Talk:Native Americans in the United States

Slavery? Torture?

Captives were retained against their will from returning to their homeland, assuming it still existed. Some were tortured, others executed. Native Americans did not always have as "gentle" a society as reconstructionists project. And, no, they didn't "learn" this from Europeans. They had "always" done this. Student7 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement about "slavery" not being necessarily the most accurate term for the phenomenon comes directly from the source cited ([1]), whether or not the source's interpretation is correct. I'm actually not crazy about that article as a source because it's not very clear where it is originally from (from Google-searching, it looks to me like it's originally from this site), and exactly what sources Seybert is using for what claims (although there's an overall bibliography listed here). That being said...what exactly is your point? Of course Indians weren't two-dimensional, Noble Savage Pocahontas-y stereotypes, but I don't see where this section gives that impression. It's quite frank about some forms of slavery or involuntary captivity being common among Indian tribes; but clearly there's a difference between most historical kinds of slavery (practiced by cultures all over the world) and the sort of chattel slavery of the Southern US and Latin America that many people immediately think of when they see the word "slave". --Miskwito (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph goes on to say that this probably wasn't really slavery. The intent seems to be since it was practiced by now-pc groups, that it couldn't have been nearly as bad as Europeans (and Arabians) who had a relatively complex economic model for acquiring and disposing of slaves as a commodity. Since the model for Natives wasn't that sophisticated, therefore it wasn't slavery. Please! Student7 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The model for different precontact US Native tribes' adoption of enslaved prisoners of war was very complex; however, it was not chattel slavery. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

In any case my primary concern here is mostly that we accurately report what the sources say, rather than our own opinions. In this case the source cited did explicitly say that "slavery" might not be an appropriate term. As I said above I'm actually not crazy about the actual source, but whatever. Unfortunately, the article is long enough already that there's not really any room to go into the complexities of how various tribes had different sorts of slavery etc. etc.; that discussion, I think, really has to be confined to Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. Maybe the solution then is to shorten the section here up a bit and confine the discussion to the most basic stuff: various American Indian groups had various forms of slavery or war captives or involuntary servitude, blah blah, see Slavery among Native Americans in the United States for more information. Or maybe I'm totally off--this isn't really my area of expertise... --Miskwito (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Really need less vagueness, not more. Saying the "natives were good guys and the colonists bad guys" just doesn't cut it for an encyclopedia. Need less bias and more facts. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Strychnine

An author vaguely asserts that strychnine was used by "us," but gives no details. I did not insert commentary but did insert in TAG where the rumor might have come from. It is pov to assert something as a fact and give no details. This appears to be a tertiary misconstruction of a secondary work describing something that occurred in the Modoc War. Readers should not be left with the idea that poisoning was the common way of eliminating natives. The American way was much more direct: threats, guns and bullets. Poisoning was just too difficult to manage as the story of the Modoc War describes. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source that states or argues this and use it in the article, but adding your own commentary into the middle of a direct "in quote marks" quote is not and acceptable way to deal with it. Heiro 14:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], and [5]. Give them a quick glance would ya? Heiro 23:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The first looks okay. Will comment later. Second appeared derivative. Another supported the "whiskey kick" additive. There were two separate individual instances of deliberate attempts at poisoning. But these latter two, while quite culpable does not make for anything like a national policy and casts doubt on the reliability of the author whose offhand, uncited remark is stating that "we" fed the natives strychnine as a sort of policy. If the above cites is all there is, they seem to show that we did nothing of the sort. The quote is clearly WP:POV.

Incidentally, the "whiskey kick" additive, while hardly moral, had its copycats during Prohibition with unregulated distillers putting "anything" into stuff that was supposed to pass for liquor in order to give it a "kick."

Also, while arsenic, along with strychnine, do not make a favored taste list today, arsenic once was used as a condiment. Information was not as widespread then as now. They did clearly know that strychnine, in volume, would kill somebody, but it doesn't seem to make economic sense to kill off your whiskey buyers! Student7 (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is such an obscure historical point in a broad ranging article, that should all be chucked unless there's some incredibly salient reason to include it. What if I started writing about 19th--century diaper practices of Kiowa people? I can find reliable sources, but who cares? It's way too obscure to be included. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

It may be difficult to salvage this pov quote. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of other researchers who have said much the same without an obvious intent to exaggerate. But we can't have it all ways. We can't insert something that is false or unprovable. At worst, if the untruth "must" remain, for some (presumably good) reason, than some effort must be made to rebut the falsehood. But the idea of an encyclopedia is to publish something that is close as possible to the truth and not to deliberately propagate a falsehood. I'm not sure why another quote can't be found by someone without an obvious axe to grind. Summarizing something subjectively may create Pulitzers, but often makes for poor encyclopedias. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you yet produced evidence that anything in the quote is false or exaggerated other than your own WP:OPINION? Heiro 19:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and avoid WP:PERSONAL attacks. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the WP:RS of the author is in question. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point, "IMO", because you have not provided any sources which support your contention that the quote is in any way false, misleading or inaccurate. As for personal attacks, show me where I have made one or show me where I am not AGFing. I think any univolved editor would read the conversation so far very differently than you seem to be. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be your only motive so far, IMO, because you cant seem to provide sources which support your viewpoint. There are verified cases where strychnine was used to poison groups of Native peoples, the Shasta being one example provided so far. I'm not sure what your objection to the quote really is. Explain it to use here please? Heiro 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

??? Two cases, one of which succeeded, both by vigilantes does not equal a national policy. The author is stretching a point, apparently for pov reasons. Natives were not treated "right" but surely editors don't need to stretch quite so far on such flimsy reports. The statement implies that there are insufficient npov reports by reliable authors which document actual policy that might be considered "national." Not by a couple of random out-of-control felons. Student7 (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Other instances Shadows at Dawn: An Apache Massacre and the Violence of History By Karl Jacoby, Patricia Nelson Limerick, We Shall Remain: Geronimo Pg 5, The Evolution of Domestic Violence and Reform Efforts Across Indian Country pg 2, February 23 1864, History of the Welsh in Minnesota, Foreston and Lime Springs, Ia. Gathered by the Old Settlers. Edited by Revs. Thos. E. Hughes and David Edwards, and Messrs. Hugh G. Roberts and Thomas Hughes(x92), The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion, CHAPTER VII. INDIAN HOSTILITIESpage 152 and hEyOkA mAgAzInE-HARLYN GERONIMO. If your problem is with the POV of the source, find sources that rebut or debunk the source. Whether you like it or not, it was done and more than once. It may not have been sanctioned, but people were killed in this way by European Americans. And even though the Modoc poisoning plot failed, it was obviously not the only attempt to kill mass numbers of Native Americans in this way. Your definition of NPOV sources has me confused, do you mean ones that downplay or don't mention atrocities such as this even tho there are many documented cases where it did happen? The quote never says it was a national policy, it just states that poisoning with strychnine and a list of other morally reprehensible practices was used by euroamericans to kill and marginalize indigenous people. Heiro 00:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note re at least one source: "Scholars like Barbara Mann who cite Ward Churchill are uncritically repeating crude, unscientific propaganda that has its origins in the Medieval stories that Jews poisoned the wells of Christians with plague or that they kidnapped and murdered Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh."[6] This is a very disputed area of research and should not be added here without completely addressing all sides. Rmhermen (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Contentious to an unnamed blogger who goes by "Snapple", I'm totally convinced by that. And besides, the quote is from Paul Wellman from the 1930s, not from Barbara Mann or Ward Churchill. Heiro 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Wellman wrote books for the "popular" press. He is not a historian and is therefore not wedded to facts. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to use detached academic reference materials here, not tabloid-like ones. Surely, there must be a lot of academics who have objectively analyzed US-Native American relations. Why can't one (or more) of those be used? Student7 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And you have established this how? You have citations and references, I presume, to show this? Or is it still WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Since you've just entirely removed the material[7], citing only your opinion of the sources credibility as a reason, why should I bother further? I refuse to get drawn further into an edit war with someone who has yet, even after numerous requests, produced a single source supporting their position. I'm done banging my head against the wall, guess we are done here. Heiro 17:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More on strychnine, if anybody is so minded

Here's the diff: [[8]]. I agree that this quote should not be used. It just doesn't seem well-sourced to me. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's why we have these discussion pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lakota Times

This was defined as a newspaper independent of tribal government, and significant for offering views that might serve to challenge the governments, after the period when the BIA had so much influence over governments and when some tribal officials tried to squash dissent, as at Pine Ridge. It's also a good point to add more about tribal newspapers that were developed in the 19th century, such as the Cherokee Phoenix, before the BIA got involved, if editors want to do that. Parkwells (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and assimilation acceptance with Europeans

Is this phrase meaningful English? It seems to have originally been a section called "Europeans", then "Native Americans and Europeans". It looks to have taken this form in the last week of May, 2009 during a large batch of edits. But what is the title supposed to mean? Rmhermen (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A bit too orotund, I think. I changed it. It's shorter, if not better!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Pre-columbian ancestry section/ Settlement of the Americas

Hey I usually do not do this and I will not edit it myself, but I have recently read in a few different historical publications that the land-bridge over Beringia theory has been officially dis proven for how migration to the Americas occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.114.244 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Great. Where did you read that? Give us the journal/book/website with author, title, and date so we can evaluate it. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Name change

why is this page still titled with its "white name" if the consensus has shown that they prefer American Inidians? i would be bold but idk how to change it and add a forwarding link tho, can i get a hint on that?

" According to a 1995 US Census Bureau set of home interviews, most of the respondents with an expressed preference refer to themselves as American Indians" --74.134.81.205 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See also Native American naming controversy (which also quotes the lower number (50%) for that 1995 survey). Rmhermen (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "American Indians" does not include non-Indian Alaskan Natives, such as the Cup'ik/Yup'ik, Aleut, Alutiiq, Iñupiaq, and Inuit peoples. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Still debated?

The article says the settlement of the Americas is still debated, but judging from the editorial tone of the article and the picture, it appears that in this article at least, those who believe that North America was populated by people crossing over the Bering Straight have won the debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.14.98.21 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The debate relates more to how many migrations there were and if any substantial migration was made by other means. There is considerable archeological, linguistic and DNA evidence linking indigenous peoples of North and South America with populations in northeastern Siberia, so there is considerable academic consensus that there were major migrations from this area via the land bridge.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Collage

The pictures are not very welcoming. As the collages on Wikipedia also might have a small advertising function, there should be a few more representatives from the 21st century. What about actors and singers? Also, there should be famous representatives of politics and organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.18.10 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the collage. As it stands the picture which is a single file is better than a bunch of different sized images (which is why I keep replacing it) when it comes to layout formatting. If you want to change the persons of the collage please let me know which ones you'd like to see. --Turn685 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All those who are in it now - as of the version before you added your own collage. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Third gender

There is a peculiar sentence, currently uncited (No WP:RS): "In some (but not all) tribes, two-spirit individuals served mixed, or third gender, roles."

1) Most likely this is the first time anyone has ever heard of this. Seems a bit WP:FRINGE.

2) With all the LGBT stuff being added to other articles, it also seems a bit WP:COATRACK-ish. That is, here's a place where we can hang this statement.

3) Doesn't seem to add value to the paragraph or article. How did this help the tribe? How come no one has ever heard of this before? Student7 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I say remove it. Probably spam by a "two spirit" editor. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a Reliable Source

The noted pdf: <Tony Seybert (2009). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865". Retrieved 2009-06-20.>, appears to be an article to be used in a lesson plan, but there is no indication of where it was published, and it does not have footnotes. This does not qualify as a RS under Wikipedia standards WP:RS. I'm going to delete it along with its numerous cites. Other recognized scholars and works on slavery in the US need to be used.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this here is not all that reliable - but its info is a grade 7 level and we should have no problem sourcing any info to reliable real books. I will take a look for some books after Wikipedia Plans 24-Hour Blackout to Protest U.S. Piracy Law. In the mean time we can move the info to here.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Date Style

The original date style for this article is BC/AD. Per WP:ERA date styles should not be changed arbitrarily. There needs to be a reason, other than preference--since both styles are acceptable. If you do not like the edit I have made, please do not start an edit war. There is a process for resolving issues. Since WP:ERA is very clear on this matter, any issues should be resolved in a timely matter. Primus128 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so we are clear on the rules, here is what it says at WP:ERA: "No preference is given to either style." Also, its says "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." On this article, the arbitrary edit was made by user:Thorwald. Thorwald did not attempt to obtain a consensus, and gave an invalid reason for his edit " BCE is the more poper use these days." Since this edit should not have been allowed, it has been reverted. If someone wishes to change the date style from the original they may do so by follow the procedures listed at WP:ERA Primus128 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The process is you discuss here with the other editors of this article changing a date style that has been in place and stable for quite a while. See the archives Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 3#BCE/CE equals "PC" and Talk:Native Americans in the United States/Archive 1#Dates for Eras. You are the one now edit warring to change it. Wait for other editors to respond and ge aq new consensus for AD. Personally I prefer it the way it is now, CE. Heiro 04:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Heiro is only making arguments not valid perWP:ERA. It clearly states preference cannot be used as a reason for a change. It doesn't matter how many links you put here showing some people agree with your preference. It wouldn't matter if 100 preferred it one way and 10 the other. WP:ERA states: "preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." Longevity of a style is not a given reason either. Only the original or a validly changed style can be used. Primus128 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe its best to use the more scholarly abbreviation on all are articles of indigenous nature. Many hold to the belief that ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate. I personally dont care about the religious aspect of arguments - I care that we use the more scholarly abbreviation were we can if there is no big religious attachment - just makes Wiki look more neutral and scholarly Moxy (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

per wp:era this is not a valid argument. Both styles are acceptable, and saying "Many hold to the belief" is considered to be a "weasel" statement WP:WEASEL My household is made up of Oneida, Comanche and Choctaw, and we are just fine with either date style. There is no evidence that American Indians have any deep-rooted issues with date styles--either way. Any statements of preference are not relevant in this discussion--because preference is disallowed as a reason. Primus128 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)