Talk:Lummi Nation

Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Question as to etymology of "lummi"

Hi. Like other Chinook Jargon-type folks, I've assumed that the Lummi name comes from the Chinook for "old woman" or "widow", which is spelled the same or as lummieh (from Fr. la vieille). I'd add this to the page as a comment but wanted to make sure of it; or is it connected etymologically to Lhaq'temish somehow? Looks like this page has been partly written by a member of the Lummi so I'm hoping they're watching it as well. Comments/correction?Skookum1 22:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) ~[reply]

Xwlemi

Lummi does not come from Chinnok. Jargon is - or was - used lightly and rarely. "Lummi" comes from the Lummi Lanuage- or Xwlemi Chosen. Settlers and Europeans could not pronounce the word Xwlemi and in turn began to say Lummi.

Right. The word 'Lummi' comes from /xʷlə́mi/ in the Lummi language, not from Chinook Jargon. Independent evidence that this is a native Lummi word comes from comparison with Klallam. In Klallam the word for 'Lummi' is /nəxʷyə́mi/, showing a consistent l/y sound correspondence. That is, for every native Lummi word that has /l/, the Klallam cognate has /y/. The only words in Klallam that have /l/ come from Chinook Jargon like /saplín/ 'bread' and /ləmətú/ 'sheep'. So Klallam innovated /l/ > /y/ before contact with Chinook Jargon and the Klallam /nəxʷyə́mi/ must have come from Lummi before Chinook Jargon influence. If 'Lummi' had come from Chinook Jargon, the Klallam word would not show the sound change. So the word 'Lummi' must be older than Chinook Jargon. Eben Flutt (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

enrolled tribal members

There are two different numbers here, which one is correct? Narnibird 02:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enrollment

There are two numbers. The Enrollment count refers to the official enrollment count of federall recognized tribal member - while the reservation population refers to the number of people living within the reservation boundries (including non-enrolled persons)

Location/Maps

I'd love to improve this page with a map showing the location of the reservation, and maybe another showing the traditional/pre-European location of the tribe, but I don't know how to be able to know if maps are useable or not. Can anyone help? Murderbike 00:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some close-up basemaps of the northern puget sound-gulf of georgia-fraser valley region, including sat photo cutouts, but don't have time to compile links for you right now; later.Skookum1 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territory

saw the addition about Point Roberts, Lummi Peninsula etc; also would not this include their participation in the huge fishing stations on the South Arm of the Fraser alongside other Straits and River peoples, and if I'm not mistaken prior to the boundary ties with the Tsartlip, Tsawout, Penelakut, Tsawwassen and Semiahmoo and Musqueam were much tighter, no? All pretty much one language, North Straits Salish although I know Sənčaθən, written as SENĆOŦEN /Saanich language calls itself that, but it's only a dialect of North Straits Salish, isn't it? and/or the Tzoukes, Clallams and Songhees, I'm not sure, but I know the "small islands" people (i.e. the gulf-san juans-northern saanich) were "all together" back then, not divided by the border. I stand ready to be corrected on this; I'm just interested in recognizing cross-border native relationships/history, as also in the case of the Syilx and Ktunaxa, Haida, Tsimshian etc. adn the old ties between such as the Makah and Nuu-chah-nulth-aht or the Skwxwu7mesh and Nooksack and (I'm not sure but maybe also with them) the Suguamish; I know there's a mythic connection between the two respective Chehalis peoples...Skookum1 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good questions. my knowledge is pretty limited, i just recently read a book that focused on pre-White history of the Lummi and Nooksack tribes. from what this book said, they both seemed to keep to locations south of the border. I don't have the book with me to confirm which islands had confirmed settlement sites. as to cross-border relationships, i know we can throw in the Thompson River Salish, as they had a lot of contact with the Upper Skagits. Murderbike 03:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I almost mentioned them in the course of that - Nlaka'pamux we call 'em properly now, if we know how to pronounce it ;-) - and knew enough to put them in Washington cats; but I don't know if they ever had settlements south of the line or if it was just "traditional territory". As for the keeping to south of the border thing, my first question about that book is how geo-NPOV is it? Lots of Canadian-side publications/articles draw a blind spot at the border when they shouldn't, even when they're talking about pre-Oregon Treaty, and similar a lot of US-side publications/articles do the same the other way, in the same way that natinoal maps just show the other place's coastline but nothing on it ;-) All I "know" "for sure" is that the Lummis came and went from the Gulf Islands, and the people who live on the other side of the border used to come and go the San Juans, and given the shared language I'd expect kinship is part of the situation; the fishing stations on the south arm of the Fraser, which I've got a description of somewhere (boggling in scale) drew Duguamish and Clallams as well as other Straits peoples; I would have thought the Semiahmoos and Tsawwassens had close relations with the Lummis....or were they rivals/enemies perhaps? (in the way some adjoining Fraser River and Vanc Isl. communities/groups were....)19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a couple weeks ago that I read the Lummi/Nooksack oriented book, and it was actually more of a university thesis type paper that a guy wrote while he was going to Western Washington State College (now WWU) in Bellingham, I think in 1972. my impression is that the guy was more worried about the tribes themselves than "local" issues, but I don't really have any reason to know this for sure. The other book that I just finished focused on the Upper Skagits, and very much made it seem like their relationship with the Thompson's was a bad one, that they were always afraid of being attacked by them. It also mentioned fears of attacks from Kwakiutls and Haidas, as well the Lummi. Murderbike 20:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, as to your original question, that book/thesis also really focused on SETTLEMENTS, as opposed to just places they might frequent in trading with others. I guess that would be the info I would by default be focusing on as well. Murderbike 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lummi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923084100/http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/aboutus/documents/BoldtDecision8.5x11layoutforweb.pdf to http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/aboutus/documents/BoldtDecision8.5x11layoutforweb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Pacific Terminal

I feel the section is off topic, and probably deserves its own page. Zaurus (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll work on a split. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did a most basic split of this section to its own article. Help tuning it up would be welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce

I tried to confirm the unemployment numbers and was unable to do so. A 2008 report relating to community mobilization against drugs (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222741.pdf) states (p.iii) that in 2004 unemployment was 15.9% and "74.6% of enrolled Lummi in Whatcom County were in the labor force". A 2016 report on climate change mitigation and adaptation (https://www.lummi-nsn.gov/userfiles/360_Climate%20Change%20Assessment%20FINAL.pdf) states (p. 21) that in 2003 the Lummi Indian Business Council found an unemployment rate of 28%. This report also says that after the closing of the tribal casino in 1997, the unemployment rate went up to over 50%. Perhaps these numbers should be substituted for the ones currently in this section? Michael Hurwicz (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to this page

Hi @Gonzafer001, I noticed your changing of the infobox on this page. I would like to discuss this change as there is a problem with this article, and now is a good a time as any to bring it up. This article is not clear when distinguishing between the Lummi people and the Lummi Nation as a governmental institution. The precedent for articles right now is making an article about the ethnic group specifically and another article about their government. The histories are related, but often times, a tribal government will include several different peoples and their histories, as does the Lummi Nation. Furthermore, it adds more room for future additions to both articles without being confused from one topic to the other.

This article should be split into two articles, one called "Lummi people," and another article, called "Lummi Nation." The first article should be about the Lummi as an ethnic group and a people both past and present, while the second should be about the Lummi Nation's government and their history since 1855. Both subjects are notable enough on their own to warrant an article, as the Lummi Nation is one of the most important tribes in Western Washington, and the Lummi people have a long history in their own right.

With that in mind, the general infobox used for ethnic groups is "infobox ethnic group," while "infobox settlement" should be reserved for tribal governments and reservations (in this case, I believe). And just to be clear, many of the peoples that use "infobox ethnic group" are not extinct, that's just the infobox used for ethnic groups on Wikipedia. All ethnic group articles use it. Also, two infoboxes badly clutters the article in my opinion, and there should be one per article, which only adds to the case for article splitting. PersusjCP (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PersusjCP, I completely agree with you on that constructive criticism! The Lummi ethnic group should maintain its own article while the Lummi Government, Lummi Nation should have its own. is it possible for you to go ahead and split these into, Two different articles (I have not accumulated the wiki-knowledge to do that on my own.. yet). Gonzafer001 (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]