Jump to content

Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Words mean things

I find it very inapropriate that people are posting comments that make the claim that American Indians are not from the Americas. I also feel a little offended as to the want of change for he termonology. If wikipedia really wants to be accurate then they should only list the Tribe of the person talked about and not force a group catagory, and if they do use a group catagory then it should be what Indians call themselve. WHITE people have no right to have a say in the term for Indians. Haven't y'all done enough?!!! So let me see if I understand, because of the Bering Straight theory you can claim that Indians aren't Native to this land. How many Indians accept this idea. I suppose then that we can go back to the tower of Babel and say that Whites aren't from Europe. Asians aren't from Asia. We are all really just Africans. Well thank you but NO. I just might be possible that people were here in the Americas before there were people in Europe. I just might be possible. Here is another one for you, some of use (though not me in particular) feel that the Bering Straight theory is a RACIST plot to remove the sacred status of the Indians in connection to the land from them and force more assimilation (which is really just anialation). I see the the English Language site has many problems. You will notice that many of the other languages supported by Wikipedia do not have this kind of irregularity.--Billiot 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Assimilation =/= annihilation. Haven't you ever watched Star Trek? 2. You highlight an amusing point. Since you seem to think going back to our original heritage as Africans is not a good idea, why should we go back n-thousand years, and not just go back to when we were born. Ergo, everyone born in North America is an Indian or whathaveyou. 68.144.197.71 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific racism

This quote was written by an Indian and can be viewed at www.allthingscherokee.com.

The reasons are diverse and personal, but there are two popular reasons. The first reason is habit. Many Indians have been Indians all their lives. The Native people of this continent have been called Indian throughout all of post-Columbian history. Why change now? The second reason is far more political. While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by giving them a name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it also enabled America to ease its conscience. The term Native American is so recent that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not suffer through countless trails of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -- Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore we do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is what the term Native American essentially does -- it white-washes history. It cleans the slate.

I hope this can be illistrative to English Speakers.--Billiot 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that excise the Bering Strait theory from this article? Are you saying that the use of the word Native American on Wikipedia is innappropriate and must be changed? I'm sorry but it just isn't clear to me as to what your point is. Asarelah 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
All this name debate has driven me to become a member just to address it. 'American Indian' is the legan and widely accepted term. The Bureau of Indian Affairs uses it, courts use it, and most if not all of the people I've encountered personally have used it (and get annoyed by the use of 'Native American'). The technical specifications are really negligible in this case. American Indian is the more accepted term, both by the target ethnicity and legally.
While it would be nice to be able to address each individual tribe/nation/band, I'm afraid that's not a feasible approach. There are over 200 Federally recognized tribal groups in the United States alone, and that doesn't even include groups that have been recognized by the state only. It would be ridiculously clumsy and inefficient to describe a large group of people that way.
In summary, if this article is to approach accuracy, the name needs to be changed. And Billiot, I'm sorry an informational database like this can't go into the details you'd prefer, but the different groups of American Indians are too diverse to use anything else to refer to them as a whole. It is regrettable, but it's not personal to Indians. Every ethnicity is referred to in a general way. JPL Archivist 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
JPL, Welcome Aboard! We are glad to have you in the community. Let me know if I can assist. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If giving indians the blanket term of 'indians' is infeasable, then shouldn't the blanket term of 'human' be even more clumsy and inefficient?68.144.197.71 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

This must be approached from a position of verifiability. Whatever the relevant sources use, that is what we must use. To go beyond that is to engage in original research and to move dangerously close to a WP:NPOV non-neutral point of view]]. Furthermore, the article make us of a consistent name throughout. So, let's bring it here, to the talk page, with sources and we will allow community consensus to decide. As an administrator I would remind editors that we use care not to personally attack one another as that will not be tolerated. Please list your choices for the name below with appropriate sources. Let's do this right and not allow it to get out of hand. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence

...seems to be a fragment. It should probably either be mreged with the second, or be changed to "Native Americans are the..."
Thanks, --Grant M 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The "are" was mysteriously deleted by this edit. I've added it back. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Native Americans & Baldness

Could an expert please chip in, and state whether it is really true that genetically pure Native American males do not bald as they get older ?

Please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page. Anyway, in regards to baldness among Native Americans, I remember reading somewhere that it does happen. I wish I could remember where I read it, but there were reports of male pattern baldness among fullbloods. I'm not sure how relevant this is to the article though. Asarelah 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The truth is that male pattern baldness is more common in whites than any other race.[1] 70.15.116.59 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article scope

L ooking back at Roger Arguile's comments from a few months ago, I find that I have a certain degree of sympathy for his criticisms, if not his level of fierceness. The article as it stands does give a lot more weight to Indian interactions with the Western world (i.e., European perceptions of Indians) than to descriptions of Indian societies. I began to wonder, what exactly is this article supposed to be about? Is it an ethnographic article about the various peoples who are indigenous to the land area that is now the United States, or is it a historical article about the interactions of those people with the U.S. government and American society? I had assumed (ever since this article was split from Native Americans) that it was about the former. However, the problem with this topic is that it is an unnatural category. The boundary separating the U.S. from Canada and Mexico is completely irrelevant to the local peoples, except when it comes to the history of their interaction with the settler states. Many northeastern, Pacific northwestern, and Great Plains peoples (e.g. Anishinaabe, Huron, Cree) lived in areas that cut across the U.S.-Canadian border, and southwestern peoples such as the Yaqui lived in areas that straddled the U.S.-Mexico border. Assuming that we do want to expand this article's coverage of indigenous history and societies, what are we really going to be able to say about these different groups of people that will be true in general, for people from Maine as well as the Puget Sound as well as the Mojave Desert? "Native Americans in the United States" isn't an ethnic group, it's various ethnic groups, grouped together arbitrarily.

If we say that, instead, this article is supposed to be about the interactions between the U.S. and American Indians, the problem is that this article is one of the main destinations of links that say "Native American" (i.e. [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]]). There are some cases where this completely irrelevant (for instance, Hiawatha, Ancient Pueblo Peoples, and many, many other articles about things that happened before European contact link here), and I'm not sure that it's ever really appropriate. I'm starting to wonder if we should consider refocusing on a different set of articles, based on a more reasonable regional breakdown of indigenous (as used, for instance, at Classification of Native Americans). Once we get down to the level of region such as Plains Indians, we might find more things to say about history and society (not that article is particularly satisfying at present).—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Worst article on Wikipedia?

Stopping back here after a long time away. Geez, is anybody ever going to seriously work on this article? The article provides links to Oprah, Chris Rock, Johnny Cash, and Toris Amos but not Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, or Tecumseh. And "Native American Princesses"? WTF? There's probably at least one sentence in each section which is misleading at best, POV to be sure, and fiction at worst. Why is this article so bad? Too much vandalism? Too many ill-informed editors? Lack of interest? —Kevin Myers 01:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarity in the infobox (population figures)

I appreciate the attempt to clarify the population figures in the infobox at the head of the article but for the life of me I can't figure out exactly what that second number is supposed to be. Is it the number of people who are Native Americans but didn't mark that box on the census report because they had some other classification which was more specific? Or is it the number of so-called mixed blood peoples? I wonder if it wouldn't be better off in the article itself where greater clarity could be ensured. JodyB talk 11:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The second number is people who marked the census as being partly of American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry, partly of another "race" -- i.e., mixed blood.
A quick rundown of recent edit history of this part of the infobox: the second figure given was a total (and an old one at that) including both "one race" and mixed race (see this diff). The current figure of 1.6 million for "In combination with one or more other races" and actual citation of census figures came about after User:84.26.7.86 made edits claiming a total population for "Combination with one or more other races" of 72 million, breaking that down into "Hispanic Mestizo," "Black Indians," and "White Indians", based on questionable sources (other Wikipedia articles) that didn't really prove the figures (see this diff). I reverted those edits under the impression they were vandalism (later learned they were good faith edits by someone who doesn't seem to understand WP:ATT), & then went to dig up actual census figures so there would be good sourcing. That's where the current figure comes from.
Meantime I've been having a conversation with 84.26.7.86 on my talk page -- see User talk:Yksin#Native Americans in the USA, & it's become clear that while I think the figures are useful in the infobox, it would indeed be helpful to have a discussion of populations in the body of the article. Undoubtedly there are a lot more people who have at least some American Indian/Alaska Native blood who don't identify themselves thusly in the census -- depending perhaps on blood quantum, on family history having been forgotten or lost or intentionally suppressed (e.g., a friend of mine whose grandmother refused to admit she was Indian because of prejudice), etc. --Yksin 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Princess section

Can we pair down the Native American princess section? I wonder if it really contributes enough to the article to warrant its own section. I'll wait for some input before forging ahead but in a couple of days I'd like to do a rewrite. JodyB talk 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I rewrote this section. I think it flows better and remains NPOV. I did remove the Oprah and Cris Tucker material as that seemed to be getting a little far afield. If someone feels strongly about maybe just footnote it as a citation of you can get the citation information which I could not. JodyB talk 18:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Custerwest" disrupting Washita article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Washita_River

See talk page and history. He dissmisses the official American Military History[2] as "a simple website, it's not serious", removes all the findings of CMH (because "The army center of military history isn't filled of military historians about the Washita."). He also calls me "the idiot"[3], and "jerk", "Damn...jackass", "ignorant monkey", "damn idiot", "stupid bastard", and threatens to "kick" my "damn ass". [4]. If someone cares enough to get him blocked, thanks. Also, one would check his other edits, if any. --HanzoHattori 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place to bring up a complaint about another user in an edit war on a completely different article. Try WP:ANI. As it is, looks like there are a few issues on your end as well. --Yksin 22:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? If there was some "Budyonnywest" promoting the saintified version of Budyonny in relation to the Polish campaign while demonising the Polish side (including calling this an "anti-terror campaign"), I guess the Poles would be interested. According to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy Indian culture" (see cultural genocide). --HanzoHattori 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
"Why not" is because this is the talk page for a particular article, & discussion on this page is supposed to be geared towards improvement of this article, not that article over there. If you need to bring attention of other editors who might be able to help with ensuring that Battle of Washita River is being edited accurately, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which does have more of an "oversight" role over articles about Native Americans & other indigenous people on this continent in general. --Yksin 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

'Native American' vs. 'American Indian' vs. 'Indian'

This article does a great job in explaining the appropriate use of the terms ‘Native American,’ ‘American Indian,’ and ‘Indian’ from the point of view of an American Indian. However, the article fails to address how Indians (i.e. Asian Indians, or people from India) view the terms Indian and American Indian. It seems that both groups would have to find the term in question appropriate and inoffensive before concluding that the term was acceptable. Please clarify.Thewookie55 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We use existing studies as sources. Find someone's analysis? (SEWilco 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Native American slavery

"Jacob White Eagle was freed from slavery in 1894, the last Native American slave. Jacob and his family had been held as slaves by a Buffalo soldier for 24 years to run his farm after the Civil War."

These lines were reently added to the article. I removed them here. I am uncertain of the truth of these lines and the only Jacob White Eagle that is found by Google is a modern one. Some Natives were not U.S. citizens in 1894 but they were recognized as "persons" under the law. The 13th amendment would seem to have made even slavery of Native Americans illegal. Rmhermen 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

Overkill

I counted over 80 repetitions of the word "Native American/s" and "native Americans" in the article. An NPOV tag must object to the appearance of that overkill. The page is contaminated.

BtoAundulling 11:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
And exactly why is that a POV issue especially given that the name of the article contains "Native Americans?" JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag. What is NPOV about using the article title in the article? Vsmith 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While cleaning up after some current vandalism, I noticed that the external links section was clobbered last May and not restored. I've restored the old version and added newly added links in. It could use some trimming, but many of the links from the old version seem to be quite useful. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A Transatlantic view

Forgive me in advance, but as an outsider I find it very hard to take this and related articles, including the one on the United States. The United States of America has, of course, a very short history - by European standards - though it would be certain that a history of Great Britain would begin with the Romans at the latest. Histories before that are difficult to construct. Likewise, even the high cultures of Native Americans before the European invasion, may deliver little history though I imagine that equivelants of the Icelandic sagas exist. I find nothing about the tribes about which I know little more than names. Everything is written from a European perspective. I would expect that there would be huge amounts about the tribes and their histories and culture. When I look at the article on Native Americans I face material on the invasions almost immediately. I don't understand. I feel that I should be presented with links to articles on all the known tribes together with material expressing their point of view as a balance to the material presented. I can add nothing myself since I know little. Surely there are Native Americans who can correct what I regard as gross distortion. I am sorry to be so fierce; I was just very surprised that a nation that prides itself on its breadth of view should not see that, even if the population of pre-invasion North America were only ten million, it requires extensive treatment; if it were over a hundred million with a history of thousands of years it requires equal treatment. If someone can show me that I have failed to use links properly and that my view is myopic, I should be delighted. Roger Arguile 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're looking for something like Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which is prominently linked. This article is specifically for those in the United States. I would not expect an article on "Britons in the United States" to mention Roman times. I agree that the treatment seems very deficient in areas, but I don't think it quite warrants a POV warning. --Golbez 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you would be interested in the article about the pre-Columbian era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-columbian and the other articles in the category of Pre-Columbian cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pre-Columbian_cultures

I do agree that there should be more information about Pre-Columbian cultures in the United States, but I don't think that automatically makes the article POV. Its just deficient in that area and needs to be improved. Asarelah 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in regards to your concerns of lack of Natives looking at this article, I'm fully 'Native American' and I don't find this article to be too POV either or which way; so I don't agree with the POV warning either. If you look in the "see also" section, you will find the Classification of Native Americans (which is also found in the opening sentence of this article wikilinked as large number), which shows an organised list of tribes. Is that something you were looking for? oncamera(t) 13:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have looked at the referred articles and here is my report: in Pre-Columbian (sic) therre are 10 lines on North America; in History.. there are eleven; in United States there are three lines; in Indigenous peoples... there are six lines. In Classification... there are lists but no overview. If native Americans such as Mr. Oncamera are happy with this, I am surprised. From here it looks very exocentric. Roger Arguile 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't refer to me as "mister," and just because something is inadequate doesn't make it POV. I'm sure someone who really was interested in this sort of thing would refer to a history book, rather than an encyclopedia. oncamera(t) 23:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

O h yes: I forgot to say: westindians are not from India; gypsies are not from Egypt; Australian aboriginees are not aboriginal; though I am English I am not an Angle - they were German; I don't know whether you still use the word WASP, but some of them are Catholics. And as for Americans, most Americans speak Spanish or Portugese and live south of the Rio Grande but I get into terrible trouble when I say so. It's a funny old world. Roger Arguile 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what motivated your visit to this page, if it was a pat on that back for your country's well-documented history, or to contribute to the world's pasttime of scorning American historiography generally, or whatever else... I'm sure your views to this very serious topic as a member of another civilization would be greatly valued, yet I would counsel you to consider a more *tactful* self-introduction. It's striking, for me at least, to note how Europeans seem to press upon the self-redeeming renunciation of a "Euro-centric" worldview with the same pretentious haughtiness with which they instituted colonial hierarchies in the first place. And in the same manner: with themselves in the position of moral rectitude--- To actually consider the more valid points of your comments, namely the lack of any cogent "history" of pre-European America (United States) available in print, we must recognize a critical historiographical problem concerning American Indians. Few tribes north of the Rio Grande possessed written languages by the end of the 16th century. Most tribes, even in urban contexts, left relatively little ecological evidence of their presense. Indeed, "history" in its grander, dramatic sense did occur in what is now the United States; yet due to sparse historiographical evidence, consensus has not been reached among historians. It is very possible (though not likely provable) that the civilizations of the eastern half of the North American continent were undergoing wrenching territorial change in the centuries before "contact." We know of several clear examples of documentable shifts in tribal groups between 1300 and 1600 (ie. the movement of the Tuscarora north from what is now the Carolinas to join the Iroquois confederacy; the migration of the Ojibwe from the Maritimes to the Great Lakes); also, certain political confederacies and alliances at the time of contact can be joined with previous historical narratives at least several centuries long; but many of these changes would have been quite difficult to periodize or verify, due to the very nature of the cultures under study. With most tools of historiographical inquiry (written records; permanent urban ruins; ecological impact; etc.) unavailable to historians of Indian North America, other methods (models of linguistic shift; oral tradition; DNA analysis of periodized burial sites; etc.) must be used, with obvious controversy ensuing. In short, American Indian historiography is exceedingly difficult, and wrought with controversy. Some thoughts about "Contact": European/Russian contact provides ample historiographical data, and even an opportunity to speculate on pre-contact environments that would be impossible to discern otherwise, and these data should not be dismissed as being "Euro-centric," but merely anayzed by a wary and modern historical eye. Furthermore, like I said, Indian civilization did not simply "exist," as is, for eternity, before contact, and then proceed to disappear after it. Contact was an event in Native American history, just like many that came before it; Indians responded to this event in dynamic ways, as they did before contact, and these responses have yet to cease. In many ways, this is a history that can not easily be committed to writing. So when wikipedia lacks material on Indian history, it is a lack of verifiable historiography, supported by consensus. It is not a lack of a history itself. [D. Pritchard, Chicago]75.22.196.54 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Contraversial edit

I undid this edit, which added the word "genocide" with respect to the conquest of America. I suspect that the edit is simply trying to be provocative, but I don't know enough about the issue to say whether it is appropriate. If anyone wants to re-insert or comment on the issue, feel free to do so. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it was a genocide. It is true for any know definition of genocide! - Paul
    • I too think it was a form of genocide. However, that is a personal POV, not a neutral POV. The article should certainly mention that it has been called a genocide (citing sources, of course) but I am sure there are sources that disagree with that lable, and this too should be mentioned. Someone with vastly more knowledge than me would have to do this.Pelegius (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical population

Does anyone know where to find the historical population statistics for Native Americans? The other article does not have the statistics, only history. How many Native Americans were there at their peak? --Shamir1 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to tell. possibly as few as 700,000. Possibly 10+ million north of the Rio Grande. Note: there are over 800,000 reserved and 1.5+ unreserved "Native Americans" in the United States today. Canadian figures I don't have. It is an oft-repeated axiom that "there are more Indians today (in real numbers) than there were before contact;" This is almost certainly false, and is definitely false for most tribes in the eastern one half of the continent geographically. This axiom probably is true concerning the Great Plains/West alone (semiotically, archetypal Indian Country) since much post-contact migrations relocated Eastern tribes to this region, or to the Canadian Plains. Reserved Indian population east of the Mississippi River today is (I am guessing) less than 50,000 in total.75.22.196.54 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
More American Indians today than in 1890? This is a geneological theory on maybe more Americans of any race have a bit of Indian than they realize. 50,000 east of the Mississippi? I knew North Carolina has 80,000 of identifiable American Indian ancestry, but one-eighth or 15,000 are the Cherokee tribe living on a reservation (The Eastern Band Cherokee) near Jackson next to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I came to believe the American Indian population east of the Mississippi is near 200,000, but 80 percent of the total American Indian and Alaska Native population in the U.S. are indeed west of the Mississippi River and to narrow it down: 60 percent of them west of the Rockies with about 800,000 in California alone. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Americans

Original Americans? Isn't that an oxymoron? Or at least slightly insulting to native Americans? The original Americans would be the inhabitants that named the place America. I'm sure the native American's had a name for America before it was named America by it's settlers? Either way, it sounds a little daft and limits the scope of their existance under such term to two hundred years odd, rather than the implication the term probably means to convey by it's users yet fails under logical interpretation. I'd recommend a change to Original <Whatever they called America>, or <Whatever they called America>ians. Or something a little less daft. :P Jachin 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the same applies to the term "native Americans." In both cases we call them Americans. I would be open to a better title but at present I can't think of one. Do you have a specific suggestion? JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
With the idea of I'd recommend a change to Original <Whatever they called America>, or <Whatever they called America>ians. I think that would be very lengthy since there were hundreds of languages of the people who lived in North America before Europeans came and so, perhaps there are hundreds of terms for the landmass of 'America.' And, I suppose, there are even tribes who didn't name their 'country' anything since they really didn't consider themselves owner of the land (or however the noble savage pathos goes). oncamera(t) 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Were any natives aware of being on a continent, and name it? I don't think words for "home" or "world" would be relevant. (SEWilco 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
From experience, I know that several Algonquian tribes call all of North America "Turtle Island," due to the fact that it is shaped like a turtle, according to transcontinental topographical reports from "runners." This relating also to myths related to earth being created on the back of a Turtle. Many in the Indian Movement today have unofficially adopted the term "Turtle Island" as a way of not only avoiding the word "America," but to unambiguously include tribes in Canada, or those who straddle the political border. However, this is unofficial and most probably is not a term recognizable to all Indian tribes or even all Algonquins. Relocation of the article to "Turtle Islanders" is thus not advisable. [D. Pritchard, Chicago] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.196.54 (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See how we white men are so biased!! The "original Americans" is a term for the true population of this continent that lived there for thousands of years. You call it America or what ever you like. The fact remains the same.- thanks-Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.30.254 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

why

somebody should tell us why the native americans traveled all the way to North America if they already had a lot of room in asia and euorope and africa. È —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eylamster (talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? What makes you think they had a lot of room somewhere?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they were nomadic, and followed herds. The herds decided to cross the land bridge, so the indians followed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.197.71 (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does a river decide to flow all the way out to the ocean? People, like water, often make decisions one step at a time. It is appealing to imagine some group of people actually planning a great voyage of exploration and travelling all that way at once, but genetic evidence shows that the Chukchi of Siberia are very close to the Na-Dene and Eskimo of America, and all Native Americans related to them.[5] This means that people did not "skip over" Siberia and Alaska in a single epic voyage through uninhabitable terrain, but spent generations putting down roots and surviving these climates before continuing in a progression that they could never have guessed would lead to the rainforests of Ecuador. 70.15.116.59 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The process of Native American migration was a slow process ongoing for 10,000-20,000 years as peoples from Siberia, east Asia moved gradually into Alaska first then Northern, later Central and finally South America and the Caribbean isles. Some anthropologists continued to bring up a notion of East Asians might populated the western half of North America and traveled downward to the west coast of South America between 1,000-5,000 years ago. There are numerous theories of Northern European (i.e. Iberian, Grecian, Phoenician, Celtic and Viking landings) migrations to eastern half of North America, and the preColumbian African-Amerindian connection after decades of intense scrutiny. I read a few stories in the Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 edition on British Columbia mentioned on the Haida of Princess Charlotte Island off the Pacific coast were somehow genetically connected to the Polynesians of Hawaii and the south Pacific. Early 20th century race scientists used to put many tribes under the "Malayan" and "Mongolian" category, while those in the Amazons and Caribbean isles are wrongly placed in the "Negroid" category. It took a long time for anthropologists to contend American Indians are a different race, but evidently linked to native peoples of Siberia. But thousands of tribes in the Americas (North and South) evolved into subraces and microraces not alike "East Asians" and they questioned who else each tribe mixed with over the course of time. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Native Americans mostly enthier White-Collar, Blue-Collar, or Gold-Collar?

I would like to know as I was inspired by at a earlier date not so very long ago I looked up this article to try to see what kind of jobs they usually have or Economic status, since I had seen that in the Asian-American articles as well.And as it turns out I didn't see what I had expected and such. So please answer me as I think asking this seem as I feel is more worth then other questions I had ask on Wikipedia and so.-Jana

Native Americans are, unfortunately, one of the poorest demographics in the United States, so I would imagine that most are Blue-Collar. I know that the Navajo are often ranchers and craftsmen, if that helps. Also, please sign your posts by signing four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page when you edit it. Asarelah 15:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On reservation Indians have very high levels of unemployment (although that may be moderated by casinos in some places). Off-reservation, they hold a wide range of jobs - including astronaut, senator, Vice-president of the United States, etc. Rmhermen 18:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The increasingly perception of Native Americans are "getting rich" off Indian gaming casinos is a new version of ethnic stereotypes like how many people assumed "all Whites" are rich, "all Jews" are lawyers, "All Blacks" are on welfare, "all Latinos" are fieldworkers, and one mentioned the "model minority" myth of Asian-Americans. The high rate of rural and urban poverty or "lower-middle class" identity of the majority of Native Americans is a problem not yet extinguished, but for one to assume "because tribal members get money from a tribal monetary check" produces a new version of the "poor cheap Indian". In some cases, hate crimes against individuals who are American Indians was caused by non-Indians who assumed they are making "huge sums of money" for being a poor people at the first place is a new phenomena for Indians, but this was going on against African-Americans and other minorities for a long time. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Resurgence in the 1960s/1970s

I find that very little of this article deals with the modern cultural aspects of Native Americans. One case in point was what seems like a resurgence in the 1960s/1970s in mass media; for example "Indians" were a popular theme in TV shows of the period (i.e. Brady Bunch, Grizzly Adams, etc), kids were often encouraged to dress like "Indians" at school activities, and "Indian" stores were all over the place along Interstates in the West. It seems this consciousness very rapidly died out around 1980. Was this a holdover from the popularity of Western movies of the 1940s-1950s? Was this tied in with the 1970s environmental movement? -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Lakotah

This is a current event, but it should have a snippet of mention in this article somewhere. The declaration itself is historically significant. Republic of Lakotah

Jesse Crouch (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

actually, it is not. The people who made the declaration (as well as similar declarations in the past) have no legal right to speak for their people, and are not recognized as leaders by their own tribes. The claims they make are not any different from the random guy that declares himself "Emperor of the World" or other such nonsense.IanCheesman (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Native American history by state

I cannot find any precedent for categorizing Native American history by state. For anyone who is interested I am going to start Category:Native American history of Nebraska. • Freechild'sup? 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Systematic mass genocide by buffalo slaughter

Why isn't this mentioned in the article (or did I miss it)? The opening paragraph(s) to "European colonization" makes it sound like the Native Americans were wiped out by epidemics, not by the violent encroachment of the white man. I don't see any mention of the fact that nearly the entire population of buffalo was systematically killed by settlers, so that the plains Indians would starve. This is what caused their demise, not epidemics. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source that states that? if so, you're welcome to add it to the article. however, it's worth noting that disease spreads far faster than the buffalo could be killed, and the buffalo weren't killed "so that the plains indians would starve", they were killed for meat and hide, with the plains indian starvation an unfortunate side effect. Anastrophe (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the bison weren't killed for meat and hide, they were systematically killed en masse (what American history/school books call "sport hunting" as a way of hiding the truth) and left on the field to rot so that the plains Indians would starve. This is why the American buffalo was all but extinct by 1890. The Native Americans killed for meat and hide; and would never have exterminated the breed, which had numbered in the tens of millions. There are many sources on this, but I don't have any on hand; I figure a NA expert here would, though. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I found some good sources via a Google search. I'll add the info into the article later. Softlavender (talk)
Although you are correct about the bison being wiped out so the Plains Indians would starve, it is true that the vast majority of Native Americans really were wiped out by epidemics brought over by the white man rather than mere violent enroachment. I can probably find a source in Guns, Germs and Steel that gives a rough estimation of the numbers prior to European contact, I'll have to look into it. Asarelah (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The current article looks white washed. I miss a boarder description of the Indian politics of the United States (e.g. first American settlers, Indian Removal Act, Reservation, Discriminiation) and those consequences in greater detail. Currently, there is talk about "European colonization", looks like this article could needs some vergangenheitsbewältigung. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

faux source

I can find no evidence whatsoever that this book ever existed:

"20. U.S. History, Steven Kelman; Copyright 1999 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston"

... although Steven Kelman did publish a book called American Government in 1999 with Holt Rhinehart.

So I'm going to re-write that section later on and delete the claim purported by this reference, which doesn't even give a page number. Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Squanto using dead fish as fertilizer

Many sources have conflicting facts about whether or not Squanto helped settlers by using dead fish for fertilizer in fields to help grow crops. Is there any sources that can confirm if this is a fact or just another story that has been distorted through the years? Troyisucone (talk)01:39, 5 March 2008

While I don't know about any particular individual, many tribes, especially in the eastern US and Canada, used fish or fish parts to add essential minerals and nutrients to the ground, in much the same way that modern farmers use natural and artifical fertilizors. I believe the main purpose of fish was Potasium, although I will need to check on that. I will also look for some specific references on this issue.IanCheesman (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
According to this, he got the idea from another group of Europeans. http://books.google.com/books?id=ARbVmr941TsC&pg=PA84&dq=squanto+fish&sig=xfqdLw-xTN2HIiyb8wqIEKc0RYI Hope that helps. Asarelah (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Name America

Hi, I once heard that the name America referring to the Americas was actually from the very first discoverer, Amerigo Vespucci. Should an article talking about the native inhabitants of that land refer to that land with it's native name instead? - Xushi, 20080328:0845 gmt

Oh, the native inhabitants had hundreds of different languages, and it would be impossible to list such. Best to stick with English, or whatever. Haha, oncamera(t) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't be impossible to list, it'll just take some time to research ... maybe there should be a Wikipedia list of Native American name for the Americas. Rob (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard it called Turtle Island, if that helps, but I don't think that such a politically charged term should be in the article, especially since most readers wouldn't know what it meant. Besides, like Oncamera said, the natives had countless different languages. Asarelah (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Image

I suggest rotating the main image from different American Indians nations and tribes. This could be a monthly or weekly matter. Rob (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amerikanska folk, Nordisk familjebok.jpg depicts individuals from many different nations and tribes (although some are not from the area that is now the United States). An image of any single individual won't be representative. I don't think rotating images exactly fixes the issue. Is there some problem with the group image? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The image is fine, but seems to exclude authenticity. I like the idea of rotating as it gives a broad perspective of how Native American really dressed-- most of the paintings I posted is from the source -- a painter looking at the subject. As opposed to a painting that comes from the imagination-- someone's idea of how a Indian should look like. Many tribes are ignore in the mainstream, especially the tribes who traditionally used turbans like the Cherokee, Choctaw, and Muscogee. Although the images has some tribes dressed in modern clothing, I would rather have "from the source" painting or photographs of various groups. The article Irish people does a good job at collating various images. Maybe we can do something like that. Rob (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a tribe/nation location map (circa 1400 - pre-European invasion), which would look sort of like Image:Langs N.Amer.png (this one is language distribution) and then an image gallery? There clearly shouldn't be two galleries, but the existing gallery of flags and seals should probably be moved off to its own article anyway. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are "source" images, I'm fine with it. I agree about the list of flags ... needs its own article. Rob (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Created the Gallery of Native American flags and seals Rob (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First sent of secn Initial impacts of Europeans

The sentence

The first Native American group encountered by Christopher Columbus were the Island Arawaks (more properly called[citation needed] the Taíno) of Boriquen (Puerto Rico), the (Quisqueya) of the Dominican Republic, and the Cubanacan (of Cuba).

(despite my fixing recent damage, and cleaning up a couple lks) is ambiguous due to ungrammatical syntax, and wrong in suggesting that Columbus encountered natives of the Dominican end of Quisqueya (Hispaniola) before those of the Haitian end. I may be worth seeing what an editor had in mind before small edits presumably chopped it up into partial nonsense.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for a non-Indian to join an Indian tribe in the U.S.?

In cases such as Ward Churchill, the Cherokee Freedmen, and the issuance of tribal membership to illegal immigrants by non federally recognized tribes, it seems like the U.S. allows no possibility that someone with no racial connection can join a tribe. This seems very different from what you read in histories from a few centuries ago, or see in shows like "Going Tribal" about other countries. Does the U.S. tradition of blood quantum laws completely prohibit a racially unrelated person from joining any federally recognized Indian tribe? Is the U.S. the only country with such a law?

I'm also curious whether there are tribes with traditional knowledge and culture (I suppose they have to be non federally recognized) which do accept outsiders through traditional methods of education, socialization, and initiation. 204.186.19.73 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill was an honorary member, the Cherokee Freedman is more complex because they do have links to the tribe. Blood quantum for membership are not set by the federal government but by each tribe (and some don't use it but have other criteria for membership.) Blood quanta for federal program eligibility is another matter. It is unlikely that many if any tribes allow non-Indians to join. (In some tribes with large casino profits, even Indians sometimes have trouble keeping their membership.) Rmhermen 18:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In the past, it was certainly possible. Sam Houston became a Cherokee and Cynthia Ann Parker became a Comanche (she was forced to, he joined willingly). Both married into the tribe and lived with them. Parker's son,Quanah Parker, became an important Comanche chief. Pelegius (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The tribes had their own rules and sometimes accepted people by marriage or adoption. Tribal membership also related to whether the tribe had matrilineal or patrilineal descent rules and politics, so it mattered whether the "outsider" was male or female. Too many differences to make generalities about, but any discussion about inclusion and exclusion about any group makes you realize how confused we all have become. --Parkwells (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GENOCIDE

Among national cleansing operations that have been proposed as genocide I think that the mass decline of the native Americans' population caused by the Europeans is the less debatable as a genocide due to the degree of the population decline, the extinction of ethnic groups from their former lands, cultural identities being lost to oblivion, the propaganda against them, the organized military operations against them (sometimes resulting to mass slaughtering of unarmed population) and the the present population being second-class citizens. I think this specific matter has not been mentioned to the extent that it should be and certainly not with the heavy yet accurate term of genocide. And that is NOT a POV nore MY opinion. It is how many native Americans and most people outside the American continent receive it.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine, but to provide scholarly sources who state one opinion or another in peer-reviewed works. Nonetheless, there are some issues to consider. It's my understanding that part of the definition of genocide depends upon the government's being found at fault for deliberately causing deaths or policies that result in deaths. Given that the overwhelming number of deaths of Native Americans were related to lack of immunity to infectious diseases, and in some areas the great majority of deaths preceded European settlement (as on the NW Coast), that would seem to exclude genocide. On the other hand, the federal policies of Indian removal and warfare against them would seem to satisfy current ideas about "ethnic cleansing". No doubt there are numerous historians who have written about this.--Parkwells (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As such, I have removed the accusation of genocide, which was attributed to Hugo Chavez.--p0rq ([[User talk:p0rq|talk])) 00:09, 14 Jule 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.141.189 (talk)

U.S. Census of Native American mixture with other races

The number of admixture with other races seems extremely low. I really concerned if the census was only taken on people that live on the reservations or something. Because more recent studies are showing that the African American population is actually between 62-75% of Native American ancestry. Due to continuous intermarriage of African Americans and Native Americans and people who were bi-racial of African-Native American descent marrying people of the same descent or just African American. It doesn't seem accurate at all. Interracial relationships have occurred since slaves were brought to the United States.Mcelite (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No there is only one nationwide census and recent genetic studies have shown the supposed admixture of African Americans (with Native Americans) to be a myth.[6] Using the U.S.-exclusive definitions of Native American and African American. Considering Latin American populations, a much greater mixture rate was found. Rmhermen (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense for it to be a myth. There's numerous documentations especially with the Eastern and Southeastern tribes taking in escaped slaves, and even freeing slaves. How's that a myth?? I believe a lot of this is due to the one-drop rule which contributed heavily to people of African-American descent being denied their tribal rights by the government (not the tribe they are descended of). I've read a lot about the old censuses that were taken and they were very biased and racist because if you had features they (believed) were not Native American hence looked more African than Native you could not be included with the population. It just seems incredibly low with the apparent admixture. Also one study was criticized heavily because they did all their genetic testing in Mississippi which is the state with the least admixture of African Americans and Native Americans (hence it wouldn't be a surprise finding people with only 10% Native heritage or none at all).Mcelite (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the study summaries at the link, they were looking at specific populations; they did not make generalities about African-American ancestry of Native Americans in general. I think studies are only beginning to accumulate evidence of admixture. In some of the eastern states surviving Native Americans moved away from Europeans, so not many intermarried with African Americans. (See Paul Heinegg, www.freeafricanamericans.com) --Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Contemporary census reports depend now on how people identify themselves, so it is up to them to claim more than one ancestry. It's a very complex topic. There is some work being done on Melungeon DNA ancestry (See Melungeon DNA Project). This is a tri-racial isolate group of which some members claimed Indian or Native American ancestry in the 19th century, in part to get free of the racial bifurcation. Testing so far affirms work by historians and genealogists that found the great majority of free people of color in NC 1790-1810 were descended from African Americans free in VA before the Revolution. DNA tests of individuals from this specific group have found mostly European and African ancestry, with very small percentage of Native American. Any ideas about "what seems right" need contemporary sources from reliable third-party, peer-reviewed journals or books.--Parkwells (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I was reading an article on how people who would be considered African Americans would openly talk of having other heritage as well. However, when given a piece of paper to select their ethnicity put African American even if they only had 1 ancestor they selected alot of them selected African American givin a false representation as too who they really are. It's hard finding documentation on people's full heritage. For instance, most African Americans considered Senator Obama black despite the fact that his mother is white. The one-drop rule is still a heavy influence on the American society. It seems to be the main cause for people of African-Native American descent to have a lack of pride in their native heritage over their African heritage. I agree alot of better citations need to be found.Mcelite (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the pressure for identification with one rather than mixed ancestry has gone both ways. During and since the Civil Rights Movement, Black Power and Black Is Beautiful, there has been pressure from within the African-American community for all people who are any part African to identify as black. An interesting contemporary memoir about this and his own struggles is David Matthews' "Ace of Spades", out in paperback. Some of those strictures seem to be relaxing for younger people in some areas, but it is really confusing.--Parkwells (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is very confusing with all the issues that pressure people of African American descent to only say they are black. It's sad but in a way movements like Black Power and Black Is Beautiful were actually harmful to those who had more than African heritage. In away made it seem shameful to be of more than one descent.Mcelite (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations need improvement

While substantial works are noted in the References, many citations are from journalism, tribal websites, dated scholarship, and other less reliable sources, according to Wikipedia standards. Editors making additions should find sources that satisfy Wikipedia standards. --Parkwells (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring over what is listed in the infobox as related ethnic groups needs to stop. I'll note that Central American Indians is a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Indigenous peoples in South America is basically a disambig page (which refers to indigenous peoples also covered in Indigenous peoples of the Americas). Alaskan Natives are covered in this article. There's almost certainly some relationship to Indigenous peoples of Siberia, but this seems a little iffy to me. I suspect the main point of contention is whether Black Indians should be included. I'm no expert in this area, but it looks to me like there's some question about whether Black Indians should be considered a separate ethnic group. I'll ask the folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups to comment. In the meantime, I strongly suggest discussing this here rather than edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. Black Indians, African-Native Americans, or Afro-Native Americans and what other names people may come up with are the direct descents of Native Americans. How are they not a related ethnic group? They wouldn't be here if most, some, or a few of their ancestors weren't Native Americans. It known by most people that read more than the little history books that don't tell u everything that the mixture between Native Americans and African Americans was common between the two groups more commonly than any other ethnic group. That's my arguement. It seems biasedd to exclude them when that is a part of who they are.Mcelite (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

  • First off, Black Indians are descendants of Native Americans there was never a tribe of them, they are not Native Americans. Secondly the category os Related Ethnic GROUPS. Which I take to mean GROUPS that were related to native americans at that time. So it should be as it was with the different types.Swampfire (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is: what is this field for? From discussion at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group it appears the original intent was to list linguistically related ethnic groups. It also appears conflicts like the one occurring here spring up repeatedly. Rather than keep going back and forth, how about if Mcelite finds a reference for the claim that "Black Indians" are both an ethnicity and ethnically related to Native Americans, and Swampfire finds similar sources for Central American and South American Indians? Until then, can we keep it at Indigenous peoples of the Americas? There's no hurry. It's certainly not the case that "he who edits last wins". Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I'll try to find something that mentions the ethnicity. It's going to be hard due to lack of research and so much self-published work on it. Furthermore, the list was meant to mention people who are of full and partial heritage. I never tried to imply that Black indians were a tribe these are the people that are the descendents of Native Americans that do or do not have relations with the tribe they are descended of. There are alot of reasons why so many of them are not affiliated with the tribe they are descended from. Some even being more Native than African see one-drop rule. I apologize if seemed that I was trying to make it look like they were a tribe of their own.Mcelite (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

    • I think the current link to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas is a useful solution - any related group will be covered in that article and it gives more depth than a string of links. I have concerns about some of the articles that were being linked to before, certainly Black Indians in the first instance. I have raised my concerns at that article's talk page. However, improving those articles is not entirely related to the issue of what goes in the info box - the present solution takes the reader to where they need to be. The other groups, eg descendant groups can be referred to in the See also sub-section if necessary. --Matilda talk 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is about the people to the United States. For broader uses of...

Someone (I don't know who) has vandalized this article and changed the "this article is about" sentence at the top. I am not a user, and the article is protected. Can someone change it back to the way it was? Thanks.

The unsigned comment in the preceding pink box, added by 68.81.16.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21:48 & :49, 11 September 2007, was moved (about 5 hours later) from the top of this talk page to its appropriate place here (at what was the bottom of the page at the time that IP 68... added it). --Jerzy•t 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The protection has expired, so you CAN change it back if it happens again. The current spate of vandalism has been fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've reverted a presumably well-intentioned and perhaps NPoV edit that affected material within the preceding bluish box, some of it also within the enclosed pink box. That edit accomplished nothing (or at best far too little to justify the layer of confusion it added to the substance and history of this talk-page section) -- especially since the edit i reverted was made 9 months after both the contribution and its relocation.
    IP 68... obviously wanted to remove from the accompanying article the clearly vandalistic insertion "fuck u", which had apparently been added to the disambiguating HatNote preceding the article content. (I say "obviously" bcz of the repetition, in the second 'graph, of the phrase "[T]his article is about", but still stronger evidence is below.) The duplication of the vandalized material here on the talk page should not have been treated as (talk-page) vandalism (and i have remedied the removal based on that misunderstanding, along with the confusingly placed and now irrelevant description of the removal) -- even tho more experienced editors could have described the article-page vandalism with less opportunity for the confusion that ensued, and a few might have chosen to describe it with delicate indirection, rather than copying it.
    Editors should of course never confuse their colleagues by modifying others' good-faith discussion of matters appropriate to this talk page. (BTW, Rick Block is not the editor who did so in this case.) It would not have been too hard for a hasty reader to be confused by the former lack of sig on the contrib that is now in the pink box, and by the fact that that contribution started with an indented quote rather than a statement by the contributor, but IMO
-- the signed contribs (and the unsigned good-faith ones) that build consensus by processes of dialectic tension are almost diametrically different from the polished, unsigned, consensus-based content of articles, and
-- therefore the diligence with which we revert changes to articles (often giving the benefit of any substantial doubt to retention of the existing text), must be complemented by diligence to retain the record of interaction on the talk page (and giving the benefit of any substantial doubt to retention of each new addition).
In this case, the editor i reverted had removed a non-dispensable portion of a contribution, apparently with only slight reason to suspect the two adjacent 'graphs were added by different editors, and significant reason to suppose what is the case, that they were part of the same edit. (They also accompanied the removal by a note whose position suggested uncertainty about where the signed contrib above the note began.) IMO, the removing editor should not have done the removal without finding, in the talk-page history, the edit(s) that added what they intended to remove. (I have added a lk to those edits' diff in the foregoing.)
--Jerzy•t 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? Do you see what it says now? Can someone please please please please fix this?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.144.47 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Native economy

  • This needs some serious input on how tribes survive today. Why does poverty exists? What are the barriers? What are tribes doing to spur economic development. I may start adding some information on that. 02:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There was nothing before I added some information. Please add some information as you please, but do not delete what is there. The information I added is some of the very basis, as I am an editor for a Native American business publication.

--66.82.9.56 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The white bison calf and cow flanked the herd on the northern migration route. A small herd of elk followed also. This was my first and only ride on a yearling long horned bison. These larger bison grazed on the taller grasses of the north american plains. The year was 1964 as I recall.
Tribes no longer use bison robes as currency. Minted coins are today used as currency as well as poker chips. The sale of tax free tobacco products smuggled and sold off the reservations is profitable.
Lets not forget current energy price increace resulting in more drilling rigs on their reservations. The tourist industry is growing on the Najavo Nation Reservation. I camped at a campground there in May of 2008. --My alphabet (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

I move to change the name of the article

First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive form Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached "India." India was not even called that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan. More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus's description of the people he found here. He was Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word. So let's look at this pussified, trendy bullshit phrase, Native Americans. First of all, they're not natives. They came over the Bering land bridge from Asia, so they're not natives. There are no natives anywhere in the world. Everyone is from somewhere else. All people are refugees, immigrants, or aliens. If there were natives anywhere, they would be people who still live in the Great Rift valley in Africa where the human species arose. Everyone else is just visiting. So much for the "native" part of Native American. As far as calling them "Americans" is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is? Jesus Holy Shit Christ!! We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors? And as far as these classroom liberals who insist on saying "Native American" are concerned, here's something they should be told: It's not up to you to name the people and tell them what they ought to be called. If you'd leave the classroom once in a while, you'd find that most Indians are insulted by the term Native American. The American Indian Movement will tell you that if you ask them. The phrase "Native American" was invented by the U.S. government Department of the Interior in 1970. It is an inventory term used to keep track of people. It includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, Samoans, Micronesians, Polynesians, and Aleuts. Anyone who uses the phrase Native American is assisting the U.S. government in its effort to obliterate people's true identities. Do you want to know what the Indians would like to be called? Their real names: Adirondack, Delaware, Massachuset, Narranganset, Potomac, Illinois, Miami, Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Wallawalla, Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa, Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos, Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy, Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek, Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnicock. (Lenerd (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

I move to keep it as is. All of us are not offended by the term Native American. As it refers to those of us here before America was named such. As a part of the Powhatan tribe or (Virginia Algonquian tribe) we are not offended. Sure we prefer Powhatans. Also you need to do research, as Native Americans from the east coast all the way to as far as Arizona are not from those to cross over the Bering Strait. But infact are decendents of tribes from the France area, that when the earth was different and consisted of more Ice, crossed up through the Iceland, Greenland area into Canada, then down the east coast and then across America. This has been established by recent research tracking the way arrowheads were made. But please do not speak for us. As with what has been shown by history, you will end up doing far worse than good.Swampfire (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Swampfire is far closer to the truth than Lenard, tho the crucial point is that the "in Dios" theory, the various theories of where the three waves of New World pre-Columbian immigration came from and when, and all of Lenard's angry rhetoric, are not only irrelevant but also would not be rendered relevant even by their ultimate victory in the fields of Renaissance textual criticism, archaeo-anthropology, or identity politics respectively. The en:Wikipedia is written in modern English bcz that is what our readers understand, and modern English accepts both. I'm not sure whether we've reached a real consensus against Indian and for Native American, or whether it's just that we moderates (yes, my own opinionated term, and i respect the fact that YMMV) who are comfortable with both have resigned ourselves to the "Indian" fanatics being fewer and/or less tenacious than the "Native American" fanatics to an extent that means the use of "Native American" makes our editors and admins more efficient by reducing conflict-resolution effort. The fact is, in any case, that the status quo is a well-established de facto consensus, and those of us with more commitment to WP than to either term will protect the project from disruption far more tenaciously than change enthusiasts will try to sacrifice the project to their ideals. Fuggedubowdit.
    All of that being said, the precision of identifying specific persons using their tribal identity (and linking to the article on the tribe) -- rather than blindly assuming "Native American" says it all -- is obviously appropriate, and i recall noticing, when we had a List of people by name that entries tended to need that attention -- tho usually the information was there in the article, even if not in the lead, where IMO it belongs.
    Finally, i commend to colleagues' attention the redlinks, and the lks that terminate in Dabs, in this reformatting of the valuable list in the following #Tribes section.
    --Jerzy•t 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A 1995 survey with the Census found that 49.76% of those who identified on the census as American Indian preferred the term American Indian, and 37.35% preferred Native American.[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762158.html I haven't found anything more recent on survey of preferences. --Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As I stated, We prefer neither of them. But we have no problem with Native American, or American Indian. Also that suvey was 13 years ago. It's not relevant to the 2008 mindset. But we really don't care how the outsiders refer to us. We know who we are. I grew up being called an Indian. I got used to it, Then the people of the U.S. deicded all of us were offended by it. So they started calling us Native Americans.Swampfire (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the survey is dated, too, but wanted to add some record of opinion from the community to the discussion.--Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am currently doing more research into the matter. But while doing so, here is more info on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy Swampfire (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I would point anyone commenting to this article from the Native American Journalist Association.

From the Native American Journalist Association (http://www.naja.com) The Reading Red Report: Native Americans in the News (http://www.naja.com/docs/red.doc)

"The terms 'Native American' and 'American Indian' should be used in U.S. mainstream newspaper stories. Use of 'Indian' alone generally is discouraged. However, it may be used in quotes, and also in terms such as 'urban Indian.' 'Native' alone has come into common usage. It is unacceptable to use 'native American' with a lower case 'n' in native. Native peoples must be allowed to define their own names in the same way other racial or ethnic groups have defined their names. But the only truly accurate terms are specific names of tribal nations, whether they are names of the 560 federally recognized ones, the many other tribes seeking recognition from the U.S. government or the multitude of tribes throughout the other countries in the Americas." Swampfire (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


"All of us are not offended by the term Native American."

This bold blanket statement is flat out FALSE. Try asking the people you feel you have the power to re-name for starters.

It is not only patently unethical, but immoral and continues historic attempts to claim mastery over and to undermine our very identity (not strong enough of a statement, but trying to be civil & polite here). Some -not all- Non-Indians seem to have no shame trying to re-name us and project new more "PC" tags onto OUR people whether we like it or not, as if they have any right, with their changing wiles and whims in this relativist & revisionist era.

We have always as a collective race throughout what is now the USA (and regardless of our individual nation), been called "Indian". It doesn't matter what "experts" from academia may conjure up to put their own conscience at ease, that is what we call ourselves. We are Indians - why does that bother you? My own family, friends and neighbors from the rez, as well as many people from other nations from one corner of the US to the other I've met in my travels, all call OURSELVES Indian.

Please respect that, assuming you can.

It is true that it is a great power (ego boost?) to "name" a person or a people.

Please resist the urge to take our name, our very identity and try to change and mold it to conform with your current world view because you are uncomfortable with truth.

All of humanity has blood on its hands at one time or another. Your ancestors are no different from many of our own. Maybe a better example closer to "home" though to get this through white minds: Vikings executed genocide in parts of the UK for example (just look at the various Isles of Scotland) and simply obliterated most if not all traces of those who came before in places like the Orkneys (and those they exterminated may well have done the same to other peoples before them). In Britain today there are still arguments raging in academia between those who can accept that their ancestors were cold blooded killers versus those who would prefer to delude themselves and imagine their ancestors were idyllic Norse immigrants who "absorbed" and lorded over earlier peoples like the Normans would later. It's absurd and revisionist to think people have always held hands and intermarried (not to mention the fact that the "War"/genocide schools of thought in this case are backed by genetic evidence & place-names, etc).

It would be even worse to disrespect the memory of the victims to re-name them - even in this analogy the Brits have always and still to this day call the Picts of old by the name which they may well have called themselves, as suggested by some ancient Roman & later Scottish texts. You can't undo what was done by your forefathers and you should not be ashamed of it either since you didn't do it, did you? Just be a good neighbor & fellow citizen today to the surviving descendants of those that may have victimized long before any of us were a twinkle in our parents' eyes, treating them like you would anyone else... and respect the memory of those peoples/tribes who didn't make it through those dark times long ago. You can start showing this respect by first stop renaming us - you have not earned that right.

We are Americans, we are Indians and we are of our nation/tribe. Either call us an American like yourself, call us an Indian, call us by our tribal affiliation, or kindly leave us alone, please. And while you're at it, please update & maintain this online/global "encyclopedia" accordingly oh enlightened ones from academia.

Thank you. Spokane_Man


Tribes

The list of tribes offered in the preceding section may be useful for other purposes than proving the point it was offered in support of. I don't know what else we have, but my attention was caught by holes in it (and, BTW, European names: Laguna, Santa Ana, probably Pecos, Santa Clara, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, perhaps Mescalero, Nez Perce, Flathead, perhaps Santee, perhaps Crow, Brulé, and perhaps Creek (American Indians)).
I converted the names to links, and where the i noticed the link is to a Dab, i either converted it to an explicit (tho unpiped) Dab lk, or left

(disambiguation)]]

after it as an alert.
I struck thru the lks that aren't either Dabs, tribe articles, or Rdrs to tribe articles, and added lks to articles that appear to be about the corresponding tribe. The ones i added are from memory or light research, and are mostly Indian peoples of New England. That includes a bunch of native placenames, most of them struck thru to show they've been investigated as possible tribal names and avoid need for someone sharing my misconceptions to also check them.
A colleague has suggested that the following list be used at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which AFAIK is likely to be the best use for it. IMO it should be deprecated, by removal, or wholesale strikethru, to avoid others updating it here while wider work on it has proceeded elsewhere.
--Jerzy•t 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(Dabs byp'd:) Adirondack (disambiguation)]] ???? History of Warren County, edited by H. P. Smith - Chapter XXXIV ... says "... and occupied by a powerful tribe of the great Odjibway family, known to the French as the Algonquin nation, and to the Iroquois as the Adirondack tribe. ..." , Delaware (disambiguation) Lenape, Massachuset, Narranganset Narragansett (tribe), Potomac Patawomeck, Illinois (disambiguation) Illiniwek, Miami tribe,

(to do:) Alabama, Ottawa, Waco, Wichita, Mohave, Shasta, Yuma, Erie, Huron, Susquehanna, Natchez, Mobile, Yakima, Walla Walla (tribe), Muskogee, Spokan, Iowa, Missouri, Omaha, Kansa Kaw (tribe), Biloxi, Dakota, Hatteras, Klamath, Caddo, Tillamook, Washoe, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, Laguna, Santa Ana, Winnebago, Pecos (disambiguation)]], Cheyenne, Menominee, Yankton, Apalachee, Chinook, Catawba, Santa Clara, Taos, Arapaho, Blackfoot, Blackfeet, Chippewa, Cree, Mohawk (disambiguation) Mohawk nation & Mohawk people (Oregon),, Tuscarora, Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Comanche, Shoshone, Two Kettle, Sans Arc, Chiricahua, Kiowa, Mescalero, Navajo, Nez Perce, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickahominy Chickahominy (tribe), Flathead, Santee, Assiniboin, Oglala, Miniconjou, Osage, Crow, Brule Brulé, Hunkpapa, Pima, Zuni, Hopi, Paiute, Creek (disambiguation) Creek (American Indians), Kickapoo, Ojibwa, Shinnecock

(to do, added by Jerzy•t:) Algonquin, Siwanoy, Paugussett, Schaghticoke (tribe), Pequot, Mohegan, Mohican, Mochican Moche, Quinnipiac, Tunxis, Mattebesic or Mattabesic or Mattabesett , Nipmuk, Pocumtuc, Nauset, Wampanoag, , Lillinonah, Cockaponset, Housatonic, Mattatuck, Natchaug, Naugatuck, Niantic, Nehantic, Nayantaquit or Nianticut, Pachaug, Podunk Podunk (people), Pomperaug, Shenipsit, Potatuck, Weantinock, Abenaki, Yaqui

(to do, added by --Parkwells (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC) : [[Michigan] tribes - Nocquet, Mishinimaki, Kewadin (Upper Peninsula)

See Also

This list is too long. Surely all of these articles don't have to be listed.--Parkwells (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Evidently our colleague speaks of the list named in the heading of this section (Native Americans in the United States#See also), not the list on the mind of sequential readers, in the sub-section immediately preceding the heading of this section (Talk:Native Americans in the United States#Tribes).
    The list of See-also articles should, as always, exclude articles already referenced in the prose. That list should be moved to a multi-section list like List of topics relating to Native Americans in the United States, which should be lk'd from the see-also section; lks to many articles probably already referenced in the prose should be added to that list page. Many articles on the list article should also be linked from one or more of a collection of "Main articles", some of which should be created by moving an existing section onto new articles and reducing that existing section to a short summary paragraph. (The accompanying article is at present about 8 times as long as a well maintained article should be.) Some of the lks currently in the See-also will appear in the Main articles created out of this page, or out of yet another level of Main-articles lk'd from them.
    The accompanying article was a former featured article candidate abt 2.5 years ago, and it may be doomed to remain a Failed Featured Article Candidate. (Yes, the caps are intentional sarcasm; their intent is to goad a handful of editors, with a natural interest in doing so, into giving the accompanying article's expansion second priority, and turning it into a Future Featured Article Candidate.) I am not critical of our colleagues who have provided this wealth of material, nor of those who continue to focus on expansion, correction, and/or effective expression, any more than i think i deserve criticism for my own contribution of pretty much carping from the sidelines. I just hope to do a little, even by sarcastic goading, to encourage those who may be next week's or next year's architects (as opposed to carpenters) of the accompanying important topic and the subsidiary articles it needs to do its job well.
    --Jerzy•t 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well

I doubt that there's only about 4.1 million Native Americans alive, like this thing says. In the Maya people page, it says there are 6 million Mayans alone still alive. Someone please tell me what's going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem is that in the United States alone. The government makes it very hard to gain recognition especially if you are not full blooded native. Native Americans are the only race in which the government wants to know your blood quantium so decide if you can claim native heritage. The vast majority of African Americans have a various admixture of Native American descent and should be able to claim tribal rights especially those that know what tribe or tribes they are descended of. There are even some people that claim or are classified as Caucasian that can do the same. Unfortunately, money is in the mix of things and when money is involved people get greedy and don't want any more members to be admittedMcelite (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's useful to note that the tribes control who belongs in most cases, and as you note, many do not want to admit people with little ancestry. Money does add to people wanting to restrict who counts. There is mounting DNA evidence, however, that the story/myth about "the vast majority of African Americans have ... a mixture of Native American descent" is not true. Some do, yes, but many don't. --Parkwells (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Most don't have Native American descent. To be a member of my tribe one must have at least 1/2 Native American decent. Many, and not just African-Americans, just want to be part of a tribe to receive financial benefits. Rob (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the tribes do control who gets enrolled but all of that was created by the government without chiefs even asking for anything like that. The main purpose was for classification. Here's to research articles which clearly state that the majority of African American should also be able to claim their native rights. Of coarse admixture varies greatly among different families. Estimating African American Admixture Proportions by Use of Population-Specific AllelesPopulation structure of Y chromosome SNP haplogroups in the United States and forensic implications for constructing Y chromosome STR databases Unfortunately, some of these geneticists doing tests don't think and take samples only from Mississppi or from Alabama which have the lowest admixture rates.Mcelite (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your links don't support your claims (again). The first one doesn't work and the second shows Asian ancestry more common among African Americans than Native but both vanishingly small compared top African and European ancestry (a percent or maybe less). Rmhermen (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG...I hate those sites. It was working last month... Well any way it's true though some of these researches don't do full surveys. In my opinion I think some of these geneticists honestly don't care or they test people only in the two states that show the least amount of admixture that has occured. It's difficult when there is alot of people that write about the subject but little actual research by geneticists.Mcelite (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually a good number of African Americans also have Native American descent. In 1830s there were over 20,000 people of African and Native descent and most went along with the other tribes during the Trail of Tears. In 1835 10% of the Cherokee tribe alone had admixture with African Americans. Most recently research has solidly proven that the genetic tests being done have major flaws. Most notably the AIM of Caucasian and Native Americans are extremely similar so while some of these genetists have been telling people of African American descent that it's acutally European descent it was actually Native American or unclear because they have such a high admixture. I'm quite suprised that you seem so against people who are of African-Native American descent. It's hard enough. I have a friend who took a DNA tests and they said she has not Native American blood but European when her grandmother which is still alive today is full blooded Chippawau (forgive me if I spelled that wrong) to whom she is very close too. She herself confronted the genetists and they explained that the tests are not accurate and they apologized to her. Now if she was like most African Americans that don't have the privelage of having a grandparent who is full-blooded or half Native American they would have been lost and would have believed a lie. Furthermore, maybe the tribes should make a different membership so that finacial benefits don't come with the membership. Me personally I don't give a damn about money I should have the right to be able to claim my rightful Native heritage along with the rest of my family. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.Mcelite (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA tests do NOT test all your bloodlines, There are 2 options if you are male. Testing your fathers fathers fathers and so on. Or your mothers mothers mothers mothers and so on. DNA testing is vey limited. For instance If you chose to test you fathers side, It does not test your fathers-mothers side. I can explain in further detail. But lets just say in the simplest form as a male no matter how many generations back you go, only 2 of them are apart of the test. So lets just say. On you fathers side his mother(your grandmother) was full blooded cherokee(making you 1/4 cherokee). If you have a DNA test it will not show up at all. Swampfire (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You are talking about Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA testing. While these are the most common, others, notably for this article, use STR genetic markers and claim to produce a overall percentage descent. Rmhermen (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That is a false claim. If you actually check all the facts, you will see that it isnt possible. In fact it was 60 minutes or dateline that did a whole episode on this about a month ago. Where they had the people at all the top site admit. That the only true thing tested was fathers fathers fathers, and mothers mothers mothers and so on. And that everything in between was not detected.Swampfire (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again you are making claims without supplying sources. The talk page is for building a better article, not for general discussion. To include any of your material we would need good sources. Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to keep notable Native Americans

Notable Native Americans have contributed to American society before its founding and after. Here are excellent reasons to keep notable Native American images,

  • Follows the pattern as other American articles (European-American,African-American, etc...)
  • Photographs need names to enhance articles usefulness.
  • Give excellent role models to younger Native Americans
  • Excellent role models include an NASA astronaut (Herrington), an Olympian (Thorpe), Military officers and foot soldiers, government officials, revolutionaries, authors and scholars.
  • Include role models that stood for the U.S. and against (i.e. Pushmataha and Tecumseh).
  • Even though the longer list of images are good, I suggest giving names to them which would makes it quite difficult to read. A shorter list of images would suffice.

I created the original list of images, and thus I can recommend to change them in order to enhance the articles value. Thanks for your time. Rob (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, you don't just change it because you feel like it. Also you only chose the ones you deemed notable, which is a personalPOV. I will be reverting. Swampfire (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I added references to support the notable Indian images, Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.24 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. You do not erase images to leave the images that is only deemed notable by one person. They are all notableSwampfire (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
They are not all notable. How notable is the Comanche child? Did she go into space, write a book, or led a revolution? I think not. Some are notable like Ira Hayes, but like I said you cannot include every notable Native American in such a small area. Rob (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense. This page is NOT about Notable Native Americans of the US. It is about Native Americans of the US. Which is something I point out in the caption. With that being said yes a picture of a commanche child is notable, in reference to this page. Swampfire (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You're obviously missing the point (refer back to the six points above). Of course this page is not about Notable Native Americans. All other articles about Americans include notables about their respective ethnic groups, as it should be. The best of the best should be displayed in this area. The Commanche child could be displayed somewhere in the article, but not in this area. Respectively, Rob (talk)
You are the one missing the point. This article is NOT about Notable native americans, nor is it about the fact of you imposing ones that only you deem notable. Swampfire (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't choose these exceptional Native Americans as notables. That would be a bias. Please refer to the citations included by the names that indicate what other deemed as notable. Thank you, Rob (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This page is NOT about trying to establish who are notable native americans Swampfire (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Your accusing me of a bias that I'm imposing the notables: ("you don't just change it because you feel like it" -Swampfire) Those references deemed them as notable, not me. How can it be, as you put it "a personalPOV", when I research and find citations to back up the notability of successful Native Americans? Respectively, Rob (talk)

Request for Comment (how to solve this problem)

To find a unbiased solution on which Native American images are notable, to include names with images, and the number of images needed for such a diversified ethnic group.13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that the large versuion has too many images. Too many to focus on and too small to appreciate. A moderate number of images showing a wide range of modern/traditional, male/female, old/new, various differing tribal background. Other articles have (with admittedly long debates) constructed such montages. a few specifics I would like to mention: Since the preview hover tool only uses the first image in the box, it should I believe be a image of a traditionally dressed image, probably a famous one. I would say that the Ira Hayes image should not be used as it gives the appearance of a police mug shot (which it isn't) and in the very small size and limited space for explanation may be misinterpreted. Rmhermen (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well are we only talking about full-blooded Native Americans or both full-blooded and partial descendents? Because they are plenty of people who could be used as notable i.e. Rosa Parks or Jessica Biel.Mcelite (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its about the "amount of blood" but more who is a member of a federally recoginized tribe which is more likely, and rightly so, that they are full-blooded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.197.54 (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Definately too many images in the infobox. 4 maximum imo - this is not a "List of notable Native Americans" article. Which four is an editorial decision - i would suggest 2 women / 2 men, and 2 old pics (in tribal dress) and 2 new, so show diversity. Sure 4 pics cannot show the full range of variety, but then nor can 100. The limit should be set for the readability of the article, not to make a point about the falsity of stereoypes, which is what it looks like now. also would stick to photographs - there are plenty of painting in the article alreadyYobmod (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The older Native American article had thirty images with no names. Four images are too minimal. European Americans have eight images, African American has six, and Jewish Americans have twelve all of which is about notable people for their respective ethnic group. Eight to twelve image would work. It is clear that this article is not a list of notable Native Americans.Rob (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
And none of them are even good articles, let alone FA. Their poorly formated and excessive pictures doesn't mean this article should be that poor. Asian has no pictures, compared to Asian american: why is only American ethnicities that need validation through wikipedia? It is not a race to see which ethnic group can have most pictures, it's about illustrating the article usefully. What use does more than 4 pictures have in the lead image? Until that can be answered, there is no point changing anything. 4 is too minimal for what? As i said above, there is no number we can choose that can represent all the diversity of an ethnic group.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
btw, i agree that the reverted to 30+ images is much worse, although i also don't understand why they should be replaced notable examples, instead of the best pictures.Yobmod (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I navigated here solely because of the RFC. I don't know very much about Native Americans. In my opinion, all of the images in the infobox should be removed and reinserted in the body of the article. It looks terrible. There is plenty of text in the article to support 11 small jpgs. These would make very interesting and appropriate little sidebar boxes if each had a short caption (5-10 words) and linked to the main article on each person. Well, you asked for third party opinions. :) Apollo (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Saw this in my recent edits box (and I'm full-blooded Native American), I have to agree with Apollo's solution of possibly including the images further in the body of the article. I felt it was a little tacky or gaudy to pick out just a few notable Natives because people will probably always argue with who to include. Cheers, oncamera(t) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, since the two respondents to the RFC are in agreement about this, I'll get the work started. I managed to incorporate five or six photos into the body, with a short caption. I also moved the ref's into the captions. I also added a couple of sentences about Tecumseh's War. Apollo (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The image must logically correspond with the section if you want the article to be coherent. A notional example: a photo of Jim Thorpe in the music section would seem out of place. Deletion of an image is acceptable if there is no coherent fit. Maybe there should be a mini-gallery of notables in the article. Rob (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks nice, Rob. My definition of "relevant" or correspondence is a bit on the loose side. I would like to put Jim Thorpe's picture somewhere reasonably prominent, since IMHO he was, arguably, the most talented athlete in world history. He's a bit forgotten in this day and age. Let's find a place for him.
    • As for the gallery idea, it had also occurred to me. It would look a lot better as a horizontal section than in the infobox. I just don't want people fighting about who gets included or not.Apollo (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The page is NOT about talented or notable native americans. It is about ALL native americans, and in that context all are notable. If you would like to include just photos of notable native americans then do it here. [[7] or here [8]] Swampfire (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Swampfire: I disagree; all Native Americans are not notable. Nevertheless, I insist on having names with images in the info box. Apollo: The article lacks a sport section. I'll come up with some material to create it. It should be an interesting section since early American sports was inspired by Native ball play. Arguably, teams sports were a Native American invention as opposed to European sports which were "individual against individual" competition. We'll see where this will led. 15:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add to the "common" vs "notable" question, but I did notice that for all the names and pictures that this article uses, there's no mention of Vice-President Charles Curtis. Did we decide he's just not "red" enough?
VP Curtis should definitely be included, as he grew up in both cultural traditions and was effective in the world - apparently quite effective in Congress. He identified with his Native American heritage and learned his mother's language of Kansa before English. Useful for people to know ideas about multiracial didn't begin in this generation.--Parkwells (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it being used as both here. Things like "100 percent Native American" and whatnot. If it were just a legal term, you either are or are not. If 'Native American' has a racial meaning, why aren't indigenous people of the Americas--who are racially Native American too--included in this definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.37.244 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually various legal definitions use various degree/percentages and it is all discussed in this article. What subject do you think we are missing? Native Americans (First people/indigenous peoples) outside the United States are discussed in different articles as is the totality (Indigenous peoples of the Americas). Rmhermen (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There should be a clear distinction between the term when it is used broadly as "indigenous people of the Americas" and when it refers specifically to any person with ancestors indigenous to the US only. The prior is a "race" of people, the latter its legal definition in the United States only, which doesn't necessarily mean the first. We seem to be focusing on its legal definition exclusively; a US-centric view."Native American" also means indigenous people of the Americas in many definitions--including Oxford's. I suggest we create a disambiguation page for "Native American" as it means more than one thing. That or at least acknowledge it also refers all indigenous people of the Americas here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:24BB:6AB:0:33:A59C:6401 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I continue to be puzzled. This article is called "Native Americans in the United States". It deal with Native Americans who are in the United States. Other subjects are dealt with in other articles. For instance First Nations, indigenous people of the Americas, Native Mexicans (Indigenous peoples of Mexico), Indigenous peoples in Argentina, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It is also not just a legal definition in the US, that is why there is a distinction between enrolled citizens of Native American Nations, and non-enrolled or unrecognized Native Americans. So the term simply has many different sense, as do most words in the world, especially those that describe complicated social concepts. Nothing odd about that really. We don't have an article on "Native Mexicans" by the way and that concept makes no sense. Indigenous peoples of Mexico are also Native Americans. It is only in the US that the word "America" is considered synonymous with the US.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
But we do and it first line says: "Indigenous peoples of Mexico (Spanish: pueblos indígenas de México), Native Mexicans (Spanish: nativos mexicanos), or Mexican Indians (Spanish: indios mexicanos) are those who are part of communities that trace their roots back to populations and communities that existed in what is now Mexico prior to the arrival of Europeans." Rmhermen (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I will change that because that is not a term that has any use by anyone.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, currently the article is for US natives only but should it be? Perhaps the title should change to accommodate the broader "Native American", or said disambiguation of "Native American" into "Native Americans in the United States" and solely "Native American". There's an indigenous people of the Americas page and natives on the whole should be able to be referred to as Native Americans there because it's proper. Problem is, linking back to a Native American article would make it inaccurate given its legal definition being acknowledged only. If "Indigenous people of the Americas" and "Native American" are indeed synonymous, shouldn't a Native American article reflect this?

We already have articles describing the general case, the specific case, the specific history, multiple articles on the general history (Paleo-Indians, Pre-Columbian era, Settlement of the Americas, Archaeology of the Americas) and even the naming controversy. I am not convinced we need any more. What information do you want to add that you can't find a home for? Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Native Americans in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Name Calling=

The so-called Native Americans never considered themselves Americans, and prefer other stereotypical words such as native, indigenous, or aborigine, or often by their tribe's name. A message from a former elder and healer who recently died of cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Helia.Dehghanzadeh Helia.Dehghanzadeh (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't the title just "Native American"

After all, Native American redirects to this page.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

While that redirect is odd it is the way it should be. This article is only about Native Americans in the US, not those elsewhere - but "Native American" is mostly used to describe US Natives so that is why the redirect goes here and not to Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. It is a problem with now perfect solution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
In American English "Native American" refers not only to Indians in the USA but to all Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. See Native American naming controversy. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In fact American English "Native American" with overwhelming frequency refers to North American Native Americans - by far enough that that is the primary topic of that usage. It is quite rare to find Native American applied to South American indigenous groups.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: Have you found any statistics or search results to support this assertion? Jarble (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I dont have quantitative evidence no. I happen to work with indigenous peoples of Latin America professionally and know that the literature hardly ever refer to them as "Native Americans". A quick google books search with the term "Native American" confirms this. And the Native American Encyclopedia[9] for example does not cover any cultures south of the US. Nor does Native American Architecture[10]. Or the Handbook of Native American Literature[11]. This is the typical pattern, works that include Latin American indigenous groups under the label are in the minority.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
But we can easily find the opposites as well - genetic studies of the skeleton of the "Native American girl" found in a Yucatan cave [12][13], Prevalence of problem drinking in a Venezuelan Native American population", the "Encyclopedia of American Indian Contributions to the World" which covers South American as well as North American, the National Museum of the American Indian whose collections cover "Native peoples of the Western Hemisphere (excluding Hawai’i)" but really only means the Americas. If usage was consistent we wouldn't have these repeated discussions. Rmhermen (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I am convinced that the former pattern is predominant, and that users typing in "native american" as a search term are most likely to be interested in this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Without much regard for context, I'm incline to say that it should simply be Native American because WP:CONCISE. What ends up happening is that an editor uses the phrase "native american" in an article, referring to inidigeonous people of North America/US. Then, possibly being aware of MOS:NOPIPE, they will pipe the link to this page. This is makes the wikitext unecessarily complicated.Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Being aware of NOPIPE, they will... pipe it? That makes no sense. WP:NOPIPE says that if you're linking to Native American and that redirects here, you have no need to pipe that link explicitly. In case you meant "unaware", though, well, the guideline is there, and as with all guidelines, if some editors are unaware of it, other editors will correct their mistake and inform them of it, as is always the process with Wikipedia.
At the same time, WP:CONCISE definitely does not apply if there is considerable use in English (any English variety, by the way, since this is not the American English Wikipedia) of "Native Americans" to mean Native Americans somewhere that is not the United States. Even in this section above, Maunus seems to argue that the term is typically applied to North Americans natives, but not necessarily to just the ones in the US. So, really, no, Native Americans doesn't mean Native Americans in the US. LjL (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No one knows what to call them, because there was never a name for the continents or their race. They are natives, or indigenous, but never considered themselves Americans in the past. Plus America has its own pseudo or unknown origins, dating back to Columbus, which is as fact as Peter Pan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy.kidd332211 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I want to make an edit to the “Current legal status section.” I want to make an edit to the first sentence of this paragraph as I feel like it uses an opinion, and does not back it up with a source. The sentence details the feelings/opinions of Native Americans on the United States government, but does not give a credible source to back up this opinion. I plan to add this source to the first sentence,(http://thorpe.ou.edu/guide/robertson.html) to show that the U.S. State and Federal governments have tried to regulate goings on in the Reservations. What do you guys think? Let me know. Thespartan41 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Native American race

There seems to be a few definitions of Native American. While the US considers it as either being registered in a tribe regardless of racial composition or actually indigenous but only in the bounds of the US mainland, Alaska, and Hawaii while calling all other Native Americans "American Indians"(same thing), yet Native Americans are a race descended from proto-Mongoloids, ALL of them (Not just ones indigenous to all of the US).

I believe this wiki should include Native Americans from all over the Americas as its Native American race definition and not stick to the US shortsighted definition. It literally makes no sense that a Native American from South America would be wrong to identify as "Native American". What other race are they? Are they not native to the Americas? American Indian and Native American aren't separate races and aren't listed as such, even in the US. This is like pretending Native Americans in what is known as Latin America don't exist. All people of the Native American race should be included on this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.39.57 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 June 2015


ASSIMILATION: "European impact was immediate, widespread, and profound—more than any other race that had contact with Native Americans during the early years of colonization and nationhood. " - What other "races" did they have contact with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.74.52 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacks, mostly (slave and free); a scattering of Asians. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention the Irish, italian, Jewish and Slavic races. Now, joking aside, I think we should just rephrase in a way that does not rely on the pseudoscientific belief in biologically distinct races.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Native Americans in the United States. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

New book on stereotypes in illustration

Indians Illustrated: The Image of Native Americans in the Pictorial Press by John M. Coward, 2016, University of Illinois Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Long Island Algonquin Mohegans seem to be unrepresented on the Native Americans page and elsewhere

Long Island, NY does not seem to have its Native Americans represented in Wikipedia under the pages of "Native Americans in the United States" or Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

I am not a historian so am hesitant to add this information on my own. May I request someone assist in adding the Algonquin people often referred to as Mohegans (alt spelling Mohican.)

THank you for your kind attention to this request. (Jmont1 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Perhaps you are looking for the Shinnecock Indian Nation. It looks like Mohican was generically used for all large number of Indian groups in the area but it appears the actual Mohicans and Mohegans never lived on Long Island. This page is a high level article about all Natives in the U.S. and doesn't mention all of the 550+ groups. Rmhermen (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No concensus - there is no concensus for the proposed move but there is concensus to move Native Americans (disambiguation) to Native Americans. (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States → Native Americans – Per WP:COMMONNAME, and no ambiguity exists. SSTflyer 12:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that as a helpful search result as it is picking up phrases rather than topic titles, so we have results for "Native Americans in Europe" in England, in the wilderness, and in space. I'm not seeing book titles of "Native Americans in the United States", but plenty about "Native Americans". SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Good points. And see Native American name controversy. I'll reconsider my initial comment as this RM continues. I was going by Wikipedia article names and links. Randy Kryn 14:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Articles exist for Native Americans in Mexico and Native Americans in Canada. Native Americans in the United States is the WP:PTOPIC for "Native Americans". And while some of these people object to the "Native Americans" name, there is no denying that it is the WP:COMMONNAME in English language usage. SSTflyer 15:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Those linked articles are named 'Indigenouse peoples of Mexico' and 'First Nations'. 'First Nations' and 'The People' are also honorably used as self-identifiers. Randy Kryn 15:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
In fact there is an article about Native Americans and it resides at Indigenous peoples of the Americas. --MrStoofer (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a perpetual problem on Wikipedia. "Native Americans" has redirected here for years, meaning that anyone who types in or clicks on that phrase ends up at the article on Native Americans in the United States. Same with other terms like American Indian. As such, the argument that there may be confusion with other "Native Americans" is mooted. More to the point, although "Native American" can mean indigenous peoples in other countries, it's simply a matter of fact that most uses of "Native Americans" are referring to peoples in the present-day U.S., and in some cases it may be seen as offensive to call non-U.S. natives "Native Americans". Given that by long-standing precedent, Wikipedia accepts this article as the primary redirect, there's really no good reason to use the longer, clumsier, and much less used formulation "Native Americans in the United States".
The only other real option would be to recreate the dab page at Native Americans and proceed to fix the incoming links. We simply should not have the term used in the real world, Native Americans, redirecting to an article with long, artificial name.--Cúchullain t/c 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the dab page to Native Americans (disambiguation) and cleaned it up. If this article isn't moved, the dab page should be moved to the base name and incoming links sorted.--Cúchullain t/c 18:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Changing my !vote to oppose moving Native Americans in the United States and move Native Americans (disambiguation) over the base name Native Americans. It's become readily apparent that "Native Americans" is too ambiguous to point only to this article (or any, IMO).--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Native American specifically refers to indigenous inhabitants of the United States. It is generally not used to refer to the indigenous inhabitants of Latin American countries, which use other terms. As noted above, the "American" in the title refers to the nationality of the United States, not the Americas in general, in a similar way, for example, to African American. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that "Native American" is also used in Canada: some RS: 1) "the common term for the indigenous peoples is “American Indian”; in Canada it is 'Native American' or Native Canadian,'" [Paper 2007; 2) "In Canada, the first sweat lodge was constructed for use by Native American prisoners" (French 2003); 3) "Mooney's estimate included 54,200 Native Americans in eastern Canada" [Thornton 1988] 4) Art and Architecture in Canada (1991) "the sponsoring group, the International Native American Council of Arts (INCA)"; 5) "The governor of Canada, Sir Frederick Haldimand, believed that Native American help would be necessary" [2011]; 6) " Native American Indians account for a very small proportion of the population in Canada" [2010]. 7) "In this cover story for the Canadian newsmagazine Maclean's, Nancy Wood looks at the issue of Native American sovereignty in Canada" [1996] etc etc Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing except the >>modern<< correlation of American as a United States citizen explains this supposed connection. But in this sense, were the Apaches Native Americans during the XIX century, while the United States frontier was still a few hundred miles east? They were, but not because they lived inside the United States. This is a case of presentism with a pinch of Anglo-Saxon self-sufficiency. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States/Archive_5&oldid=1258068195"