Talk:American Indian Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] curious about Pine Ridge

I'm curious about Pine Ridge. It states here that it included the "alleged taking of 11 hostages". How do you only allegedly take hostages? I suppose it was never proven in court that they had? I know nothing right now, except what is written here. Perhaps an expansion of the article is in order.... --Habap 19:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some thing I'm confused about

There seems to be some factional squabbling within AIM, and I beleive that another organiztion - not the Grand Governing Council, but Union of Internal Chapters of something - split off, with Ward Churchill in a prominent role in the new group. I think it goes down ideological lines, with the GGC faction more oriented to Indian spiritual traditions, and the new group more of a Marxist National Liberation slant. This confuses me still more when I read Churchills article in the "Encyclopedia of the American Indian" denoucing "National Liberationism" and the AIMs support of the Sandinistas. Could some one explain the origins of these sectarian divides within AIM?--70.112.236.174 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

AIM members are also involved in "Tribal Nationalism" and some American Indian tribal nations have members with strong demand for further autonomy or separatism, in the case of Republic of Lakotah secessionist declaration in Jan. 2008 for the Sioux Indian Reservations and lands in six states across the North-Central U.S. There are "Navajo Nationalists" in the four-corner states (Southwest U.S.), Cherokee Nationalists and other AIM members in Eastern Oklahoma to create a Native American/ Indian republic based on the failed State of Sequoyah over plan a century ago (1905) and others involved in "anti-Colonialism" movements in many legally "sovereign" Indian reservations, except to oust "white" or U.S. rule. To compare with Francophone separatism in Quebec, Canada and the Aztlan movement by Chicanos/Mexican Americans in the Western U.S., along with state secessionism drives: it may be the beginning of the dissolution of the U.S. and Canada. +71.102.53.48 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the terms used to identify Indigenous or "Native" or "Indian" people

Being "Native" simply means that one was born within a certain region or country. Being "Indian" can be confused with actual Indian people living, or hailing from, India. I have reworded the parts of the article that use this terminology. -- VinnyCee 01:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The widely accepted terms are "Native American" and "American Indian." Deciding that people should use the term "Indigenous American" doesn't mean that they do, and doesn't make proper the introduction of a term that isn't generally known. Dcandeto 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
American Indian is the Term which SHOULD be used as it is recognizable and its what most tribes refer to themselves as. Indigenous American isnt widely used or recognized, and "Native American" is a term used by the United States Government that was created by the Department of Interior in the mid-1930s to apply to any indigenous inhabitant of any of the Insular Territories like the Marianas, Guam, Alaska(former) and Puerto Rico. The issue with that term is that it was created without consultation of any the tribes in question, and it was applied without their consent (as usual). Its more of a catch all political term for marginalizing any indigenous races that the US illegally annexed and currently control without recognizing their rights as individual nations.97.100.103.131 09:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is in reality only one American Indian Movement. The group remains with much of its original founders and leadership (Clyde Bellecourt, Dennis Banks, Mary Jane Wilson, Patricia Bellanger etc).

There is agroup of individuals, most of whom had little association with AIM, that have taken since 1993 to calling themselves the "Autonomous AIM". Again most of this group has no historical tie or community tie to AIM.

Ward Churchill utilized a divergence of opinion of how to address the collateral killing of innocent Miskito-Sumo and Rama people and some Miskito Sumo and Rama working with the Contra's by the Sandanista's fighting the Contra's. William A. Means of AIM/IITC and Vernon Bellecourt of AIM had worked out a dialouge with the Sandanista's to address the concern which did not suit former AIM leader (he resigned six times since 1974)Russell Means. Means was enranged at slights-real and perceived, the Sandanista's had given to the Miskito Sumo and Rama and wanted more. Ward Churchill inflammed this dispute and coordinated a meeting with Elliot Abrams, Russell Means and the pro-Contra MISURASATA under the name of AIM which lead to a public war of words.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolakota (talk • contribs).

[edit] Need to be careful

Somebody edited the 6/26/1975 events and thoroughly confused what happened. (I added the date, because the article really needs better chronology). You need to check published sources before editing, because it's a really complex story. Aquash was not killed in the 6/26 Jumping Bull shootout: Stunz, Coler and Williams were. If you haven't got Matthiessen's book - it's a very well-documented account - try the Peltier site, http://www.freepeltier.org.
As I noted in the article today, Peltier's release has been advocated by dozens of well-known people and org's throughout the world.
Twang 22:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be objectivity on facts, but to supply your factual information as a link to "free peltier" website should be noted that it is bias. A nuteral link would be more appropriate. One that doesn't give facts based on what the author's opinions on the matter were.

Yes, a "free Peltier" web site that constantly misstates the judicial record has no place in neutrality. In his book, American Indian Mafia, former FBI Agent Joseph H. Trimbach restates 8 findings of fact from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Trimbach claims these statements "close the book" on the Peltier defense and thus expose him as a cold-blooded killer of two Federal Agents because no one has ever disproved them, not even Peter Matthiessen. The findings state: 1. Peltier was in the vehicle the Agents followed into the area. 2. One of the other individuals in the vehicle knew who the Agents were and was in Agent Williams’s car the night before. 3. Peltier had reason to believe that the Agents might be after him since there was a federal arrest warrant outstanding for his arrest. This is what he told the RCMP at the time of his arrest in Canada. 4. Peltier, along with two others, was seen down by the bodies before the first rescuers arrived. He was holding an AR-15. 5. The Agents were killed with a high velocity small caliber weapon like the AR-15. No other shooter was firing such a weapon. Peltier was later seen carrying this weapon out of the area. This weapon was later found in Kansas. 6. A shell casing which matched the ejector markings of this weapon was found in the open trunk of Agent Coler’s Bureau car. 7. Peltier was heard discussing certain details of the murders that evening. 8. Agent Coler’s service revolver was found in a bag bearing Peltier’s thumb print. The bag was located in the motor home Peltier had been riding in prior to being stopped by an Oregon State Trooper.JamesSimon500 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity

The phrase

"The autonomous chapters within AIM, while also spiritually guided by indigenous ceremonialism, tend more toward third world national liberation strategies and indigenous nationalism, as recently embodied in the movement of the Zapatistas in Mexico, and in the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia."


Needs a reference. And is contradictory. If the autonomous chapters have no centralized policy, how can they all speak with one voice? Further how is defined that they tend "more" towards third world national liberation strategies and indigenous nationalism. Many AIM leaders including Jimbo Simmons and them were down in Chiapas, while it may be that autonomous AIM groups are very supportive of those struggles, how can it be quanitified that they are tending "more" to them than those who follow the national AIM office? Wolakota

[edit] Splits to main articles

The article has an undercurrent of readily apparent bias. For example: "AIM believed that advocates for Indian interests who had worked within the American political system had not been effective. The political system simply ignored Indian interests." This should be one sentence; unless the second sentence is a verifiable claim it should be written to reflect that this is the viewpoint.

Also, it is inappropriate to go into article-length detail on various incidents AIM was involved in when these events have their own articles; a brief summary is all that should be written. This helps ensure that a larger number of concerned editors - not just those with a specific interest in this article - can work towards a single version of the article, as opposed to having various articles on different pages with conflicting information. --Edwin Herdman 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism portal

Wow. The Terrorism Portal is being added to some articles that have nothing to do with terrorism. Based on what criteria was this portal added to American Indian Movement? The word terrorism appears nowhere in the article and any assertion that AIM was a terrorist organization would be highly POV. They weren't even guerrillas. - N1h1l 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Copied to WikiProject Terrorism talk

Depends how you define terrorism. Most scholars define terrorism in terms of attacks on civilian targets for political goals. WRT AIM, I think that the Pine Ridge and Mt. Rushmore bombings alone would qualify. Beyond those incidents I don't know. The problem with deleting this project is that it inhibits people from working on it and developing it any further. I would let them run with the project for a while and see what happens, instead of trying to shut it down before it gets going.Verklempt 20:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the terrorism tag needs to be removed as well. Does anybody other than Verklempt disagree ?? Albion moonlight 08:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

AIM's status as a terrorist organization remains entirely uncited on List of designated terrorist organizations. - N1h1l 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, AIM is listed on that page, albeit without cites. I will go over and add the necessary cites.Verklempt 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Your citations are great, but they do not establish AIM's status as an designated terrorist organization. What official body has made and published such a declaration? - N1h1l 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the references! All the data you need is in there. The FBI is the relevant "official body" here.Verklempt 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you it should be deleted. Delete it now if you want but I prefer waiting another day or 2 . Albion moonlight 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Terrorism? Quite POV. Delete it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 15:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is POV. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, in every single instance. However, the Wikipedia definition of a terrorist organization is one that has been so designated by an "official body" -- in this case, the FBI. I personally do not completely agree with the FBI. There were only a handful of terrorists in AIM, they only did a handful of terrorist acts, and that was all more than thirty years ago. However, it still meets the official Wikipedia definition.Verklempt 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you certain that the FBI has the power to officially designate terrorist organizations? If so, can you please provide a link to their list so that we can see the inclusion of AIM. Searching their site, I am unable to locate such a list. - N1h1l 02:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The designation was made back in the 70s, and is documented by the references I entered. I doubt that AIM would be on any list today, given that is effectively defunct in all but name.Verklempt 00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term terrorism in relation to AIM is indeed overdone. With all accusation the word "alleged" is a constant paramount. So the saying that "one is not guilty unless proven" only goes to show. Flashing firearms or shooting in the air may have excited the feds at the time proves nothing and may just have a way to get attention to their Native American issues. And even the bomb at Mount Rushmore was "alleged" according to the article. Sometimes even governmental bodies like the FBI and CAI are being accused of terrorist activities like in the case of the Cuban Five and the undeclared war of the US against Cuba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBI designation

The source provided for AIM's "designated terrorist organization" status is not easily available to me and appears to be a collection of FOIA-request documents on microfilm. A LexisNexis summary of the document (here) does not mention terrorism. Could someone please provide page numbers and an excerpt from this source so that we can see the context of this supposed designation? It is hard to believe that an official designation by the FBI would exist only in internal documents and go unrepeated in other literature. - N1h1l 02:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the FBI's description qualifies as an official designation. This is a borderline case, and something that Wikipedians need to work out. What exactly is the official WP definition of "terrorist group"? Does this case fall inside or outside the category boundary? It's a discussion better carried on over at the terrorism page instead of here.Verklempt 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll start a new post on List of designated terrorist organizations. - N1h1l 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok see What consitutes "designation"? (regarding the American Indian Movement). Verklempt - it would still be helpful if you posted an excerpt from the source you provided. - N1h1l 14:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree but lets invite Kathryn too. Albion moonlight 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a discussion better carried out here, than on the Terrorism page - each "alleged" terrorist should be weighed on the merits of the title being bestowed on them. We're never going to create one "perfect" reasoning for what defines a terrorist, all I can say, like everybody else other than Verklempt, is that the AIM is not terrorist. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
But of course, reason and evidence should be the basis of such determinations, shouldn't it? We need a precise definition of "terrorist" before we can accurately designate a terrorist group. And so far everyone seems to be abdicating the realm of operationalization. Do you have a basis for your opinion that you'd like to share?Verklempt 05:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, in every single instance." There is no perfect definition of terrorism. Albion moonlight 08:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Luckily, we aren't trying to define terrorism. Rather, we simply need to identify "organizations that are, or have been in the past, designated as 'terrorist organizations' by other notable organizations, including the United Nations and national governments, where the proscription has a significant impact on the group's activities." - N1h1l 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is a fair and logical way of looking at it. Albion moonlight 07:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps both the "terrorism" page and this "AIM" page need reworking, as both have evolved over time and are relative according to politics of the day. For example, I think the people of Great Britain in the 1770s would have had a lot of support for their opinion that the American Colonists were a bunch of ruthless terrorists. "Terrorism" as a word hasn't been in our cultural vocabulary for very long. Back in the 50s and 60s, the word "communist" was used in a similar way. Heck, the FBI had Martin Luther King, Jr. listed as a seriously threatening communist subversive at one time. I won't list any cites here, but I looked at an old dictionary for a definition of "terrorism" and compared that to the list at dictionary.com today. It was clear that even "official, authorized" definitions are relative to the times they're written. The fact that AIM may have had members that engaged in violence that may have officially been listed at one time as terrorism, doesn't mean that that's what AIM officially as an organization was about. Similarly, it wouldn't be accurate to describe Pro-Life advocates as a bunch of terrorists just because certain members have engaged in politically motivated violent activities. Bottom line: it's not accurate to refer to AIM as a terrorist organization. It would be accurate to say that in the 1970s, the FBI had them listed as such. Let intelligent readers make up their own minds.Timcollardey (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Marxism, Social Democracy, and Anarchism

I have heard in the past that AIM is a Marxist organization. Is this true, or just a characterization by opponents? Does AIM promote any particular left-wing political ideology, or does it have its own ideology? If so, what are its ideological influences in political thought? Could someone please clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.240.109 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this indeed to be a characterization by opponents. Whenever I engaged in discussions with conservative Americans it just strikes me that time and time again automatic labeling like Marxism and Anarchism is standardly used. And this while all the militant actions are still "alleged". There is no proof that they tried to bomb Mount Rushmore, etc. Their ideology is of course predominantly just Native American and the left-wing agenda is just a result of the peaceful negociations of the past having led to no results or nobody willing to listen to them. Therefore they just had to do their best to get attention and exaggeration by the media is always very unfortunate. Overhere in Europe we do not tend to make such a fuzz of Marxism and Socialism as this is interwoven in to society together with Capitalism. If AIM had some liking for Marxism, I'd say so what? As long as Marxism doesn't extend towards a Communist State like in China or the former Soviet Union, it can only be harmless Socialism, which will be a good thing to neutralize the injustice created by pure Capitalism as whereever someone gets rich someone else will be more poor than before.

Theo, Amsterdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.133.112 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference in European and American views regarding socialism. I'm just curious if any particular political theorists influenced AIM, or if they have a systematic vision of society. Does anyone know what their theoretical influences/platform involve other than Native American Nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.112.142 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The AIM was originally founded as an activist group to protest against police brutality against American Indians when they get stopped and arrested by Minneapolis Police officers, many held a racist imagery of "Indians" esp. in DUI incidents and the lack of awareness of American Indians, like African-Americans and Latinos, are lesser-known, but often victims of police brutality. The AIM later became involved in other political issues regarding the civil rights, cultural dignity and land ownership rights of Native American(s)/ Indians. In Canada, First Nations activist groups wanted a government investigation on the high portion of Native Canadians arrested, physically assaulted and falsely imprisoned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the 1990's and 2000's is a painful and serious national issue. +71.102.53.48 (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prison in Canada and the United States (I'm a Canadian myself). What I'm asking here is whether any particular political theorists or theories inform the ideology of AIM. Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.233.112.142 (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)