Talk:American Indian boarding schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I deleted the article on "American Indian Assimilation" and move the one paragraph to this article. I deleted that article because it had only one paragraph, and that paragraph was on boarding schools, and it seems more appropriate here. I leave it to editors of this article to figure out how best to incorporate the paragraph I placed at the bottom of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

List of schools[edit]

This is very long and might be better as an associated page to the article. At a minimum, it would be useful to show which schools are still operating, as well as which are (and were) on reservations, if that data can be found.Parkwells (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The link incorrectly states that Thomas Indian School was near Irvington, NY. It was actually near Irving, NY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


While the history of NA boarding schools is a sad one, there should be some recognition that founders often had good intentions, if operating under misguided assumptions about their own cultural superiority. In addition, it may be useful to compare problems with those in other Catholic schools (problems inherent in institutions where power is all one-sided?), and with the cruelties and hazards of prep schools and other types of boarding schools in the US and Great Britain. It appears that the situations that developed weren't only because of misguided or discriminatory policies toward American Indians and their children.Parkwells (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure and let's make sure and create a more balanced approach to the Holocaust. I am sure there were any number of Germans who were well intentioned in their attempts to eliminate the Jewish culture via forced assimilation and slave labor. Yep, good idea Parkwells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to American Indian boarding schools. —Darkwind (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Native American boarding schoolsIndian boarding schools – As far as I can see, everything in the article supports that these places were known as "Indian boarding schools"; Native American name controversy indicates that the term "Native American" didn't come into widespread use until the 1960s, decades after these schools were established. While it makes sense that this article should use modern-day language and refer to the people who attended the schools as Native Americans, I don't see why the article's title should suggest these schools were known by a name different than what was actually used. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose proposed title fails WP:CRITERIA. Anyone seeing the proposed title would expect it to be about boarding schools in India a la WP:COMMONNAME. Titles don't have to be historically authentic if they are descriptions in small case, not actually names. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IIO. The nominator is essentially right on all points, but we simply can't refer to indigenous peoples of the Americas as "Indians" alone on a global encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment How about "American Indian boarding schools"? PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
User:AjaxSmack, are you sure it's an anachronism if it's in small case? Firstly some of these 1870- 1933 schools continued into the era where "Native American" was used - according to the article still operating in 2007. Secondly Google Books results shows in line copy such as Frank A. Salamone - 2012 "The stories of Ned Crutcher and the Stewart Indian School shed light on the Native American boarding school sports and the assimilation process" - why is a small case description an anachronism in 2012, that is how people in 2012 describe the Stewart Indian School (Title case, name). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I would never argue that no source relies on anachronisms. However, if most of the sources for the article eschew them, Wikipedia should, too.  AjaxSmack  01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment United States Indian boarding schools to match the Canadian article which is "residential" instead of "boarding" -- (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Policy is to use the most common ethnic term NOW, and insisting on ethnic terms from the 19th century, many of which were offensive, would be a move backwards away from progress, but a good reminder to us that yes, there really are people still out there who pine for those days! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, though American Indian boarding schools would be even better. Policy is not to make up names for things unless there's no other choice. And of course, one of the groups that "pines for those days" is the American Indian Movement. The assumption that "Indian" is necessarily offensive in this context is wrong. (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi, to avoid confusion with boarding schools in India. bd2412 T 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support move to American Indian boarding schools. "Indian" is not a pejorative, not considered by a large number of people to be a pejorative and still commonly used both by Indians and non-Indians, particularly when referring to events that predate the invention of the term "Native American". Policy is not to use the most common ethnic name now at all; it is simply to use the most common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neither term is going to make everyone happy, but "Native American boarding schools" is a commonly used term and accurately conveys the subject of the article without confusion. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • Oppose. The proposed name would be inaccurate, misleading, confusing. India is on the other side of the planet and the naming of Native Americans as Indians derives from 15th century errors. Any reference to historic names "Indian" are only correct if presented in a past tense, which the proposed title does not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Then why do many American Indians still call themselves Indians? Are they wrong? Are they backward? Are they insulting their own people? Or do they just refuse to be 'guided' by politically correct non-Indians "for their own good"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That's beside the point for our purposes. If I'm talking to someone who says he's an Indian, I can probably tell whether his ancestors are from the Americas or South Asia. But Indian boarding schools as a Wikipedia title is not so clear, and WP:CRITERIA says titles should be recognizable. A reader searching for this subject will recognize either title. A reader searching for boarding schools of India will be misled by the proposed title, but not by the current one. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I said above it should be moved to American Indian boarding schools...SmokeyJoe appeared to be objecting to use of the term "Indian"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I can see how you read that. Sorry. "Indian" alone is inaccurate to anyone who first thinks of India (probably that majority of speakers of English, all in India). "American Indian" can't be reasonably mislead as Indian people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No objections to this. Only an unqualified "Indian" is unacceptable. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree. No objection to American Indian boarding schools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contested closure[edit]

I did not see the consensus for the move. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Darkwind/Archive 7#Native American boarding schools move czar  00:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Four "supports" and six "opposes" is a consensus of support???! —Uyvsdi (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, this move was certainly unprocedural. The closer used some specious and "original arguments" to convert several "oppose, keep current title" votes into "Go ahead and move, the other title is better" votes. Now how do we appeal? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Per process at Wikipedia:Move review, first discuss on the closer's talk page and at a stalemate, bring it to MR. czar  17:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Usually what we see, especially in highly contentious move proposals like this, is wait for the original proposal to fail, and then open up a separate move request to a third proposed title - not try to divine support for that title from comments of people opposing the failed proposal. If "American Indian" really has consensus as a better title than "Native American", that question should be put on the table for separate consideration. What would be called basic parliamentary procedure as normally observed has been jumped. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
That's simply false. Many, many requested moves end up with a different title than what was originally proposed. The process values collaboration and compromise and closing admins use their best judgement. And of course it is certainly *not* acceptable for a user to unilaterally move a page to their preferred title when there's been a formal discussion. The page needs to be moved back where the closer put it immediately.--Cúchullain t/c
  • I also oppose moving to American Indian. Native American is lexicologically correct and is also less ambiguous. Pass a Method talk 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Indian Boarding Schools DYK.jpg
  • For what it matters, I noticed a DYK hook on the main page today uses "Indian boarding schools". —  AjaxSmack  15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I wrote the article. It's a book I'm reading. The author refers to the 25 boarding schools as Indian boarding schools. This isn't to say the author's book and this article have the same scope. I'll also note for anyone who didn't notice the tag above, the move decision is under review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_October#Native_American_boarding_schools. czar  18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Indians have always known them as Indian Boarding Schools. My Grandmother did not go to a Native School, she went to an Indian School. Popular culture i.e. Hollywood movies have always referred to them as Indian Boarding Schools. Historically, White culture and governmental agencies have always referred to them as Indian Boarding Schools. Just because a few scholars have arbitrarily declared that that we should now be called Native Americans does not make the term correct, it is actually very disrespectful towards us. Technically anyone born here is a "native". Yes, given the international scope of wiki there is unfortunate confusion with the people of India, however this is easily solved by using the qualifying prefix American. In the view of many Indians, calling us Natives is just another subtle form of genocide -- of making us disappear. If you want to be truly proper you ought to call us The First Peoples, which signifies and affirms that we were here first. Ah Nee — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Very disappointed by the WhiteWash of Physical and Sexual Abuse[edit]

I have not looked at this article in a long time. An early version of this article had a significant amount of information about how Indians had been abused. I remember fighting for it's inclusion when certain people kept trying to hide the truth and tell their lies about what happened. And now today I came here thinking to add a link to an article and what do I find? Everything is gone again, it has all been reduced to a single sentence saying that if the children did not finish their work on time they were hit with a strap. This so completely understates the case that is might as well be a lie. I am very disappointed in the wiki community for allowing this to happen. So let me tell you a story that was told to me by an elder woman.

Sometimes I would get a chance to see my brother and we could talk a little bit. One day my brother told me that he had been moved to another dorm room. This room had no heat and there were sick people in it. He was afraid that he would get sick too. They took away his blanket and forced him to sleep in an unheated room, they deliberately exposed him to other sick people. My brother died there. I slept in the girls dorm. Every night a nun would come for one of us. We all lay there in our beds praying that it wouldn't be our turn to be taken away for the night. After they took the girl away, then you would hear the screams... it was very hard to sleep with all those screams.

These are the words of a beloved elder, she never actually talked directly about the sexual abuse that occurred when you were taken away for the night, but she made her meaning clear. I also know two elder men, they both told me that they had been sexually abused as boys.

I can't speak about other schools, but what I can tell you is that these people all went to Chemawa, I assume that all the schools were pretty similar, but certainly there would be some variation even at the same school depending on who was in charge at any given time. Few of the survivors are willing to talk about these things even in private, but there are still plenty of accounts that have been written about in various books on the subject to make it clear that this was a widespread problem.

Here is that article that I was going to add, but I see no place to add it:

There are plenty of unmarked graves at those schools and families who never heard from their children again and were always left to wonder what happened to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a few options here. (1) You could pull the link to the earlier version of the page through the "history" tab up top and we can see how the info was sourced and where it went. (2) You could find a reliable, secondary source (ideally a book) that highlights the extent of abuse and we can work it in with due weight. Let me know how I can help. czar  14:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Czar, thanks for the response. The edit history won't help, the original version of this article got deleted a long time ago. but after thinking about it, the previous content, I had added, may have been to a different page on Indians. Anyway, there is a book on boarding schools whose name I don't recall that talks about some of the abuse, I will try to find it. Meanwhile I am currently reading "Indian School" by Michael Cooper. Keep in mind that abuse/trauma survivors rarely are inclined to talk about what happened to them, and that a lot of people have an interest in suppressing that information. Do you know for instance that Oregon (the place where Chemawa is located) passed a law saying that all Indians who were off the reservation without an escort were to be shot on sight? Or that Boston, only recently, finally, repealed a law that said any Indian within the city limits was to be arrested on sight? This country has a very much repressed and hidden, long and horrible history of abuses of Indians. Thankfully most of this is in the past, but you would be surprised how much of it is still on-going. Ever heard anything about the uprising at Wounded Knee in 1973? Oh, here is a quote for you, I was just now flipping randomly through the "Indian School" book and on page 94 it says:

After Pratt left, Carlisle had two weak superintendents. Under their administrations there were scandals involving drunken students, pregnant coeds, and pampered athletes. After an eighteen-year-old girl was held by two matrons while a male teacher beat her, some 250 students signed a petition asking Congress to investigate conditions at the school. The investigators found widespread abuse and mismanagement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to add a reference for that quote but I'm not sure where it'd go. There's currently one line that mentions abuses. Once the article is built up a bit more, there will be due room on physical/emotional treatment in the boarding schools. I read Education for Extinction recently so I think I have a good idea of where this article can go—just don't have time to work on it now, myself. czar  04:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what happened to that material, either, as I recall that. The abuse has been documented; we need to use sources that relate to this school - not generalize based on material from other schools.Parkwells (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Cooper's book is for high school students - we need to do better than that.

Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience 1875-1928, by David Wallace Adams, is published by Kansas University Press - better choice.Parkwells (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

response to immediate above[edit]

what i personally have found is that books intended for pre*college level are often more detailed more honest and less liable to bias than even scholarly works * and because of the targeted readership presentation is much more direct * i myself on my own website used a grade school book as a source * which had covered the history of genocide and assimilation from a very broadly inclusive standpoint in less than a hundred pages * if books intended for kids seem well referenced and well written there is no need to disparage them * (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)grumpy

Classic wikipedia[edit]

I love going on wikipedia and seeing articles glorifying and trying to put a positive spin on attempted cultural genocide. Keep up the good work wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of "slavery within the campuses"?[edit]

Several months ago, an anonymous editor added some information about "slavery within the campuses" of Native American boarding schools. Did slavery ever occur on these campuses, and are there any reliable sources that can verify this? Jarble (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right, that was weird, we must have just missed that edit. I tossed it, thanks for pointing it out. Montanabw(talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, never saw that edit. Thanks to both of you for fixing it. While several of the tribes had slaves in the 19th century, and there is evidence of both segregated and non-segregated schools, those were clearly done away with mostly at the turn of the century and clearly after federal desegregation in the 1960s. I seriously doubt any declines in 2007 had to do with slavery in any way shape or form. ;) SusunW (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)