgins and stated his preference because it could be traced to "people from God" but without giving the spelling/entomology -- so I was glad to read the explaination of the word's entomology.

However, the preference goes far beyond that of a single author. I am part Americian Indian and I know many Americian Indians, and they always (that I've encountered) use "Indian" to refer to themselves unless they are being traditional and call themselves "First People" or simply "The People" (or simply their tribal name). You can see this in any of their websites... I have yet to see an Americian Indian website (or go to a Pow Wow) that uses the term Native Americian (as a primary referent) {okay, so I've just now found a "Native" website... none-the-less, the majority do not use "Native" 23:40, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC) }.

As far as I know, the term Native Americian grew out of the "politically correct" 60s and 70s. When there was a lot more racial sensitivity starting to happen. This is also the same movement that changed the word Niger (an insult) to Black. However, the difference is that Indians do not consider the word Indian to be an insult, and in fact that author was making a strong case for why he prefers it to other names; so the attempted change was well intentioned but misguided. On the other hand, "Native" is very generic, anyone who is born in a place can claim to be native to that place. Or as someone pointed out in another comment... because the Indians were relocated, they can't really claim to be "native" anymore.

In summary, Americian Indians do not have a strong objection (AFAIK) to the term "Native Americian", it is not considered insulting. However, by majority, the people prefer to be called Americian Indians (or simply Indians) and this is the term that they do use when refering to themselves. Some Indians have expressed a mild objection based on the fact that "Native" is essentially meaningless, anyone born here is a "native".

"Amerindians" is a good attempt, but has never come into popular use.

So, if you are trying to be culturally correct as opposed to politically correct... then Americian Indian would be the correct term to use when refering to people of Northern USA and Canada. Now as far as South Americia goes, that is a whole other kettle of fish. As someone else also pointed out, they are not generally refered to as "Indians", but rather as South Americians, or Mayans, or Purvians etc. etc.. My experience at Pow Wows, where some Mayan Dancers have been present, is that Americian Indians do not consider South Americians to be *directly* related (in the same group as North Americian Indians). Also, their history and culture are quite different. Therefore I would propose that South America not be lumped together with Americian Indians but given a completly seperate page.

ErikFP 19:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Side Note: To be called a "Red Skin" as in the basball team, is mildly insulting. You can bet that if there were a baseball team called the "Darkies" that there would be a major outcry. Fact is we still have a double standard in this country. It is not "okay" to be prejudiced against Blacks, but racism again'st Indians is still largely acceptable. Thanks to Hollywood, every adult Americian's subconscious has been engraved with the concept that "The only good Indian is a Dead Indian".

EricFP, I have no opinion on the naming issues (Native American vs. American Indian or whatever). I only tried to rearrange the text in a more readable(?) order and add a few bits of (hopefully) factual info. In particular, I did not choose the article's name.
All the best,Jorge Stolfi 05:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I find the 1977 United Nations conference [5] to be of great significance. “American Indian” appears to be the most common term American Indians use to describe themselves.

I believe that this article should be renamed American Indian as it is the more culturally correct term and is the most common self-identifying term. Portions not relating to peoples who would fit under the term should be moved to a different page. --SecretAgent 01:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keeping spirits up

I have put the following paragraph in the article:

As a general proposition, Native Americans do better if they can keep their spirits up; oppressive conditions, expecially slavery have deleterious effects on their mental and ultimately physical health.

This is, of course, true as general proposition for people, indeed, animals; but I believe more so for Native Americans who display an exaggerated failure to thrive as compared to other people under such conditions. Perhaps it could be expressed better or supported better, but I believe it is well established.

By now, this comment (it is nothing else, as it is now) looks like unrespectful for Native Americans. I do hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it strongly smells like that. As a matter of fact, slavery never improved anyone's mental or physical health, so this note is the same useful as saying that -let's say- in France there are many prostitutes (there are many in every country).

I had proposed something that evidently you didn't like, but since you reinserted your text in the article, with coherence with what you yourself say above, please edit it as soon as you can, in order to have Native Americans granted their respect, as it happens for anyone else here. You are right: it could be expressed better (given that we need it). At least, use a Wikipedia style, turning personal suggestions into encyclopedic material. Add your scientific material about it, if there is any, develop this topic.

Finally, might I kindly ask you, please avoid further comparisons with animals and do care about others' eventual sensibility, thanks. --Gianfranco

No disrespect is intended. I guess it's not that people are animals but that animals are people. Caged animals often do not thrive, especially new caught wild animals. The American experience has been that having been defeated, some Native Americans also become dispirited and health and psychological problems develop, especially alcoholism. Traditional Native American religion has a strong component of uplifting activity. The problem with slavery is well documented. Native Americans in conditions of slavery rapidly die. Almost the entire population of Florida and the Caribbean died in that way although disease also played a major role. I'll try a re-edit soon. Fred Bauder

.....

speaking as someone who is part Indian, I did not interpet the comment as an insult, though I can see how it could be construed that way. And I appreciate that people are being sensitive to these issues. I believe that what Fred was trying to express is that Indians were less able to adapt to captivity then other "people". (and yes, Indians do consider animals to be {god's} little people -- lots of mythology revolves around Indians changing into animals and animals into Indians). If you take someone who has had a tremendous sense of freedom all of their life and then you confine them. The impact upon them will be greater then it would be on someone who has lived in a more structured environment. The Blacks proved themselves to be much more able to cope with slavery. But I do not know what cultural differences would explain this.

Americian Indians still suffer greatly from the psychological damage that was done to their ancestors. ErikFP 19:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

one further clarification, it is well documented -- but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment -- that Indians forced into slavery usually died. This is why you seldom see references to Indians as slaves, it just simply was not viable. And I believe this is what Fred Bauder was trying to make note of. ErikFP 12:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Focus again, and languages

The scope of this one is a bit weird, at the moment: we should either include the whole of the Americas, from the Arctic Ocean to Tierra del Fuego, or limit it to the US and Canada. At the moment, we have just enough hints about Brazil and the Caribbean to demand more on the rest of the Americas.

The "languages" list looks pretty arbitrary, at the moment. Last I read, there are considered to be three broad language families in the Americas. Vicki Rosenzweig 08:47 Jul 28, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, it was previously (at top) suggested that limiting the article to North America was arbitrary but if you don't it has the potential to become unwieldy. It needs to be completely reoriganized and subtopics for North and South America created and perhaps one for the Caribbean and Central America. I would still like to get rid of the talk about the name.

The languages list is short and incomplete. See http://users.cybercity.dk/~nmb3879/indian0.htm Fred Bauder

"Native American" outside US and Canada

Is the whole "Native American" designation ever applied to Indians from outside the US (and Canada)? I've never heard/seen it used for the current tribes in Central and South America, let alone for the more advanced civilisations of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas. So maybe the whole content about these Indians (as we Europeans call them, however incorrect) should be moved to Indian? Jeronimo 01:47 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Perhaps Native American is American English. The choice is arbitrary. But one name must be chosen and the politically correct one is as good as any. If we can put up with jewellery and accountancy, both Britishisms we can put up with Americanisms. I believe the term used in South and Central America is Indios. Fred Bauder

....

12 Oct 2004 The question is? Do you want to be politically correct or do you want to be Culturally Correct? Especially consider that political correctness is being defined by the very same people who have tried very very hard to destroy the Americian Indians.

I have yet to meet an Indian (I've met many, I am part Indian) who felt insulted at being called an Indian. But I have met "whites" who thought that the way to insult someone was to call them an Indian. This is an important distinction.

Call me an Indian and I know exactly what you are talking about (and so does everybody else), but call me a Native Americian... and I have to stop and think about what exactly that bland generic term means... Suppose that instead of calling someone a Caucasian, you called them a "Generic Light Skinned European" because you wanted to be politically correct and not offend them... Do you want to be called a "Generic Person"?  ;-)

The cultural and historical identity of the "First Peoples" is directly linked to the word "Indian". The term "Native American" is an indirect reference, it is a cultural disconnect.

The argument about avoiding ambiguity with the country of India is not compelling. For one thing, I have never heard of a person from India being refered to as an Indian, usually they are called by their ethnic or religious group such as Hindu or Brahaman or Bengalli(sp?). And even if that were not true it does not grant exclusivity to the use of the name; after all, there is a town called Moscow in Idaho and no one complains that it might be confused with the other Moscow.

The problem is the scope of the page is too big. The way to resolve the name problem is to split the topic. In Canada the Correct Legal Term is "First Nations People". In the USA the general majority of Indians I've talked to prefer the term "American Indian" although many Elders I've met prefer to be called "First Peoples". The term "Native American" is tolerated by American Indians but not embraced by them.

ErikFP 12:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

....

I'm pretty sure that "Native American" is American English, but that's not my point - redirects could fix that and all kinds of English are allowed here. However, I have never seen the term used for non US-indians; is it ever? If so, then everything's fine; if not, a different solution is required IMO Jeronimo

Never seen "Native American" used outside the US. If you want to do the work and while you're at it rewrite the article, have fun. Fred Bauder

(US) Americans do indeed seem to generally refer to all the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas as "Native American". Certainly I have never been aware of any reputed restriction of the use of the term to describe only those living within the present territory of the US, nor does it seem were the people who wrote this glossary. --Brion VIBBER

I have heard Indians in S. America refer to themselves as "nativos," Natives. By the way, many of their leaders do travel to places like Geneva, New York, and D.C. and understand that in other languages people use other terms to designate them (such as "Native American). Just like non-Native Americans, Native Americans may refer to themselves in different ways in different languages. Since this is an American-English-Language Encyclopedia, I think we should use the most common American-English term, with redirects from other terms (although I am not sure why "Native American" is better politically than "Indian," after all, it is called "The American Indian Movement" not "The American Native American Movement"). I think the main advantage NA has over Indian is that it avoids any confusion with the people who live in India. Slrubenstein

How about Indigenous American Peoples - functioonal, covers N & S America, and can include Aleut & Eskimo.

~ender 2003-09-09 21:45:MST

There's also the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the United Negro College Fund, but try using the terms "colored people" and "Negro" today... Political correctness is funny that way. --Brion VIBBER

That is a brilliant observation. -BuddhaInside

Well, let me rephrase that: the American Indians I know prefer the term "Indian," although I know that there is no absolute consensus. Slrubenstein

As I said, political correctness is funny that way. --Brion VIBBER

For example, the Spanish in Florida enslaved Native Americans, as they had previously on Hispanola. This resulted in the death of most of those used as slaves, but the purpose was not to exterminate them but to use them as slaves. For a rare instance where that was the purpose, see Pequot War. Fred Bauder 11:03, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Classification by regions

It's not really clear how the Regions list is supposed to work. So many tribes were scattered or moved around. I added the Shawnee (Chief Tecumseh, you know), for example, under Eastern Woodlands, because they were originally from OH/PA/WV and in general tried to stay in that area when they could, but they lived in the South for a while and eventually scattered. The majority are in Oklahoma today. Does that mean they should go under OK and be considered a Great Plains tribe? mjb 05:27 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

I think it refers, primarily, to the cultural connections and not the geographic location. The Shawnee are culturally connected to the tribes from the Eastern Woodlands, more so than they are culturally connected to the other natives of Oklahoma.Tokerboy 06:05 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

The placement of tribes in the regional list is somewhat arbitrary. A few tribes can be listed in several, because they lived in both or migrated between them, Utes, Apache, Lakota. They should be listed in the region they had the most connection with. A very few tribes lived historically in Oklahoma; many were removed to Oklahome. In those cases their original location should be used.Fredbauder 11:18 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, looked again at the subject page. A contributor has added US state locations which reflect the contemporary location of the tribes. This is useful, although I noted some errors, but creates some ambiguity, as tribes are listed as Eastern Woodland and as living in Oklahoma. Fredbauder 11:25 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

Why not have a table, common tribe name | tribe in own language | region of origin | current bulk of population?

~ender 2003-09-09 21:45:MST

Native Americans in Latin American coutries

Native Americans officially make up the majority of the population in Bolivia and Guatemala and are significant in most other Hispanic American countries, with the possible exception of Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Uruguay.

How significant is the native population in Argentina and Chile? Rick

.........

The above comment illustrates exactly why this topic needs to be split and why "Native American" is a poor choice for the page name.

Let me ask you this, would you ever consider lumping England, Scottland, France and Poland all under one generic label and talk about them as if they were all the same people?

It's absurd to treat such disparate cultures as being interchangable. It's bad enough that the Great Plains Tribes are considered to be the same as the Northwest Coastal Tribes even though there are huge differences in their cultures.

ErikFP 11:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed tribes

Why were some of the tribes just removed, by 67.75.229.84? I've reverted it for now, but if there's a good reason, I'm willing to hear it. -- Tim Starling 04:16, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

Please do your research before reverting back to old material. I moved certain Native American group links to different geographic regions of the United States (where they belonged); I also removed some links because I have since made a List of First Nations of Canada list, as not all Canadian First Nations have American counterparts. I thought this would make organization a little easier, perhaps. One link was removed because I could not find any information about this group/subgroup with a Google search. -- 67.75.229.84

Thank you for explaining that. You gave no edit summary, no explanation in the talk page, you did not provide a link to List of First Nations or explain in the article that more tribes could be found there, and you were not logged in. We have had vandals before who discreetly remove a paragraph for no good reason. I don't have time to research every case. You could have easily re-inserted your material by reverting my edit, see Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. I wouldn't have minded, as long as you provided an explanation. -- Tim Starling 01:30, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't have time to research every case. - Then research the ones you have time for and leave the rest alone. Just because you lack the time to research a deletion doesn't make the deletion invalid. -BuddhaInside

Really? Do you think it's worth the risk? -- Tim Starling 02:15, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

What is the alternative? To discriminate against non-logged-in users? Users editing from an IP address are not second-class citizens of wikipedia. -BuddhaInside

USA focus again

Since this article is pretty much entirely about the first nations people/native americans who live(d) within current U.S.A. boundaries, I think this article should be transitioned to a page solely about those in the U.S. There is currently a link to List of First Nations, which I have moved to First Nations of Canada. It makes sense to add a bit more info to this article, and rename it as I have done. dave 01:37, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Athabascan migration

"The Athabascan peoples generally lived in Alaska and western Canada but several tribes migrated south as far as California and the American Southwest" seems to imply that tribes in Alaska and western Canada, that were already formed, are known to have migrated as units to California and the American Southwest. Such whole-tribe migration isn't far-fetched (even tho it seems more likely that outcast or adventurous bands from one or several tribes would migrate, without necessarily being so committed to permanently leaving their tribes that they had started behaving as separate tribes.) But it's far-fetched that whole-tribe migration could be distinguished.

Unless someone knows of evidence supporting the current wording, i propose to substitute "... but some Athabascans migrated south as far as California and the American Southwest, and became the ancestors of tribes now there", which IIRC is supported both by linguistics and by artifact styles. Depending on details of the evidence, it may be possible to add (now or later) "... in 3 waves ...", or "... in at least 23 waves ..." or whatever, between "south" and "as far". Jerzy 23:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That probably means "tribe" in a non-technical way, as in "a bunch of Indians." Ancestors of the Athapaskan tribes would be more correct. Adam Bishop 23:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Treatment of offensive terms

Isn't the word "Injun" considered offensive nowadays? dave 22:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The question is how to reflect that fact. Eliminating it is not on the table, since many people are aware of the term and interested in how it relates to this subject. I sketched out the following text, but did not edit it in, a while back. Is it any help to you?

The following terms all sometimes refer to Americans of indigenous ethnicity:

• Native Americans and American Indians (controversial terms, as discussed under "Terminology" in this article, that are used throughout this article)
• Injun (probably a phonetic rendering of a dialect variation on "Indian", but used with this spelling in fictional works, probably with the intent of heightening the impression of the ignorance and/or ethnic prejudice of characters who speak it)
• Indyan (probably a variant spelling of "Indian", prior to the standardization of English spelling)
• Red Indian (a UK term, probably offensive to the same readers that "American Indian" is, and to others besides)
• Redskin (probably authentic to the American frontier, but universally recognized by the late 20th century (at least in the northern US, east of the Rockies) as offensive, and probably now known solely through fiction, as suggested above in the case of "Injun")
• Amerindians and
• Amerinds (technical terms from anthropology)

--Jerzy 03:03, 2003 Nov 12 (UTC)

---

I was under the impression that since 2002, American Indian, has replaced Native American, as being more politically correct. I was told that the "Native" in Native American implied "savage." Can I hear any other views on this subject? If I am right, we should probably move Native American to American Indian. Any thoughts on this subject will be appreciated. Greenmountainboy

Please don't confuse political correctness with our NPOV policy and naming conventions. Political correctness is, in fact, its own POV and is therefore not the deciding factor in naming (just one factor). Primarily we follow most common usage in the context of an encyclopedia with an eye toward avoiding unreasonable ambiguity or offensiveness, so when usage of "Native American" is surpassed by "American Indian" and/or the use of "Native" in "Native American" is seen as being unreasonably offensive (not the same as PC), then we will move the article. --mav

Using the term Amerindian is not political correctness. This is the proper scientific term to designate a subgroup of American aboriginal peoples. -- Mathieugp 20:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt and informative responses. Greenmountainboy 23:25, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It may be because i favor the term "Amerind" (and favor it for reasons somewhat related to its status in science), that i feel obligated to object to the reasoning for favoring it, that it's "the proper scientific term". The fact that scientists find it a convenenient terminology for their purposes is far making it right here, and in fact is barely of interest.

We need terminology whose scope we understand (still not achieved IMO), and that we and modern society have negotiated over sufficiently that our energy is not consumed by PoV fights over it (not yet). Begging the question is one thing; saying "science tells us what's right" in this is stealing the answer, and even less constructive. --Jerzy 01:09, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

I was definetely not saying that A is true because others said it. That would be a fallacy. I stated that A was not B because of some reason C which I claim to be true. Amerind or Amerindian, which ever. You'll find that if you say "Amerind" to people, they won't have of clue what you are talking about. However, if you say "Amerindian" to someone who has never heard the term before, a good number of them will guess the meaning correctly because of the understanding they have of the words "Indian" and "America". American Indians. Amerindians. I was just pointing that out: people are free to use whichever term. Sometimes, using "proper" terminology can make an article less accessible to the general public. Often, inside a "scientific" article, you will see both "Native Americans" and "Amerindians" being used. I think it might be too early to retire the words people have been used to for a long time. This is just a comment. :-) -- Mathieugp 03:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tnx for clarification, M...gp; i started a longer version of what i posted, that focused on imprecision of your argument (rather than assuming it was clear as i finally did) & scrapped it as too nuanced -- but maybe it deserved that nuanced a treatment. Speaking of imprecision, i didn't intend to contrast "Amerind" and "Amerindian", which i keep in the same cerebral pigeonhole. (And i favor it/them not as WP's choice now, but as an option i'd like to keep visible in a long-term exchange, on WP & wider.) Sorry abt that. --Jerzy 03:33, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's allll good. ;-) -- Mathieugp 05:18, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Many of the links in the article need to be disambiguated. -Anthropos 14:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Resourses, external links

The addition of the "GhostChild" links makes me think we need to go through all the resourses and external links and determine what should stay and what should be removed. This article is starting to get some activity as a place to promote small websites. Gentgeen 18:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Métis

Not sure about the addition of Métis to the list of non-"Indians" who are indisputably indigenous to the New World. Métis are people of mixed American Indian and European ancestry. That is, many of their ancestors are indisputably not indigenes, and the rest of their ancestors are basically Indians.

You're right, but they're officially an aboriginal people in Canada.

Disambiguation style

I would be good if we could chose one style to disambiguate with. So far I have noticed:

• name tribe
• name Tribe
• name (tribe)
• name (people)
• name (Native American)
• name (Native Americans)
• name First Nation -even one for a U.S. tribe!
• name Nation

Probably others. I would suggest using name (tribe) as the standard (partly since it appears to be the most widely used already.) I just used name Nation to disambiguate the Sac tribe and the Fox tribe from their merged current legal Sac and Fox Nation. So I don't think it makes a good tag since it has other uses. Rmhermen 16:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I concur with using "Name (tribe)" as a standard for disambiguation. I think there should be redirects for at least "Name tribe" and "Name (people)", perhaps others as needed. I don't think it is imperative to go back and change already existing ones though. Bkonrad | Talk 01:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can think of any examples off the top of my head, but is it possible that there are some NA groups that would object to being referred to as "tribe"? Maybe "Name (people)" would be more general. Or we could just use "Name (tribe)" unless there is some particular reason not to. - Nat Krause 02:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

moved classification

The page was very long and causing my browser to fall over. I have moved the classification of NAs to its own page and linked to it to make the whole thing readable. I think it makes more sense like that anyway --(talk to)BozMo 10:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

"Native American" and internal migrations

I have tried to do some cleanup and reorganization. I trimmed some repeated or superfluous text, but hopefully no information was lost.

In particular, I removed these sentences

Another difficulty is that many Native American groups migrated (or were displaced) to their current locations after the start of European colonization, and therefore it can be argued that they have no more "native" ties to their current locations than do the Europeans. However, as they were moving within America, they remained native to America.

because the first sentence is a "non sequitur", as the second sentence clearly explains.
All the bet,
Jorge Stolfi 00:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

comments and POV moved from article

I'm moving the following here from the article page because the first appears to be discussion and the second, while there is likely some truth to it, needs to be presented in a more NPOV manner (IMO). older≠wiser 14:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

okay, fair enough. perhaps you would Please help me to rewrite these entries?

I have created a new page for lengthy Talk:Native American/Discussion of changes to Native Americans in the United States because the references were too long for this page.

---

and here is the other entry for discussion

Original version (please leave intact and make changes below)

Well, if anybody had bothered to ask the Indians themselves, they might have learned something... Fact is that the Coastal Indians are highly skilled with watercraft of various types such as kayaks, bidarkas, umiaks, huge canoes, etc. Even to the extent of being Whale Hunters, which is no simple thing. Fact is that some of the Inuit people living in Alaska have relatives living in Russia and they used to travel freeely back and forth in their boats, using the islands as stepping stones. It was only the hostilities between the USA goverment and the USSR that stopped them from being able to do this. No land bridge was required... thank you very much.

I do agree with the concept of multiple migrations by various peoples, there is a substantial gentic diversity among the Indians (recently it has also been found that the Vikings and the Phoenicians managed to find their way to Americian; and also National Geographic sponsored a re-creation of a journey by some Irish Monks; fact is, Americia has been a pretty busy place, long before Columbus).

I also have seen compelling evidence that the Americian Indians have common ancestry with the Japanese. One Japanese woman in particular (with long hair), was compleatly indistinguishable from an Americian Indian woman.

Revised Version

Western scientists have often overlooked the following facts:

• The Northwest Coast Indians are highly skilled with watercraft of various types such as kayaks, bidarkas, umiaks, huge canoes, etc. (Even to the extent of being Whale Hunters, which is no simple thing).

• Some of the Inuit people living in Alaska have relatives living in Russia and they used to travel freeely (and frequently) back and forth in their boats, using the islands as stepping stones. It was only the hostilities between the USA government and the USSR that stopped them from being able to do this.

Therefore a Land Bridge was not required to enable people to travel to the Americian continent from Siberia.

It has also been documented that long before Christopher Columbus "discovered" America, the Vikings had established a settelment on the Delaware River. It is also thought that the Phoenicians have traveled to America in ancient times. And the National Geographic has re-created a voyage to America by Irish Monks in a leather and wood framed boat.

This author has also observed that the physical appearance of some Japanese peoples and Indian peoples are indistinguishable from each other. Thus providing strong indication of a genetic realtionship. ErikFP 19:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

To the anonymous author of the above: please note that the skills that the Northwest indians had 500 years ago are not necessarily those that the Siberians had 11000 years ago. From the archaeological finds, the first Americans did not use polished stone tools, only chipped ones -- meaning that they had much more primitive technology than that of historical Indians. Thus there no reason to assume that they had boats capable of crossing the Bering straits. In fact, the current theory seems to be that the "Eskimo" people were the first to make the crossing by sea, a long time ago but much after the end of the last Ice Age.
As for the Native Americans resembling the Japanese, that is not surprising, but they also resemble East Asians in general (Chinese, Mongols, Siberians, etc.)
The Irish monks and other Old World contact theories are discussed in pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, but note that they are way too late to influence the pre-history of the Americas.
Jorge Stolfi 07:20, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bkonrad, sorry for breaking your link. I can't recall what happened; I may have missed the closing brackets (it's a rather long title!) and deleted what seemed to be a typo.
Jorge Stolfi 09:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jorge,
It was not my intention to be anonymous. It's just that (1) when the discussion was split onto a seperate page, my sig only ended up on the split page. and (2) Wikipedia has a very anoying timeout that is much too short and it logs you out without any obvious indication... (worse yet, I have a dynamic ip that is different evertime I connect).

Okay, since I do not know enough about how far back into history the boating capabilities go, I will not pursue that "migration" discussion further at this time.

Thank you very much for your rewrite of my attempt at an NPOV about Indian Boarding Schools etc.. Being new to Wikipedia and also being emotionally involved with the topic I was not really able to put it into the neutral context required. The only change that I will be making is to add a couple more references in Wikipedia style and to fix a grammer error.
As far as references to people being jailed for teaching their traditions goes... What I know is from personal knowledge. Is there an appropriate way to reference that? (I did find one reference to where the traditions were outlawed. I could also certainly find a reference to where people were killed for the crime of participating in a "Ghost Dance".)
Thank you again. ErikFP 19:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

this passage seems a little strong

"Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, the outlawing of native languages and culture, forced sterilizations, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s, and slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and ultimately physical health. Contemporary problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes and New World Syndrome."

'Termination policies'? 'Forced sterilizations'? The passages preceding this one do not prepare the reader for these accusations. Hence POV. Unless a reference is added, especially for the sterilization. I think the word 'termination' should be edited altogether. Marlowe 21:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that "termination policies" means the government rescinding official recognition of tribal status, but this is very unclear. The basic problem with this passage is a failure to contextualize the accusations by time period. That is, just about every bad thing one can think of (not sure about sterilization, but I wouldn't be surprised) was done to Indians at some point, but one could read the passage and get the impression that they were all happening in the 1960s! - Nat Krause 10:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

This statement seems strong as well: "English, like any other natural language, has traditionally ignored this principle, and has generally exerted its "natural right" to invent its own ethnic terms — such as "German", "Dutch", and "Albanian" — in complete disregard to the self-apellations and preferences of the subjects"

It implies a conscious effort by English language speakers to denigrate other languages/cultures. There is no English committee of usuage, like l'academie francaise. These words arose through centuries of isolated use, but not through the implied sense of arrogant entitlement.

Funny, it doesn't read that way to me. It does say "English, like any other natural language". It wouldn't hurt to tone it down a little anyway. - Nat Krause 10:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Structure

Coming to this new, I wondered why when I look at US history, it starts with colonial america. There is a link to pre-colonial history, but it redirects to Native American, which, although it contains some pre-colonial history, is not the same thing. Is this an old saw, or would anyone mind me moving things around? Mark Richards 23:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indian Boarding Schools

A reasonably good article could be written on this subject, thus justifying the link to Indian boarding schools using the material in:

• David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1875-1928, University Press of Kansas, 1975. Hardcover, ISBN 0-7006-0735-8; trade paperback, ISBN 0-7006-0838-9.

If you want to revive this article, just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Indian_Boarding_School&redirect=no and edit it. The topic deserves an article, but the current material was bad and orphaned. Gadykozma 14:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genocide

What does the term "outright genocide" mean? As in, "Over the next 400 years, if the contacts between the two cultures rarely amounted to outright genocide, they would typically be disastrous for the Native Americans."

• Sounds like "POV". "Genocide", which needs no further "POV", is enough.Sfahey 04:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I may have been the one who wrote "outright". I take it to mean "systematic" — an organized effort to wipe out an entire people, as opposed to a series of small-scale murders (individuals, isolated villages) that are equally motivated and lead to the same result. It seems to me that most of the native cultures that were wiped out in the Americas (and elsewhere) followed the latter pattern, although systematic genocide did occur too.
Jorge Stolfi 21:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

International translations

We have a discussion in Danish about the correct translation, where I have added a new term for indian: "indfødt amerikaner", which is a direct translation word by word of "native american". As I see it, the term "native american" is gaining ground and for good reason according to my own studies. The English wikipedia does also have an article of "indian", where it is fair to link to the corresponding Danish version. But if we failed to do the first thing correct, people might believe, that the old term could live on forever without giving any trouble. And that would be wrong IMHO in respect for Native Americans. --Hansjorn 04:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "Native American" is gaining ground. It gained a lot of ground in the 70s and 80s, but then a lot of people, apparently including a lot of American Indians, decided that it sounded too politically correct, so some people switched back to "American Indian". Both expressions are common. I suggest you should use whatever term is most common and sounds most natural in Danish. - Nat Krause 04:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reaction Nat - but I got the funny idea from surfing the net and reading Stephen Ambrose, that the term "indian" was to be taken out, since it hurt too much from yesterdays atrocities. But then I might have got it wrong.--Hansjorn 04:38, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Subgroups needed

This article would be better if someone knowledgeable could amplify the "list of" a gazillion Indian tribes at the end. A story on Caucasians for example would describe slavs, germanics, celts, etc., or an article on autos would make mention of different styles, and not lump compact cars in with Hummers. After being here for thousands of years, Incas and Apaches for example had evolved quite different cultures.Sfahey 15:19, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean the article Classification of Native Americans which groups them by region (except for some displaced Woodland tribes classified as Plains). There is no "List of..." at the end of the Native American article. Rmhermen 19:07, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I clicked right into the middle of that huge list without realizing that it started with a note explaining what it was.Sfahey 04:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm cutting the bit about the Innu from: "These groups include, for example, the Innu people of the Labrador/Quebec peninsula, and the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut peoples of the far north of the continent." The Innu are not Inuit, but a First Nation (Amerindians) formerly widely known as Montagnais. QuartierLatin1968 06:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some edits

Added "Although this is widely agreed upon by most people, many Native Americans religious beliefs consider this wrong, as it is their belief that they were created in the Americas." to early history, reason is obvious.

Revised "Aericans themselves, most of whom do not feel offended by the terms. Indeed many prefer to be called Indians, since this was the term applied to their forefathers. Native American may be more preferable to academics than to Native Americans themselves. [6]. Some also argue" to "Generally it is approrpiate to use Native American, since it is not considered as offensive as Indian can be. Some people argue," I removed forefathers since that is stero-typical, and added genearlly it is appropriate because MOST Native's do not find this offensive, I would know!

And I changed the Indian's on the bottom to Native's. Woofles 03:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

"There is also genetic evidence of such African predecessors among some descendants in Argentina, and archeological evidence of European natives in North America, including Clovis point weapons of European design pre-dating Asian-descended occupation, and the apparently European traits of those weapons' owners' bones." I'm thouroughly unconvinced. I'm not someone who thinks it isn't possible that such contact occured, but I've NEVER read anything about the African genetics or European bones from my readings on genetics and history. I suggest pulling this until evidence is submitted. 69.226.194.112 07:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

templates

This is linked too from "pre-colonial America", which is one of the series on History of the United States, of which all of the other articles have the US history template. I wonder if this template should be added to this article? Also, should other templates be added/created, such as perhaps a people's of the world template or something? Maybe it doesn't really matter. But it seems that if this is one of the pages in the American History template, then it should probably have the template on the page. --Jacobolus 22:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is not restricted to the United States so the template would probably be inappropriate. Rmhermen 23:00, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Bering Straight Land Bridge Theory

as it is being discovered that there are artifacts being discovered in amaerica and canada that place the native population as still being here as far back as 40,000 BCE, i beleive the bering straight ladn bridge theory should be deleted. Gabrielsimon

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. See also: Wikipedia:NPOV. Hyacinth 22:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

but science is a point of view, and there is very little on anything but said land bridge theory... the native viewpoint gets nothing more then a passing glance, which seems unfair.

upon reading what you have suggested, i protest the simple fact that the experts on native people ARE the native people, so tier point of view deserves more then the passing comment.

Plus, the anthropology community is one groups, one point of view, each native culture is a separate groups, with its own point of view, so i do not see why the anthropologists views get so much more space then the five hundred native cultures do, and i am only speaking of north america at this point. thers also nothing in the report dealing with the simple fact that the land bridge thoery has been called ludicrous by native peoples. It is for reasons unknonwn to me, been accepted by wikipedia as fact, and that doesnt seem very neutral to me.

Gabrielsimon

It has not been accepted by Wikipedia as fact. Wikipedia does not pretend to know what is fact and what is not. It merely reports those theories which are widely accepted as fact (such as the land bridge theory). However where more than one theory is widely accepted as fact, the Neutral Point Of View implies that all of them should be described, including the land bridge theory and the Native American theories. If you think that the Native American theory is not properly represented in the article it is up to you to add it to the article. I cannot since I am not a Native American and do not know the theory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5