Talk:Indian Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
To-do list for Indian Wars: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Indian Wars west of the Mississippi needs written into text form. Maybe sections such as "Plains Wars" and "Pacific Coast"? My edits to the Indian wars will stop at the east side of the Mississippi, so I hope someone will take up the narrative for the remainder of the continent. --Kevin Myers 10:15, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indian Wars needs to be redefined so as to avoid the usual US-only usage/interpretation and to include wars with the British and Russian and Spanish; few though such wars were, they were still Indian Wars. The Native American wars suggested for placing items on such wars is inappropriately titled and cannot be used.Skookum1 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Citation lack not cited

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2007)

Banner for lack of reference citations has been on front page since Sept 2007. I see several referenced in March 2008. Sorry one of my pet peeves. A lack of academic research goes both ways. A general comment about a lack of references without being specific is being lazy. If there are places, please list them. We don't need to write term papers here. Thanks --Rcollman (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irregular removed?

The intro used to say:

"...between the government and military (regular and irregular) of the United States and the Native..."

... and now says:

"...between the United States and Native..."

I like the terser version, but the point about American civilians often saw themselves as part of the wars is lost. The rest of the into is now devoted to how misleading the term "Indian War" is. I don't see a good place to add back the reference without making it choppy. Any ideas, anyone? A D Monroe III 20:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might make that point (that the Indian wars involved more than just soldiers) after the sentence "since noncombatants were often killed in frontier warfare." --Kevin Myers 00:18, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Is this an academically accepted name - ie. do authorities on the subject refer to them as the "Indian Wars". I ask because, like the term "American Indians" itself, it is not preferable and is misleading. Asside from this, the country India has been in many wars: so a further level of confusion. Perhaps something like "Native American wars" or "Aboriginal American wars"? In any case, the word "Wars" should surely be "wars" - this is not a proper noun? --Oldak Quill 18:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a historical name, and, yes, is a proper noun, so capitalized, like the "Civil War". The people at the time called them the "Indian Wars", so our references do likewise, so Wikipedia does likewise. The question is, how long do we continue this, that is, when do we replace the historical name with a more accurate one? Considering the Civil War was not, in fact, a true civil war (the South was not fighting for control of the Northern government), and is slightly older than the Indian Wars, I'd guess we're not ready to fix this yet. --A D Monroe III 21:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A.D. is correct. Indian Wars is a proper noun in the context of U.S. history, see also Indian Campaign Medal. Even though Native American has replaced Indian as the proper term for the ethnic group, the word Indian remains in the U.S. vernacular. We still have the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an Indian reservation, an Indian casino, an Indian summer, etc. Also, some Native Americans refer to themselves as Indians and prefer it over the PC term. However, it's worth noting that the Wikipedia category for related articles is Category:Native American wars. jengod 23:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. While it is indeed a proper noun in the context of US history, this is when it is told from the perspective of White historians, who are still largely ignorant of the points of view of various Native American peoples on the events. I suggest moving it to "Conflicts between Whites and Native Americans". When A D Monroe says "the people at the time called them the Indian Wars"... is he considering all people involved? If I ask somebody on the local reservation, although their people were not generally involved in the conflict, would see them as less connected events than White historians, and would be more likely to call them "The wars between Indians and Milga:n" (Milga:n is the O'odham word for "white people", from the Spanish "Americana"/"Americano").
Wikipedia uses the term "indian" often in many of its pages where some people consider this word to be offensive (to be fair, some people find it offensive when you use other terms). More importantly, however, when you use it without the qualification "American", it by default refers to India. It is important that we find all occurances of the word and replace it with less ambiguous terms, preferably "Native American", although in many places, the ethnonym of the particular peoples (ethnic group) is more appropriate. For an example, see my edits to the Wounded Knee Massacre article - which occurances of "Indian" I changed to "Native American", which I changed to "Lakota", and which I changed to "Sioux". --Node 06:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Node, to help make your case for renaming the article and changing terminology throughout Wikipedia, can you address the following issues that arise from your comments?:
  • By the most recent poll I've seen (here), American Indians prefer "American Indian" to "Native American." Indeed, browse through the popular newspaper Indian Country Today and you'll see that American Indian journalists regularly refer to their brethren as "Indians." Yet you say that we should not use "Indian" because "some people consider this word to be offensive." Which people?
  • If most American Indians do indeed prefer "Indian" or "American Indian" to "Native American," would that make a difference in your opinion?
  • You write "White historians ... are still largely ignorant of the points of view of various Native American peoples on the events." Which historians? Do you have a reference for this sweeping statement?
It's also implicitly a racist statement; a generalization about a whole culture/race as well as a professional class within that race/culture. Even the euphemistic "European" substituted for "white" (common in modern historiography) doesn't remove the stain of prejudice implicit in such comments. Racist generalizations are racist generalizations, period. From my end, I've seen a lot of aboriginal historians who play fast and loose with the hyperbole and exaggeration, and are not above soft-soaping or making excuses for the iniquities of native leaders or native cultures/spirituality; usually at the expense of someone else, i.e. like "OK, we did bad things, but white people did worse" - that's just equivocation and, in the case of my area, cannot excuse things like the slave trade/society in the Pacific Northwest or some of the outrageous attacks on neighbouring tribes by various parties (the Laich-kwil-tach and Tsilhqot'in and Haida being particularly notable in this regard). I've been told that native history is none of my business because I'm not native, and have no right to comment on things like I've just mentioned because I'm not native and "didn't acquire my knowledge indigenously" (i.e. I haven't been indoctrinated into the prevailing ideology); then, using that logic, no one but a German should be able to write about German history, and so on.....Skookum1 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In the Wounded Knee article, you've changed "white" (lower case) to "White" (upper case). What is your source for this non-standard usage?
Thanks. --Kevin Myers 13:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
As Kevin points out, American Indian is becoming more popular with Aboriginals in the U.S. As he also notes, many continue to use the term Indian. A comparison of the usage of the terms American Indian and Native American on the Internet shows that Native American is used more often (2,820,000) than American Indian (1,750,000). In academic use (which would include Wikipedia), both terms are acceptable, though most discussions of the matter on talk pages have tended to come down on the side of Native American (probably because it is the more common term). For the reasons Node has pointed out, Indian is not acceptable, no matter how many Aboriginals use it, since it refers to people from India. The exception is historic use and names such as "Indian Wars." Sunray 07:06, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
This name is causing me problems. I entered Indian Wars hoping to learn about the conflict started by the British introduction of certain muskets to Muslim and Hindu soldiers in India, and instead I found this, and it seems there isn't even an article on the original topic I searched. JosephTU 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I put a link to the Military history of India at the top of the page, although of course you still won't find the article you're looking for if it hasn't been written yet. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't wish to go off on a tangent, but as a "Native American" and an enrolled tribal member of the Teton/Lakota/Sioux, I find the term "Aboriginal" offensive in this context. I am well aware of the dictionary definition and don't impute any motive to its user--just respectfully ask that you either remove the capitalization or select another word. 131.238.92.62 12:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Buckboard

But y'see, in Canada (which this article isn't about, granted), "aboriginal" doesn't just include Native Canadians (a neologism we never use; but prefer to Native American, that is) but also Inuit and Metis, who are not "Indians". Not sure that we ever capitalize it except in titles, thoughSkookum1 22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Race war of extermination"?

The United States was once a racist democracy, a democracy that is a dictatorship because racism is legal. Did Americans want to exterminate all Native Americans? What benefits do our people get once they exterminated them? Are they committing Nazi Holocaust-style actions? The Indian Wars are a dark age of terror in which European-Americans are Nazis? --206.255.32.51 03:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History has been partly rewritten in this modern spoiled with technology United States: the great United States. It should be remembered that Spain had the original claim to the lands that Became South America, Central America, and North America: Mexico is still in their Indian Wars. In fact, the lost Spanish gold mines in Utah is an interesting perspective, since Spain looked everywhere for the gold and, by legend, had help from the Ute Indians. The Seven Cities of Gold (never found) also proved to be an interesting perspective as Spain claimed the significant amount of new lands for themselves. Now South America and Central America are mostly Spanish Speaking while the British and the United States ended up with North America with significant European immigration of all types of people. If you are claiming Spain is racist, then that could be true: all of those ships laden with gold and silver that they were using silver for ballast instead of rock to bring it back to Spain including extorting and gathering from the Native Indians (the original wooden-ships of the Atlantic had rock ballast on the kneel of the ship for balance). 172.184.81.182 15:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This has always seemed to me a modern spin on history. Granted, both sides commited horrible atrocities and disgusting deeds of extermination, but because of that, wouldn't this be considered a legitimate series wars? These were organized tribes attacking U.S. forces and settlements and organized U.S. forces attacking tribal forces and settlements. True, the Natives lost the wars, but in my opinion, that doesn't make it an extermination. Was the Roman invasion of Gaul an extermination? No, it was just an expanding empire, conquering just like the United States.-AmericanColumbia

There is a big difference between the Sioux Wars and other wars east of the Rockies, which were not, as you note, wars of extermination but wars of subjugation; but west of the Rockies in Colorado and beyond in the Oregon Country and California, outright campaigns of extermination were conducted, particularly in California (which once had 1/4 of the continent's aboriginal population), where native peoples were not warlike at all (other than the Modoc, one supposes, few as they were) and there WAS an undeclared war to slaughter as many as possible following the collapse of Mexican rule there. There is no equivalent to this in the MidWest or New England; maybe in the South but I don't think so; assimilation by marriage/breeding or forced exile seems to have been the main consequence there; not that exterminatory killing campaigns didn't take place, but not on the order of California or Colorado or what went down in the Oregon Country/Washington Territory; the Yakima and Cayuse Wars were wars; but there were slaughters of innocents throughout that region, and despite it at one time having more aboriginal people in it than the British sector of the region (now British Columbia), it now has far less; Governor Douglas of the British colonies in that era, whose own wife was native (Cree) and who'd travelled widely in the US sector of the Oregon Country, was openly appalled; his determination to not allow the same thing to happen post-1858 (Fraser Gold Rush/Fraser Canyon War) is credited with preventing a similar depopulation to take place north of the 49th Parallel.Skookum1 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why no start at 1622?

I came to this page hoping to learn something about the Indian War of 1622, when according to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/virginia.htm, on 22 May 1622, Indians massacred 347 of the Jamestown residents. Is this left out because there was no campaign? Thanx. --Rck 04:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it was left out because colonial wars are not well covered here. Certainly there should be articles and listings on this war, known as the Powhatan War or Powhatan Wars or Anglo-Powhatan Wars. Why no one has taken an interest in this, I dunno. Maybe the upcoming release of The New World will generate some activity. --Kevin Myers 05:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks rck and Kevin. I was aware of the Jamestown and your posts let me to find First Anglo–Powhatan War in 1609-14. Those sounded equally as bloody as the 1622 Jamestown massacre. I am having a hard time with the seperation of warefare with and without genocide. However, I think this page should deal with North American Indian Wars, which should start somewhere around 1600. That would be a bit before the American Revolution. <grin>--Rcollman 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West of the Mississippi - Yakima, Cayuse Wars

Long before the Sioux Wars there were the Yakima and Cayuse Wars in the Pacific Northwest-Columbia Plateau. Which sort of includes the wars of extermination in Puget Sound and Oregon (or that in California, for that matter...). The Yakima and Cayuse Wars are also directly related to the Fraser Canyon War of 1858 (which I have yet to write) and which involved largely American "filibusters" on a campaign of pacification (and in the case of one party, the Whatcom Company extermination and eventual self-annihilation, and will have its own article). Just wondering how to fit these in; usually when people think of the Indian Wars west of the Mississippi they start at the Sioux Wars and go on from there, the Northwest usually getting mentioned via the Nez Perce War and maybe the Modoc War; but the Yakima, Cayuse and Fraser Wars were big-time, and should obviously be included here; I'm not just sure where. The Fraser Canyon War is significant to Americans, or should be, because it is one of the only Indian Wars fought outside US soil (although at the time the canyon's status as British colony was only just declared); another one is the so-called Rock Creek War, which involved the Kutenai and American miners in the uppermost Columbia-Kootenay River area (the East Kootenay district of BC), and wound up bringing the RNWMP west of the mountains for the first time (see Fort Steele).Skookum1 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

On the "to-do" list above, I suggested making Pacific Coast region Indian Wars its own section, apart from the Plains Wars et al. Sounds like that's what you're suggesting as well, so I encourage you to create such a section. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Wars exclusively US? - infobox content

I just noticed the infobox specifiew the United States in its definition of "Indian Wars". Yeah, OK, in US history, "the Indian Wars" refers to a certain period, generally not even starting as early as the Cayuse and Yakima Wars. But in abstract, encyclopedia-language terms, "Indian wars" (lower-case 'w' perhaps) by definition includes all wars with the "Indians" and, come to think of it, between the Indians (no one's added any of those yet). So either this article, and Wikipedia, defines "Indian Wars" as meaning only those wars by the United States against/with the Indians after the Civil War; the wars in the Northwest and the unnamed war of extetmination in California are not included in the usual definition. Or this article, and Wikipedia, gets out of the American perspective and is truly global in its perspective etc. It happens that our Fraser Canyon War was a spillover of the Yakima Wars, and so IS an "American" Indian War, fought on what was only just British soil (the colony was only declared a few months earlier); the Rock Creek War was a bit different but again was American miners vs the Ktunaxa (and also the local bunch of Chinese miners).

So, on the one hand, granted that "Indian Wars" usually means the wars of the later 19th Century fought on the Great Plains and in the Southwest, plus the Nez Perce War which kind of sealed the deal over that sector once the Sioux Wars were done. But on the other hand, as a term "Indian Wars" clearly is very broad, and should not be limited by the usual America-centric perspective of American historical writing. Thoughts?Skookum1 16:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised you only noticed the perspective of the article from the infobox, since the first paragraph is very explicit about what this article does (and does not) currently cover. There is another article -- Native American wars -- to cover all wars in general involving North American Indians, but noboby pays much attention to it. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, perhaps the opening sentence of this article should be changed. After a year it seems to me the both Native American wars and Indian Wars are arbirtary page titles that seperate an arbritary mark on the timeline. I notice that Native American wars still is a stub and a year has past. I will add some links to the Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America (now a redirect from "Native American wars") I found by following some of the great discussions on this page and other discussion pages. I am going to avoid the Indian, Native American, Indigenous or Aboriginal debate. Thanks for your comments--Rcollman 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! And that's probably why I've never seen a link to it; it's not "linked up" as perhaps it should be; I'll add an italicized "for other wars etc. please see Native American wars at the top of the Indian Wars page. But here's a question for you - the existing article omitted (until I added them to the listing, if not the text) the Yakima and Cayuse Wars: should they be included here, or are they not usually considered part of the "Indian Wars"? And as for the spill-over wars involving Americans in British Columbia, what do I do with those?Skookum1 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
PS the Native American wars article is a very raw stub; and it sounds like it's to include wars between native peoples, as well as wars between native peoples and non-native groups other than the Americans (Russians, Brits, Spanish, whomever); and as far as all of those go, the term Native American wars really can't be used, since, well, the wars in BC weren't with "Native Americans" but with "First Nations peoples" (using the semi-official Canadian terminology; Canadians, as you know, don't use "Native American" in reference to Canadian aboriginal peoples; it's purely an American affectation....).Skookum1 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The second point first: maybe the best title for the other article might be something like "North American Indian wars" -- "North American Indian" in my experience seems to have been the best compromise term between the U.S. & Canada.
As to the other, I really don't know the correct answer for what this article should and should not cover. As you correctly mentioned eariler, when most American writers use the term "Indian Wars", they primarily mean the Plains Indian Wars, while others use the term much more broadly. Perhaps the term "Indian Wars" is used too loosely and informally to be of use to us here. The Oxford Companion to American Military History approaches the problem by having three articles under the general heading "Native American Wars"
  1. "Warfare in Native American societies" (i.e. the practice of native warfare in general)
  2. "Wars among Native Americans"
  3. "Wars between Native Americans and Europeans and Euro-Americans"
Maybe something like that would be better, so we don't have to make arbitrary distinctions between what is an "Indian War" and what is a "North American Indian war". --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think pretty much we have to do that, if only because of the awkwardness of the "Native American" title in Native American wars. And I really can't think of any other way to describe the non-US wars as anything but "Indian Wars", whether it's Russia/Brits, wars between natives, wars between the US (as a government) and natives, or wars between Americans and natives (as in the Fraser Canyon War and wars of extermination/bounty in California and elsewhere). Given the Oxford's definition, it sounds like we need three main large sections;

  • "Indian Wars" according to the capitalized term used by American historians (note: British historians might well say the "Red Indian Wars", and we know where that would go....),
  • other wars between native/aboriginal peoples and newcomer peoples/powers (I included "aboriginal" here so that the Riel Rebellions are included), and
  • wars between native peoples (NB which often included French/Brits/Russians/Spanish and others as allies or co-combatants).

The first two of the Oxford definitions fall into the last category; the last one needs to be divided between the usual American meaning of Indian Wars, and the broader sense we've been discussing which would include everything from Cortes' conquest of Mexico (and such matters as his alliance with the Tlaxcalans and other enemies of the Mexica). The complexities of native-European allied wars, e.g. the War of 1812, the War of the Conquest (i.e. the French and Indian War to you yanquitos), need to be considered in this category also, at least by mention.Skookum1 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Native American Wars" re Canada

Me again; been elsewhere in Wikispace. Saw someone move the Battle of Sitka to Native American wars so it got me wondering if we ever came to any kind of resolution on the issue of the name for that article; since Indian wars in Canada and Mexico are not to be included here. I can see with Sitka that, since the Tlingit now fall under the "Native American" classification, that makes sense; not so for the Fraser Canyon War, the Lamalcha War, and the Chilcotin War; the first involved Americans although it happened on British soil, by the way (the Yakima War is reckoned to have spread over to include tribes from BC, although no whites on British soil were involved; not until the Fraser Canyon WAr and the routs along the Okanogan Trail, that is). Anyway, I know you Yanks have decided that "the Indian Wars" is the ones that happend on your soil, and "Native American wars" is what you'd like to classify Indian wars in other countries as; but it doesn't work for us (people in other countries). Either Wiki is US-centric or it isn't; and if it's not supposed to be, this has got to be resolved; as a Canadian I can't see fit to write up native wars on our soil under "Native American wars"; it's just the wrong title, period, and you guys have got to learn the rest of the world doesn't share your terminologies for things outside your borders. Period.Skookum1 07:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wars of the east - wars of the west

The wars of the east are shown in a box where little can be written about each war. The wars of the west are shown in a list where more can be written. I want to make the wars of the east into a list, just like wars of the west (and the Colonial era wars, for that matter). Questions/comments? Thanks Hmains 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad move. Plenty can be written about the wars of the east -- that's what the main body of the article is for. Lists are generally bad things because they're not proper articles, though they're a useful tool in the initial stages to outline what the article should eventually cover. So you've got it exactly backwards -- the colonial wars and the wars of the east eventually need to be de-listified and written into an acutal article, rather than just a collection of bullet points. Our job here is to write an encylopedia article about the Indian Wars, not make lists.
 :-) • Kevin (complaints?) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Native American wars

It's been suggested to me that the editors of this article might be able to provide some meaningful input on a proposal for some restructuring of this category; any comments or suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chickamauga Wars

I've added a section to include this often overlooked but very real series of conflicts. I also deleted the reference to the "Cherokee Uprising" of because no such conflict ever took place; in fact, the Cherokee Removal was quite notable for the almost complete lack of armed resistance, the only exception being that of the famous (at least among the Cherokee) Tsali, and even that only involved Tsali and his oldest son killing one soldier each. Natty4bumpo 28 October 2006

[edit] Native American wars title, still

I'm posting this here because that article is now more or less a disambig page, and for some reason has come to omit previous entries relating to wars in Canada/British North America (the Fraser Canyon War, the Lamalcha War (which still needs an article but I'm not qualified to write it), the Chilcotin War and a few others; also the Riel Rebellions, for which the term would be "aboriginal" as opposed to "Indian", "First Nations" or "Native American". And it's good that it does omit them, in fact, as the issue concerning the title of that page remains; "Native American" is only a USA usage, and is not applicable to wars in Canada or Russian America or Mexico, unless you expect other countries to adopt the US lexicon, WHICH WE DON'T. So what to call the page listing such events, be it the Battle of Sitka, the Fraser War, or for that matter wars between First Nations/Native Americans, which were many (see Nicola (chief), which I should probably split Nicola's War off of). This issue has gone dormant, or unanswered, since I raised it. On the the one hand you Americans have coopted "Indian Wars" to mean only a certain group of your own wars with native peoples, and presume that it can't be used to mean wars outside present US territory; on the other you impose your terminology ("Native American") on countries/territories and peoples who don't use it, and don't like it. I suggest that either this article, Indian Wars, redefine itself to include Indian wars in Canada and Russian America, or a better name for what is now Native American wars be found.Skookum1 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "we" Americans have coopted anything. I know I haven't coopted anything, that's quite a bit of generalization there. Change it to whatever you want, if no one will comment then silence should be taken as approval, I am sure if anyone has a problem with it, that will make them notice. Either way, the terminology used should reflect the usage in most academic circles. Someone may challenge this so bring some sources I would say. I don't care either way, I usually don't engage in semantics arguments about correct titling and the like myself but since you said no one had commented I decided to throw in a bit here. I have always heard "Indian Wars" myself, basically if this article isn't broad enough either add the globalize template of just move it to Indian Wars (United States). IvoShandor 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
And your tone wasn't exactly friendly there in that last comment, we're not all useless. Sheesh. IvoShandor 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I would support a move/rename to "Indian Wars (United States)" to differentiate it from those occurring in other nations. In reference to Russian Alaska, to my knowledge (as a 25-year Alaskan who has read a lot about Alaska history), the terminology Indian Wars has never been applied to such events as the Battle of Sitka or Battle of Kenai (which was between Russians & Dena'ina Indians), though undeniably there were hostilities. (Also between the Russians & Yup'ik Eskimos, who are not Indians at all.) The history of Alaska Natives is different in a huge number of ways from the history of Indians in the Lower 48 states, & the term Native Americans is usually not applied to Alaska Natives. U.S. government agencies such as the Census Bureau typically refer to "American Indians and Alaska Natives." --Yksin 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see "Indian Wars (United States)" section below.Skookum1 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extended to its present borders?

I would think this should say "extended to present continental borders", because Alaska and Hawaii are certainly not annexed yet.Rolfenstein 13:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nez Percé

Nez Percé attacked and killed anglos? The page says the "Nez percé-war" started because of attacks on anglo settlers. According to all other sources i read, the conflict was caused because the US wanted to take their reservation and send them to another. The Nez percé didn´t want, and escaped then until they got stopped. Steve 16/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.102.254 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wondered about that when re-ordering and sectioning the listings today; sounds like US Army propaganda inherited from the Indian Campaigns age; you'll note I rejigged the sentence order e.g. Nez Perce War or Nez Perce Campaign, which had been the other way around and I suppose was an inheritance from the "campaigns" page. I suspect there's lots of similar little bits here which need to be corrected. Also the use of "Anglo" settlers there is weird, esepcially if meaning Americans; in Canada it's a very francophone-based usage, "us" and "them", or implying Anglo-Saxon WASPism....not a term I expect to see in US history except maybe when concerning Hispanic history....Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption of Sitting Bull's portrait

The current caption of the portrait of Sitting Bull reads "Sitting Bull, the Native American leader." This strikes me as very ambiguous, and unnecessarily so. Sitting Bull was not a leader of all Native Americans, which is a possible interpretation of the caption; rather, he was a Hunkpapa Lakhota chief. To avoid needless ambiguity, I've changed the caption to "Sitting Bull, Hunkpapa Lakhota chief". Hopefully no one objects. Are there any other suggestions? --Miskwito 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better, although it is unfortunate Hunkpapa Lakhota links to only a stub. Given that he became head chief of the Lakota nation, could that reference be used instead? -- Ctatkinson 00:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable enough --Miskwito 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Campaigns article deletion

I proposed deleting the Indian Campaigns article, which duplicates some of the info here, but was apparently written by the U.S. Army and copied to that article. I think it whitewashes U.S. & Army actions, isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, and salvaging any verifiable, neutral facts would take more work than rewriting it. Rewriting seems pointless since much is covered here anyway. However, it seems that opinions are pretty evenly split on the deletion discussion. I'm mentioning it here as people with an interest in the topic may bring additional insight to the topic. The deletion discussion is here. -Agyle 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Indian Wars (United States)"

I am in favor of renaming this article Indian Wars (United States). That title would avoid any ambiguity. Funnyhat 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah, good idea, though I just added/reordered the Canadian-side ones (including adding hte Riel Rebellions adn Poundmaker's War....).Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this seems like as good a section as any to point to this which I just wrote about the Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America article, which I suggest be then renamed to Indian wars (non-United States) which doesn't entirely reduce the ambiguities, including Indian v. Indian wars which could be meant by that phrase still for now, but at least it's a less cumbersome phrase for the Russian/Mexican/Spanish/French/British/Dutch etc wars/conflicts.Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] resource

Not sure if anyone else has found it, but looking for other stuff I found Church's Indian Wars from 1675 to 1704 by Thomas Church, esq. Published 1716 and 1854. Not my turf but someone here might find it useful; also in teh same directory there's J.A. Costello's History of the Northwest - Siwash and other works of the same kind.Skookum1 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

also this which is about the North-West Territory aka Ohio et al; someone here might find it useful, if they haven't found it already; or maybe pls put it on the approrpriate page/talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)