Talk:Native American name controversy

For more detail on why this article exists, see the discussion at Talk:Native Americans. -Harmil 23:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it a controversy?

I think the use of the word "controversy" in the title of this article overstates the matter somewhat. Terminology to describe "Native Americans" can be problematic, and some terms that are liked by some are disliked by others, but "controversy" suggests a more intense debate than there appears to be. A long-winded version of the title would be something like: "Terms used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas", but I'm sure someone can come up with a short and snappy version. --Kevin Myers 17:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to re-check. Here's a quote for you:

I hate the word Native American. Its a government term, which was created in the year 1970 in the Department of the Interior, a generic term that describes all the prisoners of the United States of America. Those of us who are forced to live on trust territories, the Micronesians, the original Hawaiians, the Aleuts, the Inupiates, the Upics, who are erroneously called Eskimos, and all of the 500 nations of the American Indians are so-called "Native Americans." I refuse to be defined by a government, any government; so I am an Indian. Because I know where that came from, a bastardization of two Spanish words: In Dios, "in with god." And Columbus wrote la gente indio, "a people in with God;" so I much prefer to be called Indian rather than Native American. -American Indian activist, Russell Means[1]

There is deep controversy about the orign, meaning, scope, intent and appropriateness of the word. I'm not completely opposed to a page move, but if it's because you don't feel that there is a controversy, then I'd have to disagree. -Harmil 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to give that Russell Means quote to me, since I'm the one who first linked to it in the main "Native American" article. Nevertheless, Means is a politically a marginal figure and certainly does not speak for most American Indians on this subject: as the oft-cited poll has shown, and as editorials by various American Indian writers have claimed, most American Indians are comfortable with "Native American." Most anything is probably controversial to somebody somewhere, but to proclaim in the title of this article that the term "Native American" is controversial misleads readers about the scope of the debate. True, it is controversial to a small circle of people, and we can certainly write about that controversy within this article, but the controversy is clearly not the focus or intent of this article, which is about terminology. --Kevin Myers 07:23, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond. You have a term that was created because the previous term was deemed too controversial (being the name of a completely other people, and also being the name of a mostly fictional people invented by the Western genre movies of the mid-20th century); the new term is reviled by a few, accepted by most, but still the less commonly used of the two; and the choice between the two terms is brought up on news shows all the time (NPR, speaking to a southern U.S. tribal leader about casinos detoured for a good 2 minutes on the topic in a recent interview, just as a random example). How can I defend the idea that something is controvercial if that's not a sufficient definition?

Certainly, there's less controversy than there is for the mascot issue. Certainly less than there is over U.S. foreign policy. But there is still substantial controversy. A few more quotes:

• "I even hesitate to use the term "Native American," since it implies that we are Native citizens of a colonialist power that conquered and divided the original nations in this continent (none of whom were "American"), but that's another discussion." -Marge Bruchac [2]
• "Sherman has no problem proclaiming himself a "Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Indian" writer. Native American to him is a term used by guilt-ridden white people." -Irene Huangyi Lin on her interview with Sherman Alexie [3]
• "Perhaps the best course is to refer to a People by the name they take for themselves. Sometimes this means using a word that means "we are the only true people," but at least it does not mean using a word that means "you are who others say you are."" -American Indians - Native Americans / A Note on Terminology [4]

I think naming the page "Native American name fist-fight-waiting-to-happen" would have been hyperbolic, but there can be no doubt that this is a controversial topic for which there is only grudging consensus with highly radical fringes. Also keep in mind that the name wash much more controversial in the 1970s and 1980s, and Wikipedia exists to provide historical as well as current information. I'll add a note to that effect in the article. -Harmil 12:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How much of this article is actually about a "controversy"? Only a portion—most of it is about naming conventions—which is why the article is mislabeled. And I think that your assertion above that "Native American" was created "because the previous term was deemed too controversial" is suspect. But since I've said the exact same thing three times now, I guess I'm just rambling. Good luck with the article. --Kevin Myers 23:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of cruft that this article has accumulated since my original version. Sadly, this is a — I hate to say it, given our discussion, but — controversial topic, and everyone who sees it wants to make sure that their pet naming scheme is appropriately represented. It's a bit like telling the guy who wrote an article called "Frog" that his article is mis-named because everyone has come along and written about toads. That doesn't mitigate the fact that frogs actually need an article. In this case, the article serves to examine the long-standing controversy around the name, and yes the general consensus is that the term was introduced because "Indian" was seen as pejorative, and that had sparked a controversy among antropologists who felt they needed a new word. This new word was introduced sometime in the 1960s, but I have never seen a more precise date than that.

""Native American" is a phrase coined in the liberal years of the 1960's to replace "Indian" with a supposedly more appropriate term." [5]

The above is one of the places that I saw this history referenced. I went through a few of them when I was researching this. I'll find the rest when I have more time. For now, back to work on real work.... -Harmil 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I disagree with your assertion that the term "Native American" was created "because the previous term was deemed too controversial" because I feel "controversy" is too strong a word to characterize academic debate among anthropologists. Strictly speaking, I guess, every ongoing disagreement is a controversy, but it still seems like an overstatement. The real controversy, and these days it's a somewhat limited controvery (most American Indians are comfortable with the term "Native American"), occurred after the coining of the term "Native American". I believe you have the cart before the horse, and are overstating the current scope of the disagreement about the term. --Kevin Myers 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I've stated my case pretty clearly, and my experience and research bear out what I've been saying. Now, we're just repeating ourselves, and my time on Wikipedia is too thin for that kind of thing. I contribute quite a lot to Wikipedia, and this one word is no longer of strong interest to me. What I will point out is that most of the pages which use the term "Native American" on Wikipedia have drawn debate, and even the idea that there is a debate draws controversy (vis. this coversation). Nuff said. I'll trust your judgement and choice of places to spend your time and effort from here in. Take care. -Harmil 04:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's some input perhaps more constructive: I don't think this article is necessary. Everything here could actually be included on the page Native Americans, which is currently tagged as a disambiguation page. However, some pages fall in that gray area between being a disambiguation page and an article about word usage, and Native Americans is one of them. Instead of simple disambiguation, it could serve the same purpose by being an article about the usage of the term, as well as describing why some folks don't like the newer term. Now that we have Native Americans in the United States, I think we can merge this article back into Native Americans, and readers will be better served. --Kevin Myers 04:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We just finished weeks of debate over the separation of Native Americans, Native Americans in the United States, and this page. In fact, this page was created specifically to make the resolution of that debate easier by separating out the controversy that several pages touched on, thus enabling us to focus on what mattered most to those articles. If you wish to start reversing some of that work, I suggest that you take it to Talk:Native Americans in the United States (which used to be Native Americans). That page contains the full record of the debate and you can find everyone who is still working on the resulting disambiguations there to discuss your proposal with. I caution you, however, that we've managed to extricate ourselves from quite a lot of debate, and re-kindling part of it now may not be taken all that openly. Good luck to you.

That said, I personally think that would be a poor idea, but your obsession with the word "controversy" hasn't been quenched by my points in the past, so I doubt it will now. -Harmil 00:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dude, I'm the one who weeks ago proposed the basic article-split layout we have right now, more or less. I'm not proposing reversing anything—just fixing and finishing and refining it. Since I endlessly research and write about historic American Indians on Wikipedia, I'll keep prodding our coverage in what seems to me to be the right direction, regardless of how much debate takes place. I'm confident everyone will eventually agree with me, even you! ;-) --Kevin Myers 04:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I recall that you were the one who intially mentioned the name Native Americans in the United States. and wouldn't let it go until people gave up and went with it (and in doing the disambiguation, I'm more certain than ever that it was the wrong choice because of the temporal and political ambiguity). This sort of "I'm right, you're going to change your mind or give up" tactic seems to be a common thread for you. That doesn't seem like the sort of approach that values other people's time.... -Harmil 12:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I "wouldn't let it go until people gave up and went with it"? This is a complete fabrication on your part: I proposed American Indians in the United States on August 7, 2005 (actually I seconded someone else's proposal), and then mentioned it again exactly once over the next six weeks, and even suggested another article-split scheme without it. Never did I suggest Native Americans in the United States, a title I don't much like but will live with.

My comments here have been aimed at making the articles in question better. Your recent comments have been directed instead at criticizing me, now with the use of bogus descriptions of my past behavior. Please keep your comments directed at the subject matter of the articles, without the personal attacks, and I will do the same. Thanks. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 12:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand my critisism, and I think that characterizing my questioning of how constructive any given change would be or how much your comments did or did not extended a debate as a "personal attack" is hyperbolic at best. There were about six core people involved, and you posted several times to that debate. Part of that debate centered around the idea that the page started off with a laundry-list of alternate names, and any attempt to trim that list was a hornets' nest, and yes, controversial. So, I took the naming controversy off of Native Americans and put it here, which ultimately helped to resolve the dispute (along with the efforts of many others). Now that we've made Native Americans into a disambiguation, you want to put all of this back on the new disambiguation page, turning it into something other than a disambiguation.

But, your problem isn't with a disambiguation page, it's with a word that you disagree with: controversy. What I don't understand is why you don't go out, do the research, isolate out what groups where do not have a problem with the issue of naming and write a section about it. I would have no problem with a "Lack of controversy" section that used good citations to build the case that the majority of modern users of the terminology simply don't have strong feelings one way or the other. What I have a problem with is removing useful content from Wikipedia, or performing a "merge" that throws away the understanding that a) my generation grew up with the confusing sense that "Native American" was too PC while "American Indian" was insulting b) the phrase was invented to escape the stereotypes of the Western genere and c) some modern American Indians don't want to be called Native American, and consider the term insulting. We have a spectrum that ranges from people who don't particularly care what name is used to people like Means on the other end. Over time, that spectrum has changed in interesting ways. Let's explore that deeper and try to uncover useful meaning rather than throwing up our hands. -Harmil 20:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To me the biggest part of the thing is that Indian means people from India, not Native people in America, other place have native too.... 142.161.94.69 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"[I]s an ongoing dispute over": reword as "is an ongoing debate" or (better), "ongoing discussion on"? This may not be about exclusively one or another, or sensational terms like "dispute" rather than "reasoned debate". Per Brunner (2006), d'Errico (2005), and, intriguingly, Mann (2005), this seems to be transcending acrimony and is illuminating the usefulness of multiple prespectives, not unlike the Buhhdist or Jain parable (Indian, no less). --GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Move from comment to text?

<!-- This is not a comprehensive list, but a short overview of the most widely used handful of terms -->

This could be useful to readers. Maybe just mention why or how so, for example per search engine ranking. Much of this controversy can be ameliorated with awareness and mention that schools of thought exist. --GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

North America

When I first wrote, "North America", in the lead paragraph I did mean to include Mexico, as some comments on Talk:Native Americans and other sources had lead me to think that the term "Native American" might be more common than I thought there. However, on doing more research on WP and other sites, I found that indeed the Mexican terminology (even when writing in English) is primarily Spanish, so the recent edit is correct in retrospect, thanks for fixing my gaff. -Harmil 23:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

We edit conflicted. I was coming here in the hope of getting just such a clarification and offering apologies if I'd misconstrued something. All's well with the world, then. Further comment: "However, the term Native American may still be used when speaking or writing in English outside of North America" -- I'm still not sure what that phrase is doing. "May" sounds a little proscriptive, and is it trying to say "may still be used to refer to Amerinds (for want of a better term) from all over the Americas"? –Hajor 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It's saying just what it's saying. More research would be needed to be sure just what I meant there ;).

Seriously, I was basing that on some scraps of info from Talk:Native Americans, where someone had cited a Mexican professor, and I think Guatamalan source who used the term "Native American" to refer to their local natives. But, it's hard to say if this is the norm, since the vast majority of the time, English is not used to refer to the natives in those countries, so when it is used, the author is probably basing their terminology on some external (probably U.S. or Canadian) peer group. I want to be clear, though that I'm a U.S. citizen who has very little clue, only what research I was able to do on the Net, and the benefit of the existing text from Native Americans and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which I borrowed from heavily in the assumption that those sources would be parred down once this page existed.... -Harmil 11:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgetting all of this, I then went and edited it back... sigh, some days I wish I had a brain. Still, I think the new wording has some merit. Any concerns? If there are, we can put it back, but that brings the Mexico section into question, perhaps as it should be. -Harmil 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The Cape of Good Hope

If one were to sail "around" the Cape of Good Hope, they would soon run aground on the shores of Falsche Bay. The Cape of Good Hope is not the southern-most point of Africa, and this article's saying so perpetuates a widely percieved falacy. Corrected.

I know that this is an ancient comment, and that the person who put it here is likely not going to respond, but I thought I'd make the point anyway. There are two meanings of "Cape of Good Hope". The first is the current place name, which is correctly not the southernmost point in Africa. However, there is also the historical usage in terms of navigation, and in that sense, the Cape of Good Hope is very much the southernmost part of Africa, not a specific place. Hence, historically European sailors would refer to sailing "round the Cape of Good Hope" when refering to a journey to the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic Ocean. It's not a mistake, therefore to refer to such journeys in that way, though it is ambiguous, and should be clarified in modern references (I should have done so, sorry). -Harmil 12:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indian as a Spanish archaism for Dark Skin

Christopher Columbus didn't think he had arrived to India. When he arrived in Cuba, he actually thought he had arrived in Japan which in his letters (logs) he refers to as Cipango, using the name given hundreds of years earlier by Marco Polo. From Cuba he undertakes his search for Cathay, as Marco Polo called China. Indio/India was actually a Spanish word meaning black or someone of dark skin. Even today in some regions in Latin America people say Indian eyes to refer to a person who has black eyes.--tequendamia 12:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading that the term Indian came from Columbus making some type of Spanish grammatical error in his letters back to Spain. He referred to the natives as "people of god" ("en dios") and because of the humor of his mistake (I guess he said "in god" instead of "of god"?), the name stuck. This was somewhere on Wikipedia, but since I can't find it now, maybe it was false information. -VJ 17:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The "en Díos" tale is indeed false information, albeit one sometimes repeated. As with the equally-false version that it is some corruption of the word indigena, the supposed derivation is rendered completely implausible when considering how Spanish works, and that there are no contemporary references. As for Indio/India being some general Spanish descriptor for someone of dark skin- the regions of south and southeast Asia had long been referred to as "the Indies" (or like cognate) by Europeans, it is not the other way around.--cjllw | TALK 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

indo/india is not a spanish word of some-one with a dark skin...that has a completely diff etymology

India "region of the Indus River," later used of the region beyond it, from Indos "Indus River," from O.Pers., you are thinking of the word negro:from Sp. or Port. negro "black" gunslotsofguns 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

A large number of changes were made by Jorge Stolfi, some of which do not seem to have been well thought out. For example, there some grammar problems such as:

A more serious difficulty with this term is that several ethnic groups traditionally excluded from the American Indians were just as "native" to the Americas as them.

Which is to say that "them" is quite ambiguous. Also, there are some "constroversies" which I've never heard of any controversy surrounding ("of" vs. "in") that could use some citations. Generally, such major structural changes are better brought to the talk page first. I won't simply revert the changes, but I will leave a note on his user page and ask for a response. -Harmil 12:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry for not discussing first. However the purpose of my changes is just to reorganize the material, remove duplication, etc.; not to change the contents. Unfortunately, changes of that kind (which must be done once in a while) take much longer to explain than to do, and are impossible to evaluate without seeing the final result. In fact I myself did not know exactly what layout I wanted, it just evolved as I worked.

As for that phrase, I believe it was in the original article; if the error is mine, it was an accident. If I don get there first, feel free to correct it.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I share a few misgivings re the content of these recent edits, although I think Jorge's reorg. and restructuring is a little clearer in presentation. Unfortunately, several of the rewritten passages now read more like a personal assessment on the matter, rather than a summation of external, generally-held views. There also seems to be inclusion of some 'controversy' points which AFAIK have only been discussed within the wikipedia editorship, the "in vs of" being a case in point: I believe this is a reference to the category renames which were done from "indigenous/native peoples of <country>" to "...in <country>". I don't doubt these have been inadvertant, but the contents need to be rechecked with the original (and also cited material found) as it seems to me at least that some of the explanations and meanings have become indistinct. The explanation re "native/indigenous" having a formal, politically-recognised sense in addition to a general one now seems to be lost. However, reverting back to before the changes began might not be the way to go- I think it can be worked on within the current structure to arrive at some improved consensus version.--cjllw | TALK 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Names for natives of all three continents

To what three continents does this section refer? I only count two (North America and South America). Cparker 17:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, in my school days I was taught that there was a Central America too. That was defined as all the countries between Mexico (part of N.A.) and Venezuela (part of S.A.). Is that no longer the case? (Of course those are just arbitrary labels anyway). All the best, Jorge Stolfi 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Central America is not its own continent in the least, although much of Central America is located on the Caribbean Plate.

Er, OK. I guess that US geographers have different dogmas than Brazilian ones 8-) I will fix that. Jorge Stolfi 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting or fixing

Jorge, you seem to have done quite a bit more than just copyedit this document. Could you please either back out your changes or rectify the problems that I and Cparker have pointed out? -Harmil 22:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that the problems can be fixed without reverting everything. By the way, please note that I have no axe to grind on this issue. The mistakes I made were not attempts to impose my personal opinions on the matter, but rather the consequence of not understanding the original text; so I canot accept all the blame for them. (In fact, last year I did a lot or cleanup on this article when it was still a section of the "indigenous peoples of the Americas", and it seems that my edits were generally accepted. If even with that background I failed to get the sense of some paragraph, perhaps it is because that point neededed more explaining.)

The "in"/"of" issue, for example, is a subtle point that readers like me will have trouble noticing, much less understanding, if it is not explained somewhere in the article. Jorge Stolfi 06:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jorge, I too hope that the concerns can be addressed without major reversion, and readily accept that you've no POV to push here. I've already gone ahead (hopefully not too precipitiously) and deleted the "in/of" section though, before noticing your comment above. AFAIK the niceties of this distinction arose among wikipedia editors ourselves, when discussing the renaming of categories and articles. I'm not sure there is a general or notable debate in the wider public arena which could easily be encapsulated and summarised for the article. Perhaps there is though, and if so it can be re-added.--cjllw | TALK 07:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion needed

Howdy, I realize this is a bit out of protocol, but would anyone mind taking a look at the Talk:Squamish, British Columbia#Indian v. First nation discussion. It is a dispute about name useage (i.e. the topic of this article), and seems to be limited to myself and another user, and outside perspectives might be useful. Many thanks, --Hansnesse 05:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In Finnish

I do not know if anybody cares, but I'll write this anyway. In Finnish Native American is "Intiaani". Indian( of India) is "Intialainen". Both have the base word of Intia(=India). I have not heard that the old term has got politicaly incorrect. However this may be since I am not aware of any Finnish speaking native american, but I think in global world there has to be at least one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.117.173 (talk • contribs) 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a U.S. natural-born citizen of Ojibwe heritage who happens to speak Finnish as well (although not fluently). On one hand, I take offense at the Finns' use of 'Intiaani' (a loan; Swedish, English?) to describe the Indigenous peoples of the U.S. On the other, I realize that many Finns and Finnish speakers do not have personal experience with Native Americans or the issues surrounding them. I do wonder, though, both how the issue (if it is an issue) is thought of in Finland, as well as other countries. If anyone can shed more light on the subject, that would be great. ChillinChaz 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In Icelandic the word is "indíáni" for Native Americans but "Indverji" for citizens of India. Note the lack of capital letter in the first word due to Native Americans not being perceived as a single nation. The word is not considered pejorative or politically incorrect to my knowledge. --D. Webb 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of Native American wars vs Indian Wars

The US bias of the term Indian Wars has taken it as a given that that term should be used for the particular set of wars in the United States known in US history as the Indian Wars; interestingly they don't usually use it to include the Rogue River Wars, the Yakima War or Cayuse War and the wars of extermination in California, which are before the Plains and Southwest-focus of the usual context of "Indian Wars" in US historical writing (and movie-making). So wars in Canada, Mexico and Russian America, and anything pre-Civil War (technically, although I've gotten a consensus on Talk:Indian Wars about the Yakima and Cayuse Wars needing inclusion), are supposed to be on Native American wars. Which is really crazy, because "Native American", as "we" know from this page and other discussions outside and inside of Wikispace, is a purely American term and not suitable for native peoples outside of the US. So I've been asking for a resolution of this: what to call the wars in Canada, Mexico, Russian America, ostensibly in other parts of the Spanish New World, too; "Native American Wars" will NOT do. Certainly if a Canadian were to search he/she is NOT going to search for "Native American wars". Thoughts?Skookum1 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, my research has come up with the rubric Indian Wars, with all the baggage this article is about. The best I've found so far is placing Indian Wars in the context of colonial era violence toward empire: "colonial war for empire", "colonial era war for empire"; "colonialism war" is succinct but sounds awkward. Canada and Mexico, S American republics, just didn't have the available capital and the cultural, what, prediliction? to build 19th century empire. Cf. Conrad (1899, 1902), Heart.

In Spanish it is called La Conquista, covering from 1492 (to the present, I believe). Borrowing that into English might do.

There's a tangent to # In Finnish, above. The U.S. and most modern nation states in the Americas, particularly the bigger ones, have a lot of cultural baggage about this that countries like, say, Suomi (Finnland) historically largely lack. Hence the rubric name, which, after all, may be less inappropriate than at first blush.

As if that's not enough, how 'bout the auxiliary tactics (if not the wars being actually auxiliary). Cf. Boyd (1999), The Coming of the Spirit; and Deneven (1976), The Native Population of the Americas. --GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"War on indigenous peoples", per d'Errico (1995). [6] --19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

'Looking for leads toward references (so I may document whereof I write). Have editors any sources for edits made? Thank you.

Very useful article, well written. Just a suggestion, with sources (Wikipedia:Cite sources, ), it could be deserving of a good rating (Wikipedia:What is a good article). Even a bibliography and "[[Author last name] (year)]" at the end of sections could be useful. (Having "pp. [pages]" (where relevant), Wikipedia:Citation templates would be frosting on the cake.) The following may already be familiar:

== Notes and references ==
Adding this: {{subst:Footnotes}} generates this:

<references />

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how

to generate footnotes using the <ref> and </ref> tags, and the template below

{{FootnotesSmall|resize={{{1|100%}}}}}

== Bibliography ==

--19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Endonyms and exonyms

'Particularly looking for sources about best endonyms and exonyms (section was previously called " 'Self' names versus 'Outsider' names"). Which of several to use? In their language (usally written in IPA) or which of several Anglicizations? --or both? Thank you.

The # Endonyms and exonyms section first appeared as "'Self' names versus 'Outsider' names",

22:43, 29 January 2006 Jorge Stolfi (Talk | [7]) (Added nomenclature section taken from Indigenous peoples of the Americas. MUST NOW MERGE IT WITH PREVIOUS TEXT.) --[22:43, 29 January 2006]

This usage can have some importance and usefulness where tribes are or may be adopting their original names, and versions in Native languages exist as well as various Anglicizations. So far, a manual of style has not been much help 'cause the issue is not very prominent, though it can have import for Native issues in media.

--GoDot 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My Opinion

Native Americans should be called simply "Americans" and non-Native American people should be called "Foreign Americans".69.211.89.123 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Mohammad al-Assad

native american surnames

quick question, forgive my ignorance but did native americans in the united states and canada come to adopt to european sounding names or were these names forced upon them? just a little curious how native americans today have surnames such as "schmidt" and "weiss". 205.188.116.8 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A third alternative to "adopting" and "being forced" would be through marriage. Joekoz451 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A fourth is sometimes direct transliteration/adptation of a native name into European-sounding/looking names; two that come to mind in my area are Claxton and Lyackson, which are from Straits Salish (Halkomelem). There are other native-English adaptations that are less English-looking, e.g. Lulua from Tsilhqot'in; but Oleman and Scotchman occur in my old hometown (http://www.cayoosh.net) and while they are "English" in a sense, they are Chinook Jargon words/names adopted into English usage; they were not "forced" but more like nicknames that became hereditary. Another one such, though not Jargon, is Seaweed or Siwid, which is an important family name among the Kwakwaka'wakw of the Coast.Skookum1 18:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Meanings of basic terms" section - somewhat confusing as written?

Stumbled into this article when linking from another. Thought this section could be enhanced with the addition of some links.

As I read, I found the copy to be somewhat confusing to read, so I also added the "confusing" tag. I can help out with clarification, though my knowledge on the subject is very limited. Thought there should be some discussion first?

Also am uncertain whether I added the correct link for the term "agency". There are several. I assume the definition I added is correct, but could it instead be this one? --KeithB 14:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

CanCon issues

Although I just added some CanCon (that's "Canadian content" for south-of-the-liners, aka USians), on a quick scan through the rest of other sections such as "Native" I see this page is heavily USAcentric in content/perspective. I'm not sure the "globalize" tag is appropriate as I see a lot of efforts towards discussing global usage: I'm just a bit offed, or something, that there's little here re parallel/non-parallel usages in Canada. I know, I know, I can add it myself - but I'm busy (see contribs) - but this as a note to contributors to this page to bear in mind that over half of North Aemrica's aboriginal people live in Canada, and Canada does exist and also have a separate language/terminological range than what's described here at present.Skookum1 (Talk) 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible?

I just noticed that the term 'Indigenous' seems very similar to the term 'Indian'...Is it possible that Indian has just been used unknowingly as a short 'slang' of Indigenous(like perhaps: Indie-an)? Even stranger is that in Catalan, and French the word for Indian is Indigene(Indigene+ous=Indigenous) -- Hrödberäht 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

I've removed a small section from the intro that made some unfounded speculation. In reviewing edits, this mostly seems to have been a result of someone removing the phrase politically correct and trying to replace it with some arm-waving about the degree to which terms were accepted.[8] This modified the meaning of the text substantially, and I don't think the replacement stood on its own. While this whole article needs to be edited to more carefully reflect the state of the controversy outside of Wikipedia (to avoid being original research), I thought that this one example was glaring enough to justify a quick edit.[9] I then added back the reference to smaller ethnic groupings having related controversies, by putting it into the "See also" section.[10] None of this addresses any of the larger concerns, but I thought picking some low hanging fruit would be worth it. -Harmil 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

suggested minor addition re Hawaiians

I hadn't looked for them on this page previously; just happened to notice the most recent edit:

The terms Alaska Natives is used for the indigenous peoples in Alaska (including the Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut), and Native Hawaiians is used for those of Hawaii ʻ.

I'm wondering if it's not also a propos to say:

Historically Native Hawaiians in western North America were known as Kanakas, a derivation of the Hawaiian language kanakamaoli, which means "local guy" in Hawaiian.

i.e. "western North America" for "California and BC mostly, plus in the Oregon Country pre-statehood and maybe a bit later"Skookum1 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Before Present and consistent dates

Hi Ronbo76! I was trying to make this article more date consistent as per: Manual of Style

Before Present is used for radiocarbon dating when the extact date hasn't been calibrated from the raw data yet. As such, it makes no sense for it to be in this article about what the American indians should be called. I don't know who put it in the article but he should have used a source that had a more specific range in the Julian calendar. You left a note saying not all indians accept the Julian calendar. That is irrelevent, as per the Manual of Style I linked above. To save you the time, the quick summary is Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article. You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar Therefore since the article thinks the date is "definitively at least 4,000 years B.P", it should be converted into the Julian calendar because there is nothing definate about B.P. and it's usage here is inconsistent with the rest of the article.

I am also unclear on the note you left - "not all Native Americans accept A.D." Ok...what do some of them accept and how is it relevent to this specific article? Did you mean the usage of C.E instead of A.D.? How do you know this? Were you aware that most of the world (except Asia) uses A.D. because they use the Gregorian calendar? Wikipedia voted on this issue at BCE/CE debate two years ago but it was rejected. Invasion10 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the basic title of this article, it is "controversy". If Wikipedia strives to be inclusive and not present an image as imposed by American culture, which is represented by the "globalize tag", then this article should recognize that not all Native Americans worship a Judeo-Christian god. To get to how I know that, I have three distinct Native American groups coursing through my body and is common knowledge found in most articles such as Native Americans in the United States#Religion and Indigenous peoples of the Americas.

To get back to the article, the term was present before your edit and linked by me. The MOS style, of which I am familar with, states in its third bullet under Eras:

In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

It would be far better to expand about BP because it was present in the article before your edit. Granted, BP uses 1950 AD as the base year, but, it is a scientific method that is more acceptable as in the global view it represents that Native Americans were present before Western society's view that because their language and/or customs were "primitive", they should be glossed over by a history that attempts to define their achievements in terms of Western/American POV. Ronbo76 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Indian" outside of the USA

In my experience, outside of the USA, and especially outside of the West, Indian always means from India and you have to state that you mean otherwise. Is this common, or is it just me? Should it be mentioned in the article? ɱўɭĩє^{What did I do}_wrong 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean English-speaking countries outside the U.S., or do you mean translations of the word "Indian"? Assuming that you mean English-speaking countries, are you thinking of countries in the Americas (Canada, Belize, etc.), i.e. where Indians are actually present, or other anglosphere countries? I think "Indian" and its equivalents are pretty common throughout the actual American Indian world. In other languages, the words for "American Indian" and "India Indian" might or might not be identical; for instance, in Chinese, they are similar but distinct.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Revisited question - is it a controversy

Question. Should we change the article title from "controversy" to something more neutral like "Native American naming conventions?".

This question appears at the top of the page but it's been two years so I'm asking again. The reason I ask is that I think it's unfair to Native Americans to call everything a controversy. Some of these names are uncontroversial, and the history of names is not in controversy, it's just a history. Some of the name changes are attempts to set the record straight or help people understand things. If the article is called "controversy" it suggests that the point of the article is to talk about the fighting, not the use of different words. Some people think everything about Native American politics and identity is a matter of controversy, fighting, factions, camps, etc....maybe we should talk about the group like we would any other group (e.g. the country is sometimes called America or the US or the States, but we don't call that a controversy, do we?).

Of course there is a controversy from time to time, and we should be fair to let people know that some usages are controversial, just perhaps make that a section instead of the main focus of the article.

Any thoughts? Wikidemo 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. --Amedeo Felix 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Injun"

The article currently states:

"Injun" is an intentional-mispronunciation of "Indian", generally used in a joking way to mock or impersonate Native Americans' supposed accented English (e.g. "Honest Injun", "Injun time").[20] These terms are now universally considered derogatory and bigoted.

What evidence is there that this is an intentional mispronunciation? I always assumed it was simply a case of "Indian" being pronounced with a particularly strong "Old Prospector"-type accent (in which case if there was any "mockery" involved, it would be more likely to be of the person who would supposedly use the term, rather than of the Indians themselves).

And as for "universally considered derogatory and bigoted" - that's a bit of a sweeping statement, isn't it? I've never heard it described as either of those. (On the other hand, I've very rarely heard it used at all, except in a "mock Old West" context).

(I'm British and living in England, if that adds any perspective). 212.159.79.130 19:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)