Talk:Native American studies

message: Additional content needed, will add stub template, etc. as soon as i figure out how Howee 05:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: For other persons of the same name, see Richard Oakes.
Richard Oakes (1942–September 20, 1972) was a Mohawk Native American activist who promoted the fundamental idea that Native peoples have a right to sovereignty, justice, respect and control over their own destinies. His legacy reflects the struggles of Native peoples and all people to maintain their land, identity, and lifeways.
Oakes played an integral part in creating one of the first Native American studies departments in the nation. He developed the initial curriculum and encouraged other American Indians to enroll at San Francisco State University.
As a Mohawk Indian, Oakes was a strong supporter of Native American rights. He believed that Native American people have a right to their land and identity and that they deserve respect, justice and control.
[edit] Alcatraz occupation
Main article: Occupation of Alcatraz
In 1969, Oakes led a group of students and urban Bay Area Indians in an occupation of Alcatraz Island that would last until 1971. He also recruited 80 UCLA students from the American Indian Studies Center.
Indians of various tribes joined Oakes and staged the longest occupation of a federal facility by Indian people.
The historic occupation was made up initially of young Indian college students. Described as a handsome, charismatic, talented, and natural leader, Oakes was identified as "chief" of the island.
Oakes had control of the island from the very beginning, with an organizational council put into effect immediately. Everyone had a job, including security, sanitation, day care, schooling, cooking, and laundry. All decisions were made by the unanimous consent of the people.
The goals of the Indian inhabitants were to gain a deed to the island, establish an Indian university, cultural center, and museum.
In 1970 the island began to fall into disarray once Oakes' 13-year-old stepdaughter fell to her death. After the fatality, Oakes left the island, along with numerous students who went back to school.
Conflicts over leadership and the influx of non-Indians diminished the important stance of the original occupants.
In June 1971 the United States government removed the remaining 15 occupants from the island.
While Oakes and his followers did not succeed in obtaining the island, they did affect U.S. policy and the treatment of Indians. As a result of the occupation, the official U.S. government policy of termination of Indian tribes was ended and replaced by a policy of Indian self-determination.
Shortly after leaving Alcatraz, Richard was injured in a fight, having been hit in the head with a pool cue. In a coma for over 30 days, all hope for his recovery was nearly lost. Friends credit the appearance of his mentor Wallace Mad Bear Anderson of the Iroquois Confederacy, and spiritual leader, with bringing him back to life.
Soon after that, however, Oakes was shot and killed by a man named Mike Morgan. Morgan was a YMCA camp manager, who, for some reason, carried a gun. He had a reputation for being rough with Indian kids, and apparently did so again in Oakes presence. Oakes reportedly confronted him, and Morgan responded by drawing a handgun and fatally shooting him. Supporters of Oakes were outraged when the charges
ve}}
Additional content needed, will add stub template, etc. as soon as i figure out how Howee 05:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Oakes

message: I find the section called Notable Scholars to be a dubious category.  It is NOT up to Wikipedia to decide if someone is good or not.  Ward Churchill has been added to the section and he is not even in the top 50 of great Native American Studies professors.  He is a fake Indian.  He is the Chief of the Wannabee Tribe.  We need to define this categor to present the attributes of the various professors properly.  There are professors that make Ward Churchill look like the piker that he is, but they aren't even listed and they should not be listed in the same category as Chief Fake Indian.--Getaway 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Churchill is a fraud in many ways, but he is also notable, prominent, and widely cited in Indian Studies. I think he belongs in the list. The bigger problem here is making an NPOV list. I don't see that anyone has used objective criteria and evidence to determine inclusion or exclusion in the list.Verklempt 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Churchill is well-known, but not for Indian studies--mostly for his comment about 9/11 and the victims in the towers.  He has written and series of polemics, but not studies.  Those polemics are not  based upon research and they are peer-reviewed.  Very little of what he has produced is peer-reviewed.  As a matter of fact, most of what he has produced is self-published, probably for the reason that he either does not want peer-review or he submitted his polemics to peers and they are unable or unwilling to pass the work further through the editorial process.  Churchill is well-known for not wanting others to question or debate his work.  In the self-published world you can rubber stamp your own work.  What research studies he has attempted he engaged in fraud.  I do not disagree that he belongs on the list per se.  But I do disagree that he should be called a "scholar" and that is where the problem is--which I think is the point that you are trying to make.--Getaway 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your comments are really off the topic.  It is becoming obnoxious on your part, about whether Churchill is a scholar or a polemic.  You have just engaged in another personal attack.  I have grown tired of this line of personal attack.  Please stop it now.  If you continue then I will forced to move the next level to get you to stop the personal attacks.  You are now violating Wikipedia policy.  Please stop.   On this page allow is the two editors that your accused of being sockpuppets, myself Getaway & Verklempt, and obviously we are not the same person because we disagree on this topic. Any admin can take a look at this page and see that your claim that Verklempt and I are NOT the same person.  We don't even know each other and this is the first time that we have ever communicated with each.  Please stop your line of baseless personal attack.--Getaway 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Ward Churchill

message: Here's an experiment:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Roger+Buffalohead%22&btnG=Search -> About 41 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Elizabeth+Cook-Lynn%22&btnG=Search -> About 411 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ward+Churchill%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search -> About 900 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Vine+Deloria%22&btnG=Search -> About 2140 results
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Philip+Deloria%22&btnG=Search -> About 270 results
All of which amounts to the fact that Churchill is more widely cited than most (but not all) of the other scholars listed here, and who should be listed here.  I know Getaway wants to make his own judgment of which scholars are better or more true or whatever (although I'm confident he doesn't know anything about the others anyway, other than their not-Churchill-ness).  So let's cut the sophistry... and the gross WP:NOR violations. LotLE×talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This entire section looks like WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. Please justify its inclusion under those policies.Verklempt 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Programs/Departments 

message: What does Oceania do on the list? I know it is a good journal, but isn't it a bit off-topic? But surely Ethnohistory belongs there, even if it does not only feature Native American or First Nation topics. I would add the very good European Review of Native American Studies, but I do not know how available it is in the USA - it is pretty scarce in German non-Museum libraries.--Radh (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care about American Indian Art Magazine being or not being in Wikipedia. But to erase it from "Native American Studies" because you think it is "not exactly decolonizing" is strange. I thought POV was not allowed? Do you consider Ethnohistory also to not be decolonizing or do you simply not know it? But I don't care and will stop working on First Nation topics here.--Radh (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: American Indian Art magazine is written almost exclusively from a non-Native, Western perspective and is full of ads from auction houses and dealers. Some of the articles are quite well researched and well-written, and the photography is lovely, but Non-Natives collecting Native antiquities has nothing to do with "decolonization of indigenous peoples, political autonomy, and the establishment of a discipline dedicated to alleviating contemporary problems facing indigenous peoples." -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not dispute your arguments (non-Native writers, commercial backing) a bit. But advertising is the only reason its pictures can look that fantastic. And you could say the same things about other first-class - and certainly not-dumbed-down - magazines, African Art, a similar fantastic journal on Southeast-Asian Arts and even more so about Hali (on tapestries). Artforum and Flash Art always had lots of advertising. RES (from the Peabody) has not, but is nearly completely unknown (?) It is also often unreadable, like Ethnohistory. Academia likes to keep to itself. The European Review of Native American Studies, which also is not written from a strict post-colonial perspective, although some of your Good Guys have published in it, also would profit from some ad-money and at least could establish ,an online presence. To be so pure nobody can touch you is silly if you want to communicate - which is why you use a non-Native online-publisher like wp yourself, I guess? No, this is not meant in an unfriendly way. I find your work here very impressive.--Radh (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that there is advertising; it's the nature of the advertisers. Private collectors of Native antiquities overwhelmingly have resisted NAGPRA (they don't have to comply anyway). Indian Art Magazine sponsors events such as the Marin Indian Art Show, which I had the misfortune of attending. Grave goods and sacred, cultural sensitive items were not only for sale but on public display, including a Cornhusk Society mask. Instead of supporting tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and self-representation for Native peoples, which is integral to Native American Studies, IAM represents the old guard of patronizing Western academic "Indian experts." Regarding WP, it is multi-ethnic - and allows Native peoples, and everyone else under the sun, to write on their own behalf about their own cultures and spheres of knowledge. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not doubt your reasoning per se and personal am pretty d'accord with your latest arguments, but this reasoning is (I think) simply not in accordance with WP's policy of no POV. But I surely will not start an edit-war or something.--Radh (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think that Uyvsdi's position is NPOV in discussing Native American Studies.  There are certainly other articles where this title belongs, but it is not part of the academic discipline of Native American Studies.  If that makes any sense. Vizjim (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but why should art not be a part of Native American Studies? Franz Boas, Gladys Reichard, Elsie Parsons and countless others have written seriously about it. But they are probably the bad, ugly, colonizing  "Indian experts" Uybvsdi has in mind. But, I really would not have much to say about "Native Americans" anyway and surely do not need to edit articles relating to them.--Radh (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, studying Native Americans ≠ Native American Studies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Or, if you think so, why do you not eliminate ALL non-Native NA-students from the article? --Radh (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journals 

message: In the 'Decolonizing Native American Studies' subsection of the 'History' section, the citation (and maybe the content as well), https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12032, seems to deal with Maori studies, while this is an article mainly talking about Native American studies. I think a new, more content-appropriate source is needed. Any thoughts? Factthinker (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate source for 'Decolonizing Native American Studies' 

message: — Assignment last updated by SierraTL (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: NAS R1A - Summer Session