Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 1

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

message: Before European colonization, there was "North America" and "South America" did not exist.  So why rely on a post-colonization distinction to define the descendents of pre-colonization peoples?  The current definition would include the indigenes of Mexico as "Native Americans," but not the indigenous of Guatemala.  Are the Indians of Guatemala so much more different from Indians of Mexico as they are from Indians of Chile, or so much more different than Indians of Mexico are from Indians of Maine?  -- SR
Actually, yes.  The further south that you go, the greater the difference.  The differences are cultural, historical, and genetic. ErikFP 19:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  North and South America - bogus distinction? 

message: The following was moved from the article Native American:
Text moved back into article
:Fredbauder - what were your reasons for removing this material from the article?  It looks fine to me. Enchanter
I agree with Enchanter; why was the text removed? --maveric149
This material is mainly talk about the topic and what the topic ought to be:
=== What is the best name for this group of people? ===
I do believe that the word Indian comes from the Italian word indios which means from God, India was not a country in the time of Colombus, it was Hindustan.Ryan Hayes
Anthropologists originated the term, and prefer it to the former apellations of "Indian" or "American Indian", which they consider inaccurate, as these terms bear no relationship to the actual origins of aboriginal Americans, and were born of the misapprehension on the part of Christopher Columbus, arriving at islands off the east coast of the North American continent, that he had reached the Indies.  Of course, "Indian" and "American Indian" continue to be widely used in North America, even by Native Americans themselves, many of whom are not offended by the terms.
One minority view has been that a more accurate term might be "Asiatic Americans" because of the popular theory that such peoples migrated to the Americas from Asia accross an ice bridge covering the Bering Straits some 20,000 years ago.  There is competent fossil evidence that this may have been the case.  The strong tradition among archaeologists and anthropologists, however, is to indicate the geographic origins of a people as relating to the region where they (or their remains) were first encountered by researchers.
One difficulty with the term, however, as a substitute for "American Indian," is that there are at least two peoples who certainly are natives of the Americas, but who are not properly considered American Indians: the Inuit and the Aleut people of the far north of the continent.  Another difficulty is that many Native American groups migrated to their current locations after the start of European colonization, and therefore it can be argued that they are no more native to their current locations than the Europeans.
:Another difficulty with the term comes from the fact that many Indian religious traditions hold that their people have been on their land since the beginning of time.  Theories that hold that Indians migrated to North America are contrary to this religious teaching and hence offensive to many Indians -BuddhaInside
In Canada the term "First Nations" is now in general use.  In Alaska, because of legal use (in ANSCA) and because of the Eskimo peoples, the term "Alaskan Native]] is used.
Fred Bauder
-----
Most of the Indians I've talked to and also some books I've read.  People prefer the name Indian precisly because it can be traced to Indios from God.  And also because technically any person who is born in a country is a "Native" of that country.  The idea of calling them Native Americians came out of the desire for "political correctness"  and however well intentioned it may be, the change was made unilaterally without getting a consensus from the people who would be affected by that change.
:: ErikFP 15:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ErikFP 23:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian.
  
...................
Hi Jorge,
I am not at all intending to dispute the "people from India" story.  I fully agree that it is the most probable explaination.  As for the spelling, I was quoting the spelling from above.  My reason for quoting it was to be in agreement with it, on the basis that I have read a book (unfortunatly don't recall which one) in which the Indian author discussed the orgins and stated his preference because it could be traced to "people from God" but without giving the spelling/entomology -- so I was glad to read the explaination of the word's entomology.
 
However, the preference goes far beyond that of a single author.  I am part Americian Indian and I know many Americian Indians, and they always (that I've encountered) use "Indian" to refer to themselves unless they are being traditional and call themselves "First People" or simply "The People" (or simply their tribal name).  You can see this in any of their websites...  I have yet to see an Americian Indian website (or go to a  Pow Wow) that uses the term Native Americian (as a primary referent) {okay, so I've just now found a "Native" website... none-the-less, the majority do not use "Native" 23:40, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I do believe that the word Indian comes from the Italian word indios which means from God, India was not a country in the time of Colombus, it was Hindustan.Ryan Hayes
Anthropologists originated the term, and prefer it to the former apellations of "Indian" or "American Indian", which they consider inaccurate, as these terms bear no relationship to the actual origins of aboriginal Americans, and were born of the misapprehension on the part of Christopher Columbus, arriving at islands off the east coast of the North American continent, that he had reached the Indies.  Of course, "Indian" and "American Indian" continue to be widely used in North America, even by Native Americans themselves, many of whom are not offended by the terms.
One minority view has been that a more accurate term might be "Asiatic Americans" because of the popular theory that such peoples migrated to the Americas from Asia accross an ice bridge covering the Bering Straits some 20,000 years ago.  There is competent fossil evidence that this may have been the case.  The strong tradition among archaeologists and anthropologists, however, is to indicate the geographic origins of a people as relating to the region where they (or their remains) were first encountered by researchers.
One difficulty with the term, however, as a substitute for "American Indian," is that there are at least two peoples who certainly are natives of the Americas, but who are not properly considered American Indians: the Inuit and the Aleut people of the far north of the continent.  Another difficulty is that many Native American groups migrated to their current locations after the start of European colonization, and therefore it can be argued that they are no more native to their current locations than the Europeans.
:Another difficulty with the term comes from the fact that many Indian religious traditions hold that their people have been on their land since the beginning of time.  Theories that hold that Indians migrated to North America are contrary to this religious teaching and hence offensive to many Indians -BuddhaInside
In Canada the term "First Nations" is now in general use.  In Alaska, because of legal use (in ANSCA) and because of the Eskimo peoples, the term "Alaskan Native]] is used.
Fred Bauder
-----
Most of the Indians I've talked to and also some books I've read.  People prefer the name Indian precisly because it can be traced to Indios from God.  And also because technically any person who is born in a country is a "Native" of that country.  The idea of calling them Native Americians came out of the desire for "political correctness"  and however well intentioned it may be, the change was made unilaterally without getting a consensus from the people who would be affected by that change.
:: ErikFP 15:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ErikFP 23:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian.
  
...................
Hi Jorge,
I am not at all intending to dispute the "people from India" story.  I fully agree that it is the most probable explaination.  As for the spelling, I was quoting the spelling from above.  My reason for quoting it was to be in agreement with it, on the basis that I have read a book (unfortunatly don't recall which one) in which the Indian author discussed the orgins and stated his preference because it could be traced to "people from God" but without giving the spelling/entomology -- so I was glad to read the explaination of the word's entomology.
 
However, the preference goes far beyond that of a single author.  I am part Americian Indian and I know many Americian Indians, and they always (that I've encountered) use "Indian" to refer to themselves unless they are being traditional and call themselves "First People" or simply "The People" (or simply their tribal name).  You can see this in any of their websites...  I have yet to see an Americian Indian website (or go to a  Pow Wow) that uses the term Native Americian (as a primary referent) {okay, so I've just now found a "Native" website... none-the-less, the majority do not use "Native" 23:40, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I have put the following paragraph in the article:
As a general proposition, Native Americans do better if they can keep their spirits up; oppressive conditions, expecially slavery have deleterious effects on their mental and ultimately physical health.
This is, of course, true as general proposition for people, indeed, animals; but I believe more so for Native Americans who display an exaggerated failure to thrive as compared to other people under such conditions. Perhaps it could be expressed better or supported better, but I believe it is well established.
:By now, this comment (it is nothing else, as it is now) looks like unrespectful for Native Americans. I do hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it strongly smells like that. As a matter of fact, slavery never improved anyone's mental or physical health, so this note is the same useful as saying that -let's say- in France there are many prostitutes (there are many in every country).
:I had proposed something that evidently you didn't like, but since you reinserted your text  in the article, with coherence with what you yourself say above, please edit it as soon as you can, in order to have Native Americans granted their respect, as it happens for anyone else here. You are right: it could be expressed better (given that we need it). At least, use a Wikipedia style, turning personal suggestions into encyclopedic material. Add your scientific material about it, if there is any, develop this topic.
:Finally, might I kindly ask you, please avoid further comparisons with animals and do care about others' eventual sensibility, thanks. --Gianfranco
No disrespect is intended. I guess it's not that people are animals but that animals are people. Caged animals often do not thrive, especially new caught wild animals. The American experience has been that having been defeated, some Native Americans also become dispirited and health and psychological problems develop, especially alcoholism. Traditional Native American religion has a strong component of uplifting activity. The problem with slavery is well documented. Native Americans in conditions of slavery rapidly die. Almost the entire population of Florida and the Caribbean died in that way although disease also played a major role. I'll try a re-edit soon. Fred Bauder
.....
  
speaking as someone who is part Indian, I did not interpet the comment as an insult, though I can see how it could be construed that way.  And I appreciate that people are being sensitive to these issues.  I believe that what Fred was trying to express is that Indians were less able to adapt to captivity then other "people".  (and yes, Indians do consider animals to be {god's} little people  -- lots of mythology revolves around Indians changing into animals and animals into Indians).  If you take someone who has had a tremendous sense of freedom all of their life and then you confine them.  The impact upon them will be greater then it would be on someone who has lived in a more structured environment.  The Blacks proved themselves to be much more able to cope with slavery.  But I do not know what cultural differences would explain this.
Americian Indians still suffer greatly from the psychological damage that was done to their ancestors.
ErikFP 19:36, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping spirits up 

message: Native Americans officially make up the majority of the population in Bolivia and Guatemala and are significant in most other Hispanic American countries, with the possible exception of Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic and Uruguay.
:How significant is the native population in Argentina and Chile? Rick
:.........
The above comment illustrates exactly why this topic needs to be split and why "Native American" is a poor choice for the page name. 
Let me ask you this, would you ever consider lumping England, Scottland, France and Poland all under one generic label and talk about them as if they were all the same people?
It's absurd to treat such disparate cultures as being interchangable.  It's bad enough that the Great Plains Tribes are considered to be the same as the Northwest Coastal Tribes even though there are huge differences in their cultures.
ErikFP 11:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Americans in Latin American coutries

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

message: "The Athabascan peoples generally lived in Alaska and western Canada but several tribes migrated south as far as California and the American Southwest"  seems to imply that tribes in Alaska and western Canada, that were already formed, are known to have migrated as units to California and the American Southwest.  Such whole-tribe migration isn't far-fetched (even tho it seems more likely that outcast or adventurous bands from one or several tribes would migrate, without necessarily being so committed to permanently leaving their tribes that they had started behaving as separate tribes.) But it's far-fetched that whole-tribe migration could be distinguished.  
Unless someone knows of evidence supporting the current wording, i propose to substitute "... but some Athabascans migrated south as far as California and the American Southwest, and became the ancestors of tribes now there", which IIRC is supported both by linguistics and by artifact styles.  Depending on details of the evidence, it may be possible to add (now or later) "... in 3 waves ...", or "... in at least 23 waves ..." or whatever, between "south" and "as far". Jerzy 23:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably means "tribe" in a non-technical way, as in "a bunch of Indians." Ancestors of the Athapaskan tribes would be more correct. Adam Bishop 23:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Athabascan migration 

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

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

message: I would be good if we could chose one style to disambiguate with. So far I have noticed: 
*name tribe
*name Tribe
*name (tribe)
*name (people)
*name (Native American)
*name (Native Americans)
*name First Nation -even one for a U.S. tribe!
*name Nation
Probably others. I would suggest using name (tribe) as the standard (partly since it appears to be the most widely used already.) I just used name Nation to disambiguate the Sac tribe and the Fox tribe from their merged current legal Sac and Fox Nation. So I don't think it makes a good tag since it has other uses. Rmhermen 16:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
:I concur with using "Name (tribe)" as a standard for disambiguation. I think there should be redirects for at least "Name tribe" and "Name (people)", perhaps others as needed. I don't think it is imperative to go back and change already existing ones though. Bkonrad | Talk 01:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I can think of any examples off the top of my head, but is it possible that there are some NA groups that would object to being referred to as "tribe"?  Maybe "Name (people)" would be more general.  Or we could just use "Name (tribe)" unless there is some particular reason not to. - Nat Krause 02:35, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation style

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

message: I have tried to do some cleanup and reorganization.  I trimmed some repeated or superfluous text, but hopefully no information was lost.
In particular, I removed these sentences
:Another difficulty is that many Native American groups migrated (or were displaced) to their current locations after the start of European colonization, and therefore it can be argued that they have no more "native" ties to their current locations than do the Europeans. However, as they were moving within America, they remained native to America.
because the first sentence is a "non sequitur", as the second sentence clearly explains.All the bet,Jorge Stolfi 00:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Native American" and internal migrations

message: I'm moving the following here from the article page because the first appears to be discussion and the second, while there is likely some truth to it, needs to be presented in a more NPOV manner (IMO). older≠wiser 14:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bkonrad, sorry for breaking your link. I can't recall what happened; I may have missed the closing brackets (it's a rather long title!) and deleted what seemed to be a typo.Jorge Stolfi 09:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments and POV moved from article 

message: "Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, the outlawing of native languages and culture, forced sterilizations, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s, and slavery have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and ultimately physical health. Contemporary problems include poverty, alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes and New World Syndrome."
'Termination policies'?  'Forced sterilizations'?  The passages preceding this one do not prepare the reader for these accusations.  Hence POV.  Unless a reference is added, especially for the sterilization.  I think the word 'termination' should be edited altogether.  Marlowe 21:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I suppose that "termination policies" means the government rescinding official recognition of tribal status, but this is very unclear.  The basic problem with this passage is a failure to contextualize the accusations by time period.  That is, just about every bad thing one can think of (not sure about sterilization, but I wouldn't be surprised) was done to Indians at some point, but one could read the passage and get the impression that they were all happening in the 1960s! - Nat Krause 10:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: A reasonably good article could be written on this subject, thus justifying the link to Indian boarding schools using the material in:
* David Wallace Adams, Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1875-1928, University Press of Kansas, 1975. Hardcover, ; trade paperback, .
:If you want to revive this article, just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Indian_Boarding_School&redirect=no and edit it. The topic deserves an article, but the current material was bad and orphaned. Gadykozma 14:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Boarding Schools

message: What does the term "outright genocide" mean? As in, "Over the next 400 years, if the contacts between the two cultures rarely amounted to outright genocide, they would typically be disastrous for the Native Americans."
*Sounds like "POV". "Genocide", which needs no further "POV", is enough.Sfahey 04:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide

message: Added "Although this is widely agreed upon by most people, many Native Americans religious beliefs consider this wrong, as it is their belief that they were created in the Americas." to early history, reason is obvious.
Revised "Aericans themselves, most of whom do not feel offended by the terms. Indeed many prefer to be called Indians, since this was the term applied to their forefathers. Native American may be more preferable to academics than to Native Americans themselves. .  Some also argue" to "Generally it is approrpiate to use Native American, since it is not considered as offensive as Indian can be. Some people argue," I removed forefathers since that is stero-typical, and added genearlly it is appropriate because MOST Native's do not find this offensive, I would know!
And I changed the Indian's on the bottom to Native's.
Woofles 03:48, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
-----
"There is also genetic evidence of such African predecessors among some descendants in Argentina, and archeological evidence of European natives in North America, including Clovis point weapons of European design pre-dating Asian-descended occupation, and the apparently European traits of those weapons' owners' bones."
I'm thouroughly unconvinced.  I'm not someone who thinks it isn't possible that such contact occured, but I've NEVER read anything about the African genetics or European bones from my readings on genetics and history.  I suggest pulling this until evidence is submitted.
69.226.194.112 07:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits