Talk:Apache

disambiguation

Why isn't the disambiguation the main page for Apache? There are plenty of other meanings (web server, etc.)

I think the current state is more appropriate since all other uses of the word apache are derived from the native American tribe name. -RobKohr

Shouldn't the other usages of the Apache be mentioned in this article as a sidenote? For example, the web server.

lack of culture

This article contains no information about the Apache culture or lifestyle. Shame. Orangetuesday 05:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You ought to add something on it. --Aaron Walden 12:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • There seems to be no distinct facts that make apaches any different from other native tribes other than the fact that they were fighters,that would be of great help...

pronunciation?

How is it pronounced?

you mean the name Apache? – ishwar  (speak) 16:31, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Yes

Well, our available symbols are not oriented toward pronunciation, but I'll try ..................

a -'pach -ē : a (short "a" as in banana) - 'pach (the ch is usually hard as in "chip" but occasionally heard as in "ship") - ē (long e), accent on the second syllable. Hope that helps. WBardwin 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Origin of the name Apache

from the article List of ethnic slurs:

Apache: Name given to the Native Americans who call themselves the Diné. The word “Apache” means “enemies”, and was given to them by the Zunni Native Americans. It was adopted by

if this in fact is true, i belive this statement best belongs as part of the opening paragraph of this article. not being knowlegeable in this subject matter, i submit this here for consideration before making the change.uri budnik 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute... how does calling a group of people "enemy" qualify as a slur? If a tribe (or group of tribes) was indeed inimical to the Zuni, how on earth would the descriptive term (enemy) be a slur? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of research indicates that the "enemy" origin of the name "Apache" isn't even universally supported, I'm making relevant changes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

no you pronounce it like this {ban aahhhn naaaa0 learn it!!!! ha lol

Actually the Diné are the Navajo, who don't regard the Apache as Diné. The Apache name for themselves is Ndee/Nnee, related to the word Diné. And the Zuni gave the Apache the name "enemy" because about 40% of the Apache economy was raiding other groups. Is it racist to call Vikings Vikings?71.223.169.27 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Mexico and the United States

I deleted the passage below because it is not even close to being factual or balanced. In my opinion it sort of puts history upside down. For example, I could argue that the Spainish were fearful of alliances between Pubelos and the Apacheans, who acted together more than once, to drive them out of settlements on the Rio Grande. By the 18th century the Spainish realized they had to create a series of forts to be able to divide these mutually hostile groups towards the Spainish. Nobody in the Southwest was passive, and certainly this was true of the Apacheans.

The Apache as a group were a powerful people, and were less developed in their creation of permanent villages and agriculture than other tribal groups of the region. As a result, the Apache were raiders and instigators of warfare among the other more peaceful and agrarian tribes throughout the Southwest (United States) and Sonora (Mexico). The Apache were agressors and created fear and eniminity amongst the Papagos, Navajo and most all other native tribes they encountered raiding food stores they themselves were incapable (or unwilling) to produce. This state of fear of the Apache was rampant when the Spanish military and missionary establishments started to take hold during the 18th century. Tribes fearful of the Apache actively sought alliance with the technologically superior Spaniards to create improved security and stability in their own villages.

That is what and why I deleted. --Rcollman 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in a longer discussion please see my notes in the Navajo People discussion page. The short of it is that IF we state the Apache were aggressors (and I assume they were at times), then it is only fair add that the Spanish had 175 year (documentated by literally 1,000s of their own records and reports) of slaving and plundering activities which involved all tribes in this region. It was just the way it was back then. --Rcollman 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I felt a section on the history/conflict with the "whites" would be appropriate. I added material I had drafted for the Mangas Coloradas article, and copied a few images. The Mexican period really needs more information. This is only a start, so feel free to reduce the Mangas material and add Cochise, Geronimo, and others as well. WBardwin 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Apache were warlike?" Is that like "the Jews were covetous?" Man, if this isn't a racist remark (by current standards, anyway) I don't know what is. I doubt it was intended to be racist, but it is most certainly a cliche and who is to say how accurate it is? Every U.S. President since Truman has ordered troops into the field or an airstrike somewhere, does that make us "warlike?" Well, maybe. But the point is, this far after the fact, it is pretty difficult to characterize a people whose history is mainly a matter of what the U.S. government officials of the time said it was. It just might be that the Apache had a pretty good reason for their supposed "warlike" behavior. -cneron

Wow, you really put your foot in your mouth, didn't you? It's well known that the Apache tribe was extremely warlike. They were masters of the raid, and tremendously skillful warriors. Why do you think Geronimo was able to avoid capture for literally decades? Of course the Mexicans and the Americans raided the Apache in turn - but it was a sideline. Raiding was all a strong Apache man was supposed to care about. Their entire economy was based on raiding, pillaging and kidnapping their neighbors. Next time, do a bit of research before launching into a laudable but misguided political correct rant. -jackredelfs

Both of the above comments contain sweeping generalization. "No generalization is true, including this one." The US government did (does not today) not speak with one voice. The economy involved more than raiding (all apache groups grew food, hunted game, made things, and traded). We always raid, they always pillage and kidnap?

I am pretty sure can agree that both "american" and "apache" cultures were pretty tough and either could be very nasty in the SouthWest in that time period. I have often wondered if Geronimo was that good, or if the military was that bad (with all due respect to both). All I am saying is calm down with the generalizations. Which is easy for me to say because neither an apache nor an american has scalped my wife. When they do I might have a different opinion. :)--Rcollman 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Apache culture was, however, heavily geared toward "Taking enemies' property." The Navajo and the Pueblo regarded the Apaches somewhat as the 8th Century English regarded the Vikings. While Scandinavian society obviously was more than merely raiding, it was that that most impressed itself on Scandinavia's neighbors. The Apache also had a clan-based idea of responsibility, which, along with many other behavioral influences, positive and negative, meant that anytime a White or Mexican (or Navajo or Pueblo) killed a member of a clan, his kin simply went out on "Taking enemies' lives," and killed any member of the responsible person's group they found, regardless of whether the individuals even knew the responsible party. While it was taboo to kill children in one of these revenge-raids, adult captives were also taken and tortured to death. (the above is based on Grenville Goodwin's collections of eyewitness accounts of the raiding years, done in the 1930s, when many raiders were still alive)71.223.169.27 08:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicely written summary. I still believe that literally every other cultural group in this area had similar raiding and warfare practices at some point in 1500 to 1890 period. Frankly, I am not quite sure which was the last conquered "Viking" group in the Southwest. Argueably, "Taking enemies property" is still being practiced today by some groups. As you point out concerning the Viking neighbors, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How would Greenville, Basso and Opler describe that neighboring tribe from Tuscon? (big grin) .--Rcollman 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that, while one shouldn't oversimplify, the Apaches were, in fact, raiders. And you're flat-out wrong, there were huge differences between them and their neighbors. The Apaches almost regarded their neighbors as a crop for them to harvest--that's why they didn't, for instance, want to drive the whites away, the way that the Sioux or the Comanche did (or, closer to home, the Hopi). The whites were people they could raid (or rather, subhuman enemies they could raid--to the Apache, all nonApaches, with the possible and debatable exception of the Navajo, were not people). You're assuming that, had the other peoples left them alone, they wouldn't have been raiders. The Navajo were not raiders by profession, nor were the Pueblos or Mexicans--they were settled people. They occasionally attacked their neighbors, yes, mostly for revenge or slaves, but it was not the foundation of their economy. The Apache, on the other hand, made a huge proportion of their living by raiding. What you believe is entirely irrelevant, because it isn't true.71.223.169.27 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dismal River aspect explanation

Ish Ishwar -- nice series of edits. But I would suggest an additional explanation relating to this sentence: "This Plains migration theory associates Apachean peoples with the Dismal River aspect." Particularly as that article does not (yet) exist. Best wishes. WBardwin 18:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

hi.

ok, a brief note for now. American archeology is not a strong point of Wikipedia, so there are many articles missing here. I am not good at this sort of thing and so will probably leave expansion to a more qualified person. If you are interested, the Plains migration & Dismal River connection is written about by Dolores and James Gunnerson as well as other Plains archeologists while the intermontane migration is tends to be supported more by Southwestern specialists like Morris Opler. peace – ishwar  (speak) 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

haven't much background in plains archaeology myself, so have only a vague memory of Dismal River. I will try to add Gunnerson to my library "to read" list, but it is fairly long at the moment. Thanks for the reference. WBardwin 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

is there any reason this page has been blanked? Srkingdavy 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am ignorant, what is meant by "blanked"? thanks --Rcollman 23:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Made to appear blank, with all discussion removed or obliterated. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Traditional Apache scout to Apache

Traditional Apache scout should be a part of Apache. It's too short to be out on it's own, and I can't imagine anyone entering the title as it sits. Propose merge to Apache. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now support merge ----Rcollman 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS See why you made the suggestion, I jumped to Army Scouts in my mind and did not click on the link. Oooops. Still this is a specialized topic and in my way of thinking has enough to justify a page by itself. Need to make sure it is linked --Rcollman 23:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

support merge. Chris 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because its about Apache

Support - Culnacréann 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)