Talk:Native Americans in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelJayHawk (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgao29 (article contribs).

Beringia

I believe this has come up before, but it's not the case that the population model involving Beringia has been debunked. In fact, all credible theories involve the crossing of the Bering Strait from Asia. What's been challenged is the idea that the Native Americans' ancestors must have crossed by land over the Bering land bridge. Current evidence suggests it was by boat (the land crossing model isn't "debunked", but the water crossing model appears to be increasingly favored in the scholarship.) The sections need to be rewritten, but there's no reason to remove them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that the migration theory has always been pushed by certain factions in academia, and that more recent archaeological finds in North America support that indigenous peoples have always been on this continent, yes? The problem is one of inherent bias, both in academia and on Wikipedia. When we're dealing with the subjegation of indigenous people, normal issues around fringe do not apply in the same ways. This brings in problems with sourcing as, even as these finds are documented and written about, those who are going against the tide with this are having trouble getting published. Even when they are published, it's a struggle. We have several good studies now in academia, and can add them soon. It may be a little while before I can compile it all, though. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This is wrong. The Beringia migration hypothesis has a very broad consensus behind it. There are several versoins of it with different timings, and different emphasis on coastal migration. But there are no serious alternatives to the Beringian land bridge theory at all. The "we have always been here" is a religious claim, it is not compatible with observable reality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: this is something I keep up with, but I don't know of the archaeological finds you mention, or at least I don't think I know what you are talking about. You seem to be saying that Native Americans are a unique species not related to homo homo sapiens, which originated in Africa, but I hope I've misunderstood that. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Clovis-first model has been seriously challenged, and claim of the icefree corridor being the only point of entry has been seriously challenged too[1] - but this only means that the migration across the strait probably took place somewhat earlier and by other routes than previously believed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"Always been on this continent"? Anatomically-modern humans have only existed for about 200,000 years. I'm a strong believer that American indigenous people have been given short shrift by historians and anthropologists (notably, I'm a subscriber to Stephen Lekson's Chaco Meridian theories) but I'll need some extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that Native Americans are an entirely-separately-evolved species of hominid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

no guess work pls.--Moxy (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There's some new research suggesting that the migration was more coastal, through an ice-free corridor along the then-exposed continental shelf of what is now Southeast Alaska, rather than interior (because the "ice-free corridor" in central Canada is now rather questionable), but I don't believe there's any serious scientific doubt that significant numbers of people crossed via Beringia in some form or another. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan:: Your comment is so off base that I'm having trouble responding. I don't understand what you mean by "indigenous peoples have always been on this continent." I also don't know what you mean by "certain factions in academia" pushing the Bering Strait theory. It was pushed by most academics, as it was the only model that fits the available evidence. As I and others have said, current models are variants of the same idea, focusing more heavily on ocean travel than land travel. And lastly, reliable sourcing standards and WP:FRINGE very much do apply to this article. We follow the sources, and those indicate that the Americas were peopled from Asia across what's currently the Bering Strait. The text does need to be updated, but that also needs to be according to up-to-date reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This said, the section, like most of the article, needs a ton of work. It doesn't currently reflect the most up-to-date work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So, if the Beringia theory is correct (12.6 cal kyr bp) then how do we account for Meadowcroft, Paisley Cave, Monte Verde, Clovis, Topper Site and many other sites that pre-date Beringia by over a thousand years? Also, linguistic development, according to University of California-Berkeley linguist Johanna Nichols would have taken about 19,000 years to develop. While migration likely occurred from Beringia is was in no way first wave or even close to that. Every Nation has it's own Creation story and I feel that considering the topic, this also needs to be given equal consideration. We have always been here. We are the First Peoples. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No myths.......academic article .....lets start with an overview Bridge to the New World.--Moxy (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure [2], [3], Also, on the necessity of respecting indigenous accounts of the historical record [4] Indigenous girl (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That Science Magazine piece is not saying that humans didn't cross the Bering Strait, only that the first wave took the coastal route across the strait instead. It's certainly not saying that the ancestors of indigenous Americans didn't migrate from elsewhere. As for oral accounts, they're certainly useful and increasingly used in academia, for comparatively recent periods of time. In this case, we're talking about many thousands of years, and there are hundreds or thousands of different accounts from across the continent that aren't all consistent with each other. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow us to take such accounts (or interpretations of them) over academic sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Is is possible to say something along the lines of, "There are multiple migration theories within academia with the Bering Strait theory being one of the most popular. Some indigenous nations themselves have migration stories that parallel several of there newer theories." I would be happy to gather sources in a day or two, I'm currently recovering from a migraine so I can't get on it immediately. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

We ought to cover all the models that are currently held in academia here. But again, all of them are essentially variations involving crossing from Asia over the Bering Strait. I don’t believe we can say that indigenous accounts better fit some of these models than others, and many dont resemble any model. Various Southeastern U.S. cultures hold that they emerged from the earth in their historical homeland, for instance.—Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps best to read over Settlement of the Americas.--Moxy (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Cultural Areas

Ok, so I think it would be a good idea to say a few words about Native American cultural areas in the background section, as it is a good introduction to the topic. Maybe using the classification in Native American cultures in the United States with a link to the article for each main cultural area, accompanied by the map of the areas. Any objections? UtDicitur (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Fort-orleans-return.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title?

I suggest changing the title of this article to The indigenous peoples of the United States as this is the term generally used in related articles. Rwood128 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I realize that this would involve adding other indigenous peoples from outside of mainland United States, but "native" sounds dated to my Canadian ears, and even derogatory. Rwood128 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I now see that the Inuit of Alaska are, somewhat confusingly, called Native Americans. The indigenous people of Hawaii should be included; the definition the American census uses is too narrow here. Is the term "American Indian" still acceptable in 2018?Rwood128 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see the archives of this and related pages and the entire page on Native American name controversy. This is a carefully worked out system. And, by the way, some "Inuit" in Alaska still prefer the term Eskimo because it covers both the Inuit and the Yupik peoples. [5] Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

CorbieV, many thanks for these most helpful comments. Most interesting. I have learnt a lot!

However, my main point was that the term "indigenous" is most generally used in similar articles throughout Wikipedia. Interestingly the USA has an Indigenous Peoples' Day. Note also the articles Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Indigenous peoples of California. I see also that American Indian is the preferred term amongst indigenous Americans, rather than Native American.Rwood128 (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore Hawaiians are indigenous people, however the USA Census classifies them. The "except Hawaii" in the first sentence of the lede doesn't make sense. Rwood128 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Rwood128 Hawaiians are Pacific Islanders and not decedents of the same migratory pathways of Native Americans. We are an unrelated group living in the same country.Mcelite (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Mcelite, maybe I should have been clearer. My point is that Hawaiians are indigenous to Hawaii. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rwood128: "American Indian" is not the preferred term. It is actually the more dated term. Recently some efforts akin to vandalism have been happening on the 'pedia, involving wholesale insertion of language that is not supported by the sources - usually the deletion of other terms to insert "American Indian". This is inappropriate and not supported by sourcing or consensus. Please read the NAJA guidelines. Native American Journalists Association takes priority over opinions of editors on WP, but we also have general consensus at the Indigenous Wikiproject to use the NAJA guidelines. Stick with what is in the sources unless it is offensive. Use people's self-descriptions. Those from outside the communities are not in a place to dictate what is or is not offensive. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on my main point? CorbieV, I do appreciate the guidance you offer. NAJA sounds like a good source to follow. Sorry for any ignorance–I need to learn to be a little more cautious. Thanks again. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The title fits the scope of this article which does not include Native Hawaiians or Chamorro, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede is now clearer. Rwood128 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction in Article's data

The Map with the native American share of population for each state at the top of the article shows much large population shares for native Americans in each state than the tables Demographics section of the article. One of them got the Data wrong, and should be updated to reflect the correct data.Emass100 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Source for "correct data"? oncamera 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Both use the 2010 US census as reference.Emass100 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 4161E1AD00000578-0-image-m-5 1497348697128.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread?

"There are a number of documented cases where diseases were deliberately spread among Native Americans as a form of biological warfare."

Though I'm sure that this is a honest quote, the trouble is that it is not true. There is only ONE documented case, that at Fort Pitt. The idea that diseases were deliberately spread seems to have become embedded in American folklore, but there really is zero actual evidence. If anyone thinks otherwise then do try and find some solid evidence. I've tried hard and can find none that can stand up to investigation. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.167.189 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Non linked ref [22] removed, looks like someone scraped this from Spanish missions in California

Too late tonight for me to fix this. Doug Weller talk 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hitler

I have removed a section claiming that Hitler et al were influenced by the history of Native Americans and their treatment by the US. It seems like this places undue weight on the rationalizations of one of the worse human beings who ever lived. While the material may be relevant SOMEWHERE in wikipedia, it certainly does not belong in a survey article on this general subject. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources for Language Revitalization Efforts in Schools

Aguilera, D., & LeCompte, M.D. (2007). Resiliency in Native Languages: The Tale of Three Indigenous Communities' Experiences with Language Immersion. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 11-36. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398541.

Bo-yuen Ngai, P. (2008). An Emerging Native Language Education Framework for Reservation Public Schools with Mixed Populations. Journal of American Indian Education, 47(2), 22-50. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398557.

Hermes, Mary. (2007). Moving Toward the Language: Reflections on Teaching in an Indigenous-Immersion School. Journal of American Indian Education, 46(3), 54-71. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398543.

McCarty, T.L., & Nicholas, S.E. (2014). Reclaiming Indigenous Languages: A Reconsideration of the Roles and Responsibilities of Schools. Review of Research in Education, 38, 106-136. doi: 10.3102/0091732X13507894.

McCarty, T.L, Romero, M.E., & Zepeda, O. (2006). Reclaiming the Gift: Indigenous Youth Counter-Narratives on Native Language Loss and Revitalization. American Indian Quarterly, 30(1/2), 28-48. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4138910.

Montgomery-Anderson, B. (2013). Macro-Scale Features of School-Based Language Revitalization Programs. Journal of American Indian Education, 52(3), 41-64. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43608706.

Lee, T.S. (2007). “If They Want Navajo to Be Learned, Then They Should Require It in All Schools”: Navajo Teenagers’ Experiences, Choices, and Demands regarding Navajo Language. Wicazo Sa Review, 22(1), 7-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30131300.

Johnson, F. T., & Legatz, J. (2006). Tséhootsooí Diné Bi'ólta'. Journal of American Indian Education, 45(2), 26-33. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24398602.

Meghankoos (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Description of map in infobox

The map currently used in the infobox claims to show the percentage of peoples throughout the US and Canada with Native American ancestry. That description is somewhat misleading because there are no Native Americans in Canada, and because there is a disconnect between what the map states it shows and the subject of the article itself. I suggest that the description is changed to read "Percent of population with indigenous ancestry by U.S. state and Canadian province/territory." --PlasmaTwa2 06:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)