Talk:Native American identity in the United States

American Indian identity article (Who is Indian?)

The following discussion is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America here, so that further discussion can take place away from the general project page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC) After a recent ado at Cherokee, I decided to pull my notes together (and add more) to make an article on Cherokee identity. I wasn't happy with the article, however, and expanded the scope, which I've collected as some notes at User:Smmurphy/American Indian identity. I'd like it if anyone has any comments on the project. Right now the article is long (but not longer than many other articles), and I'm not sure if many sections can be spun off, although much could be cut, and much of it probably already exists elsewhere (such as in blood quantum). Also, articles like this usually are tough to title (see Who is black, Who is a Jew?), does anyone have an idea or preference about the title? Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research! I would agree that American Indian Identity is a good title for the article as it stands on your talk page, as it's not a world-wide view. Although we could also stub out sections to challenge other editors to fill in the blanks. (eg: Métis people has very little about identity presently) Vagary 06:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective primarily seen in the US, yes, this is an excellent article; however, this isn't quite how it works in Canada, and for Indigenous peoples cut in half by the international boundary, the issue becomes even more complex, mainly due to differing policies between Canada and the United States, though differing from each other, they both go against the very notion of "peoplehood". To this mix, if we then throw in treatment of indigenous peoples in Mexico and their Mestizos, the results of past French, British and Spanish colonial policies to which Canada, United States and Mexico inherited, the issue becomes extremely complex. However, the article proto-type you have started is segmented in a way to allow the reader to explore key topics in detail, which is very good... but more of these key topics with links to each of their "Main Article" are needed. I think if we have a further developed topic intros with these key handle-bar links to articles to bring light more on these issues, the article will be one of the strongest out there. It already is well on its way there. Good job. CJLippert 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Most of the material is based on US authors, who cite and are cited by mostly other US authors, which furthers the bias. [Even the material that isn't specific to the US government is (mostly?) based on researchers working with US Indians.] I hadn't thought about like that, but you are right that things become very complex if you try to broaden the scope more so that issues in many different countries are included. I still feel the article is hardly more than a collection of notes, and I'm humbled that you appreciate the work. I do think it would be ok to de-userfy it. Based on CJLippert's comment, and after removing the feminist criticism of Canada's Indian Act, I think the most correct title might be "American Indian identity in the United States," unless American and US are somehow redundant. What do you (anybody) think about the title and readiness for article space? And as always, feel free to make edits there if you like. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of keeping this US-centric and spinning off full articles as data from Canada and Mexico becomes available. (For example, the Indian Act feminist critique can either be put into Indian Act or an article about Native American gender issues.)

I don't think "American Indian" gets used very often in Canada, so to a Canadian American Indian identity is unambiguous, but to an American it probably is? Native American identity in the United States would follow the precedent set by Native American name controversy. Vagary 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it might be more encyclopedic to use "Native American" rather than "American Indian,' although "American Indian" is used more by the sources I've seen (for whatever reason). Convention sounds like the best reason to go with any particular name, though. Although, "Native American identity in the United States" is a bit long, it seems to satisfy both political correctness and universal understandability. If there isn't any reason not to, we can probably move it to article space (and this discussion can go to the articles talk page, especially so that "not-quite-as-major" content issues are discussed there rather than here).

BTW, I'm sorry that the sources, my time, and my experiences didn't let me bring Canadian and Mexican indigenous identity into the article. I know there are plenty of other sources for Canadian identity issues (much of the Indian power movements came out of Toronto, and their literature might be a good starting place), but I don't know much about the Mexican side at all. Even so, I'd be happy to help get a stub started on both, but I'm just as unsure about what the titles would be as I am about the content. Would it be "First Nations identity in Canada," and "??? in Mexico"? Do you (anybody) think a stub there would be a good idea?

Thanks a lot for your advice. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now live here. Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]