Talk:Native Americans in the United States

Similarity of the languages

1.) How similar are Native American languages?

2.) Are there large groups of Native American peoples with completely different languages?

3.) I've heard that North-American natives came across Bering sea (and are basically descents of North-Asians), and South-American natives hopped the islands all the way across south pacific (and are basically descents of Indonesians) - is that true?

4.) What is the translation of the word 'land' in Native American languages - and what about word 'motherland'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.113.148 (talk • contribs)

A.)There are thousands of native languages in the Americas from several major linguistic trees. Some are as similar as English is to Japaneese. B.)See A or go read this Indigenous languages of the Americas. C.) First part is true for both North and South America, second part is not borne out by genetic studies. D.)Every one of the languages has a word for these concepts I'm sure. Probably several thousand different words for several thousand different languages here. And finally E.) This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for asking questions better suited for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. From now on, use the reference desk to do your research for your school paper, not this page. Thank you. P.S. Sign your posts with ~~~~ from now on also, so it posts a signature and time code. Heiro 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ranting

NATIVE AMERICAN Calling them "Native American" is ridiculous because AMERICA is a European name given by the German cartographer Waldseemüller in honor of the Italian explorer Americo Vespuzzi. So there is nothing "native" in the name AMERICA. It is absurd, ridiculous and an insult calling the indigeneous peoples "AMERICAN". Precisely, their nations fought AGAINST AMERICA, and were invaded by the AMERICAN NATION. It is true that now, decades or centuries later, most of their descendants have been assimilated by the AMERICAN TRIBE, which is one of the Germanic tribes (English, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Dannish, Icelandic, Norwegian, American)--81.32.109.157 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not what this talk page is for. This is not a forum for discussing your persoanal opinions or views on history. This is the common name used to describe the indigenous peoples located here by thousands of reliable sources. Please do not repeat this behavior. Heiro 01:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

You opinion that Native Americans is more appropriate than American Indian is also an opinion.Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Was the native Americans not Europeans?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmfR7OvYghE

Is this reliable? --Jimmyson1991 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PLs see Know Nothing.Moxy (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It says this "Traditional history tells us that European settlers discovered America about the time of the Renaissance. But revolutionary new archaeological data and the latest DNA research reveal that Europeans visited our shores far earlier some 17,000 years before Columbus was even born."--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hokum recently latched onto by white supremacists( [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] for example) and pseudohistorical sensationalists at the History Channel( the channel that gives us programs on Bigfoot, Ancient Aliens and Nostradamus 2012 for example). See here Solutrean theory#Challenges to the Solutrean hypothesis and Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Migration into the continents. Please follow the linked footnotes for the paragraph in the last link, they are particularly informative. Heiro 16:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OOOOOOOOOOOO i see - Well if he/she is interested in what mainstream society thinks Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas is a good place to start (got some nice videos at the external links section). I do think its odd such a channel airs this types of things - there supposed to help in understanding not push unscientific POV theories .Moxy (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You have done a pretty good job over the last year putting all of that together. I was just trying to point them in the direction of why the Solutrean business is discredited, but showing what scientists have actually discovered would have been helpful as well. An, incidentally, the History Channel is almost useless anymore, a real shame. Cheers. Heiro 16:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - it does need a good long copy edit - I wish more "Digitizes Book" were out on the topic as journals (the refs i used) are not very coherent to the average reader when clicked on.Moxy (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is not true at all? I just came across it and was very curious.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the scientific evidence, no. Go to the two links I posted and follow the links to their footnotes. It gives a pretty good rundown of why it doesn't work. The biggest obstacle, the 5000 years between the European Solutrean culture and the Native American Clovis culture, but other stuff as well. Heiro 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

American Indian vs. "Native Americans in the United States"

As an American Indian (and frequent Wikipedia contributor) who does not like the term "Native American" to describe us as a group, when did the title "Native Americans in the United States" become the title for this page? Almost any of the six or seven other common phrases would be better than NA. "NA" has the more obvious meaning of "anyone born in the United States".

I prefer just the term American Indian; however the following terms would be preferable over "Native Americans in the United States"

American Indians in the United States - Aboriginal Americans in the United States - First Americans in the United States - First People in the United States - First Nations in the United States - Indigenous in the United States - Indigenous Nations in the United States - Native Peoples in the United States - American Tribes in the United States - Native Tribes in the United States - Indigenous Tribes in the United States -

Could we please get some non-European Americans involved in this?

Phil Konstantin (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Phil - Enrolled citizen of the Cherokee Nation (Tribal enrollment number C0189288) - Author of "This Day in North American Indian History" - Co-author of "Native American History For Dummies" (Yeah, I don't like the title and we discussed it in the book, but the "Dummies" people decided this without our input) - Contributor to "Treaties With American Indians" - Webmaster for Americanindian.net -

I think these designations are based on the official designations used in the U.S. census; for the same reason, Canadian nations are referred to as "First Nations" since that's what's apparently used in Canada. This is not an endorsement, it's an explanation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good that means we should change the title. The US Census uses the title "American Indians and Alaska Natives." The do not use the phrase "Native American" anywhere that I know of except to talk about people being born in the US. To be specific here is listing from the US Census website: ------------

"The U.S. Census Bureau today released the Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 for the United States, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. The demographic profiles provide 2010 Census data on age and sex distributions, race, Hispanic or Latino origin, household relationship and type, the group quarters population, and housing occupancy and tenure (whether the housing occupant owns or rents). With the release of data for all the states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, profiles are now available for the nation, regions, metropolitan areas, American Indian and Alaska Native areas, and other cross-state geographies." WEBSITE: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn144.html

Interesting; must be a change for the 2010 census. If they really changed it, then it should be changed here as well of course. (As a minor quibble, those born in the United States are not spelled with a capital "N", but that now irrelevant) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the 2010 census form; you're right, it says "American Indian". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: your first question - check the history, the article seems to have started in 2001 as "Native Americans". I presume the "in the United States" was added as there are quite a few native Americans not in the US. We edit and discuss as WP editors - not based on our genealogy. If you want to rewrite the article or re-name it, you will need to find consensus among wikipedia editors - some of whom may not share your POV.

If you feel a move/rename is warranted based on the census bit above (we're not required to follow the census folks), then suggest it here for discussion or make a formal move request. Vsmith (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. While I prefer "American Indians" to describe Indians, it doesn't cover non-Indian Alaska Natives. However, does "Native American" include Hawaiian Natives? I hate to say this, but Indigenous peoples of the United States might be the best term. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hawaiians are barely mentioned in this article; and FWIW, there's Native Hawaiians Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, since Native Hawaiians have a completely different legal status. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Comment: I once witnessed Simon Ortiz take Daniel Heath Justice and several other younger scholars to task for using the term Indians. The younger folks pointed out that Native Americans had been using the term for 4 centuries, but it was clear that some of the elders, like Ortiz, had real problems with using the Indian moniker. FWIW, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussions that led to the current page name are hard to find, but are archived here. —Kevin Myers 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans in the United States → American Indians and Alaska Natives – As discussed above, the official designation for this group has apparently changed with the U.S. census 2010. It should therefore be moved to the appropriate name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Better to have Alaska Natives to be explicitly mentioned. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Support, but with a cautionary comment. If one applies common names policy then Native americans clearly wins by a 20-30% margin in google, scholar, and news over American Indian. It is a delimma. Maybe an RFC would be useful to get the sense of the community. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This does not cover all American Indians, only American Indians in the United States. The suggested title is misleading, since Wikipedia is not the United States Wikipedia. "American Indian" is a generic term used to describe all aboriginal peoples of the Americas or some subset of that, depending on context and audience. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"American Indian" does not refer to Inuit, Cup'ik/Yup'ik, Iñupiat, Aleut, or Alutiiq peoples. Or metís or mestizo peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

They do, but not always. As I said, depending on context and audience. See this book on American Indian culture, where the Eskimo are covered as part of its remit.[6] 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For instance, [7] describes the native people of Guatemala as "American Indian"s. Which is not the coverage of this article, the proposed title does not differentiate between American Indians inside and outside of the USA. 65.93.15.213 (talk)

• Comment a more reasonable page name might be American Indians of the United States and Alaska Natives 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Agree that American Indians of the United States and Alaska Natives would be a more reasonable page move, certainly more accurate.--JayJasper (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I ran a Google search for .edu sites with "Native American Studies" and it looks like "Native American" is still the official academic moniker at major universities in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, Dartmouth, Syracuse, Berkeley, Southern Oregon, Nebraska, etc. I agree with the "common use" idea that Native American is still the more common term in academia.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per Native American studies and because the work involved in converting all the corresponding articles with the word Native in the title (see: Category:Native American topics). Would support Indigenous peoples of the United StatesMoxy (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - If the official designation has changed so the article should change. This will help avoid cherry picking terms. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are interchangeable but Native Americans is still more common - its what you Americans teach your kids in grade 4 to 8 as per (Arlene B. Hirschfelder; Yvonne Beamer (January 2008). Native Americans today: resources and activities for educators, grades 4-8. Libraries Unlimited. p. 2. ISBN 9781563086946. Retrieved 8 July 2011.) Moxy (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

They teach a lotta stuff in school... like that "First Thanksgiving"-bullshit... just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I want to warn about anonymous IP user 65.93.15.213 from Toronto, Canada. He is canvassing votes across several WP projects [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. His IP might be rotating, so other users or projects could had been targeted and we don't know about. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hes an old editor - hes/she is the IP that post all the notices to the Wikiprojects for a long time (has many many many IPS).Moxy (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion. -- In this case, WikiProjects that are directly related to the topic of "American Indians", since the suggested title of this article is "American Indians and something else". 65.93.15.213 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CANVASS does allow for this, but see WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, the notifying editor should announce that they are making such notifications, and those notifications should be done in a neutral manor. Without being open such canvassing can be seen as secret, and thus innappropriate and possibly violating the guideline. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The US Government does not always do "the right thing" when it comes to the indigenous people of this country. However, the US Census has been using the term "American Indian" for many decades. Here are examples found on the US Census website: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/censr-28.pdf - 2000 (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/cp-3-7.html - 1990 (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tabB-02.pdf - 1980 (American Indian and Alaska Native) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tabB-03.pdf - 1970 (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/appB.pdf - 1960 (American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut) Phil Konstantin (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Phil

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. Powers ^T 20:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose but would be fine with: Indigenous peoples of the United States--Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The terminology used on the US Census Bureau forms does not necessarily conform with common usage (in this case it does not). Even if it did conform with common usage, the scope of the article is not defined by the Census Bureau classification. The topic of the Census' sometimes peculiar "race and ethnicity" classifications is covered in Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, not here. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title was the best of many choices after much debate (spread over years of talk pages). Indigenous peoples of the United States might be doable but only if we are certain we want to expand the content to the mostly unrelated (culturally) Inuit and the completely unrelated Hawaiians. Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, common use is "Indian" — it's just that we can't user that since it can also mean "people from India" (that's what they're called in Northern Arizona. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: note that some Alaska Natives, such as Athabaskan-speaking peoples, are commonly referred to as American Indians (unlike, say, Inuit or Aleuts).—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Of the 36 Tribal Colleges in the United States which are part of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), lest than half use the term "Native American" to either describe their courses or departments. Here are the details:

Bay Mills Community College - NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

Blackfeet Community College - no listing

Cankdeska Cikana Community College - ASSOCIATE OF ARTS IN INDIAN STUDIES

Chief Dull Knife College - Native American Studies

College of Menominee Nation - ENG207 American Indian Literature - HIS121 Survey of American Indian History

College of the Muscogee Nation - A.A. in Native American Studies

Comanche Nation College - Department of American Indian Studies (AIS)

Diné College - Navajo and Indian Studies

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College - ANTH 1001 Introduction to American Indian Studies

Fort Belknap College - American Indian Studies

Fort Berthold Community College - Native American Studies

Fort Peck Community College - AMERICAN INDIAN STUDIES

Haskell Indian Nations University - The department of American Indian Studies and social sciences provides the foundation for the interdisciplinary baccalaureate in American Indian Studies

Ilisagvik College - Inupiaq Studies

Institute of American Indian Arts (New Mexico) - Indigenous Liberal Studies - AA Degree in Native American Studies and a BA degree in Indigenous Liberal Studies

Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College - Native American Studies

Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College - Native American Studies

Leech Lake Tribal College - Indigenous American

Little Big Horn College - Native American Studies

Little Priest Tribal College - Indigenous Studies

Navajo Technical College - seldom uses any word other than Navajo - the Navajo population has grown to become the largest American Indian Nation in the United States.

Nebraska Indian Community College - ASSOCIATE OF ARTS - NATIVE AMERICAN STUDIES

Northwest Indian College - Native American Studies

Oglala Lakota College - Lakota Studies - LLit 213 American Indian Literature, LPol 213 American Indian Political Systems, LPsy 323 Native American Indian Psychology, LSoc 303 American Indian Women , LSoc 403 The Culture of the American Indian,

Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College - Associate of Arts Native American Studies

Salish Kootenai College - Native American Studies Program

Sinte Gleska University - Lakota Studies

Sisseton Wahpeton College - Dakota Studies

Sitting Bull College - offline

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute - SIPI accepts as students, American Indian and Alaskan Natives - HIST 270 American Indian History (3) - They also use Native American in some course descriptions

Stone Child College - Native American Studies

Tohono O'odham Community College - Tohono O’odham Studies - TRIBAL LAW (TRB) Legal problems specific to American Indians and tribes.

Turtle Mountain Community College - HIST 261 Indian History I to 1850 - HIST 262 Indian History II To Present

United Tribes Technical College - Tribal Management (TRM) Department - TRM 115 - Tribal/Federal Law: Tribal/Federal Law will examine tribal government and the history of the United States government's relationship with American Indian people

White Earth Tribal and Community College - Native American Studies

Wind River Tribal College - no details Phil Konstantin (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Phil

And even fewer use "American Indian". So what's your point? Powers ^T 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that someone else said it was "commonly used" in academic course titles.

• Comment. Remember that we got to this point through "political correctness." Everyone used "American Indian" up until the 50s and 60s. These folks' ancestors immigrated just like everyone else's except African. Africans are the only "natives" in the world! Nice to get rid of that here.

Why not two or more articles? "And" articles are discouraged anyway. Hatted comments at the top point to other article(s). Student7 (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment. It's not an issue of "pc"; it's an issue of accuracy. The subject of this article is the various groups who are indigenous to the land that is currently the United States and who have a particular legal status within the United States government. That's why Native Alaskans and American Indians are both covered the article together. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

oppose rename as proposed Instead, rename to Indigenous peoples of the United States. This is a neutral name, not dependent on what people refer to themselves as, not based on census categories and not based on college course names. It matches the WP general name used for original Indigenous peoples of various countries throughout the world, as in Category:Indigenous peoples and its various subcategories and articles. Hmains (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is — that's not the topic of this article. Hawaiians and Inuit are not included here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Both are mentioned in the article. I cannot imagine a reason to not include Alaskan Inuit. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oppose. This article is about a demographic, not a government census category. We're under no obligation to move our articles according to official categories. Said category would be ambiguous in a global context anyway, since there are (obviously) "American Indians" outside the U.S. Indigenous peoples of the United States would be a better proposal, but the current name is fine aswell. Rennell435 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Struck comment. Didn't read the comments above and forgot about Hawaii. Stick with the current title. Rennell435 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure you have that right "Indigenous peoples of the United States" would include all groups as it does with Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Native Americans is actually the one that technically excludes "Native Hawaiians" as they are part of the "Polynesian Triangle group of Indigenous peoples" (Oceania like with Guam). Were as Native Americans usually means those for the American continent. Indigenous peoples of the United States tells us they are part of The United States regardless of the continent. Moxy (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Was this an edit conflict? Rennell435 (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Indigenous peoples of the Americas" would require us to rewrite this article to include Inuits but still exclude Native Hawaiians, "Indigenous peoples of the United States" would require expanding the article to both those groups. (And it is already too long as it is.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the change and Indigenous peoples of the United States would be better than "NA". I added the census information because it is still officially used by the government and it is the most "common usage" word among we American Indians.Phil Konstantin (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Indian Ancestry in the United States Census 2000 - What's Going on Here?

Can someone help me interpret what this means?

According to this Census 2000 Brief on ancestry, approximately 7.9 million US citizens identified American Indian ancestry, for a total of 2.8% of the total US population. This is much higher than the American Indian and Alaska Native population reported for the Census 2000 question on race, which numbers to 4.1 million US citizens or 1.5% of the total population.

To make matters even more confusing, there's a seemingly contradictory discrepancy between the population trends for American Indian and Alaska Native as a race contrasted with American Indian as an ancestry when you compare this 2000 Census to the 1990 Census. The number of people reporting American Indian or Alaska Native racial identity increased between 1990 and 2000. While the 1990 Census didn't tabulate multiracial responses, the undifferentiated 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Native figure from 1990 is smaller than both the single race population (2.5 million, for an increase of 26%) and the multiple race population (4.1 million, for an increase of 110%). Meanwhile, in terms of the ancestry question, the number of individuals reporting American Indian ancestry declined from 8.7 million people (3.5% of the population) to 7.9 million people (2.8%), which is a decrease of 9.4%.

So, what does this mean? By looking at the public raw data for the Census 2000 ancestry question, I reached a figure similar to the 7.9 million by adding all of the total responses related to "American Indian" under "Other Responses" - Central American Indian, South American Indian, Native American, Indian (separate from Asian Indian), Cherokee, American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, and Inuit. The Cherokee number listed there (734,748) closely matched the number under the American Indian and Alaska Native race response, in which respondents were asked to "print name of enrolled or principle tribe" (729,533). I'm led to believe that the data on tribal affiliation was compiled separate from the ancestry data which resulted in the 734,748 Cherokee number, but I'm not sure.

So what happened? One possibility that I can see involves the new, more precise method of counting multiracial individuals in the 2000 Census. A number of individuals who have a smaller percentage of American Indian ancestry but are otherwise predominantly white, black, or another race probably identified their American Indian heritage as a secondary ancestry in 1990 and a secondary race in 2000. This would explain the large drop of nearly 1 million people reporting American Indian ancestry between 1990 and 2000, compared with the 1.6 million people who identify as American Indian and Alaska Native combined with another race who show up on the 2000 Census. This might also then reflect the natural increase.

Accordingly, when I take the figures from the raw ancestry data and subtract those who listed American Indian-related responses as a secondary ancestry (about 3.2 million) from the total (7.9 million), we get 4.7 million people who identify their primary ancestry as American Indian, a number not far off from the 4.1 million figure for total American Indian and Alaska Native as a racial response. Presumably, the ~3.2 million people who list American Indian ancestry as a secondary response do not consider their amount of American Indian ancestry to be significant enough to identify themselves as multiracial.

Still, should the 7.9 million people who reported American Indian ancestry be referenced somewhere in this article? --74.103.150.125 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No. This is about people who are Native American, e.g. tribal members, and as such, an answer "American Indian" on the census is understood as enrolled in a specific nation. There certainly are more people who have some great-great-great-grandmother who was Native American, but that doesn't make them "American Indian" (just as Franco-Americans aren't French). It has partially to do with the fact that (unlike the other purely racial classifications) "American Indian" is also a political status, e.g. member of a nation with a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship vis-a-vis the Federal Government. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Census numbers are self-reported, no one checks your family tree if you check, for example, German ancestry to see if you are really descended mostly or partly from Germans. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure you understand how the census works. According to [source], 40% of people who claimed "American Indian" as a racial identity in 1990 are not enrolled in tribe recognized federally or by a state. If you look at the raw data for the 2000 Census, you can see that there are still many people identifying as American Indian without official enrollment in a tribe. Race is the modern US census is a matter of self-identity for the most part, just like the "ancestry" question in previous censuses, and no one checks to verify tribal enrollment.

Also, I don't understand your opposition to adding information about "American Indian ancestry" to this article. Your point that Franco-Americans aren't French is irrelevant to the matter, considering that there is information about Franco-Americans in the "French people" article. This article is titled "Native Americans in the United States" and as such should cover all things related to that topic - After all, tribal enrollment is a modern phenomenon that does not apply to the Pre-Columbian history discussed in the article. For a similar comparison, the article on Genghis Khan discusses descendants of Genghis Khan even though these descendants are not Genghis Khan himself. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All this might be true, but due to space constraints, this article's topic has been defined as "Native Americans" (and "in the United States" to boot) not "Complete synopsis on Native Americans from Canada to Chile, their ancestors, and anyone who claims to be of partially Native American ancestry".

Maybe my example of "Franco-Americans" vs. "French people" was inappropriate, but not in the way you understood it: "French," "German," or "Dutch" are each one people/ethnicity (supposedly) — "Native American" is not. There is no "Native American people"^[singular]. What this article is about is "People who are part of political entities which have a sovereign government-to-government relationship with the United States", or in other words, "people who hold dual citizenship in two political entities"

The other point where the "Franco-American" example might not be the best choice is that those are emigrant-colonies — so... if you find sources which tell us about, say, a notable community of Cherokees whose ancestors emigrated to Japan and who have been maintaining major aspects of Cherokee traditions and language in the heart of Tokyo for generations, then you should definitely add it to Cherokee people under the heading Cherokee-Japanese. I doubt you'll find any such case, though.

Your Genghis Khan-comparison is way off track as he was one single person. I am quite certain no-one will object if you want to add a line or two about the descendents (where notable) of Sequoyah or Manuelito. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if this raises fairly substantial cultural and political issues for enrolled members of tribes and the tribes as collective entities, e.g. the problems around "wannabes" affecting perceptions of Indians & perpetuating stereotypes, potential gains in political influence, if persons who may be eligible to be enrolled, but aren't, were enrolled, vs. problems that might arise from people who don't identify or are ignorant culturally enrolling. The space issue seems to point back to the question of splitting off the history section raised above, perhaps? Chris Lowe (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your misunderstanding of how analogies work, what, in your opinion, would be the proper article for the data concerning Americans who claim Native American ancestry in the census? As you pointed out, this article is called "Native Americans in the United States". The data I have brought up for discussion concerns the topic of "Native Americans in the United States". It discusses people who claim partial ancestry from Native Americans in the United States. It does not discuss ancestry from indigenous peoples beyond the United States, nor does it specifically discuss ancestry from particular nations (Cherokee, Tsimshian, Akimel O'odham, etc). It is directly relevant to this topic - Nothing more specific or less specific. I also do not see why you feel there is a limited amount of space concenring how much can be discussed in a wikipedia article - Where's the character limit?

Also, there is, in fact, a "complete synopsis" article like the one you've described - "Indigenous peoples of the Americas," which does discuss "people with indigenous ancestry who are not directly indigenous in a cultural sense, such as Latin American mestizos and Canadian metis. Furthermore, mestizos are discussed in that article despite that many mestizos do not identify with or acknowledge their indigenous ancestry, unlike these United States citizens who identify with their alleged Native American ancestry.--98.114.176.218 (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As other editors have suggested above, this is about booty. Tribes granted status in their state may set up legal gambling on "historic tribal reservations." People who are enrolled members of the tribe may share in the resulting loot. This has nothing to do with reality, unfortunately. But it has to be reported because "it is census." Student7 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Please put your Template:Nono elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Please avoid WP:PERSONAL. I have relatives, descendants and in-laws who are A-A, and Asian. And three "native American" ancestors. Just none close enough to help me gain membership and claim the loot from the gambling casinos. I doubt than any "native" east of the Mississippi besides Cherokee and Seminole are more than 50% native after 500 years of European integration. No legislature to date has even tried to require DNA proof of descent. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Please avoid Template:Nono (or learn English). You said "loot" again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This also goes back to America's dark past and present day of racism...in the south it was worse to be Native American than African American. So those who were that admixture largely passed as black and also because of pressure from the civil rights movement that if you had ANY African heritage whether it was only one ancestor you were pressured to say you were only black. Then you have those that were of Native/Caucasian admixture that were trying to pass for white if they could..even though that admixture isn't as high as those of NA and AA admixture largely due to racism that's a population that continues to avoid recognition. Even those who are 1/2 Native and African American are largely called African American even when they themselves don't consider themselves don't solely recognize only 1 part of their heritage i.e. Della Reese and Radmilla Cody. It's really messed up and the Native pop will eventually not exist of the tribes don't at least decrease the blood quantum requirements.Mcelite (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Radmilla Cody is universally recognized as being Navajo. Many of the East Coast tribes are largely of Native-African descent, i.e. the Pequots, Seminoles, etc. It's all about belonging to a tribe or not.-Uyvsdi (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Indigenous people 2

I realize the article deliberately states the continental US etc. Not sure why. There are territories ("commonwealth") to be considered as well. This would include Arawakan natives, Chamorros, etc.

I am not suggesting they all be included here in detail, but mentioned someplace, then point to "main" article.

Again, if not here, then should be created in higher level article with this as a subordinate article. This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but whatever. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you perused Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Chamorros or Native Hawaiians won't be mentioned there as they are Pacific Islanders, not Native Americans. Samoans on American Samoa would be another instance. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The only "Native Americans" in American territories then would be those in U.S. VI and PR but there are none in the VI and the Taino culture of PR is disputed. Rmhermen (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all casinos are that profitable

Some tribes erected casinos in rural areas (northern Arizona, for example). A case of lacking sufficient gamblers to make a really lot of money. Some tourism, but a lot are not the type of gambler to keep open a casino, most of which can be found closer to populated areas. Student7 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead - current life

I've added content to the Lead about major changes since the 1960s, because it seemed that the focus was on the past. Other parts of the article have to be expanded to support this part of current life: the founding of tribal schools and tribally controlled colleges, independent newspapers and websites, culture, museums, American Indian studies programs in mainline academic institutions, etc.Parkwells (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetic distance "map"

Under "Genetics", there is a mapping of genetic distance. This confused me. I thought the Caucasians were dead last in creation. Europe was only settled (what?) 40,000 years ago? It seemed to me that Africans were all related. Fine. I would have thought Oceanic Negroes came from Africa (Micronesia, for example). Australoids maybe more recent.

Caucasoids seem too central on the map.

But worst of all, the derivation of Native Americans seems a bit lost in the presentation. Kind of an afterthought. I had thought that various Amerinds could be traced to specific Asian tribes. Iroquois, for example. I would think forget the Caucasoids and Negroids entirely for presentation here, unless we are talking modern day. I had presumed this was supposed to show where ancient tribes descended from. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reproduction of the human migration map that was also made by Saitou Naruya (Japanese:斎藤成也) professor at the (Japanese) National Institute for Genetics. It may help you understand Naruya's other map better. You are right though about this map not being especially relevant to the Native Americans in the United States article, since it does not distinguish USA Natives as a group. It would be better off in the genetics of American Indians article and that is where I will put it. I will remove it from this article.--Ephert (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Except for the Inuit/Eskimo who still have close relations to Siberian tribes, I don't think it is true that "that various Amerinds could be traced to specific Asian tribes". Can you find a source for that claim? Rmhermen (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rm that genetic map.

Interesting about the Inuits. I didn't know that.

I wasn't suggesting that all tribes could be so traced. A certain homogeneity has occurred after 20,000 years of the first migrations. Also, perhaps related tribes have died out in Asia.

Anyway, here is an equivocal ref on DNA. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn05.htm

I had thought that some of the North(eastern) American tribes had moved in after the glacier retreated. Some of them had preserved their genetics differences from other immigrating Asian tribes. Student7 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We generally discount any tertiary source basing itself on Edgar Cayce. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The main articles for this subject are Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Settlement of the Americas. This page only contains a summary of the details. Rmhermen (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Edgar Cayce lead sounds funny. The article, however, is quite scientific and convincingly (to me) scholarly. Student7 (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocide?

NO MENTION OF GENOCIDE ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.58.145 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

it's under Impact on native populations Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)