Talk:American Indian Wars

California Republic?

Why is the so-called “California Republic” listed as a belligerent? It only lasted 25 days, and has only control over Sonoma, so not sure if they really had a chance to fight the Indians.

I agree with you. The "Osos" fought only one battle (a skirmish really) and that was against Mexican troops. The "Osos" themselves engaged in no hostilities toward Indians during those 25 days. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous viewpoint

This article is written from the point of view of the US settler/immigrant population. It would be good to include viewpoints of Indigenous Americans to conform to NPOV. I've added an warning to the top but it would be good to discuss it here. There are plenty of reliable sources for Indigenous viewpoints, they should be included. - Francis Tyers · 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

One example: Using the word "patriot" to refer to settlers. This is a POV term, perhaps it is widely used in US scholarship, but there are alternative terms that are used, e.g. "white settlers" or "colonists". - Francis Tyers · 02:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

By American patriots they mean patriots of the USA during the American Revolutionary war. The US is commonly called America hence the name. Referring to them as colonists or white settlers wouldn't make a differentiation between them and British loyalists. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The word 'patriot' is frequently misused in American history. When used in relation to the American Revolution it refers to a political group known as 'The Patriots'. As such it always needs a capital letter. The Patriots were not of course patriots in the normal sense but were at that time technically rebels and traitors advocating treason against their lawful government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Question on the of scope the article

So like... Is this is a periodization of Native American conflicts (similar in the sense to the Second Hundred Years' War) used in American historiography? Assuming that it is, my question would be, do historical academics in the United States include First Nations conflicts that occurred (exclusively) in Canada in this periodization? Cause as far as I'm aware, Canadian historical academics do not use a term like First Nations Wars in a manner that this article seems to be using it in (and this seems to be reflected through an admittingly cursory search for "First Nations Wars" on Google books, ngrams, scholars, and web search).

I mean, disregard this entire post if they do include exclusively Canadian-First Nations conflicts in that categorization... But if they don't, aren't we sorta erroneously applying terminology used exclusively for the United States to the larger continent (considering that Wikipedia is a reflection of what is written in WP:RS). Cause digging through the article history it sorta seems like the article's scope originally centred around the United States (as I assume that's how the periodization is used in scholarly writing), but an addition to the article made on August 2016 seemed to extend the scope of the article by adding Canada into the infobox, and from there the mentions of Canada and First Nations Wars was added into the lead of the article.

I mean, I'm not opposed to adding a section at the end of the article to discuss similar events that occurred in Canada (or at any point at all if my suspicions are incorect, cause than there is a geographical balance issue on this article), but if my suspicions are correct and this is the case with what I said above, the article sort of needs to be reworked to reflect how historians actually use this periodization. Leventio (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Phrasing

"The federal policy of removal was eventually refined in the West, as American settlers kept expanding their territories, to relocate Indian tribes to specially designated and federally protected and subsidized reservations." sure is a strange way of putting the fact that indigenous peoples were massacred and pushed via the barrel of a gun (and extermination of food sources like bison) onto reservations of the least valuable/hospitable land they were forbidden to leave at penalty of death. I strongly insist that phrases like that be changed to reflect a more accurate, less whitewashed explanation of the situation.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is very sanitized and strange. And I am a stickler for neutral wording. That wording is troublesome.Jeff in CA (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, receiving one comment that didn't like the neutrality of the earlier version is most certainly not consensus to add your even less neutral version that you haven't even mentioned in the conversation, and I think we both know you know that. I removed your addition without putting back in the version you objected to. Without explicit consensus for your new version, over a longer time period than the 12 hours you waited for a "discussion" to develop, I trust you'll stop trying to POV push it back in, yes? Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"...the fact that indigenous peoples were massacred and pushed via the barrel of a gun (and extermination of food sources like bison) onto reservations of the least valuable/hospitable land they were forbidden to leave at penalty of death.." That sort of language is even more emotive and less NPOV than that which it criticises. Even if it were entirely true. Or even mostly true. But it isn't. The truth is very mixed. Over the 100 years from the 1790s to the 1890s the Indians killed around 200 Europeans per year on average and the Europeans killed around 300 Indians per year. Many treaties and relocations were excellent; for example the Cherokee got given six million dollars to relocate to a fine location further west. And I'm not sure that anyone ever got killed simply for the act of being 'off reservation'. Best to stick strictly to confirmed facts and NPOV language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Indians

I really don't like how much this article (and many other articles) refers to Native Americans as Indians; it was used by heartless colonists who thought they were in India, the Native Americans are not Indians, they're an entirely different people. GOLDIEM J (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a card-carrying member of an Indian tribe and I prefer the word "Indian." I'm not at all insulted by the word Indian. I am mildly insulted by the made-up, confusing, and clumsy term "Native American."

The word "India" (of Latin origin) was originally applied to southern Asia from the Indus River east. Thus, the present-day country of India doesn't own the name -- even the Indus River is mostly in Pakistan, not India. If there's the possibility of confusion of the native people of the Americas with the people of India, you call the original inhabitants of the Americas "Amerindians" or "American Indians."Smallchief (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to your status and story, I struggled to even find this article because we don't use the word "Indian" the same way. I'd definitely save the title of this article for some fights between the US and the Indian subcontinent, and use the word Indigenous, or more specifically the word Indigene which is the individual unit form. Not much of a shift in word, still retains the "ind" sound. Something beyond using the same word Indian for vastly different populations. Foszae (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Indigenous, or “Indigene”, means someone indigenous to a place. Everyone is indigenous to somewhere. “Indigenous” in reference to a specific group of indigenous peoples actually does more harm than good when specificity is necessary. Many people native to what is now referred to as the United States have reclaimed “Indian,” or, as the user above you points out, “Amerindian” and “American Indian” are generally seen as acceptable. This page’s title is also the current historical reference used in secondary literature.—Hobomok (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Effects on Indian Population Section Needs Major Changes

Reliance on census statistics from 1894 to hypothesize the number of Native people living in the Americas in 1492 is misguided and problematic, as is U.S. army reports from the wars as objective and truthful, especially considering the amount of available secondary scholarship, is problematic. Further, the Virgin soil hypothesis has recently been disproven by much scholarship (example). The Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas page has been changed, and this page should be changed as well. Leaving this message here before I make changes to explain them. --Hobomok (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2,1924 is the exact end date of the Indian wars.

On June 2, 1924 American congress passed the citizen act that recognized Native Americans as citizens of the United States. Before that date a native American was not a citizen ore even recognized as a human being. In many areas if an Indian was killed the person who murdered the Indian would get off Scott free and never be charged. All they would have to do is claim the Indian was a savage on the warpath and had tried to kill him. If charged he would never be convicted as no Indian could sit on a jury because they were not recognized as citizens or humans just savages. Once the June 2,1924 the mass murder by the US army and citizens stopped as Native Americans were now human and citizens. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ever hear of NPOV? Intothatdarkness 18:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ever heard of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

And by making this change [1] the IP seems to be saying that the Indian wars were continuous rather than intermittent. Meters (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Indian wars ended on June 2,1924 when the American Indian was recognized as a citizen and human.  No longer a savage non-human. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Pushing your POV isn't acceptable here. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The truth is the truth it's not a POV if it's the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you acquaint yourself with what Wikipedia's about, specifically this essay. This one may prove helpful as well. You are pushing your POV without any kind of adequate sourcing. Intothatdarkness 01:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what truth is . Truth is never POV it is just truth. Let me explain it to like a 3-year-old child. The color yellow is yellow that is a truth. IF you go to a communist state like California and say yellow is not yellow it is Blue. Then that is a POV only recognized in Communist California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.147.20 (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Competency is required. Intothatdarkness 14:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Even one such as you should be able to tell the difference that yellow is not blue. A three-year-old can identify the difference.  50.102.147.20 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

NPA is also a thing. I'll just leave you to talk to yourself now. Intothatdarkness 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about both starting and closing dates

This article currently dates the American Indian Wars as running from 1609 to June 2, 1924. Neither one seems right to me.

The claimed geographic extent here is North America, but that includes Central America and the Caribbean — in which case, it seems strange to start with 1609 and skip over the many wars in Mexico and Central America, much less Juan de Oñate in New Mexico. It seems there'd even be reasonable justification for 1492 as a start date here.

The ending date seems even more questionable. June 2, 1924 was the date the Indian Citizenship Act was enacted — which could be a perfectly reasonable date to mark the integration of Native Americans into the United States polity, but makes no sense as the end date of a war (or series of wars). I'm not expert enough to confidently propose an alternative, but the Battle of Bear Valley in 1918 seems to have far more justification (as the last actual time the United States Army and Native Americans engaged in combat). Thoughts? Flaggingwill (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This article is Anglo-centric. I've been thinking of adding material about the Spanish wars in Florida (beginning about 1565) and New Mexico (beginning about 1598) although you can go back further to battles of Francisco Coronado and Hernando DeSoto in the 1540s -- but those might be characterized as raids rather than wars. The last Indian War of which I'm aware was the Posey War in Utah in 1923, which was not much of a war -- but if nobody has a better date, maybe that should be the end date.

Maybe also the article is mistitled and the correct title should be "North American Indian Wars." That would solve your problem of the lack of coverage of Central American and Caribbean wars. Smallchief (talk)

We could rename the article "Anglo-American Indian Wars", although I think we would have trouble finding reliable sources that use that term. AFAIK, there isn't much to add about conflicts between the Spanish and indigenous peoples in what is now the Southeastern U.S. There was Ponce de Leon's attempt to plant a colony in southwestern Florida in 1521, when the local people, presumably the Calusa, drove off the Spanish and motally wounded Ponce de Leon. Both the Narvaez and the de Soto expeditions engaged in skirmishes and battles with indigenous groups, with the Narvaez expedition, in particular, not faring well, but I agree that it is hard to describe those battles as part of a war. In the 1660s, first the French and then the Spanish took sides with various chiefdoms along the coast from southern South Carolina to northeastern Florida, but that was providing assistance in existing conflicts betweeen indigenous chiefdoms. During the mission period in Spanish Florida, the Spanish did not fight indigenous groups very much. There were the Guale and Timucua rebellions, in which a few non-indigenous people were killed (five Spanish missionaries in the Guale Rebellion and two Spaniards, a Mexican, and two African slaves in the Timucua Rebellion). In both cases, the Spanish sent retaliatory expeditions, the indigenous groups surrendered without a fight, and the Spanish executed a few leaders. I just learned a few days ago of a Spanish/Apalachee raid that captured a Chisca fortress in the Florida panhandle in 1677, in retaliation for Chiscas killing a few Apalachee Christians. The big conflict is the series of raids against Spanish missions by groups backed and encouraged by the English in South Carolina, especially during Queen Anne's War. Aside from the Guale Rebellion and the Apalachee Massacre, I am not aware of stand-alone articles about conflicts in Spanish Florida. Part of that is because the information is scattered in various sources, and because there often isn't much information readily available. We also do not have an article about the Westo War, which has a single paragraph in Westo#History. - Donald Albury 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

THere's also no coverage of various indigenous conflicts which occurred prior to the arrival of Europeans. Wikipedia writ large has issues with covering this period (the so-called Comanche Campaign which only exists as an Army lineage definition is one example, with the Army on the Frontier being another), so I'm not surprised this article carries on that trend. The 1924 date seems to be tied more to a POV-pushing IP than anything else, and frankly I'd prefer something earlier (the 1918 date if you want to consider conflict involving Government troops, although I'm not opposed to 1923 if we want to broaden the definition). Intothatdarkness 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The June 2,1924 end date is exactly correct. Prior to that date the American Indian was treated worse than a dog. They had no rights whatsoever and could be shot down like a mad dog by anyone who claimed the Indian was on the warpath. The Indian citizenship act changed all that.  The Indian was identified as a human from that point on and a citizen of the United States. It is not a POV its the truth.  After June 2,1924 the killings stopped because now killing an Indian was murder and not just putting a savage down. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)