Talk:Native American studies

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


Additional content needed, will add stub template, etc. as soon as i figure out how Howee 05:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Richard Oakes[edit]

For other persons of the same name, see Richard Oakes. Richard Oakes (1942–September 20, 1972) was a Mohawk Native American activist who promoted the fundamental idea that Native peoples have a right to sovereignty, justice, respect and control over their own destinies. His legacy reflects the struggles of Native peoples and all people to maintain their land, identity, and lifeways.

Oakes played an integral part in creating one of the first Native American studies departments in the nation. He developed the initial curriculum and encouraged other American Indians to enroll at San Francisco State University.

As a Mohawk Indian, Oakes was a strong supporter of Native American rights. He believed that Native American people have a right to their land and identity and that they deserve respect, justice and control.

[edit] Alcatraz occupation Main article: Occupation of Alcatraz In 1969, Oakes led a group of students and urban Bay Area Indians in an occupation of Alcatraz Island that would last until 1971. He also recruited 80 UCLA students from the American Indian Studies Center.

Indians of various tribes joined Oakes and staged the longest occupation of a federal facility by Indian people.

The historic occupation was made up initially of young Indian college students. Described as a handsome, charismatic, talented, and natural leader, Oakes was identified as "chief" of the island.

Oakes had control of the island from the very beginning, with an organizational council put into effect immediately. Everyone had a job, including security, sanitation, day care, schooling, cooking, and laundry. All decisions were made by the unanimous consent of the people.

The goals of the Indian inhabitants were to gain a deed to the island, establish an Indian university, cultural center, and museum.

In 1970 the island began to fall into disarray once Oakes' 13-year-old stepdaughter fell to her death. After the fatality, Oakes left the island, along with numerous students who went back to school.

Conflicts over leadership and the influx of non-Indians diminished the important stance of the original occupants.

In June 1971 the United States government removed the remaining 15 occupants from the island.

While Oakes and his followers did not succeed in obtaining the island, they did affect U.S. policy and the treatment of Indians. As a result of the occupation, the official U.S. government policy of termination of Indian tribes was ended and replaced by a policy of Indian self-determination.

Shortly after leaving Alcatraz, Richard was injured in a fight, having been hit in the head with a pool cue. In a coma for over 30 days, all hope for his recovery was nearly lost. Friends credit the appearance of his mentor Wallace Mad Bear Anderson of the Iroquois Confederacy, and spiritual leader, with bringing him back to life.

Soon after that, however, Oakes was shot and killed by a man named Mike Morgan. Morgan was a YMCA camp manager, who, for some reason, carried a gun. He had a reputation for being rough with Indian kids, and apparently did so again in Oakes presence. Oakes reportedly confronted him, and Morgan responded by drawing a handgun and fatally shooting him. Supporters of Oakes were outraged when the charges ve}}

Additional content needed, will add stub template, etc. as soon as i figure out how Howee 05:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Addition of Ward Churchill[edit]

I find the section called Notable Scholars to be a dubious category. It is NOT up to Wikipedia to decide if someone is good or not. Ward Churchill has been added to the section and he is not even in the top 50 of great Native American Studies professors. He is a fake Indian. He is the Chief of the Wannabee Tribe. We need to define this categor to present the attributes of the various professors properly. There are professors that make Ward Churchill look like the piker that he is, but they aren't even listed and they should not be listed in the same category as Chief Fake Indian.--Getaway 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Churchill is a fraud in many ways, but he is also notable, prominent, and widely cited in Indian Studies. I think he belongs in the list. The bigger problem here is making an NPOV list. I don't see that anyone has used objective criteria and evidence to determine inclusion or exclusion in the list.Verklempt 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Churchill is well-known, but not for Indian studies--mostly for his comment about 9/11 and the victims in the towers. He has written and series of polemics, but not studies. Those polemics are not based upon research and they are peer-reviewed. Very little of what he has produced is peer-reviewed. As a matter of fact, most of what he has produced is self-published, probably for the reason that he either does not want peer-review or he submitted his polemics to peers and they are unable or unwilling to pass the work further through the editorial process. Churchill is well-known for not wanting others to question or debate his work. In the self-published world you can rubber stamp your own work. What research studies he has attempted he engaged in fraud. I do not disagree that he belongs on the list per se. But I do disagree that he should be called a "scholar" and that is where the problem is--which I think is the point that you are trying to make.--Getaway 14:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And Getaway is a well known SOCKPUPPET who was blocked for trying to continue an edit war after consensus was achieved. I will back anyone who wants to achieve consensus that Ward Churchill belongs on that list. But I will not edit war with a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Albion moonlight 17:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are really off the topic. It is becoming obnoxious on your part, about whether Churchill is a scholar or a polemic. You have just engaged in another personal attack. I have grown tired of this line of personal attack. Please stop it now. If you continue then I will forced to move the next level to get you to stop the personal attacks. You are now violating Wikipedia policy. Please stop. On this page allow is the two editors that your accused of being sockpuppets, myself Getaway & Verklempt, and obviously we are not the same person because we disagree on this topic. Any admin can take a look at this page and see that your claim that Verklempt and I are NOT the same person. We don't even know each other and this is the first time that we have ever communicated with each. Please stop your line of baseless personal attack.--Getaway 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of racial identifiers[edit]

Whoa! Whats this? Racial? Don't know about that bra'. I restored the tribal national, not "racial" identifiers since they are routinely used in Native American Studies. More importantly, they are appropriate since Native American Studies has moved from a Pan-Indian framework to a tribal national one where one's affiliation is critical to the work being produced. See Warrior (Osage), Womack (Muskogee), and Weaver's (Cherokee) latest book project on Literary tribal nationalism as an example. Every Native person on that list (save two) are enrolled members of their tribal nations. No need for inflammatory, wrongful accusations of fraud and wannabe-ism, Verklempt. Remember that saying about blokes that live in glass houses? Allegations like that have a horrible way of catching up with one.
Peace, Tu'inukutavake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu'inukutavake (talkcontribs) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that those people are all enrolled in those tribes? AFAIK, Jack Forbes was born into a Jewish family, and is only enrolled in a tribe that he himself created.Verklempt (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read my post once more. I didn't write "those people are all enrolled in those tribes." I wrote, "all save two" are enrolled. But then, I'm not the one playing identity police. Also, just as there are Indians who practice their traditional tribal beliefs, there are Indians who are Christian, Mormon, Muslim, and yes, even Jewish. Your comment made me curious and I was not surprised to discover that it was in line with your extensive contributions to Wikipedia. I did begin to wonder as I perused your submissions of several years running, what makes you qualified to police anyone's identity? Why does it matter so much to you? Why the zealotry? I don't care about your answers really. But you might want to ask yourself these questions. Humility rather than a pointed finger is a much better eye-opener, don't you think? Remember that glass house.
Peace, and apologies for not signing earlier, Tu'inukutavake
I ask you to cease your ad hominem, which violates Wikipedia culture and policy. You still haven't answered the question: What is your evidence that any of these people are enrolled? If they are not citizens of the nation they claim, or if the nation is not recognized by its peer nations, then why should they be identified in this manner? Wikipedia demands evidence for assertions. Bitching about "identity police" is a distraction, and totally irrelevant to the point at hand.Verklempt
You are tiresome and rude. "Ad hominem?" I think that best describes your method. "Bitching?" How churlish as well as inappropriate. And, who are you to "demand" anything of me, in the name of wikipedia or of your own accord? If "identity policing" is indeed "a distraction, and totally irrelevant to the point at hand," (your words, not mine) then there is no need to respond to your question.
Peace, Tu'inukutavake 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Try to focus, and try to be polite. Wikipedia content must be supported by evidence. Assertions that cannot be substantiated by cites to reliable sources must be removed. If you refuse to provide evidence, then your edits cannot remain.Verklempt 01:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of those folks would say that their tribal affiliations are national identifiers, not racial. Even the wannabes on the list, or especially the wannabes. Such identification is routine in Indian Studies. What Wikipedia policy precludes this?Verklempt 00:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


Ward Churchill's name belongs on the scholars list. To insist it does not belong there and revert it is not encyclopedic. Albion moonlight 11:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Without a working definition of "Notable Scholars," and another working definition of "Native American Studies," I don't see how any list can be NPOV. Also, most people working in the field call it "Indian Studies." Even the article's title is dubious.Verklempt 20:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the name is wrong, propose a rename. That seems like a reasonable enough proposal. However, my quick search yields:
  • \"Native American Studies\" 1,420,000
  • \"American Indian Studies\" 354,000
Those can cover a variety of usages, not all necessarily scholarly. But just browsing those that seem to be names of programs at universities, it looks like 'NA Studies' is used at around three times as many schools. Oh: plain "Indian Studies" gets some crosstalk from, y'know, India... but even so, its total is lower than NA. LotLE×talk 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the title is an issue worth much energy at this point. The fact remains that a working NPOV definition of "notable scholars" is preliminary to ending the current debate.Verklempt 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How is Ward Churchill a scholar? Has he published articles in peer reviewed journals? Is a professor of Indian studies? Where is the scholarship? He has self-published a ton of polemic books with publishers that do not edit or seek peer review of the articles/books they publish. Show us the scholarship.--Getaway 12:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting your law degree. I will not waste my time arguing with someone who refuses to argue in good faith. It will take some time to achieve a clear consensus. Are you willing to take this matter to mediation. Yes or no ? Albion moonlight 14:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make the mistake of bringing old feuds onto a new page, either of you. Albion moonlight, do you actually have an answer to the question or a reason for slapping a POV notice across the top of this page? Vizjim 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A quick look at Google Scholar, or siteseer, or at Churchill's WP article, or at, or any number of other place will show Churchill's publication record. Getaway, unfortunately, is so overwhelmingly obsessed with disparaging Churchill everywhere he can find, that the slightest hints of rational thought fly out the window prior to his edits or talk page comments that concern Churchill. You can almost see the foam on Getaway's lips in his comments on this talk page, for example. LotLE×talk 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vizjam referred to Churchill as a disgraced scholar. His question to me was purely rhetorical. I slapped the pov tag on this article because people keep forgetting that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for attacking their enemies. Albion moonlight 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Churchill is not an enemy of mine, and my question to you was certainly not purely rhetorical. Please refrain from these personal attacks. How else would you describe someone fired by his institution? Vizjim 18:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That was hardly a personal attack. From my perspective it was purely rhetorical whether you realized it or not.. The words ""wrongfully dismissed" seem quite apt. Fired or retired disgraced or otherwise, Ward Churchill is a scholar I can think of no valid reason to not include Churchill on a list of scholars. So lets cut to the chase and not waste anymore of each others time. Either admit you are in the wrong and bow out or let us begin the dispute process and take this matter to mediation. That could be fun. Albion moonlight 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this gives a hint: Hollywood blacklist. Or more pertinently: American Council of Trustees and Alumni (with co-founder Hank Brown even), established for the explicit and stated purpose of getting scholars similar to Churchill out of their universities. LotLE×talk 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For some context, this looks good (quick Google search):
"In 1995, Lynne Cheney and so-called liberal Senator Joseph Lieberman founded the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. According to Roberto Gonzalez of the San Jose Mercury News, the Council’s report “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,” appears to protect academic freedom but actually resembles a blacklist. 'In a chilling use of doublespeak,' says Gonzalez, 'it affirms the right of professors to speak out, yet condemns those who have attempted to give context to Sept. 11, encourage critical thinking, or share knowledge about other cultures. Faculty are accused of being ‘short on patriotism’ for attempting to give students the analytical tools they need to become informed citizens.'
"'Many of those blacklisted are top scholars in their fields, and it appears that the report represents a kind of academic terrorism designed to strike fear into other academics by making examples of respected professors.'
"'The report might also function to extend control over sites of democratic debate – our universities – where freedom of expression is not only permitted but encouraged.'"— Carolyn Baker, Dissident Voice, February 7, 2005.'
I am not per-se endorsing the comment of Baker here, but this take on the meaning of the firing is certainly widespread (as well as mostly true). WP should not take the judgment of ACTA as final and sole word on the meaning of the events. LotLE×talk 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Here's an experiment: -> About 41 results -> About 411 results -> About 900 results -> About 2140 results -> About 270 results

All of which amounts to the fact that Churchill is more widely cited than most (but not all) of the other scholars listed here, and who should be listed here. I know Getaway wants to make his own judgment of which scholars are better or more true or whatever (although I'm confident he doesn't know anything about the others anyway, other than their not-Churchill-ness). So let's cut the sophistry... and the gross WP:NOR violations. LotLE×talk 20:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Major Programs/Departments[edit]

This entire section looks like WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations. Please justify its inclusion under those policies.Verklempt 00:55, 6 November 2007 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, Page not moved. Redirect created as suggested  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Native American studiesIndigenous American studies —I think its time this article was updated to match the rest of the Indigenous articles, the word Native means Native-born citizen and/or Natural born citizen of the United States plus the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America had decided long ago to use the word Indigenous when dealing with articles that cover all of the Americans, since the majority of countries in the Americans use the word Indigenous and not Native or Indian in everyday life. I think the article should match Indigenous peoples of the Americas the main article in the series and its newer sub-pages/topics Indigenous Movements in the Americas, Indigenous Amerindian genetics, Indigenous languages of the Americas, List of indigenous artists of the Americas, List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Moxy (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed move. The article is about the discipline of Native American Studies, which is known as such on the vast majority of the programmes listed in the article. This article also does not "cover all of the Americas," but is US-specific. Indigenous American studies should be created as a redirect to this article. Vizjim (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Native American is a very fluid term that is perfectly acceptable throughout Latin America as well as US.-Uyvsdi (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
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. No further edits should be made to this section.


What does Oceania do on the list? I know it is a good journal, but isn't it a bit off-topic? But surely Ethnohistory belongs there, even if it does not only feature Native American or First Nation topics. I would add the very good European Review of Native American Studies, but I do not know how available it is in the USA - it is pretty scarce in German non-Museum libraries.--Radh (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care about American Indian Art Magazine being or not being in Wikipedia. But to erase it from "Native American Studies" because you think it is "not exactly decolonizing" is strange. I thought POV was not allowed? Do you consider Ethnohistory also to not be decolonizing or do you simply not know it? But I don't care and will stop working on First Nation topics here.--Radh (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
American Indian Art magazine is written almost exclusively from a non-Native, Western perspective and is full of ads from auction houses and dealers. Some of the articles are quite well researched and well-written, and the photography is lovely, but Non-Natives collecting Native antiquities has nothing to do with "decolonization of indigenous peoples, political autonomy, and the establishment of a discipline dedicated to alleviating contemporary problems facing indigenous peoples." -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I do not dispute your arguments (non-Native writers, commercial backing) a bit. But advertising is the only reason its pictures can look that fantastic. And you could say the same things about other first-class - and certainly not-dumbed-down - magazines, African Art, a similar fantastic journal on Southeast-Asian Arts and even more so about Hali (on tapestries). Artforum and Flash Art always had lots of advertising. RES (from the Peabody) has not, but is nearly completely unknown (?) It is also often unreadable, like Ethnohistory. Academia likes to keep to itself. The European Review of Native American Studies, which also is not written from a strict post-colonial perspective, although some of your Good Guys have published in it, also would profit from some ad-money and at least could establish ,an online presence. To be so pure nobody can touch you is silly if you want to communicate - which is why you use a non-Native online-publisher like wp yourself, I guess? No, this is not meant in an unfriendly way. I find your work here very impressive.--Radh (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not that there is advertising; it's the nature of the advertisers. Private collectors of Native antiquities overwhelmingly have resisted NAGPRA (they don't have to comply anyway). Indian Art Magazine sponsors events such as the Marin Indian Art Show, which I had the misfortune of attending. Grave goods and sacred, cultural sensitive items were not only for sale but on public display, including a Cornhusk Society mask. Instead of supporting tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and self-representation for Native peoples, which is integral to Native American Studies, IAM represents the old guard of patronizing Western academic "Indian experts." Regarding WP, it is multi-ethnic - and allows Native peoples, and everyone else under the sun, to write on their own behalf about their own cultures and spheres of knowledge. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
I did not doubt your reasoning per se and personal am pretty d'accord with your latest arguments, but this reasoning is (I think) simply not in accordance with WP's policy of no POV. But I surely will not start an edit-war or something.--Radh (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I think that Uyvsdi's position is NPOV in discussing Native American Studies. There are certainly other articles where this title belongs, but it is not part of the academic discipline of Native American Studies. If that makes any sense. Vizjim (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, but why should art not be a part of Native American Studies? Franz Boas, Gladys Reichard, Elsie Parsons and countless others have written seriously about it. But they are probably the bad, ugly, colonizing "Indian experts" Uybvsdi has in mind. But, I really would not have much to say about "Native Americans" anyway and surely do not need to edit articles relating to them.--Radh (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In a nutshell, studying Native Americans ≠ Native American Studies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Says who? Or, if you think so, why do you not eliminate ALL non-Native NA-students from the article? --Radh (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)