Talk:American Indian Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Irregular removed?

The intro used to say:

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

... and now says:

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

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

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

Naming

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

It's a historical name, and, yes, is a proper noun, so capitalized, like the "Civil War". The people at the time called them the "Indian Wars", so our references do likewise, so Wikipedia does likewise. The question is, how long do we continue this, that is, when do we replace the historical name with a more accurate one? Considering the Civil War was not, in fact, a true civil war (the South was not fighting for control of the Northern government), and is slightly older than the Indian Wars, I'd guess we're not ready to fix this yet. --A D Monroe III 21:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that a Noun is a Person, Place, Thing (time), and Idea (philosophy). War is the Direct Object of the sentence; "We/They - are going - to War." The Idea, Philosophy and Action of a War is defined by the Time in which it took place to distinguish it from other Wars. The Civil War is a modern name for what was originally and officially named "The War of the Rebellion" by the US Federal Government, "The War of Northern Aggression" by the CS Federal Government (Confederate States), and "The War Between the States" by the general Southern population. To "fix this" I can only conclude historians decided on "Civil War" since it involved civilians (militias) and not just regular military units as well as to try and halt disagreement. "Indian" is a Time-honored and traditional title given by Christopher Columbus and is now so ingrained into society that it cannot be successfully edited without doing severe damage to history and will even destroy history since the naming of the North American indigenous population is in and of itself an incredibly valuable piece of history. The Indian Wars fought on the North American Continent is distinguished from the Colonial Wars fought by Britain in the country of India. Any indigenous war fought by Asian Indians is defined by Ages, Dynasties, and Epics such as World War I and II, thereby providing a proper distinguishing between them and the American Indians for the nominally educated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyforlife (talk • contribs) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A.D. is correct. Indian Wars is a proper noun in the context of U.S. history, see also Indian Campaign Medal. Even though Native American has replaced Indian as the proper term for the ethnic group, the word Indian remains in the U.S. vernacular. We still have the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an Indian reservation, an Indian casino, an Indian summer, etc. Also, some Native Americans refer to themselves as Indians and prefer it over the PC term. However, it's worth noting that the Wikipedia category for related articles is Category:Native American wars. jengod 23:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. While it is indeed a proper noun in the context of US history, this is when it is told from the perspective of White historians, who are still largely ignorant of the points of view of various Native American peoples on the events. I suggest moving it to "Conflicts between Whites and Native Americans". When A D Monroe says "the people at the time called them the Indian Wars"... is he considering all people involved? If I ask somebody on the local reservation, although their people were not generally involved in the conflict, would see them as less connected events than White historians, and would be more likely to call them "The wars between Indians and Milga:n" (Milga:n is the O'odham word for "white people", from the Spanish "Americana"/"Americano").

Wikipedia uses the term "indian" often in many of its pages where some people consider this word to be offensive (to be fair, some people find it offensive when you use other terms). More importantly, however, when you use it without the qualification "American", it by default refers to India. It is important that we find all occurances of the word and replace it with less ambiguous terms, preferably "Native American", although in many places, the ethnonym of the particular peoples (ethnic group) is more appropriate. For an example, see my edits to the Wounded Knee Massacre article - which occurances of "Indian" I changed to "Native American", which I changed to "Lakota", and which I changed to "Sioux". --Node 06:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Node, to help make your case for renaming the article and changing terminology throughout Wikipedia, can you address the following issues that arise from your comments?:

• By the most recent poll I've seen (here), American Indians prefer "American Indian" to "Native American." Indeed, browse through the popular newspaper Indian Country Today and you'll see that American Indian journalists regularly refer to their brethren as "Indians." Yet you say that we should not use "Indian" because "some people consider this word to be offensive." Which people?

• If most American Indians do indeed prefer "Indian" or "American Indian" to "Native American," would that make a difference in your opinion?

• You write "White historians ... are still largely ignorant of the points of view of various Native American peoples on the events." Which historians? Do you have a reference for this sweeping statement?

It's also implicitly a racist statement; a generalization about a whole culture/race as well as a professional class within that race/culture. Even the euphemistic "European" substituted for "white" (common in modern historiography) doesn't remove the stain of prejudice implicit in such comments. Racist generalizations are racist generalizations, period. From my end, I've seen a lot of aboriginal historians who play fast and loose with the hyperbole and exaggeration, and are not above soft-soaping or making excuses for the iniquities of native leaders or native cultures/spirituality; usually at the expense of someone else, i.e. like "OK, we did bad things, but white people did worse" - that's just equivocation and, in the case of my area, cannot excuse things like the slave trade/society in the Pacific Northwest or some of the outrageous attacks on neighbouring tribes by various parties (the Laich-kwil-tach and Tsilhqot'in and Haida being particularly notable in this regard). I've been told that native history is none of my business because I'm not native, and have no right to comment on things like I've just mentioned because I'm not native and "didn't acquire my knowledge indigenously" (i.e. I haven't been indoctrinated into the prevailing ideology); then, using that logic, no one but a German should be able to write about German history, and so on.....Skookum1 22:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• In the Wounded Knee article, you've changed "white" (lower case) to "White" (upper case). What is your source for this non-standard usage?

Thanks. --Kevin Myers 13:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

As Kevin points out, American Indian is becoming more popular with Aboriginals in the U.S. As he also notes, many continue to use the term Indian. A comparison of the usage of the terms American Indian and Native American on the Internet shows that Native American is used more often (2,820,000) than American Indian (1,750,000). In academic use (which would include Wikipedia), both terms are acceptable, though most discussions of the matter on talk pages have tended to come down on the side of Native American (probably because it is the more common term). For the reasons Node has pointed out, Indian is not acceptable, no matter how many Aboriginals use it, since it refers to people from India. The exception is historic use and names such as "Indian Wars." Sunray 07:06, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

This name is causing me problems. I entered Indian Wars hoping to learn about the conflict started by the British introduction of certain muskets to Muslim and Hindu soldiers in India, and instead I found this, and it seems there isn't even an article on the original topic I searched. JosephTU 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I put a link to the Military history of India at the top of the page, although of course you still won't find the article you're looking for if it hasn't been written yet. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Try [Rebellion of 185786.28.165.76 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)86.28.165.76 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

"Race war of extermination"?

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

The United States has NEVER been a "democracy" but Guarantees "a Republican Form of Government" as laid out in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States. The United States has NEVER been a "racist democracy" but a Republic that was built by poor Europeans who traveled to the New World as "indentured servants" who had to re-pay their Colonial "benefactor" by working off the debt. Over time, and unfortunately, this practice became what the average person refers to when speaking of "slavery." Indentured Servitude was actually a very ingenious way to entice anyone and everyone to travel to the New World. Because of selfish and uncaring people, Indentured Service became outright slavery. Since it is said, and unfortunately proven, that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the absolute power found in "Manifest Destiny" blinded people to the plight of the American Indian. In 1829 Andrew Jackson essentially became the first DEMOCRAT President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson). He is also the man who destroyed the "Five Civilized Indian Nations" and forced them to move west of the Mississippi River (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html) This came on the heels of the Indian Wars in the Eastern USA, which explains why Congress did nothing to stop it. The "arguments" in the above paragraph are baseless rants that need to be answered by the one throwing those rocks. Anyone can create a childish rant based on fact-less emotion. It seems to be the argument style of choice by the incredible ignorance of "generation 2000." What gen2000 lacks are answers to what they see as atrocities.

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

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

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

why no start at 1622?

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

No, I think it was left out because colonial wars are not well covered here. Certainly there should be articles and listings on this war, known as the Powhatan War or Powhatan Wars or Anglo-Powhatan Wars. Why no one has taken an interest in this, I dunno. Maybe the upcoming release of The New World will generate some activity. --Kevin Myers 05:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks rck and Kevin. I was aware of the Jamestown and your posts let me to find First Anglo–Powhatan War in 1609-14. Those sounded equally as bloody as the 1622 Jamestown massacre. I am having a hard time with the seperation of warefare with and without genocide. However, I think this page should deal with North American Indian Wars, which should start somewhere around 1600. That would be a bit before the American Revolution. <grin>--Rcollman 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the first Anglo-Pothatan war starting 1608/1609 would be a better start date than 1622, as the siege of Jamestown in 1609/1610 killed all but 60 of its 214 inhabitants, and this war was the first significant fighting between natives and the colonists who would later found the US. The 1540 Battle of Mauvilla/Mabila might have been where nowadays is Alabama, but it was the Spanish under De Soto against the ancestors of the Choctaw, so its more part of the Spanish conquest of the Americas and not of the conflict of the forefathers of the US with the natives, and as such should not be counted in here. I think the American Indian Wars started with the first Anglo-Pothatan war, and not the later Jamestown massacre, where only a quarter of Jamestowns population was killed, the only justification for the 1622 starting date thus being the choice of direct violence instead of siege/hunger warfare.--Micge (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Colonial wars were waged between English Settlers and Native American tribes, whereas the American Indian Wars were waged between the US government and Native American tribes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a good point, but there was no US government in 1622. So one could choose a fitting date after the war of independence started, or after the formation of the US government in 1789. My point in the above posting was that if the Jamestown Massacre is chosen as a starting point, which was part of the Anglo-Powhatan Wars, you could as well choose the start of that conflict in 1608, or the start of the first of these wars, in 1610. Even though these were colonial wars, that was the first time the colony involved would continually exist and go on to form part of the US when the US were founded. As the lemma opens with "American Indian Wars is the name used in the United States to describe the multiple conflicts between American settlers or the federal government and the native peoples of North America from the time of earliest colonial settlement ...", a start of 1608 (one year after the earliest settlement in 1607) or 1610 does not sound wrong. A start of 1622 however suggests the American Indian Wars started with the Jamestown Massacre, which was just the most famous early military setback for the settlers in this conflict, a consequence of the conflict, not the cause.--Micge (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I added the edit that it started in that year but my edits that it ended in 1924 keeps on getting deleted. Can anyone tell me why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably because that is not usually considered to be the case. And because you dont provide a citation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

West of the Mississippi - Yakima, Cayuse Wars

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

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

Indian Wars exclusively US? - infobox content

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

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

I'm surprised you only noticed the perspective of the article from the infobox, since the first paragraph is very explicit about what this article does (and does not) currently cover. There is another article -- Native American wars -- to cover all wars in general involving North American Indians, but noboby pays much attention to it. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, perhaps the opening sentence of this article should be changed. After a year it seems to me the both Native American wars and Indian Wars are arbirtary page titles that seperate an arbritary mark on the timeline. I notice that Native American wars still is a stub and a year has past. I will add some links to the Wars of the indigenous peoples of North America (now a redirect from "Native American wars") I found by following some of the great discussions on this page and other discussion pages. I am going to avoid the Indian, Native American, Indigenous or Aboriginal debate. Thanks for your comments--Rcollman 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! And that's probably why I've never seen a link to it; it's not "linked up" as perhaps it should be; I'll add an italicized "for other wars etc. please see Native American wars at the top of the Indian Wars page. But here's a question for you - the existing article omitted (until I added them to the listing, if not the text) the Yakima and Cayuse Wars: should they be included here, or are they not usually considered part of the "Indian Wars"? And as for the spill-over wars involving Americans in British Columbia, what do I do with those?Skookum1 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

PS the Native American wars article is a very raw stub; and it sounds like it's to include wars between native peoples, as well as wars between native peoples and non-native groups other than the Americans (Russians, Brits, Spanish, whomever); and as far as all of those go, the term Native American wars really can't be used, since, well, the wars in BC weren't with "Native Americans" but with "First Nations peoples" (using the semi-official Canadian terminology; Canadians, as you know, don't use "Native American" in reference to Canadian aboriginal peoples; it's purely an American affectation....).Skookum1 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The second point first: maybe the best title for the other article might be something like "North American Indian wars" -- "North American Indian" in my experience seems to have been the best compromise term between the U.S. & Canada.

As to the other, I really don't know the correct answer for what this article should and should not cover. As you correctly mentioned eariler, when most American writers use the term "Indian Wars", they primarily mean the Plains Indian Wars, while others use the term much more broadly. Perhaps the term "Indian Wars" is used too loosely and informally to be of use to us here. The Oxford Companion to American Military History approaches the problem by having three articles under the general heading "Native American Wars"

1. "Warfare in Native American societies" (i.e. the practice of native warfare in general)
2. "Wars among Native Americans"
3. "Wars between Native Americans and Europeans and Euro-Americans"

Maybe something like that would be better, so we don't have to make arbitrary distinctions between what is an "Indian War" and what is a "North American Indian war". --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Native American Wars" re Canada

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

wars of the east - wars of the west

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

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

Category:Native American wars

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

Chickamauga Wars

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

Native American wars title, still

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

I don't think "we" Americans have coopted anything. I know I haven't coopted anything, that's quite a bit of generalization there. Change it to whatever you want, if no one will comment then silence should be taken as approval, I am sure if anyone has a problem with it, that will make them notice. Either way, the terminology used should reflect the usage in most academic circles. Someone may challenge this so bring some sources I would say. I don't care either way, I usually don't engage in semantics arguments about correct titling and the like myself but since you said no one had commented I decided to throw in a bit here. I have always heard "Indian Wars" myself, basically if this article isn't broad enough either add the globalize template of just move it to Indian Wars (United States). IvoShandor 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And your tone wasn't exactly friendly there in that last comment, we're not all useless. Sheesh. IvoShandor 18:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a move/rename to "Indian Wars (United States)" to differentiate it from those occurring in other nations. In reference to Russian Alaska, to my knowledge (as a 25-year Alaskan who has read a lot about Alaska history), the terminology Indian Wars has never been applied to such events as the Battle of Sitka or Battle of Kenai (which was between Russians & Dena'ina Indians), though undeniably there were hostilities. (Also between the Russians & Yup'ik Eskimos, who are not Indians at all.) The history of Alaska Natives is different in a huge number of ways from the history of Indians in the Lower 48 states, & the term Native Americans is usually not applied to Alaska Natives. U.S. government agencies such as the Census Bureau typically refer to "American Indians and Alaska Natives." --Yksin 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see "Indian Wars (United States)" section below.Skookum1 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Extended to its present borders?

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

Nez Percé

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

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

Caption of Sitting Bull's portrait

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

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

That seems reasonable enough --Miskwito 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He was ONE chief, not THE chief. There was never one single "head" of the Lakota 88.109.244.223 (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Campaigns article deletion

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

Citation lack not cited

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

"Indian Wars (United States)"

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

yeah, good idea, though I just added/reordered the Canadian-side ones (including adding hte Riel Rebellions adn Poundmaker's War....).Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

resource

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

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

Puget Sound War redux

1855-56....hmm, y'see there were really two very different conflicts in these years in the Sound. One was the short skirmish with the Nisqually, Puyallup, Klikitat and allies known as the Battle of Seattle (1856), which also included some Yakama and other Interior peoples. It was over pretty quick, and was nowhere near as scary as the raids by the northern tribes - Haida allied with Tongass (apparently Stikine Tlingits, as I just found out in one source) - throughout the summer of 1855 and again, with a vengeance, in 1856. Not a nice affair, beheadings, bombardments, naval battles. One episode is recounted on Port Gamble, Washington which led to the death of Isaac N. Ebey, who incidentally figures in the story of the San Juan Island dispute (Pig War). I imagine from Us military histories' point-of-view these were the same war "us vs them", but in this case the "them" were also the annual terrorizers of the Puget Sound peoples. Point here also is that these wer indigenous people from outside the United States who had come down to war on the peoples the US was busy warring with, or had just warred with and now presumed to protect, rather pitifully as the raids were "more of the usual" for the indigenous people of the Sound vis a vis the annual "culling" 9bo borrow a term from [[[Stargate: Atlantis]]). Due to the military response, ineffective though it was at a field level, I think these were the last great raids, at least that far south. Definitely a major conflict, don't quite know what to call it , unless just to treat it as a chapter of the Puget Sound War; but technically that war was over when all this went down. Also noting the Tonquin there on the list, that opens up adding, or having in a special section, other similar conflicts - the Boston, John Jewitt's vessel, others up in the Charlottes and Central Coast. Not the same thing as military conflicts, also; the fur trade was carried on, as various historians comment, with ships prepared for war and assuming treachery, and often treacherous themselves. If merchant wars of this kind are to included, they go right back to Bob Gray's ignominious retreat from Fort Defiance in the late 1700s....it may be better to have a Conflicts of the Pacific Northwest fur trade era or some such; either exclusivly marine fur trade or including various inland events; the Tonquin anyway did not happen in American territory; territory that the Us hadn't even gotten around to claining yet, I'm not sure it should be here. Thoughts on all this/?Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

William M. Osborn

Why are we citing an amateur historian in the lead section?-Wafulz (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially because he said that only 7193 Amerinds were killed by whites. D:

71.197.165.134 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Beky

Indian Massacres

I'm new to talk pages, but I'd like to bring to attention a big problem.

The existence of this page, "Indian Massacres."It is very unprofessional and incomplete. Perhaps it should be merged with this page.

71.197.165.134 (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Beky

Agree, the title is POV and should likely be merged here; not all such events were wars though cf the Tonquin.Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

POV fork - Indian Wars

Someone has taken the Indian Wars redirect, which was the result of the name-change of this page from that title, and made a very-POV fork article from it, largely replicating content here (on a narrower focus) and using in the lede, with only one cite, "ethnic cleansings", which is a late-20th Century term; even in Native American politics the term is "genocide" but not all such wars were genocidal or "cleansing" in nature (especially since some were won by the Indians....). I haven't examined the article in detail, but it seems somebody grabbed the football and started running in the opposite direction, and so far nobody's blown a whistle. Inflammatory language is not encyclopedic in nature, nor is biased content, and POV forks are against the rules....Skookum1 (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated the phrase about ethnic cleansing that was recently added by an IP. I do, though, stilll have questions about the need for this parallel article and especially the name for it. If this was supposed to be simply an implementation of the WP:Summary style guidelines, then it should probably be better integrated, content wise, with this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the separate article and continue to work on it. It is no where near complete at this point. I think there are good reasons to have a substantial article covering the Indian Wars of in the West in detail as that is the usual fare in popular culture. The ethnic cleansing addition has some basis in fact, but is anachronistic. I'll keep working on improving the article, and try to integrate the summary here with the expanded version there. I don't think there is a basis for the POV template, but am willing to listen to arguments, at Talk:Indian Wars. Fred Talk 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it - this article was originally titled "Indian Wars" and there are issues with that name (a bunch of issues, in fact, among them that it's a very USian/anti-globalize usage, and is a vague term whether potentially referring to wars in India (as indeed the British do use the term that way, distinguishing these wars as "the Red Indian Wars") or wars between Indian (as in North American Indian) peoples (which were many). Yes, there is a particular common usage in the US, but the US is not the whole world. What you've done is create a second article on the very same subject matter; it's called a WP:POV fork and flies in the face of a hard-fought consensus here (read "up" on this talkpage). "you['re willing to listen to argument" doesn't cut it; I'm not willing to listen to equivocation to justify the parallel article; I'm reverting to the redirect; if you'd like to make a case for the reversion of this article to "Indian Wars", please do so; but you're not only reinventing the wheel, you're insisting all the rest of us ride on it, too....the arguments have already been made, and consensus reached long ago. Rather than start a new argument, you should just educate yourself about the old one.Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You said "I think there are good reasons to have a substantial article covering the Indian Wars of in the West in detail as that is the usual fare in popular culture." Give your head a shake - that's what THIS article already is.Skookum1 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any consensus on this talk page regarding movement of Indian Wars to American Indian Wars, nor any good reason a separate article should not exist regarding the Indian wars of the American Old West. I'll keep looking, but so far have seen no good reason for changing a well-sourced article into a redirect. Fred Talk 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is rarely any good reason to have two separate articles on the same topic. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The justification for a separate article as proposed would have to come from and be consistent with WP:Summary style. If this is what was intended, then at a minimum the new article would contain all of the material from the parent article which would then be expanded. Instead, a new article appears to have been started from scratch. The new article is a POV split based on this definition from the summary style article, "In applying summary style to articles, care must be taken to avoid a POV fork (that is, a split which results in the original article and/or the spin-off violating NPOV), and/or a difference in approach between the summary and the spin-off, etc." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to transfer the material in this article to the more detailed article, but much of the material here is not referenced, and coverage is very spotty. I'll try to make the section here into an appropriate summary. Keep in mind the heading at Wikipedia:Summary style:

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Fred Talk 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Confederate States

I will be adding the Confederate States to the list of combatants. They are Americans and fought several battles with native Americans during the Civil War. Specifically in Oklahoma and Confederate Arizona. --Az81964444 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Crawfords' Campaign and Gnadenhutten massacre

Should these be under revolution or separate? They occurred in 1782 after major fighting between England and US ended. And in this way are similar to Pontiac's Rebellion after the French Indian War. Gnadenhutten Massacre is first deliberate large scale US troops killing of a non-belligerent group of Indians - Pa. Militia killed 100+ Moravian Christian Indians. Nitpyck (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Apparent lack of neutrality

Some sections in this article have 1) statements that lack neutrality, particularly in the Introduction; 2) some of the sources used to back claims rely on websites, and these claims are controversial; 3) some controversial claim simply have no support in the articles cited. A few examples of this:

"The earliest English settlers in what would become the United States often enjoyed peaceful relations with nearby tribes." This is not correct, and there is no source.

"A controversy continues on the question of whether the American Indian Wars were part of a genocide of Native Americans. Scholars take different positions in the ongoing genocide debate." There is disagreement, and this is true, but it's not quite an ongoing debate as such; much of the scholarly work in the recent past repudiates the earlier views, and little recently (though there is some) has challenged it. The articles cited (footnotes 4-6) leave much to be desired if someone wants to say these things.

"the best-documented figures are derived from collated records of strictly military engagements such as by Gregory Michno which reveal 21,586 dead, wounded, and captured civilians and soldiers for the period of 1850–90." Eh, this is problamatic. Perhaps, if there is evidence to state such, one could say "reliable", but "best" is pushing it.

" Whether non-combat deaths resulting indirectly from war (for instance the 4,000 Cherokees who died on the Trail of Tears) should be reckoned part of the legacy of the Indian Wars is a matter of fierce debate. Then, as today[3], many deaths involved hunger, disease, and intertribal violence set in motion by the disruptions of war, but not direct violence."

This is pure opinion & none of this is supported by the article cited; it mentions Rwanda, but says nothing on the wars fought between Europeans & indigenous peoples of the American continent. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002390.html

This is just a few lines & citations in the Introduction; I invite other editors to propose ways to present this article in a neutral way that uses reliable sources. Ebanony (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the 1st sentence dealing with "peaceful relations" because there was no reference, and is questionable. Again I'm asking editors to propose ways to adjust the lack of neutrality & also focus on sourcing the articles claims.Ebanony (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence on "genocide debate" & that part needs more work; the part on "best statistics" I've removed as well.

"What is not disputed is that the savagery from both sides was such as to be noted in newspapers, historical archives, diplomatic reports, and the United States Declaration of Independence. ("…[He] has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.")"

The above sentence was an outrage. The linking of indigenous peoples with "savagery", basing on Jefferson's writings, and then saying this version of events (that they were "merciless Indian savages" who just killed anyone) is somehow uncontroversial is just nonsense; this is overt racism, and historians say so; they specifically cite this as an example of racism. The editor is calling indigenous peoples "savages".

I missed this when I first went through this article; this article is extreme in its lack of neutrality & is written from a racist pov. Notice how the argument for "both sides" isn't there; it focuses on 1) "savages" & says they went around killing everyone. That's part of the problem. Indigenous peoples killed few Europeans/Americans; we can't say the reverse is true. Ebanony (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The following comment was added by 72.222.232.62 on Nov 7. Said individual also vandalised the article by adding numerous claims not sourced & changed every reference from "Native American to "Indian". This article has received racist attacks & and such one-sided arguments levels since day 1. We should request a higher security level.

"SInce the first founding settlements, the overwhelming majority of Indian nations had waged merciless warfare against the British colonists usually as allies of the French and Spanish. The proof of their national hatred toward the American colonists is evident that with the Declaration of Independence, hostile Indian nations formerly allied with the French gave their support to the British whilst even former allied Indian nations turned on the Americans in support of the British."Ebanony (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations Needed & Notice Added

The article has numerous statements & sections that lack citations and references. I'm asking editors to make an effort to properly source the claims in this article. Information, as per Wikipedia's policy, must be cited to outside sources. Ebanony (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted several sections because 1) they lacked citations; 2) they were long lists, and out of context (a much shorter version of massacares would be appropriate); 3) half the article was literally made of these things & they really made the article difficult to read - far too much on these topics & far too little on the current topics.Ebanony (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Estimated number of inhabitants in North America

Tobby72, with all due respect, 2 million is not the figure of inhabitants who lived north of the Rio Grande, and this is unambiguous. The most credible conservative estimates (low estimates) put the figure at 7 to 8 million people, and that's really low. Look at a wider variety of academics, which is what Jennings did when he cited the figures of conservative demographers who say there were about 7 or 8 million people." The 2 million figure is not "conservative"; it's a gross underestimate & that figure does not reflect current research; yet you insist in giving undue weight to it. Why? Because of this article? You just dismissed all the academic research by using this link as your basis http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/268/5217/1601

Further you created a contradiction in that paragraph because it 1) includes Jennings' citations of the low estimates (7-8 million) & 2) then you added a claim that the low figures were 2 million (based on Science Magazine). Both can't be the low estimate, and you've yet to demonstrate that the work Jennings cited is inaccurate. Now how you can place a next to Jennings work is astonishing. You really seek to discount Jennings' work? Remember, these weren't Jennings' figures and he didn't argue for that low number, but merely included it to give a fair representation of academic work (he was talking about 18 million); there is no consensus on the figure you cited as being the low estimate, nor is that article you cited representative of academic research even if it appears in a magazine. That's called undue weight to fringe arguments & Wikipedia policy is clearly against it: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight Your claim that Jennings work is the fringe view & unreliable is unsubstantiated. To dismiss Jennings work is to dismiss the demographic studies he cited as well.

If you're serious about population figures in 1491 in North America, then consider academics like Dobyns, Henry, Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America (he's a respected anthropologist & his work is peer reviewed); Thornton, Russell, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 (peer reviewed). None agrees with that citation you added. That's just for starters. Ebanony (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72, on October 25 when you reverted my edit (for the 2nd time), you said "rv per WP:RS, Science is a peer-reviewed academic journal, please explain in talk why do you think it should be removed". Look at the above and you can see that I did do just that (and not for the 1st time either). Not only did you not take your own advice to use the talk page, but you then reverted/changed my edit and changed it (3rd time). Wikipedia has a 3 reversion edit rule; I suggest you read it and stop reverting my edits since they represent respected academics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

Whilst it's good to see you're no longer pushing the pov of 2 million people north of the Rio Grande before 1492, you still feel that source is a good one; it isn't. That, if anything, is outside the scope of majority & possibly even minority pov's. Play it any way you want, but Stannard's estimate of 18 million as a high estimate for the population in 1491 is just that, a high estimate, and he clearly concedes that those of 7 to 8 million were valid too. So, the low estimate is about 8 million ranging to a high of 18 million, with the actual number being closer to around 10 million. Where is your evidence to say otherwise? How can you claim that 18 million is too high to be considered? Stannard's work & those he relies upon form one part of the consensus, and you cannot simply dismiss his work because he cited a variety of experts. I've also listed Thornton & Dobyns, respected scholars. The fact that you 1st refused to consider the figures of 8 or 18 million & now insist on 8 million as being the only number allowed means that you've got a problem: you're saying the low estimate can be included, but only of it's also the high estimate. Sorry. You must include the low & the high estimates, 8 & 18 million respectively. And you're usage of Shoemaker (a historian) still doesn't make your assertions correct. Ebanony (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

And what's your justification for removing the following?

Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, infectious disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives. Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80-90 % in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.

And whilst we're on this topic, you can also explain why you insist on putting this here again "The reliable figures are derived from collated records of strictly military engagements such as by Gregory Michno which reveal 21,586 dead, wounded, and captured civilians and soldiers for the period of 1850–90." Just because there's a cited text, doesn't make these figures "reliable"; do you know what these numbers don't say? The problem with this is that it's just a study & you've put it in the Indtroduction. That gives the impression those were the entire casualties; it only counts direct battle injuries (controversial in itself) the author felt appropriate & excludes all of the events prior to 1850, when the greatest some of the larger acts of Genocide occured, much of which pre-dateed the US. I do not agree with the placement of that in the intorduction. You need to demonstrate why these should not be removed. Perhaps it can be reworded & placed in a different paragraph, but not in the introduction. Ebanony (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the text, I think you are confused. Tobby72 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Most estimators consider Kroeber's low estimate too low and Dobyns' high estimates, whether 12 million or 18 million, much too high. The majority of estimates fall in the range of 2 to 7 million. For the contiguous United States, the estimates fall more within the range of about one to 5.5 million.

Shoemaker, Nancy (2000). American Indian Population Recovery in the Twentieth Century. University of New Mexico Press. p. 3. ISBN 0826322891. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

Tobby72 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please follow talk page accepted practise of not placing your text in between mine. There is space below for you to respond. I'm moving your edit because according to the time log, it was made after all of my edits.

Perhaps you don't know (maybe you do), but Shoemaker is a historian. And whilst she has done some good work, those demographic studies have the respect of many academics because they are demographic studies. These people did the demographic studies. I'm familiar with their work and Shomaker's. Her view, despite the claim to the contrary, is not the majority pov.

And, no, I'm not "confused". You made & reverted quite a few things on here, and you've made no attempt to improve this article. You just insist that only your edits should be allowed. Try working with me & others to address the problems & wording. After all my attempts to speak to you on this, I must ask why you insist on using really low numbers of the indigeous populations? Demographers do not agree with you. Why insist on this? You've now done the same thing on the page here so I had to revert it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas&action=edit&section=15

Ebanony (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Other editors interested in this discussion can note it has been continued in 2 places: 1) Tobby72's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tobby72#Your_recent_edits_on_American_Indian_Wars and 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#presenting_minority_pov.27s The reason it's also on Population of indigenous people's page is because the topics are close, and the same edit was added.Ebanony (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Article in need of expert

Tobby72, why is it necessary to place this template "This section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."?

Seems unnecessary, especially in the Introduction. I could understand the template for Cleanup instead since "cleanup templates can be used as a way to call attention to problems that need to be addressed by editors.", and that is more or less what I've been doing to this article. "If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed." This will attract more editors, and will help to improve the article. But, the Introduction isn't really that complicated. The problem isn't "experts" or lack thereof, it's following NPOV guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanup_templates

2nd, please start using the Talk page when you add templates - especially when you add templates - and make these type of adjustments; you'll find other editors will want to know what is going on. Doing things without even consulting other editors causes conflicts and can easily be avoided.Ebanony (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No one here has explained this; I will remove the tag as unecessary. Yes the Introduction needs work, but I see no reason for an expert to have to do it.Ebanony (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the issue became highly politicized and the size of the Native American population prior to European contact remains a source of scholarly debate and disagreement, and we are NOT experts on the subject, I am proposing either to exclude any numbers or to add the following compromise paragraph per WP:NPOV & WP:RS:

"There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. For example, Russell Thornton estimates that there were 7 million people living in North America, whereas other estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)." Tobby72 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For other editors following this problem, Tobby72 and I have agree on a compromise (the sentence above that Tobby72 came up with); we were also talking about a section or paragraph to examine the reasons why the numbers are controversial. See the Population article (link below) for full details. However, we'd both like other editors to contribute their thoughts on this before making any changes, so we welcome your comments and thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#presenting_minority_pov.27s Ebanony (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, to discuss here to arrive consensus before taking it to the artilce. This will help to maintain the stability of the article from frequent edits. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. And how do you feel about the proposed sentence on the population figures that Tobby72 wrote just above?Ebanony (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no debate about whether there is debate about the genocidal nature of the Indian wars. There is. It is central to the historical scholarship about the period. This is a factual, cited, documented statement. To not mention that in the introduction is to be inaccurate: acknowledging the debate IS per WP:NPOV.

And to mention a widespread charge of genocide without explaining it does no service to the reader. Let the facts stand, let the reader determine what he/she thinks based on the realities involved. Simply not liking a fact doesn't make it biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.105.122 (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the conversation; we left that section as it was & to get further input, not have editing wars. Tobby72s edit does more to address the problems than yours do, 75.172.105.122. Also, try writing in clear English & in a civil manner.

Your claim "to mention a widespread charge of genocide without explaining it does no service to the reader" - Agreed. But the evidence that editors have been doing this? Who? Or the evidence your edit is addressing this unfounded claim? The one making "a widespread charge" is you. That's not civil, and it doesn't assume good faith. Tobby72 had a good reason for his edit, and is trying to resolve the problems in a fair way. Assume WP:GOODFAITH.

Now you want to add "A critical question is how many people were killed in (or died as a result of) these wars." Actually, the UN Convention says: "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..." [[1]] Hence, intent is a serious legal question, not simply population numbers - which your edit cannot address (Michno or a selective Thornton number?). Deleting Tobby72's is unjustified. You did it twice.

I had to delete your edits because you ignored Wikipedia rules, made unsubstantiated claims of bias against editors, and appear to be promoting your own pov (Please read WP:POVPUSH). Please colloborate:

"While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule", the violation of which often leads to a block." WP:EDITWARRING You look new. We were all new once & all made mistakes. Now you're aware of the rules; please follow them.Ebanony (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that I'm pushing a POV. I'm including documented material -- and the removal of that material was not equally documented in its reasoning. (Accusing the material I put up of violating neutral POV doesn't make the case by itself.)

But let's try and understand each other. Let's take it on the merits.

Is there scholarly debate? Yes. To use just one example cited in the article, the Western History Association (the leading scholarly body for related historical questions) gave its Arrell-Gibson Award, "given for the best essay of the year on the history of Native Americans" to Benjamin Madley for his fall 2008 article “California’s Yuki Indians: Defining Genocide in Native American History,” in Western Historical Quarterly. That article includes the following statement: "This article summarizes the heretofore incomplete and disputed assessment of the Yuki genocide, narrates the cataclysm, reevaluates state and federal culpability, and explains how this catastrophe constituted genocide under the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Finally, the article explores how other case studies and the convention may inform future research on genocide in California and in the United States in general." It addresses the very real debate about whether or not individual wars against native American tribes and groups can be defined as genocide (there appears to be a consensus that the answer is "yes, sometimes") and in a broader sense whether the entire process of "winning the West" can be defined as genocidal (here the consensus seems more "quite probable, but not proven"). So there is clearly lively scholarly debate about the essential character of the Indian Wars, and statements of fact are not bias.

You are right that the UN defines genocide without relationship to the size of the group targeted. That said, I think it's pretty common practice to try to give a sense of the impact of a tragic event by listing the number of those affected. This is true from the Holocaust to car accidents. Here, too, there is lively debate in the scholarly community, and I actually think the section here (drawn from someone else's writing on the Native American history page) is a fair-enough-for-now assessment of the range of estimations (and the credible range is truly wide). If there's bias here, it's towards including the range of numbers. Happy to see an expert articulate a better version.

The paragraph on non-violent, war-related deaths is the best I could do in the spare time I had available. The critical point is that just as we are now recognizing that modern-day conflicts kill far more people through dislocation, disease, hunger and so on than through actual direct murder, so to does the historical record show that most Native victims died not from a bullet but from hunger, exposure, forced marches, contracting disease while in a weakened state (sometimes with intention through infected blankets and the like, though my personal reading of that is that the prevalence is overblown in modern accounts) and the societal disruptions that came from the destruction of their cultures, the on-going corruption of the BIA, land thefts, violence, rapes, introduction of alcohol and so on. There's a widespread international consensus now that when discussing the impacts of wars, we need to count the non-violent, non-combatant deaths and cultural destruction (which the Worldchanging article and NYT article it discusses are both about). The direct impacts of the Indian Wars went far beyond the number of soldiers or warriors killed on the battlefield. In 2010, that seems like a necessary NPOV inclusion.

From my personal point of view, and as a person with pioneer ancestors, the whole history of the Indian Wars is pretty ugly, seen from modern eyes (and in many cases seen from contemporary eyes, from Bartolomé de las Casas at the start of the process through the expose journalism of the Progressive Era), but the point worth making is not about my personal take on the issues, but that (it seems to me) on an ethical level that to not address the debate is to do a disservice to the history we're attempting to summarize here. There's a history

Certainly, the debate about genocide, about numbers of dead, about cultural disruptions is NOT all of the history. I'd love to see more about cultural interactions, diplomacy and the wider military history involved here. But the genocide debate is a pretty central and well-documented aspect that because of its gravity deserves, in my opinion, to be front and center in any discussion of the Indian Wars as a whole.

Thanks for your engagement on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.105.122 (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there is no debate or that it shouldn't be covered. Rather that the debate to the extent to which it exists is not accurately portrayed in your edit, anf therefore - despite having some sources - your comment must be removed. Shall we discuss your sources? I will in order

1. 1 [[2]] Not a bad source in iteself, but no specifc page is given & without a subscription others cannot access it. It's unclear why it's used.
2. 2 [[3]] This is not a source at all, just a web site.
3. 3[[4]] Michno's study does not support the sentence: "'army records are often incomplete'; his work is a 'workable' number, not a definitive account of events, since it excluded other figures." - as in all before 1850 when the majority occured. You're putting undue blame on the US. Read pg 353.
4. 4 American Indian Holocaust by Thornton "Other figures are derived from extrapolations of rather cursory and unrelated government accounts such as that by Russell Thornton who calculated that some 45,000 Native Americans and 19,000 whites were killed in battle." This criticies his work as unfounded & meere made up numbers - not something in the source (which is Thornton's book!). This is definite violation of neutrality.
5. 5[[5]] Theis about Rwanda, and the statements have no support in this aource.
6. 6[[6]] This may be useable, but it doesn't match your edit.
7. 7 & 8[[7]] This isn't a source & noting is cited there. [[8]] This is another site that is questionable, and your sstatements on population numbers do not have support from these sources.
8. 9 [[9]] This doesn't even mention the word Genocide, and it's not clear why it's used.

So of the sources you put, 2 aren't citations. 1 is totally unrelated. 3 are on the topic, but not used in a way that supports the opinion in your edit. Others are questionable (3rd wotld traveller). Michno's study cannot be used in this context unless you're saying deaths before 1850 don't count. The US & the "wild west" is one aspect, but the majority of deaths occured before the US were founded. The statement on Thornton is a serious violation of NPOV. You make claims your sources do not support. You make accusations about other editors and nuetrality. This must be removed. You've made 3 edits, and all are on this article and this subject. Correct? [[10]] Please conform to the rules of WIkipedia I posted here & on your talk page.

Tobby72 and I already agreed to include a new section dealing with these topics because of neutrality & political sensitivity etc. You're welcome to join it, but this sort of editing isn't helping. Remove the text for it violates NPOV, slanders an author & simply has no suppport in the sources cited.Ebanony (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll happily remove Michno and Thornton, since those were never my sources to begin with, but rather my effort to be respectful or a previous editor's work by trying to incorporate. Done.

As far as your other concerns go: 1) did you read even the abstract? It's directly about this subject; 2) the citation of a general resource which includes multiple articles on a topic is an effective citation of the existence of a debate; 3) & 4) were never mine; 5) this article includes the following information from the NYT, which would seem to pretty directly address the question of non-violent deaths as a result of violence:

"Horrible though the genocidal spasms in Rwanda and the aerial bombings in Sudan have been, the vast majority of those who die in African war zones are not done in directly by warriors. Rather, it is the disruption that a few thousand armed men in ragtag militias can create in the lives of millions of civilians that send so many innocents to their graves. ...Most deaths, the survey found, were due to maladies that are easily preventable and treatable in other parts of the world, such as malaria, diarrhea, respiratory infections and malnutrition. Less than 2 percent of the deaths were caused by violence."

As to the HNN article, it includes the following "The disparity in estimates is enormous"and goes on to discuss various estimates and how they were arrived at (and is a generally skeptical take on the genocide charge). The other two cite facts in support of the argument. The last provides citation for the fact that reservations remain poor, etc.

Could this section be improved? Yes, and I welcome improvement. Is it a violation of NPOV? I think that's pretty difficult to support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.105.122 (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 [[11]] Editors without access to the database cannot verify the claims you make against the article California’s Yuki Indians by Benjamin Madley; those with access cannot verify claims because no page number is given. This is part of the "five Pillars" WP:VERIFY. "This policy requires … any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." It must be "clear which source supports which part of the text." WP:INCITE Page numbers are required WP:CITE#HOW Yours is vague & is being challenged (note* your use of the article is the problem, not Madley's work itself).

No. 2 [[12]] This link is to Yale University’s "Genocide Studies Program", a page with numerous articles on Cambodia, the Holocaust etc. Only 2 pertain to the Indigenous people here. 1 is a link that doesn’t work, the other is the same article by Madley in point #1. Again, your claim is unverifiable, and violates proper citation rules.

No.3 & No.4 edits "3) & 4) were never mine". But you posted them twice. Michno is discussed in section West of the Mississippi – your comment created undue weight WP:UNDUE to Michno's writing; it had to be removed. [[13]] Thornton is a respected scholar whose work you questioned with an improper citation; he must be included along with scholars like Ubelaker, Shoemaker, Dobyns & Thornton etc. Wpedia: "articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." Your edits still violate WP:UNDUE, part of the "five pillars", because you excluded all of those scholars (respected experts) with your edits; you deleted Tobby72’s edit [[14]] He cited Nancy Shoemaker etc. Yours is a violation of Neutrality.

No.5 [[15]] "this article includes the following information from the NYT, which would seem to pretty directly address the question of non-violent deaths as a result of violence". Excuse me? In Sudan & Rwanda hundreds of years later? Native Americans are not even mentioned. Wikipedia: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." WP:OR OR is another "Pillar" of Wikipedia.

No.6 is Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? by Guenter Lewy [[16]]. He’s an expert in this field? He’s made attacks on people like Ward Churchill & takes extreme positions on the question of the Armenian Genocide. His article uses Mooney, an academic long since discounted (he doesn’t say that though), as if his work were current, comparing it to Thornton & Dobyns. That is one reason why "The disparity in estimates is enormous"; few respect Mooney’s work & that the gap is much smaller when we look at current research – say Ubelaker, Shoemaker vs Dobyns and Thornton (post 1962/1966). That’s highly questionable to do, and more questionable to use.

Mooney & particularly Kroeber "greatly underestimated population size" by not including "declines due to epidemic diseases." A population history of North America by Michael Haines & Richard Steckel, in Douglas Ubelaker’s chapter pg 52-54. [[17]]

A source is ok when it "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Your use of Lewy here constitutes undue weight WP:UNDUE of a minority pov.

No.7 [[18]] This isn’t a verifiable source, just a page with links to excerpts to a book by Stannard. See points #1 & #2 above for this violates citation policy. No page, no specific source is there for your claims.

No.8 [[19]] This author Stacie Martin is a minor voice in this, and even if we used her, you again violate citation policies by not specifically citing what supports your claims. You say "the citation of a general resource which includes multiple articles on a topic is an effective citation of the existence of a debate." That's your opinion, but Wikipedia says: It must be "clear which source supports which part of the text." WP:INCITE For the second time, nobody here is saying "there is no debate". You keep making this up. We know there is a debate, and you're not representing it correctly.

No.9 [[20]] Yes it does mention poverty; you again do not provide a page (citation policy). Try using instead academic studies that deal with poverty in reservations & indigenous communities. What does this have to do with genocide debate or population numbers? Use in a different section.

The real Genocide debate is discussed by serious academics like Nancy Shoemaker, Douglas Ubelaker, Henry Dobyns, David Stannard, among other experts in the field - people you've excluded. You say "Is it a violation of NPOV? I think that's pretty difficult to support." Yes, specifically undue weight, for startersWP:UNDUE. I’m asking you again to please restore the old edit & discuss with other editors proposed changes to that section in the talk page. Please look at WP:CONS "The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content." Tobby72 & I were in the process of working on that section; you insist on using an older edit that is highly questionable & your comments defend it; you make no proposals to use respected scholarship. I gave you an opportunity with "intent" and numbers. Your response "the UN defines genocide without relationship to the size of the group targeted won't solve anything." You don't deal with either numbers or intent appropriately, hence your description of the debate is inadequate. You're new. I've been patient. We all must adhere to policy. Please do so.Ebanony (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a way to cover the debate in its own section (not the intro & Tobby72 agreed) using reputable historians looking at the legal definitions of "intent", "numbers" of populations & have specifically cited several (at least 5) historians who're experts in this field who've got different pov's (Ubelaker, Thornton, Dobyns, Stannard etc); this requires looking at both the UN's definition & that of historian's & Lempkin; Tobby72 and I already also agreed to discuss this controversy here before posting new information to avoid problems. You've just ignored this. Instead, 75.172.105.122 you insist on keeping points 1-9 which violate NPOV & other policies - you deny the problems & even defend using completely unrelated material on Rwanda. You've not tried to reach a concensus, but insist other editors use your edit & have begun an edit war (I refuse to do that & warned you about that); I've been patient because you're new. Please reconsider the compromise edits that Tobby72 helped contribute to numbers in the "Introduction", where he says:

"There's no conclusive evidence to determine how many Native peoples lived in North America before Columbus. For example, Russell Thornton estimates that there were 7 million people living in North America, whereas other estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983)." by Tobby72

The Intro should be Tobby72's edit, and another section should discuss numbers & the genocide controversy in detail, looking at "intent" & arguments made for and against it. I compromised in the the "Intro" with Tobby72 because he made a good effort to use respected scholars, and include different POV's. I don't always agree with his edits, but I respect his work. We all have to compromise, including you.Ebanony (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I explained why your edits seem not to meet WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V; I offered an alternative for your them & proposed a section on genocide & numbers in detail, even naming respected historians & the major themes of the debate as it is. I'd gladly post more, but you've rejected that. I've assumed good faith & have tried to avoid an edit war. Seems to me you're not interested in resolving the problems. You're won't even respond here or your talk page.Ebanony (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

legislation

was there any legislation, on what authority were they conducted? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mexico and Spain

I find weird that the belligerent section lists all states/entities that at some point of time have had territorial claims over present-day United States of America (e.g., UK, France, Republic of Texas) except Spain and Mexico. Is this intentional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Or did the Indians never fight against people from Spanish-speaking countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like the Aztecs?Slx03 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I mean like the Seminoles against the Spaniards in Florida, and the Apaches and Navajoes against the Mexicans in today's New Mexico and Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.191.33 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph says "...conflicts between American settlers or the [US] federal government and the native peoples of North America...". The page is included in Category:Wars between the United States and Native Americans. The page is clearly about wars between the US government and/or US citizens and Native Americans. There are other pages listed at Category:Wars involving the indigenous peoples of North America, such as Apache–Mexico Wars and Pueblo Revolt. Admittedly, there is a lack of good pages about non-US/Canada wars with native peoples. The Mexican Indian Wars is just a stub. This is definitely an area where there could be much improvement. (not sure about Seminole-Spanish wars--I thought they were largely allies) Pfly (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

But the title is missleading because we all know America is a continent and this page only list the war between the US and the natives, it creates confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.169.49 (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

California?

Why is California listed as a separate belligerent between 1850–1866? Should all states from the Union where Indians War were fought be listed as separate bellingerents then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)C\

California lept from territory to statehood within two years due to the flood of immigration caused by the California Gold Rush. As a result of the remoteness to the State, inflation of prices and the lure of riches in the gold feilds, U. S. Army garrisons in the state were mere skeletons of thier former strength as most of their men deserted to the mines and the troops remaining could barely be fed, clothed or housed and were not paid a living wage. In these circumstances the new state, populated by young engergetic, and impatient men found it easier to rely on their own state militia under their own officers to deal with the bandits and Indian tribes that annoyed them. This was usually the last resort, when the local posse or vigilante groups could not deal with the problem. Much of the warfare against the Indians was carried out by gangs who captured young Indians to sell into servitude in the settlements prior to 1863. After the boondoggle of the Gila Expedition, California's first campaign that nearly bankrupted the state, the militia campiagns were better run, using motivated local men and officers raised and armed by its State Militia organization. Even during the Civil War most of the Indian fighting was conducted by California soldiers and officers in volunteer units. Few federal campaigns were fought in California with federal troops until after the Civil War and by then there was not much left to be done.Asiaticus (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Causes of the wars in the colonial period

My edit reverted by User:Sven Manguard for allegedly being "non-neutral" simply stated that "From the very beginning, the process of European settlement of what would later become United States territory was accompanied by armed conflicts that periodically erupted between the natives and the settlers in the areas that were being colonized." I think that this is a completely indisputable uncontentious statement, without any POV claims about what the causes were. I'm really at a loss as to what could be construed as biased here - the suggestion that the settlers in America were of European heritage (which they were)? The use of the word "colonization" (which is a standard term for European settlement in the Americas and elsewhere)? The statement that there were conflicts from the beginning (which is objectively true, as clear from the following list)? This really boils down to the claim "there were wars", preceding the list of wars; I don't see how anyone could possibly deny that. The previous formulation ("While some historians suggest that settlers were engaged in warfare to open further land for settlement, other historians suggest that settlers needed to defend themselves from attacks by the Indians") claimed the existence of two mutually irreconcilable camps of historians with opposing theories about the causes of the wars, which I don't think is true. (Obviously, both factors existed, the settlers did occupy land, resulting in wars, and they did need to defend themselves from the Indians; yet I doubt that there are any serious historians would claim that Indian aggression and banditry, and hence the need for defence from these, were the true and primary cause of the wars). If people want to keep this formulation, they should source it. I'm glad that User:Maunus agrees with me on this.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the IP's edits are non-neutral, they in fact avoid the quesin of neutrality by not phrasing the question as a false dichotomy according to which settlers were either attacking the Indians or defending their families. Settlers and indians obviously both did both attacking and defending at different times, and the key to understand the process is that of the context of colonial expansion in which certain populations move into areas inhabited by others and conflicts ensue. Secondly the histriographic claim corrected by the Ip editor that there is a dichotomy between historians who blame the Indians and historians who blame the settlers is itself a gross oversimplification and unsupported by any sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox error

The Kingdom of Great Britain only came into existence in 1707. Before that it was two separate countries: England and Scotland. I don't think Scotland had any involvement in New World colonisation except for Darien, so for dates preceding (and including) 1707 England should be listed as a participant. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties?

Other Wikipedia entries have "Casualties and losses" entries in the box at the right.

Why is it that this war does not? 116.55.65.98 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

probably because it covers a series of disconnected wars against different tribes/coalitions over many years. (and we lack good summary statistics) Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Grand Total

Since they took place in both the United States and North America it should have a grand total of 432 years of genocide from the Columbines kidnappings and massacres of the Bahamas in 1492 to the band of natives in Arizona steeling houses in 1924. That would complete the article more not to mention the other European powers who conquered the continuant. --124.148.105.105 (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged the article for POV concerns. A quick reading shows that the article is written almost entirely from a nationalist US perspective defending the Wars by referring to the Indians as allies of foreign nations, as violent attackers of civilian colonists and downplaying or ignoring breaking of treaties, and violent atrocities committed by the American state and civilians against the Natives, and by failing to mention any of the ideological motivations underlying the wars such as the idea of European racial and cultural superiority, manifestdestiny and American exceptionalism, and simple racism. The entire article needs to have its perspective seriously straightened - this reads like 1950s historiography. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but writing it solely from the perspective of Manifest Destiny is equally problematic. Particularly in the earlier years, much of the conflict was very much local with personal motivations, with something as simple as a stolen pig leading to a murder, leading to a reprisal raid, leading to a war, and this is inadequately summarized by writing it all off as racism and Manifest Destiny. The role of the European power-alliances shouldn't be completely purged either, as the frontier mayhem they encouraged provided the rationale for some of the more nasty campaigns of the late 18th/early 19th. Even something as ghastly as Sand Creek came more out of a severely mis-directed reprisal mindset. I guess the take-home is that we need something that is more nuanced than any of these simple explanations. Agricolae (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and use more and better sources. The article has been bogged down in the "genocide" or "not genocide" debate for ages, it needs to progress into actually giving a nuanced account of the different aspects and viewpoints on the wars.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is kind of a nightmare of racism and outdated sources. Manus is right with comments below that modern (i.e. 21st century) sources should be looked at. However, it is critical to note that racism and genocidal issues were certainly there and should not be whitewashed. Military leaders of the time really DID say "nits become lice." However, my own time to work on this is limited. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Some did, and some didn't. Frankly, the military side of most of the Indian Wars coverage here sucks. I've given up on doing much to fix it, really. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Military" as in tactics and weaponry and assessment of the combatants on each side? Yeah, that is true. I think the problem is all of this is so huge that people have been reluctant to even start because this article alone will eat you wiki-life for the next two years... Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Military" also as in terms of the Army's role in the whole conflict, the various units involved, and so on. It goes beyond tactics and weapons. Just looking at that crap article Frontier Strip (thanks, Suggestbot...) reminded me of it. Intothatdarkness 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant material

There is a good perspective in Native historian Daniel Paul's We Were Not the Savages - a meticulous presentation of historical facts using original records to speak for themselves. He mentions the laws in the books in Europe in the early 1600s that said any land in the new world could be claimed if it was not ruled by a Christian. He quotes a French lawyer in 1618, Marc Lescarbot articulating his interpretation that non-Christian peoples had no right to own land, and notes "If this warped law were ever to be accorded recognition by modern legalists they would have to take into consideration that, after Grand Chief Membertou and his family converted to Christianity in 1610, the land of the Mi'kmaq had become exempt from being seized because the people were Christians. However, it's hard to imagine that a modern government would fall back and try to use such uncivilized garbage as justification for non-recognition of aboriginal title."

Examples of the type of legislation Mr. Paul describes can be found in the edicts of James I of England in setting up the Virginia Company:

• "JAMES, by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. WHEREAS our loving and well-disposed subject, [...] gentlemen, and divers others of our loving subjects, have been humble suitors unto us, that we would vouchsafe unto them our licence, to make habitation, plantation, and to deduce a colony of sundry of our people into that part of America, commonly called Virginia, and other parts and territories in America, ether appertaining unto us, or which are not now actually possessed by any christian prince or people, situate, lying and being all along the sea coasts, between four and thirty degrees of Northerly latitude from the Equinoctial line, and..." "We greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of his divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian religion to such people, as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in those parts, to human civility, and to a settled and quiet government; Do by these our letters pattents, graciously accept of and agree to, their humble and well intended desires;

" -- James I of England, April 10, 1606

• "... and wee doe specially ordaine, charge, and require, the said presidents and councells, and the ministers of the said several colonies respectively, within their several limits and precincts, that they, with all diligence, care, and respect, doe provide, that the true word, and service of God and Christian faith be preached, planted, and used, not only within every of the said several colonies, and plantations, but alsoe as much as they may amongst the salvage people which doe or shall adjoine unto them, or border upon them, according to the doctrine, rights, and religion now professed and established within our realme of England..." -- James I of Eng;and, Nov 20, 1606

• "JAMES, by the grace of God, king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. To all, to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas, at the humble suit and request of sundry our loving and well disposed subject, intending to deduce a colony, and to make habitation and plantation of sundry our people, in that part of America, commonly called Virginia, and other parts and territories in America, either appertaining unto us, or which are not actually possessed of any christian prince or people, within certain bounds and regions." -- James I of England, May 23 1609

• "...Provided always, that the said Islands, or any the premises herein mentioned, or by these presents intended or mean to be granted, be not actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or estate..." -- March 12, 1611.

Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think to start with we should try to lean more on recent mainstream treatments of the topic of the Indian Wars. But yes, that type of rationale and legislation was very common during the colonial period of new World imperialism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect "mainstream" will be tough to define, but we can basically present each of the "Major" perspectives with a historical analysis. It's important to let native people's voices be heard; and their sources are often not as scholarly as our WP:RS ideals might wish they were. (Paul sounds promising, though I have not read the work) I agree that looking at stuff published in the 21st century, or at least since 1990 or so will be a good thing to do (much new analysis came out around 1992 during the Columbus quincentennial) Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not so worried about not being able to find the mainstream. It is found in high level scholarly journals and in books published at academic presses. It has been mainstream for the past 20 years to strive actively to let indigenous viewpoints be heard, so I am sure we can find those within recent mainstream literature. Even if we can't native views are definitely notable and will have to be included even when not sourced to recent mainstream scholarship. The conservative US nationalist viewpoints currently characterizing the article will also require inclusion, but in a much more balanced way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 August 2013‎ (UTC)

It's definitely better than it used to be, that's for sure. Montanabw^(talk) 17:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps has been so even longer than 20 years... J. N. B. Hewitt comes to mind... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Many of the native sources are primary: the words of the Chiefs involved themselves, there are entire books composed of these, and believe it or not, books giving the native perspective in a "scholarly" manner. But even Paul notes the supremacist attitude of some who would only accept white historians on native subjects. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, some of the "words of the Chiefs" were actually not their words, but written by whites for them... but point taken. I don't really see that Til and Manus really have any deep-rooted differences of opnion on this particular matter, so I'd suggest you guys start accumulating sources, either here or in the EL section of the article, and start working on sections bit by bit. (Says me, here, who like the friends of The Little Red Hen probably isn't going to be of much help...) Montanabw^(talk) 17:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Comanche actually represent(ed) "demonic immorality" and routinely practiced torture, murder and gang-rape (on other indians and white settlers)?!

Hello everyone. I am not a subject matter expert, but I just read this article in the Daily Mail: The truth Johnny Depp wants to hide about the real-life Tontos: How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family And it doesn't portray the Comanche in much of a sympathetic light.

Why isn't this perspective more accurately and fully represented in this article? I asked the same question on the talk page of the Comanche article and someone had the audacity and bad faith to actually delete my question and try to pretend like it hadn't been asked. I hope the same doesn't happen here, as I am genuinely concerned by these shocking revelations as to the brutality of the Comanche Indians. Thank you in advance for taking the time to reply. Azx2 19:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it's racist bullshit. See below, I mean, come on: how is this different from any warlike culture across all of human history for pete's sake? Mongols? Huns? Bedouin on blood feud? Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Comanche committed their share of atrocities, but I don't think they were unusually "demonic" compared to other Indians or to "civilized" Anglos and Hispanics. The Comanche were raiders and their main objective was to make a profit -- which they did for a century and a half. Terror tactics figured into their business strategy -- but then don't all ambitious empires utilize terror?

The Comanche probably never did anything more barbaric than the Texans did about 1840 when they invited the Comanch to peace talks and then slaughtered several dozen of their leaders.

The original Tonto, by the way, in the comic book version of the 1950s was a Potawatomi Indian. I guess Johnny Depp was striving for name recognition by making his Tonto a Comanche. Smallchief (talk

Like Smallchief. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to think he was aiming for the "cool" factor, but that's just me. That aside, this is really another intersection of the "heathen savage" POV versus the "Dances with Wolves" POV. Once side seeks to underline the atrocities of either the Anglos or the Natives (depending on which narrative is being pushed), and both miss the reality by a fairly wide margin. And interestingly both narratives tend to overlook the role of Mexicans in many of the border conflicts (the Mexican-Comanche conflicts had been going on for decades and were quite brutal). Intothatdarkness 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And let's not forget the Conquistadors. Or that the Conquistadors would not have conquered the Aztecs without a lot of local help... speaking of brutality. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Or that the Conquistadors gained said local help by exploiting their outrage regarding the brutality of the Aztecs...same scenario also happened to a degree with the Incas. I tend to get irked by both narratives ("heathen savage" AND "Dances with Wolves") because they tend to automatically assign guilt and innocence with wide brushes and ignore the realities of the situation. Neither are especially useful as historical tools. I'm also not a fan of certain "shock" words applied in this area for the same reason. Intothatdarkness 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This page is basically a broad overview of the many many conflicts and wars that occurred between Native Americans and the United States. There's a short bit about colonial conflicts, but it is quite limited and focused on the British colonists (ie, little or no mention of French or Spanish conflicts that took place in what later became the United States, such as the Pueblo Revolt). Even so the page is largely a list of conflicts and wars, with links to articles with more information, and some basic background information here and there. Being broad and general, it doesn't get into details about the enormous number of atrocities committed by many parties over many centuries. Such details are better suited to pages about specific events and wars, like, oh I don't know, Natchez Massacre, Apalachee massacre, Yamasee War, Chickamauga Wars, Beaver Wars, and so on. We even have pages like Slavery among Native Americans in the United States, Captives in American Indian Wars, and Indian massacre.

There are plenty of examples of atrocities committed by natives against settlers, natives against natives, settlers against settlers, on and on. So yes, sure, information on this kind of thing is fine to add, where it is missing and appropriate. This page isn't really the place for it. Also, strong sources are essential especially when dealing with topics like this. The Daily Mail is not a good source. They may have some facts more or less right, but that article is clearly sensationalized and cherry-picks among sources to paint a dramatic, scandalous picture—"shocking revelation" is exactly the angle they are aiming for. If you are truly "concerned", find some better sources and learn more. I found Hämäläinen's "The Comanche Empire" to be quite good. Pfly (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a notorious t&a tabloid with trashy news; hardly something that should be quoted in an encyclopedia except as an example of anti-native racism.Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all agree about the WP:RS status of the Daily Mail. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I"m starting to think that there's an orchstrated campaign to affect Wikipedia, ranging from the chauvinism that weighed in and made the wrong decision on Squamish/Skwxwu7mesh and was very audible/visible in the other endonym-RMs, and in the slag that showed up on Idle No More adn Theresa Spence and elsewhere, as here, and here is some indication that none of this is incidental/coincidence.Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm. If so, it's a bigger project than an article talk page. How do they handle stuff like the Tibet/China thing, or similar ethnic international disputes? Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is less than zero evidence of any such conspiracy at this point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee, that's quite the leap from "orchestrated campaign" to "conspiracy" maunus, and if you read that article I linked there definitely is an orchestrated campaign, and up here in Canada there is a well-known and organized strategy coming from a cadre of Tory sympathizers and corporate think=tanks, so-called, like EthicalOil.org and the Fraser Institute and former groups like Share BC and the Heritage Front and others. To whit, other than court challenges and such, there are recognizable patterns of invective coming from apparent single sources of rhetorical jargonese and "playbooks".....it's not like this is an organic movement, there's clear evidence and in that article it's all about an organization that DOES overtly lobby against native interests. Conspiracies are secret; tehre's nothing secret about this organization or ethicaloil (which lately has mutated into anti-native invective in Canada and no longer talks about being "ethical" and certainly doesn't behave ethically....maybe you spend too muych time only in Wikipedia and are just not aware of what else is going on in cyberspace, or in the community or the national polity, either.Skookum1 (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

by using the term "conspiracy" and implying "conspiracy theory", you are comparing critics of the these orchestrated and obviously racist people/organizations with UFO and Chemtrail conspiracy theorists; comparing apples and oranges and the very real with the speculative as a way to discredit the critics of the rabid and very racist right-wing who stump regularly and publicly both with shirts and ties but also in cybersrpace; as was clearly the case with what happened with the Idle No More and Theresa Spence article, and I note that it's Idle No More Washington who are t he target of the group in the linked article. Maybe you're just an innocent and rather jejune and happily wear blinkers on in heavy traffic though....Skookum1 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm too old and have heard and seen too much to ever be so naive as to think that somehow Wikipedia is immune from their activities, or they have a "hands off" policy about it.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a bit more experience confronting actual racists on wikipedia than you have. There is no evidence whatsoever of an "orchestrated campaign" except in your mind. There are people with all kinds of extremist ideas on wikipedia and some articles reflect some view points and others reflect others. You yourself have a long history of fighting your political battles on wikipedia and pouncing at everyone who hasn't yet seen the truth as revealed to you as if they are pure evil. Calm the fuck down and start acting with other editors with the assumption of good faith or your editorship here will be brief. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was helpful, Maunus. Do look at WP:BAIT. The reality is that (and here I am speaking with my 100% WASP-y academic hat on) there really is a problem of systemic bias in the First Nations/Native American articles both on wiki and on many other forums ( I remember coming across this attitude on AOL back in the early 90s) and it's in a form that is basically, "who cares what these quaint ignorant native people think, we know what's best for them and there are too few of them to really matter anyway." SKookum1 gets a little intense, but he's actually correct most of the time, at least when it involves Canadian First Nations languages and political status. Now, let's take a look at how we can handle these articles with a bit more respect for the real, living people whose history we are discussing. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Last Battle(s) in the Indian Wars

Hi,

just surfed by since Geronimo was on Wiki's front page today. Fascineted by the "last dates" (1911, 1923, etc.), and, following the links found 3 or 4 places all describing this or that incident as "the last battle of the Indian Wars". Battle of Bear Valley, Last Massacre/Kelley Creek, Posey's War, Renegade Apaches ... no end to this end.

Aside: the text of the memorial to Geronimo's surrender in 1886 ( http://abell.as.arizona.edu/~hill/4x4/skeleton/skeleton.html ) also has the text "... /this/ ... forever ended Indian warfare in the United States".

But IW in the US can't have ended for 37 years ... or ... ?

T 88.89.144.233 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The text on the memorial doesn't take into account Wounded Knee, for one. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, neither the 1890 massacre or the occupation in the 1970s. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting On Track

I mean no disrespect, however, I came into this discussion because this is listed as the "Indian Wars" yet the discussion and the article is all over the place.

If we are to look at the generic Indian Wars, then we are to see that this topic can go all over the place. If we are to look at the Military Campaign entitled Indian Wars then this topic is way out of bounds.

The military lists the following 14 as campaigns:

• Miami January 1790-August 1795
• Tippecanoe 21 September-18 November 1811
• Creeks 27 July 1813-August 1814; February 1836-July 1837
• Seminoles 20 November 1817-31 October 1818; 28 December 1835-14 August 1842; 15 December 1855-May 1858
• Black Hawk 26 April-20 September 1832
• Comanches 1867-1875
• Modocs 1872-1873
• Apaches 1873; 1885-1886
• Little Big Horn 1876-1877
• Nez Perces 1877
• Bannocks 1878
• Cheyennes 1878-1879
• Utes September 1879-November 1880
• Pine Ridge November 1890-January 1891

I am looking for a category that addresses the campaigns. If this is what this article is looking to address, then I am willing to work with the group. If the group believes that this is another article in and of its own merit, then I will begin crafting a new page to address the military campaign.

I read up on the comments behind deleting the original Indian Campaigns. While there may be some white washing of the history, the campaigns carried out by the military are done irregardless of the decisions that the government makes. The hammer doesn't care if it hits a nail or a person, it only does what it is directed to do. That being said, the political decision, implications, racism, and genocide caused by the actions should not be part of the article, in my opinion.

Custer may have been a fool, but that is for interpretation of the facts as laid out, the reader should read for themselves and make an informed choice. A well cited article will show the implications and effects of the war/campaign.

So what to do? Should there be a separate article for the military campaign or not? Greg (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the origin of that list but a whole series of campaigns against the Sioux (or Dakota), Cheyennes, and Arapahos between 1862 and 1876 are omitted. There were also several campaigns against the Navajo and several more against the Apache which are omitted from the list. Plus a number of campaigns against the Shawnee and others between the revolution and the constitution -- 1776-1789. Smallchief (talk 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That list of "campaigns" is intended for unit lineage purposes and doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. The so-called "Comanche Campaign" is the best example: there was no single campaign covering that period and the claim that there was flies in the face of historical reality. The only major campaign during that period was the Red River War. Also, the "Apache Campaign" only covers Crook's operations and ignores the actions between 1866 and 1870. My advice would be to ignore that list and work instead from the chronology developed by historians like Robert Utley, which does take into account the points raised by Smallchief above. Intothatdarkness 14:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That list of "campaigns" is what men and women have bleed and died for; whether we appreciate the notoriety, politics or repercussions, it is the official list of the United States military, and at least a point of view that can be pointed toward as an answer for a guide or template. Historical reality is what we are left with to find the truth in the evidence that remains. I am not defending the accuracy, only that I am looking for an article that covers the campaign. Perhaps, it stands on its own, Indian Wars (United States) military campaign. Greg (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that the list is WRONG. And it's not campaign singular, it's campaigns. That list isn't a guide or template in any useful sense, except for tying unit lineage to specific events. If you use that list as definitive, you're distorting history. An article about the military's use of this term in this context might be useful, though. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The singular campaign refers to Indian Wars. It would be plural if you referred to the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, as an example.

The list is what it is... it is neither right nor is it wrong. You are correct in the fact that are more armed conflicts between Native Americans and the United States military. After having re-read the article and seeing the comments, I agree that this may not be the right place for my proposed article. As an example to what I am talking about, in the American Civil War, there was definitely an armed conflict between Missouri and Kansas, and yet there is not a campaign for such. And yet it adds to both the narrative and context of the Civil War.

Where I am coming from is the need of articles that cover the recognized campaigns, as seen by the United States military. In the beginning, I was asking if this was the proper article for that... now, I believe that it is a separate article unto itself.

The piece that I see with this article is that it has become so bogged down without moving on, that some new life interjected into it. There is no question that there are deep rooted emotions with this topic, as there should be. A wrong was committed that cannot be undone. What needs to happen with the article is the opinion taken out, and let the facts stand on their own. Any one that would read such an article would see the obvious genocide. The opinion or in this case conclusion of genocide, should be put in the conclusion, rather than the narrative. Greg (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually...the list is wrong from the standpoint of good history. Focusing on what you're calling recognized campaigns as defined by this list will leave many major conflicts uncovered and incorrectly lump others into generic groupings. It also creates a false impression of organized, planned campaigns. From a historical perspective it borders on revisionism. Keep in mind that this campaign list didn't exist until the Army decided to revise unit lineage after World War II. It's a thematic device, not an accurate historical tool. You need to firmly grasp that concept before moving on with it. Intothatdarkness 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say revisionism, but straight to a list of what today would generate a service star or device on a campaign medal. I would go on to say, that while a description of each would be limited in scope, each should be properly cited and linked to pages within Wikipedia to gain full perspective of the details. I do completely agree with you that it is a thematic device; it is specifically to what action would a unit gain a streamer for participation, and what actions would an individual earn a campaign medal (or device if multiple awarded) for participation.

I would go on to say that the "Paul Harvey" or the rest of the news (that would be linked) is in the details of the particular battles and the war articles themselves. When I first was looking at this last night, I missed the mark on the article. I stand by my comments that the article needs to get on track, but not as I first suggested. The list is not all inclusive, nor does it truly give a two-sided account of the details. One of the reasons I was starting to shift my focus and move it towards the Military group rather than here. Greg (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The only campaign medal ever issued by the Army covering this period was a generic Indian Wars medal. I happen to agree that this article needs work, but focusing on the Army's list isn't the way to go about it. For one thing, you'll miss the majority of the conflicts before the Civil War, as well as some rather extensive campaigns that took place during the Civil War. The list may be handy for campaign streamers and "sharing the wealth" when it comes to unit (not individual) recognition, but it's still bad history. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Native Americans vs American Indians

Any thoughts? --Kwasura (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the article title is American Indian Wars, reflecting common usage both during the wars themselves and now, and since the term American Indian continues to be widely accepted today (and since no reason to change the existing infobox term for the combatants in those wars has been advanced), I see no reason for a change to be forced in. 2600:1006:B113:6281:801:8E7:6524:1002 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Today the term American Indian is considered to be both incorrect and racist. See and article Native American name controversy and, in particular this quote:

In the 20th and 21st centuries, indigenous peoples in the Americas have been more vocal about the ways they wish to be referred to, pressing for the elimination of terms widely considered to be obsolete, inaccurate, or racist. During the latter half of the 20th century and the rise of the Indian rights movement, the United States government responded by proposing the use of the term "Native American," to recognize the primacy of indigenous peoples' tenure in the nation.

And don't you see that the existing infobox term you are talking about (American Indians) is actually redirecting to the Native Americans in the United States? You should know that. So, what is your point in forcing the offencive name to remain in the infobox? --Kwasura (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not offensive. American Indians/Native Americans use the term themselves and (in my experience) see no issue with it. Even activists groups like the American Indian Movement, who would be first to object to a term considered offensive, use it. It also predominates in the historiography. Rwenonah (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me point your attention that the founding year of the American Indian Movement is the 1968. Today is the 2015 and the "American Indians" of the the "American Indian Movement" themselves prefer to be referred as the Native Nations, not the "Indians". Just like the "Negros" don't like to be called "Negros" anymore. Despite the fact that "Negro" was once an acceptable term and the African Americans themselves used to refer to each other this way. Same story here. What was fine in the 1968 is not anymore in the 2015. American Indians are not anymore. Don't believe - clic the link. --Kwasura (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

So that link is indicative of what we are to consider proper terminology? Like where it says:

• "At the core of the movement is Indian leadership under the direction of NeeGawNwayWeeDun, Clyde H. Bellecourt, and others."
• "Indian people were never intended to survive the settlement of Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, our Turtle Island."
• "The movement was founded to turn the attention of Indian people toward a renewal of spirituality..."
• "AIM is headquartered in Minneapolis with chapters in many other cities, rural areas and Indian Nations."

and etc., etc., etc. Yeah, looks like in 2015 they really hate and eschew that word "Indian". 2600:1006:B113:6281:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Kwasura. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This Indian prefers the word "Indian." Smallchief (talk 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure we need to hear more from the peoples of the Native Nations about how they are prefered to be called in 2015. I am not the Native American, but I am seeing the term "American Indian" (just as the "Negro") as outdated, incorrect and racist. --Kwasura (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"American Indian" usually doesn't offend us American Indians nearly so much as it offends our "liberal" "social engineer" friends who seemingly consider everything racist and offensive if they don't understand it!

Part of the problem is trying to lump several unrelated groups into a homogenous entity and then slap some label on that artificial entity to further the illusion of homogeneity. If you look at the individual groups wrongly being lumped together, you will find each group prefers to be called different things, i.e. some tribes are generally fine with "Indian" in English and call themselves that, while those from other backgrounds may avoid that term. 71.246.145.138 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, if the term "Indian" is not something all Native Nations agree be called, why it is being preserved in Wikipedia as "Status Quo"? Is it really? --Kwasura (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no single term that is universally acceptable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC

I think Kwasura is on to something. My people never broke a promise to the British Crown and while the monarchy hasn't forgotten us, their power has decreased. Is this a product of an Indian War?

As someone who works with psychology and has a French-, Seneca-Indian heritage, I think I can shed light on this topic; basically in my edit description I explained that nativity is akin to demographics and is logically semantic: atheists (people who don't have a religion) are native to planet Earth. I'm focusing on religion because symbolism is one of the defining aspects of modern humans and with symbolism, comes socialism. In Ian Morris' book 'Fate of Nations,' he highlights 3 unique qualities that define the success of a nation: social organization (religion), ability of war (science), discovery of energy. (In our representation it is the unmovable right of peace, to righteousness in trade, to power.)

Basically, what I'm saying is shots like that of the Lexington fight (American Revolution) may or may not have proportional representation or the benefit of common idealism or secular theology of the area playing a role (in most strategy games religious ordeals cause unwanted dissent). Now even within the Iroquois League today there is strife amongst different states when dealing with tobacco and arms sales. It's nice to think that we 'need' to procreate and all that but in the end mammals need 3 things to live: water, food, sleep, so there is always relations in respect to what Napoleon once said: "Ability is nothing without opportunity."

We can also say Columbus didn't discover America but bringing other demographics and similar Shaman-type religions -- like that of Afghanistan, or Mongolia, and even early Briton -- into the mix is, erroneous. Anyway, I can tell you about the need in Lexington for neutral transparency when there is no representation, but that for another day. [21] An article about U.S. troops not understanding the Tripartide gov. system otherwise known as representative government, proportional representation, etc, where even today as we reach for an economy without consciousness (robotics), the proletariat-communists have gained strength but fail at not realizing they need to be less of an ideology and more of an ability of science as freemasonry-capitalism is. The gov. foundation of people indigenous to Earth must, like chess, be simple and flexible. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict "results" section

A recent addition to the Infobox in the results section caught my attention. This page covers a large span of time and many sets of combatants. The results for any of them were not standardized, so only generalities should be stated. Rcollman (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that one usual result of a military conflict is in the deaths/causalities of 'combatants' and of 'non-combatants'. Someone suggested 3000 whites and 200,000 natives. There was no citation and my guess is that both numbers are low. Rcollman (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Another result is that sovereignty boundaries sometimes changed. The sovereignty of each of the "invaders" changed and possibly in a few conflicts in the 400 year span, the "natives" won back some of their territory. This is not just about the United States after 1776. Rcollman (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Indian reservations were created. Was the the result of each conflict or the cause of the conflict? I suspect both. I left it.Rcollman (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Indian Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bxscience.edu/ourpages/auto/2009/4/5/34767803/Pre-Columbian%20population.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060326004847/http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-6725 to http://texashistory.unt.edu/permalink/meta-pth-6725
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204083704/http://www.forloveofliberty.net/wars/indian-wars to http://www.forloveofliberty.net/wars/indian-wars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)