Talk:Native American/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 2005 and early September 2005.

Contents

Map

We could really use a map of the pre-Columbian locations of the different peoples. Especially one that covers the whole continent (or both Americas). I'm having trouble finding this information. --Tydaj 17:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first problem would be how to fit 500 or 1000 peoples on one map and make it still readable. It would be too detailed for a small image on the page. The second problem is that a lot of the bands were not settled but moved in response to climate, war, or disasters -even before Columbus. In many cases we don't know where they lived before Columbus - in some places we can find pre-Columbian remains but have only the slightest idea what Indian cluture they belong to, much less what tribe. To make a simpler map, you would have to pick a limited number of tribes or tribal groups or "cultures" to map. Rmhermen 20:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
i have created a map of American languages north of Mexico for wikipedia, available on the Native American languages page (or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Langs_N.Amer.png). it is of language families, so not entirely what you want, but better than the emptiness that was before. still it is lacking in precise detail since extreme precision was not my intention. it is, of course, a work in progress & comments are very welcome. for a very good map of North America see Goddard (1996) or better yet Goddard (1999).
i slightly disagree that a super-big map with 1000 peoples would be a bad idea. it probably cant be very printable, but viewing on a computer would be ok—one could resize to get a big picture view or a close-up view with small details. but, the point mentioned above is very important: it is best to look at many differents maps and to read a lot to get a better understanding a given people's geographic distribution (current and historical). peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 08:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Early History

I have removed these sections:

  • According to Mormon doctrine, Native Americans are descendants of Lehi and the Lamanites, Israelites who came to the Americas c. 590 BC. As Mormon doctrine holds, Lehi's children split into two warring groups after arriving in the New World -- the kind-hearted, white-skinned Nephites and the marauding, brown-skinned Lamanites. These people originally had white skin like the Nephites but, according to Mormon doctrine, due to their warring nature they were cursed by God to have dark skin. "They turned away and became so wicked that God cursed them with this dark and benighted and loathsome condition." (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young. Compiled by John A. Widtsoe. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978.) The Lamanites, Mormons believe, ultimately exterminated the Nephites in the 5th century A.D., and their offspring are among the people the rest of the world commonly refers to today as American Indians. It is Mormon belief that the American Indians who first met Europeans treated them like gods because they had knowledge of their fair-skinned roots and had a prophecy that Jesus (who also had fair skin) would one day return to their land. There are extensive studies (archeological, linguistic, etc.) being performed at Brigham Young University that aim to prove these beliefs.

Let's wait until they (the extensive studies at Brigham Young University) have been published before we include this paragraph.

Although proposing an equally plausible theory as the Mormom version, again may I recommend that we at least cite a reference before we include this paragraph.

I have restored these appropriate sections. Please note that the native Americans own beliefs have not been subjected to verification studies conducted by themselves. But that doesn't mean that they or the Mormons don't believe in their respective beliefs. For the second paragraph please add a reference if you think it needs one, don't just remove content. Rmhermen 14:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


I'm the one who expanded the section. I'm part Cherokee myself, and I am insulted by the whole idea of being "cursed" to be dark. Part of the reason I wanted it to be there is so that people can hopefully come to their own conclusion that the whole theory is silly - which isn't very proper of me, I know. UtmostCathode 18:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The following was addeded Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 -- 12:54pm by: Mormon Follower and Believer GP.

Hi UtmostCathode and SerpLord (from below), I am Mormon and as a Beleiver and Studious Reader of "The Book of Mormon" I have to tell you that "The Book of Mormon" in NO way mentions, shows, nor gives reference to Racism towards ANY race or individual. I believe that others have a misunderstanding of the word Race and Racist. Look them up for yourself at www.dictionary.com [1].
Mormons do not stand for "putting down people". Mormon's HAVE NEVER, WILL NEVER AND CANNOT EVER be RACIST. No one can, nor should, be able call themselves Mormon and say that they, or that WE, are Racist. Mormons stand for the Love of all and good for all Mankind. I wrote that Mormons "CANNOT EVER" become racist, this is because Racism ABSOLUTElY contradicts the Mormon religion, our beliefs and degrades our values . One cannot truely love another and be prejudice or racist towards them. I tell you this now and let it be known, THAT MORMONS (as a religion and whole) ARE NOT RACIST, in the sense of prejudice nor in any other perspective. If one calls him/herself Mormon but is racist, than they either have a misunderstanding of the word "racist" or are probably confused (not to jump to any conclusions of course).

I hope you now know and understand that Mormons (as a whole) are not racist and that "The Book of Mormon" makes no implication in ANY of its context about being racist or having racism towards others.

I agree with UtmostCathode on what he wrote below that "The whole paragraph about the Mormons is an extreme oversimplification of Mormon beliefs." Thanks!

If any of you have any questions or comments on My beliefs and Morminism please feel free to email me at day17jr@yahoo.com. Thanks! Take care and have a good summer.

--Day17jr 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)



The whole paragraph about the Mormons is an extreme oversimplification of Mormon beliefs. It almost seems as if it was deliberately phrased in this way to make Mormons look racist. One only need speak to any of the literally millions of Mormons of indigenous American ancestry in the world, or any Mormon of any ancestry who is educated on the subject for that matter, to understand that this paragraph does not accurately represent modern thinking among the Mormons.

I understand why you would think that. However, I actually had an LDS colleague of mine review what I wrote before I submitted it. And it should be known that he is a pretty deep believer. Fyi, he maintains that it was only a curse back then because humans were more racist then and that would be the appropriate punishment/curse at the time - and that God would never curse one in that way in the present day. UtmostCathode 10:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)


Consulting one LDS colleague is probably not enough to make a statement like "according to Mormon Doctrine". As in any religion, there are differing opinions among its adherents. Perhaps an appropriate method would be to quote an official church statement of the LDS church regarding its doctrines about the indigenous american peoples if you are going to use the phrase - "according to Mornmon Doctrine". (Rather than quoting a snippet of a non-canonized Brigham Young statement from over 100 years ago, which never even mentions skin color, by the way). Also, using the phrases like "the kind-hearted, white-skinned Nephites and the marauding, brown-skinned Lamanites" is a distortion of the Book of Mormon and is quite obviuosly put in there to inflame the reader. (In reality the book of mormon is a complex religious history of several peoples over hundreds of years; there were various instances where Lamanites were the kind hearted ones, and the Nephites were marauders.) Also, regarding the curse, many Mormons maintain that the skin color itself was not a curse - simply a mark to distinguish between and separate two peoples - this is in fact what I was taught in the LDS church growing up in the 80's (Though admittedly, this has not always been the prevailing opinion among the LDS). Again though, if you are going to say "the Mormons believe.." or "LDS Doctrine says..." etc... you should probably quote something official and current. At any rate, for the purposes of this article, the paragraph could probably be trimmed down to simply state that the Mormons believe that ancient Isralites migrated to America and that indigenous americans are descended from these people. (Incidentally, The Book of Mormon never mentions that they were the FIRST ones or the ONLY ones to inhabit the continent, or that ALL indigenous peoples are descended from Book of Mormon peoples - a common misconception even among Mormons) People reading this article are here to read about Native Americans, so anyone who wants to know details about the Mormon Church or The Book of Mormon can obviously click on the links, so I would suggest that perhaps you leave it at a simple relevant statement and leave out your opinions about "silly" doctrines.

I agree with your encyclopedic points - but we could debate religion and interpretations of Mormonism all day long. I think it may expand too much for this article, so I'm going to shorten it to basically what it was before I editted it. However, my interpretation of the religion remains the same - Mormonism's foundation has racist elements. I'm sure you see it differently.
I hope no one minds that I combined the two sequential and identically titled "Early History" sections that seem to be one continuous thread. I am a Mormon, and I think the accusations of racism are fair. Certainly the people described in the book of mormon had racist ideas, and many Mormons (including leaders and scholars) today and in the last two centuries held racist ideas. I would rather see the deleted paragraph restored in it's current form than removed entirely. I do have suggestions for the deleted section:
The first sentence should read "some Native Americans." Mormons do not believe that all native americans are descended from Lehi. The rest of the paragraph reflects this, and a small change to the first sentence would make it consistent.
The [Book of Mormon] does not describe the Nephites as "kind-hearted." Using that phrase not only exaggerates the the racism in the Book of Mormon to cartoonish proportions, it contradicts the text entirely, which often describes the Nephites as being proud and hard-hearted. The terms "righteous" or "civilized" in contrast to "maurading" would acurately reflect the books description of the two races.
Finally, the phrase "according to Mormon doctrine" is repeated. One of these could be changed to "according to the Book of Mormon" or "according to Mormon scripture." and link to the Book of Mormon. This would make the paragraph more interesting and useful. There are even some people who believe in the validity of the Book of Mormon without accepting any other aspect of Mormon doctrine.
As a side note, I noticed one of the replies capitalized both words in the phrase "Mormon Doctrine." Mormon Doctrine is the title of an extremely controversial book by late Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. This is one reason I think you should avoid repeating the phrase "Mormon doctrine." Some very interesting information is coming out about this because the notes of the personal secretary of the mormon prophet at the time (David O. McKay) have been donated to the University of Utah.
Regardless of whatever interesting research comes out of BYU or the U of U, the basic Mormon beliefs and scriptures aren't likely to change, any more than the native american stories about their own origins have changed, and the racist aspects are what they are, no matter how carefully you try to word it. (I think racism is disgusting, I'm just saying we shouldn't try to erase it from history.) Is there any reason not to restore the deleted paragraph with a little modification such as my suggestions?
--SerpLord 17:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This might be useful for this page. http://www.sidis.net/TSContents.htm

Ancient American cultures

Another article: Ancient American cultures, has been started. It tries to deal with those Native American cultures that are not existant anymore. Currently a disambiguation page. --Eleassar777 10:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget about the History of the Americas article which covers some of this material. Rmhermen 14:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

religion?

one of my goals is to make a list of and memorize the names of ALL native american indian tribes. definitely including those from mexico, central america, south america, and the west indies.

another thing i'm curious about: has every indian tribe had it's own tribal religion, at least historically? Gringo300 07:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

See Classification of Native Americans for a list of many of the hundreds of tribes. Many of the tribes were closely related and had closely related religions as well certain themes and characters re-occur in wide regions among many groups. Rmhermen 17:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)


Speaking from my own knowledge of tradition, history, and customs of several tribes from the eastern woodland areas, I can say that many tribes did have their own religions or religious practices. However, there are some definite similarities due to the fact that many tribes, all over north america, originated from a larger tribe. As far as the woodland tribes, the Ojibwe, Potowatomi, and Ottawa(Odawa), descend from an ancient people alled the Lenni Lenape (known today as the Delaware). In fact, the Lenni Lenape are the original people from which many tribal nations trace their ancestry. In an epic story known as the Wallum Olum, recorded on bark tablets and song sticks, is a record of early migration and is the oldest recorded account of people in North America, dating back before 1600 b.c. This story is what connects us ( Ojibwe, Potowatomi, Odawa ) as cousins to westaern and midwestern tribes - Blackfeet, Cheyenne, Cree, Shawnee, and Miami to name a few. Also a northern journey connects us (Anishinabe as a collective tribe ), to the eastern nations , including the Passamaquaddy, Penobscot, and Wampanoag. More recently our ancetors began a westward migration as one people ( Anishinabe ), only to split into seperate natons, Ojibway ( Chippewa ), Odawa (Ottawa), and Potawatomi. This journey eventually led us to Madeline Island ( just offshore Red Cliff, WI ) I could talk of this all day, but won't. As for the "religion" of any tribe, it is not generally viewed as a religion, but a way to live, the very essence of what it is to be Anishinabe. Among the Three Fires (Ojibwe,Odawa,Potowatomi), traditions and practices are essentually the same, with minor linguistic and ritual differances. If one was to compare the beliefs of all North American tribes, the similarities would present themselves in the form of stories, cultural icons, and many traditions. In the storyof Humankind, differant cultures tell parallel stories about the creation of this universe and about the creaton of the Earth. It may never be known if these similarities are the result of a more recent melding of cultures or if these stories have a cokkon beginning in a much larger story that has been passed down in the ancestral memory of many peoples. One example is the ancient Ojibwe story of creation, which parallels the account in the Bible's Book of Genesis. For more info see "Ojibwe: wassa inaabidaa - e look in all directions/Thomas Peacock,Marlene Wisuri. Afton Historical Society Press/ www.aftonpress.com ISBN -1-8904-33-7 --24.180.90.163 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You raise some good points, and the various related articles would benefit if the appropriately-cited (ie, beyond one's own personal experience and knowledge) details and clarifications were to be added to them. Please, feel free to go ahead and further improve wikipedia's coverage of these matters!--cjllw | TALK 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Former Usage of 'Native'

Was the usage of the phrase 'Native American' different prior to it replacing 'Indians'? Did it used to mean any American born in the country, regardless of whether or not they're ancestors were immigrants?

The term you are looking for is nativist. Rmhermen 17:33, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

In the Second Paragraph

Please excuse me, gentlemen, but should not the sentence "Although all Amerindians are Native Americans, not all Native Americans are Amerindians," instead be "Although all Native Americans are Amerindians, not all Amerindians are Native Americans?" Anglius

I don't think so. Inuit (and perhaps some other peoples) can be considered Native Americans, but they are not generally considered to be Amerindians. older≠wiser 21:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for your interesting reply, sir. Anglius
Non-Amerind peoples are (1) Eskimo-Aleut peoples (= Aleut, Eskimo, Yupik, Inuit) and (2) Na-Dene (=Haida, Tlingit, Eyak, & the many Athabaskan peoples). Everyone else from Canada to the tip of South America are Amerind. You could also exclude peoples that are from European and indigeous lineage, such as the Métis. Amerind is a hypothetical linguistic grouping proposed by Joseph Greenberg (which is not accepted by most specialists), but this proposal of only 3 language groups (i.e. Eskimo, Nadene, Amerind) has its beginnings in early thinkers. I dont know about archaeologists or physical anthropologists' usage of this term (except that unfortunately they sometimes assume that Greenberg was right & use his 3-way grouping in their experiment models). peace — ishwar  (SPEAK) 08:26, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
I thank you for your explanation, Mr. Ishwar. --Anglius 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

usage of "Native American"

I noticed that my attempts to clarify why "Native American" was first used where reverted, I'd just like to explain why I changed it back... What I meant by erasing the references to political correctness and emphasising the innacuratness of the term "Indian" was that the introduction of the term "Native American" was not primarily an attempt at political correctness but was infact driven by the need for academics and scientists to be precise in what they say. In most of the world the word "Indian" refers not to the aboriginal peoples of the Americas but to the nation of India in South Asia, and it makes sense to coin a new term such as "Native American", or possibly "Amerind", to allow these groups to be distinguished. Although, yes, I understand that the term Native American can be seen as an attempt to whitewash the history of the colonization of the New World, I think it should be made clear that this was not the intention of the people who first devised it. --81.135.155.55 12:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I've been told by an expert in greek which is likewise proficient in latin that "indian" would indeed come from a word meaning "from this place"/"from here"... Check that please.

the general consensus is that "India" and "Indian", as well as the related word "Hindu", is ultimately derived from the Sanskrit name for the Indus River, "Sindhu", and passed through both Persian and Greek before it came to Latin, where it eventually came to describe the whole sub-continent rather than simply the area around the Indus river. As such the word has no relation to the Old Latin "indu"/ Old Greek "endo-" meaning "within" (which forms the first half of the English "indigenous", which is what I think you may be referring to), although its certainly a nice idea. --81.135.155.55 01:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Connection to Chinese

I read an article which claimed Native Americans and Chinese are genetically related. It used an interesting example amongst others. It stated that both Chinese and Native American new born babies have green birthmarks on their buttucks and such trait is not found in Caucasian or Afrian babies. I am kind of curious of the validity of such claim. I can only confirmed that ALL the limited Chinese baby butts that I have seen have green birth marks. I remember hearing a story from a Chinese American parent who got into trouble when his kid's pre-school teacher noticed the green mark on the kid's butt. She thought the birth mark was a bruised mark and called social work suspecting child abuse. That is one indication that green butts are unknown outside of Chinese culture.

I would like to do an informal survey with the wikipedian parents here. Are green butts really unique in Chinese and Native American babies? I'd need positive answers from Chinese and Native American people and negative answers from others. Any counter example will disprove this claim. 67.117.82.2 22:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an example of wonderfully racist and narrow-minded mind. What is the point? Humor? It isn't funny. Howe about an attempt to make a point?? Well, it doesn't work on that level either. It is merely moronic.-----Keetoowah 15:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The point is to learn something new everyday. Thanks to the reply below, I learned the scientific term Mongolian spot. I also learned that the artticle I read was false because those spots are not unique to Chinese and Native Americans. Perhaps by your standards, you would call it moronic spot. No one knows what point those dermatologists tried to make by researching into this. I am just glad that some scientists are as moronic as I am. I am a minority in the US and I think those people who overreact and label everything racist are very insecure individuals. What bothered you that much? Too embarassed to have a green butt or don't want any ties with the Chinese race? 67.117.82.2 19:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


What you are talking about is usually called a "Mongolian spot". It occures in East Asians, American Indians, and Blacks far more frequently than in white infants.

Mongolian Spot Synonyms and related keywords: congenital dermal melanocytosis

Author: Abdul-Ghani Kibbi, MD, Chairman, Professor, Department of Dermatology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon

Background: Mongolian spot refers to a macular blue-gray pigmentation usually on the sacral area of normal infants. It is present at birth and typically disappears spontaneously within 4 years.

Pathophysiology: The Mongolian spot is a congenital, developmental condition exclusively involving the skin. It results from entrapment of melanocytes in the dermis during their migration from the neural crest into the epidermis.

Frequency:

Internationally: The prevalence of Mongolian spots varies among different ethnic groups. This condition is most common among Asians. It also has been reported in 80% of East African children, in 46% of Hispanic children, and in 1-9% of Caucasian children.

Mortality/Morbidity: No associated mortality or morbidity exists.

Race: Mongolian spots are observed in more than 90% of infants of the Mongoloid race (ie, East Asians, Indonesians, Polynesians, Micronesians, Amerindians, Eskimos).

Sex: No sex predilection exists.

Age: Usually, Mongolian spot is present at birth.

i dont have any comment on this really, but here is the relevant article here: Mongolian spot. peace – ishwar  (speak) 04:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Indians"

The traditional explanation of the origin of the term Indian is apocryphal. Eratosthenes of Cyrene had estimated the size of Earth around 200 B.C. to within 7% of the value we know today. Columbus had this knowledge before he set sail on his first voyage to the New World, and most likely suspected that he hadn't really reached the Indies, even lacking the aid of a chronometer to gauge his speed accurately. The only problem with his plan to reach the Indies by sailing west was that the New World unexpectedly got in the way. If he wrote in his letter that he had reached the Indies, it most likely was a ploy to cover his butt, since he'd blown a fortune in Ferdinand and Isabella's money on the venture. This small subterfuge held him in good stead, as he was able find funding to complete three subsequent voyages to the New World.
The "Straight Dope" quote posted anonymously by User:24.187.47.143, below, is fraught with inaccuracies. It is a near-certainty that the Columbus we know as the explorer wasn't born in Genoa. More likely, he was born of Castilian nobility, Spanish was his native tongue, and he had extensive training in navigation and seamanship before undertaking his first voyage The names by which we know him were assumed, to hide his true identity, for reasons historians can only guess. He remains a man of mystery. For a contemporary examination of these issues, see the Discovery Channel documentary, Columbus: Secrets From the Grave.
I think it is more probable that Indian in this context is an English corruption of indígena, the Spanish adjective meaning "indigenous", still applied to Native Americans in some parts of Latin America. Perhaps the first paragraph under What Name? should have a note added reflecting this information. This insight came to me a couple of years ago while watching a documentary on Costa Rica, and one of the local speakers made reference to the indígenos (pronounced "in-dih-HEH-nos"). -- Quicksilver 01:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Quicksilver, you can speculate about indígena, but until you find some other notable source which puts forward this proposed derivation, it should not be included. IMO this is highly fanciful- if this is to be explained as an english corruption of a spanish word, how do you then account for the very many references in spanish documents of the time, to los Indios" (the people) and "las Indias" (the place)? Surely native spanish speakers themselves would not get confused between "indígena" and references to the East Indies ("las Indias Orientales"). Whether Columbus really believed what he wrote about reaching the Indies, we can only speculate- Eratosthenes's relatively accurate calculation of the Earth's circumference was only one estimate amongst many, was not generally held, and AFAIK we've nothing to indicate that Columbus accepted or relied on this figure.--cjllw | TALK 02:49, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

An anonymous user just added text that contradicts the widely-believed idea that the term "Indians", as applied to the "Native Americans" he encountered, came from an error in identifying his landing point as the Indian subcontinent. This new text claims that it came from a poor rendition of the phrase "una gente in Dios" ("a people in God"). This begs the question of what sources we have for either of these statements. Unless and until we can source either of them, perhaps we should consider both of these supposed origins as speculations? — Jeff Q (talk) 00:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


From Straight Dope with citations and backup documentation http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgenteindios.html

Dear Straight Dope:

What's the truth about the origin of the term "American Indian"? Schoolchildren have long been taught that Columbus thought he had reached the Indies, and therefore called the inhabitants "Indians." But lately I've been hearing the story that: (a) The Indies weren't even called the Indies at the time, but Hindustan; (b) Columbus didn't call the locals "Indians" but referred to them as "una geste in Dios", meaning "a people in God"; (c) somehow this caused people in Spain to start using the term "Indians"; and (d) Europeans then started using the geographical term "Indies" through back-formation. This explanation sounds like wishful thinking to me, with (c) and (d) particularly hard to swallow. Yet I've seen this stated as fact on some Indian Web sites, and it's doubtless being taught as fact in some schoolrooms. Is it possible to find the truth in this matter? --Steven Doyle, Atlanta, Georgia

SDSTAFF George replies:

The best way to determine the truth in cases like this, Steve, is to go to the source--in this case, Columbus's original letter, through which word of the new lands and their inhabitants was disseminated throughout Europe (see links below). In this letter Columbus repeatedly refers to India and Indians, and says nothing whatever about "a people in God."

First, let's get the supposed phrase right. The Spanish word for people is gente, not geste. Note that the supposed derivation requires Columbus to have made an error in spelling, since "in" in Spanish is en; the word in doesn't exist in the language. I'll have more to say on this point later.

Second, let's dispose of the notion that India was called something else at the time. The name, derived from the Indus River (from Sanskrit sindhu, "a river"), goes back to antiquity. Alexander the Great referred to the Indus (Indos), and to the region's inhabitants as Indikoi, as early as the third century B.C. The name passed from Greek into Latin and thence into other European languages, the earliest citation in English being in 893 A.D. by King Alfred the Great. At the time of Columbus's voyage, "India" or "the Indias/Indies" was often used to refer to all of south and east Asia. Columbus carried with him a passport from Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, written in Latin and dispatching him "toward the regions of India" (ab partes Indie) on their behalf. Martin Beheim's globe of 1492, which predated the voyage, clearly labels the region as "Indie." "Hindustan," also derived from the Indus River, is a much later term, not appearing in English until 1665. In any case, in Spanish that name is not Hindustan but Indostan.

Third, let's look at what Columbus actually said. The admiral wrote a letter, in Spanish, detailing his discoveries while off the Azores during his homeward voyage. He forwarded this to the royal court, then at Barcelona, shortly after his storm-driven arrival in Lisbon on March 4, 1493. The original manuscript has not survived, but a printed copy made shortly after its receipt has. In the first paragraph Columbus says "In 33 days I passed from the Canary Islands to the Indies" (en 33 días pasé de las islas de Canaria a las Indias). His first reference to the inhabitants comes in the second paragraph: "To the first [island] which I found I gave the name San Salvador . . . the Indians call it Guanahaní" (A la primera que yo hallé puse nombre San Salvador . . . los Indios la llaman Guanahaní). In all he makes six references to India or the Indies, and four to Indios. Nowhere in the letter does he use a phrase resembling una gente in Dios. He says little of the spiritual beliefs of the people--at one point he states, "These people practice no kind of idolatry; on the contrary they firmly believe that all strength and power, and in fact all good things are in heaven, and that I had come down from thence with these ships and sailors;" at another he says "they are very ready and favorably inclined" to be converted to Christianity--but that's about it.

Shortly after Columbus's arrival, a copy of the letter reached Rome, where it was translated into Latin, and printed in early May. This version rapidly became a "best seller" throughout western Europe, with no fewer than eleven editions being produced in Spain, Italy, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands in 1493 alone. Of course, the fact that the news was circulated in Latin and not Spanish by itself pretty much puts paid to the supposed derivation. (The phrases corresponding to the ones quoted above are Tricesimotercio die postquam Gadibus discessi: in mare Indicû perueni and primeque earum: diui Saluatoris nomê imposui . . . Eam vero Indi Guanahanyn vocant.)

The only hint of plausibility in the story is that "in" is in fact in in Italian, and so might be the kind of slip one could expect the Genoa-born Columbus to make. However, oddly enough, Columbus almost never wrote in Italian (and then, not more than a phrase or two), writing even to his family and Genoese friends in Spanish. Born poor, he appears to have been virtually illiterate when he left Genoa as a young man, not learning to read and write until he settled in Portugal. According to Samuel Eliot Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea, "he wrote Castilian with Portuguese spellings, especially in the vowels, which prove he spoke Portuguese before he learned Castilian." And in Portuguese, "in" is em.

Actually, the land that Columbus most eagerly sought was not India itself, but "the noble island of Cipangu [Japan] . . . most fertile in gold, pearls, and precious stones." Who knows? If Columbus had managed to convince himself he had actually reached Japan, today Ohioans might well be rooting for the Cleveland Cipangans.

For an English translation of Columbus's letter: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/columbus/translation.html

For the Spanish text: http://ensayo.rom.uga.edu/antologia/XV/colon/

For the Latin text: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/columbus/transcription.html

--SDSTAFF George Straight Dope Science Advisory Board

above text posted by User:24.187.47.143 07:51, 26 Jun 2005
After verifying the above links, I reverted the recent article changes. (It might be a good idea to add a blurb to the article mentioning this other theory and why it doesn't pan out.) — Jeff Q (talk) 21:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents here, in Portuguese "in Dios" (of God) would actually mean "de Deus" e not "em Deus" as putted in the text. Great post by 24.187.47.143.... LtDoc 22:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry LtDoc, but "in Dios" (or, more correctly, "en Dios") is "em Deus", or "in God" (not "of God"). It may seem like a strange expression in modern Portuguese, but that's what it means. -- tmegapscm

Use of term "Native American"

Is there any currency for the use of the term outside of the US (and maybe Canada)? Amerind/Amerindian is used for Mesoamerican and South American indigenous people. I have only very rarely seen the term Native American used. Guettarda 30 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)

See the section above "In the Second Paragraph" for details on the restricted definition of the term Amerindian. Rmhermen June 30, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
It's exactly that with which I disagree. Based on usage most (but not all) Native Americans are Amerindians, but most Amerindians are not Native Americans. Guatemalan Mayans in Florida are not considered Native Americans, for example. In my experience this usage is inaccurate, and it's all the more troubling since Amerindian re-directs here. I may be mistaken, there may be more widespread use. But it has not been my experience. Guettarda 30 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
It is that which shows that ALL are considered Native Americans but only some are considered Amerindians by some definitions. It has been my experience that Meso or South American Indians are considered Native Americans. Perhaps it is a local usage issue? Rmhermen June 30, 2005 18:06 (UTC)
There's a lot of talk of personal experience here. Can anyone provide sources? — Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 18:26 (UTC)

Any South American educational source will tell you that the "indians" who lived in South or Central America were either Mesoamericans or Amerindians. Being brazilian myself, I can vouch for that. Its "general knowledge" here that the people who inhabited the lands where USA is today are called "Native Americans", most likely because of the cultural pression USA used on it. Amerindian, whoever, is a term that refers to the Aztecs, Toltecs, Maya, Inca, Olmecs and others as such, thus used almost always to refer to people of mesoamerica.

What the article lacks, and shocked me deeply, is the information about the vast number of tribes of indians (as in Latin America are called those who inhabited the part east of the Andes) such as the Tupi, Tupi-Guarani, Tupinambá, Tapajós, Xingu (etc, etc) tribes, which in many cases had populations larger that say, the Sioux.LtDoc 02:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article by Mexican historian Enrique Krauze in which he uses "Native American" (and, fwiw, African American) in a non-restricted (ie, not limited to the USA) sense. ("American", however, he does save for US-ians.) Unfortunately (echoing LtDoc), this article's coverage south of the Río Grande is sketchy at best. –Hajor 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Good evening. Speaking as a Canadian aboriginal (I am Gitxsan), we don't as a general rule use the term Native American to describe ourselves. That's a term we Canadians associate exclusively with indigenous peoples of USA. We use a variety of terms here, including First Nations, aboriginals, and indigenous people. Our older generations still use Indians, because that's what our federal government called us in the Indian Act. TheGitksan 07:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Break out section on the U.S.?

What would other editors think about breaking out the U.S. sectin as American Indians in the United States or something like that? It seems to work okay for the Canadian section. This article is a little too long as it stands. - Nat Krause 08:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It is too long, and moreover, the section on Native Americans in the US is really only a history of Native American relations with the United States. It is not a general history of Native Americans in North America. It is basically the story of the destruction of their culture, rather than the story of their culture. That's unsatisfactory.

The cultural section, which at least is not a simple story of resistance and conquest, suffers from having to jump across vast ranges of land and peoples. Generalizations about all indigenous peoples on two continents often don't make any sense at all. The article needs to be subdivided into logical parts.

Which name? section

The article states, "Generally, ethnic groups desire that others use the name they give themselves. This preference has gained importance recently as a means of avoiding ethnic discrimination." Really? How many languages are there where white people are referred to as "white people"? Or Europeans as "Europeans", or Westerners as "Westerners"? In China, they call Americans meiguoren, a fact which has never bothered me; likewise, they seem utterly unperturbed that we non-Chinese English speakers call them "Chinese" instead of zhongguoren.

"It also says, Despite the preferences of American Indians, American teachers and academics (excepting many historians, who generally use the historical term) have persuaded most "white" Americans to use the term "Native Americans"." Do we have evidence for this? It might well be true in relatively formal settings, like schools, but I suspect that most of the time, white Americans still say Indians. - Nat Krause 12:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why can't we just call them first Americans? I've been taught my whole life that they were Native Americans, yet, at the same time, I have also been told the term "Native" refers to where someone was born I.E.Native Texan,Native Iowan, so technically, anyone who is born in America, is, in fact, a native American, I honestly thnk we should call them the first Americans. (-unsigned by 70.150.89.103)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I feel that this article should be renamed from "Native Americans" to "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" for several reasons. First, this article is currently the primary focus of both Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Category:Native American, two categories with distinctly different scopes. I can only speak for my experiences in Canada, but here the term "Native American" is never used to refer to all of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Rather, the term "Native American" is understood as a term in use in the United States as only referring to the indigenous peoples of what is now that country. Therefore, for a global encyclopedia, it would be incorrect to categorize all indigenous peoples of the Americas as "Native Americans".

I would propose a revision of the Native American article, where it would keep only content on indigenous peoples in the United States. This would mean all other content of the current article would be moved to Indigenous peoples of the Americas, with the addition of an introductory paragraph about Native Americans, and a link to the fuller article. In the current article this is what is done for the subject of the First Nations in Canada. The section titles of the new Indigenous peoples of the Americas article would be changed from "Native Americans in Canada" or "Native Americans in Guatemala" to "Indigenous peoples in Canada" and "Indigenous peoples in Guatemala". Suggestions and comments? Kurieeto 22:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that renaming & refocusing is in order. Right now the article attempts to cover too broad a spectrum under the U.S. term "Native American", so more time is spent discussing terminology as invented and understood by European-Americans instead discussing the people supposedly the subject of the article. So, combining Kurieeto and Nat Krause's suggestions, I think we need to divide the current article into something like the following:
  1. Indigenous peoples of the Americas -- overview of original inhabitants of the hemisphere, and their descendants
  2. American Indians in the United States -- long overdue article
  3. Native American -- a discussion of the term, where it is used, to whom it does and does not apply, etc., with links to the appropriate articles, e.g. First Nations, American Indians in the United States, Alaskan Native, etc.
  4. American Indian -- same as #3.
--Kevin Myers 04:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I would support such work, however, I would suggest that care be used. For example, Canada and the United States share native cultures in many parts of Alaska and the northern U.S. Also, natives of Mexico exist in both the U.S. and Mexico (and both in some very strange cases). In the end, this article needs to reflect all of the groups that are refered to as Native American in the U.S., even if that means that there is some overlap. -Harmil 04:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made an initial attempt at splitting the US and non-US article content as proposed. Please see this article and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Any errors or omissions are unintentional. Kurieeto 00:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I reverted this atttempt. First while I support splitting because of the vast scope of this material, little debate has occured and Kurieeto did not follow the schema proposed by Kevin Myers above. It went so far as to erroneously proclaim in the first paragraph that Native American is a U.S. term for Indians living in the USA only. Which this talk page has already repeatedly shown is not true. Rmhermen 05:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
My intent was not to ignore Kevin Myers' schema, but to provide a starting point for subsequent re-organization by splitting the US/non-US content. My apologies if this talk page has established that Native American is more than a U.S. term for Indians living in the USA only, I was unaware that had been established as consensus. Kurieeto 05:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've reviewed this talk page and other articles. I do not agree that consensus has been reached on Wikipedia that the scope of the term "Native American" spans indigenous peoples beyond the borders of what is now the United States. The scope of the Native Americans article should match the scope of Category:Native American, and Category:Native American has been listed for months at only the Category:Indigenous peoples of the United States level. My reverted edit provided a starting point to work from in the creation of the proposed American Indian and American Indians in the United States articles. Kurieeto 14:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that if you will restrict the current article to only peoples within the borders of the US, then perhaps the article should be renamed something like Native Americans in the US to make this clear. Although one usage of the term Native American may include people within the US, another usage of the term includes all indigenous peoples.
Perhaps another thing would be to have this Native American page redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. A Native Americans in the US could be in the See also section of Indigenous peoples of the Americas.
This further subdivision of articles into geographic and political subarticles will definitely allow greater detail within the respective articles which will be good, I think, given the enormity of the subject. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:01, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
I would strongly advise that "Native American" only encompass the indigenous peoples in what is now the United States, as the term in Canada is never used in common language to refer to the First Nations, Inuit, or Métis. Additionally we have gone with "Indigenous peoples" for categories such as Category:Indigenous peoples of North America, Category:Indigenous peoples of South America, etc. Kurieeto 05:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should not use terms that have ambiguous meanings. Rather than advising, we can use unambiguous terms, such as indigeous peoples of the Americas. If we want to restrict the scope to certain geo-political regions, we can simply state this in the article's title. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:46, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

regarding Wikipedia consensus of the scope of Native American, if there is no consensus it is because the term is being used with different scopes. I think that for many readers Native American refers to peoples beyond the US border. This is indeed the normal usage for me. Perhaps the usage with the scope being only within the US is more a Canadian usage? Perhaps the scope and the nesting of the categories is inappropriate as well. As mentioned above, this can be remedied by some indication of geo-political region in the name of the article or category. peace – ishwar  (speak) 17:55, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
As a Canadian, I agree that Native American is an ambiguous term. I've heard it used for both the Native peoples of the US and the Native peoples of the Americas and find I always have to read more carefully upon seeing the term in print to see to which country they are referring. It is also unhelpful when one considers that so many First Nations cover both sides of the border. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I put a suggestion here: Category talk:Native American. – ishwar  (speak) 18:12, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

If we move/change this page, we have to make sure someine uses a disambug bot. I notice over 1000 pages link here. Rmhermen 15:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is there support for ishwar's suggestion that the content and scope of this page be divided into two, Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Native Americans in the United States? I would support this idea which would eliminate the current ambiguity regarding this article's use of the term "Native American". Kurieeto 15:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

hi. another name option for a US article could be: Indigenous people in the United States. terms would then be consistent. which is better?
i guess that i still think my suggestion is ok. what says any opposition? – ishwar  (speak) 17:39, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
I would prefer Indigenous peoples in the United States (not Indigenous people in the United States as above, which may be a typo) over Native Americans in the United States. "Indigenous peoples" emphasizes that there is diversity within the group known as "Indigenous people". This title would also more easily allow for the discussion of indigenous peoples in the United States who do not self-identify as Native Americans. Kurieeto 18:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I imagine Indigenous peoples in the United States would be a short article, mainly serving to point to main articles on Native Hawaiians, Alaskan Native, and American Indians in the United States. --Kevin Myers 00:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point having two separate articles on "indigenous peoples" and "American Indians" in the U.S. If we choose the title American Indians in the United States, we can just focus on Indian nations, which includes all the indigenous peoples of the lower 48 states. We can treat Inuit, Yupiks, and Aleuts separately in the relevant articles, as well as Native Hawaiians (who are all in the U.S. anyway). Or we can title the article Indigenous peoples of the United States, and deal with all of the above together. - 12:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there is an important difference between the titles Indigenous peoples in the United States and Indigenous peoples of the United States. "In" is more precise, avoids the implying of indigenous peoples belonging to a state, and is consistent with related articles and categories such as Aboriginal peoples in Canada and Indigenous peoples in Brazil. The proposed Indigenous peoples in the United States article has my support, a Indigenous peoples of the United States article does not.
Now, about the worth of having an article to collectively address all indigenous peoples in a nation. This was also addressed in discussions about Aboriginal peoples in Canada (see that article's talk page), an article which collectively discusses and links away to three indigenous peoples in Canada, the First Nations, the Métis, and the Inuit. To give all indigenous peoples in Canada an equal footing, and to discuss topics that address all three ethnicities, the Aboriginal peoples in Canada article was created. Are there topics that collectively relate to American Indians in the United States, Native Hawaiians, and Alaskan Natives? I think a brief Indigenous peoples in the United States article has enough worth to be on Wikipedia, as it would provide a central starting point for information on the subject. Kurieeto 15:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Lumping them all together in one article would be counterproductive — they'd eventually be separated out into different articles anyway, since Native Hawaiians is already a good-sized article by itself. The Indigenous peoples of the United States article (if used) might only serve as a device to inform people that not all indigenous peoples in the U.S. are American Indians. Perhaps that could be pointed out in the opening paragraph of the American Indian article, and the "Indigenous peoples" article would be, as you say, pointless. --Kevin Myers 13:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've created an indigenous peoples in the United States article because I feel it serves an excellent purpose as a starting point for readers new to the subject. Debate about that specific article's content and worth for inclusion on Wikipedia would be best discussed on its talk page. Kurieeto 21:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

moving forward

Either this article needs to be renamed and have a reduction in scope as proposed, or Indigenous peoples of the Americas needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. This is because the latter is starting to receive edits and be linked to, while these two articles currently have the same scope. Several individuals have voiced support for reducing the scope of this article, and several others have stated that the term "Native Americans" by itself is ambiguous. I therefore propose that this article be renamed to "Native Americans in the United States", and its content be restricted to only indigenous peoples in the continental United States. This would omit Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and the Chamorros, indigenous peoples in the United States for whom there are already articles on Wikipedia. Content not about indigenous peoples in the continental United States would be merged into indigenous peoples of the Americas. Further proposals such as the renaming of this article to American Indians in the United States, or the renaming of categories, can be discussed after the initial renaming of this article has occured. I feel that this is neccessary to move forward. Is there support and/or opposition to this proposal? Kurieeto 16:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I would go for the first path, but make sure that it is clear in both articles that the terminology is not universal and that both articles reference each other clearly. -Harmil 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Given the support expressed above over the past few weeks for a reduction in this article's scope, I will proceed tomorrow with the article renaming and content merging as proposed here on August 19. If there are objections to this proposal please let them be known. Kurieeto 15:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I support splitting the pages. However, considering that the edit history for this article is here, and that, as far as I can tell, indigenous peoples of the Americas will be the destination for the larger share of the current text, I think that the current Native Americans page should be moved to indigenous peoples of the Americas and that American Indians in the United States should be broken out as a new page. This will obscure the edit history less. - Nat Krause 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Because indigenous peoples of the Americas has an edit history we will need an administrator's assistance via Wikipedia:Requested moves to perform that move. I will make the appropriate proposal on that page tomorrow provided there are no objections. Kurieeto 23:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Support. Native Americans is too ambiguate term for the content of the article as it now seems to be. Arrigo 11:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose See below -Harmil 18:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose to moving the article. I agree in general with splitting the content, but the edit history should remain at Native Americans which article should focus on N.A. native culture. older≠wiser 13:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sort of Support Native American is ambiguous, it should be its own dab page as opposed to being a redirect to American Indians in the United States. See my comments below.Luigizanasi 21:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Let's get this over with before Indigenous peoples of the Americas forks even further. –Hajor 05:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common name of US American Indians. – AxSkov (☏) 06:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal is quasi-PC pedantry. It's only logical if you disregard from common usage and... well... common sense. / Peter Isotalo 13:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I voted oppose. In general, I feel that Wikipedia needs an article titled Native Americans which is not simply a redirect. First off, "Native American" is the more common term on the Net ([2] vs. [3]) Second, the term is very widely used in the U.S, and while it is ambiguous outside of the US, it's not inside. We generally don't even use it to refer to Alaska, just continental U.S. pre-European peoples. I'm all for sectioning out the non-US information, putting a disamibig blurb at the top ("This article is about the Native American peoples of the United States. For non-US Indigenous peoples..." etc.), and adding links to this article as needed, but I oppose the re-naming of this article, which should remain and continue to reference Native Americans in the US. -Harmil 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To re-inforce the above and clarify, I just want to say: right goal, wrong questions. Try breaking this down into steps, and ask about the steps. Consensus is much easier that way. -Harmil 19:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One basic question we should be clear about concerns the principle of least astonishment. That is, what information do people expect to find when they go to an article called Native Americans? I suppose most people in the U.S. would expect an article about Tecumseh, Crazy Horse, Wounded Knee, etc., and not necessarily a wider scope, though a disambig blurb at the top linking to a broader article about non-US indigenous peoples would make perfect sense to most Americans. I suspect people outside the U.S. would find this sensible as well. So, I think I basically agree with Harmil, which means the breakdown might look like this:
  1. Native American -- article about American Indians in the U.S., with disambig link at the top of article that points to:
  2. Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a broader overview. It would also contain all of the longwinded, pedantic terminology stuff that currently dominates the introduction of this article and probably bores readers.
  3. American Indian -- redirect to Native American. Alternatively, American Indian could be the main article (it's apparently the term slightly preferred by the people themselves), and Native American would be the redirect.

--Kevin Myers 03:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you 99%, but that extra 1% is centered squarely on the detail of focus. I would point out a couple of small flaws (note, these flaws don't contradict going with what you suggest):
  • "the term slightly preferred by the people themselves" - The problem here is that "the people" have no singular voice. There are American Indians who want to be called Native Americans and there are Native Americans who want to be called American Indians or just Indians. It is Wikipedia's job to a) tell their story without getting mired in that soup and b) explain that there is a soup and describe its ingredients.
  • I would stress Indigenous peoples of the Americas as the best NPOV title for the article that holds the category together, and it is there that I would point almost all articles that are not nationality-specific, even if they touched on the US.
  • See below for my comment about a page on naming.
Overall, I think you had is surrounded, though Kevin Myers. The choice of American Indian vs. Native American is arbitrary, and I would defer to common usage there. -Harmil 21:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Native American" could apply to me, as I was born in the Americas. Oops, should have spelled "native" with a lower case letter, but I couldn't because it was at the beginning of the sentence. :-) The fact that the article wastes two paragraphs explaining why "Native American" is appropriate is an indicator of a problem with the title. Native American should be a dab page, pointing to both Indigenous peoples of the Americas and to American Indians in the United States. Maybe the paragraphs about the name could also be moved there. It seems to me that keeping Native American only as as a synonym for First Nations/American Indians/Indigenous peoples in the USA is an example of Systemic bias. It has three other meanings: aboriginal/indigenous peoples of the Americas, people born somewhere in the Americas, and people born in the USA. How we create a Dab page and keep the history of edits in the appropriate page is something that I leave to people with better wikipedia skills than myself.Luigizanasi 21:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think that the naming controversy that gives you two paragraphs of explanation here would go away if you moved the page to another name? I certainly do not. If anything, I think those two pages tell you that there's a great opportunity here for an article about the controversy itself... hmmm... I do think I'm going to go write that. I'm off to find some sources. Once I do, the naming will be ignorable. We'll certainly still want a page for Native Americans of the sort that are USians, but if that's Non-European Western Hemisphereites from the US, then it won't matter because the first thing in the article will be "Native American redirects here. For a discussion of the concerns surrounding naming, please see: Native American name controversy." or the like. -Harmil 21:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, done. There is now a Native American name controversy. Let's discuss expanding it as needed (it needs Mexico, for example) and what and how we can remove from this article and replace with a link to that. -Harmil 23:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
To answer your first question: no. But I really like your idea of the Native American name controversy article (note that I have started helping on the Canada stuff). It's better than my simple dab page suggestion. We should probably move a bunch of stuff from the top of the current Native American article to it. However, I would argue that the Native American (once we get past the renaming to Aboriginal peoples of the Americas & preservation of edit history) should be redirected to it rather than to Western Hemispherites from the US :-). Of course, with dab links right at the top for Aboriginal peoples in the Americas, American Indians in the United States, etc. Luigizanasi 01:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
A nice start, Harmil. The terminology and scope debate applies also to similarly-themed articles, but I think that Native American name controversy can be useful to flesh out the details of the confusion in this particular case.
Whatever its ultimate name, the Native Americans article will need to define its particular scope at the outset, and so will still need at least a brief mention of the debate on its page, and then perhaps referring to the new article for more details. In my experience, no matter what kind of terminology is used in articles of this nature - indigenous, native or aboriginal - some sort of disclaimer is needed to explain why it covers specific peoples in the region, and not others. This is to counter comments which are frequently made, along the lines of "hey, I was born here just like these people, why then does the scope not include me/my community?". It's an issue which also applies to similar articles on other regions. The point may seem obvious to some, but it seems to be required in order to clarify that the particular sense is intended, not the general.--cjllw | TALK 02:09, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
As far as ultimate naming, I think "Native American" is fine for an article about U.S. "Native Americans AKA American Indians", as long as there's a dab link up top, and a very early reference to Native American name controversy. Should I be bold and start re-writing now? Is there sufficient information moved out to the other artices already that my removal of non-USian info will not result in a neet loss of information for WP?
BTW: I had not thought of the edit history thing. That's important, but there's a more practical reason to avoid re-naming this article. Go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Native Americans and then click on "500" browse the list of pages that link to redirect pages. Click "next 500". Consider the pain involved in double-redirect fixing. Reconsider moving ;-) I still think there are other valid reasons to avoid the move, but this one is the one that grabs me by the gut and says "leave it". -Harmil 10:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
No matter what, the links will have to be cleaned up if a separate article on US Indians is created. Some of them refer only to American Indians in the United States (e.g. Pocahontas), but on cursory glance, the majority could remain as redirect to Aboriginal peoples in the Americas.Luigizanasi 19:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be communicating poorly here, though I'm unclear as to how. First off, I'm suggesting that no move of this page happen at all. None. No "separate article on US Indians is created" at any time. I'm suggesting removing non-U.S. content from this article, that's all. As for articles that reference Native Americans, but are not U.S.-specific, yes those links should be changed, but that's a much smaller list than I think you realize. At a glance it looks like less than a quarter of the entries. Probably far less. -Harmil 20:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Four questions

I should like to point out that the question of where Native Americans should redirect to is not exactly germaine to move-page proposal. That said, I think that this topic is too complicated to be settled by a such a proposal. It seems to me that there are four main questions that we can address separately.

  1. Should we have two separate articles containing information about (generally) indigenous peoples of the Americas and (specifically) indigenous peoples in the United States (i.e. split one subject out into a separate article)?
  2. If yes to question 1, which page should retain the edit history from the existing article?
  3. If yes to question 1, what should be the title of the article concerning peoples of the United States?
  4. If the answer is not provided by the those of the previous questions, what should become of the page Native Americans?

Here are my answers to these questions:

1. Yes, definitely.

2. I don't really care very much, but we should try to have the edit history along with whichever article retains a larger portion of the text of the current article. From a cursory examination, I think this would be indigenous peoples of the Americas, but, if it turns out to be otherwise, then I'll change my mind.

3. I think "Native Americans" is definitely ambiguous. To be honest, when someone says something about "Native Americans" to me, I have no clear sense of the scope of what they are referring to. However, I would have tended to suspect that they mean "American" as in "of the Americas", because "of the United States of America" is obviously a completely irrelevant distinction with regard to pre-Columbian (or early post-Columbian) history. Therefore, I definitely don't agree that the article about U.S.-area indigenes should be at simply Native Americans. We could put it at Native Americans in the United States, but I prefer American Indians in the United States.

4. Since it's an ambiguous term, I don't think it should be a redirect. I kind of like the idea, suggested above, of having an article at Native American discussing the phrase "Native American" (which would obviate and include the Native American name controversy article). Otherwise, Native Americans should be a disambiguation page. - Nat Krause 03:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with mostly. Two comments: on #4, I think we need both the dab page and the naming controversy article. Also, cleaning up Category:Native Americans will be a mess.Luigizanasi 07:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Nat, I certainly agree with you on #1, and that the present article's scope needs to be nailed down, despite the inconclusive outcome on the vote on its move/rename.
There are three successive levels of scope on this topic, each of them a valid article in its own right. Already we now have articles to cover two of these levels:
  1. Indigenous peoples of the Americas- describing indigenous peoples across the entire continent(s), whatever they are called locally;
  2. Indigenous peoples in the United States- describing indigenous peoples and their situation within US territory, which also includes Alaska, trust territories & dependencies in the Pacific, etc (and by parallel with Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, & so on);
The third level, "Indigenous peoples in the continental US", (ie, "American Indians", or "Native Americans" according to the restrictive sense employed by some), would be for the present Native Americans article to cover, with or without a resulting name change.
As far as fixing up Category:Native American & Category:Native Americans goes, that should not prove too troublesome once the scope of the present article is agreed on. Most of the entries in these categories are for articles at the third scope level.
Does anyone still disagree that this Native Americans article should have as its scope "indigenous peoples in the continental US" / "American Indians" - whatever this article is to be called?--cjllw | TALK 09:23, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
It seems to me that the difference in scope between "Indigenous peoples in the United States" and "Indigenous peoples in the continental US" is a fairly minor one, and so I'm not sure how much importance there is in making a clear distinction (by which I mean that it wouldn't hurt much to have one article on both subjects; it could include very brief remarks about Hawaii and Alaska along with links to the relevant articles, and then devote the rest of the text to describing the continental U.S.). In any event, there are some people in Alaska who are traditionally described as "American Indians" or "Native Americans" (rather than Eskimos or Aleuts); so it would seem odd to exclude them from an article under that title.
As for disagreeing, it depends on what you consider the salient point of the issue to be. I tentatively disagree with this article becoming "indigenous peoples in the continental US" (I think the edit history should move to [[indigenous people's of the Americas), but I am certainly in favour of separating out the subjects. - Nat Krause 10:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)