Talk:Anishinaabe

Americentric
Despite the fact that most of the Anishinaabe range is/was in Canada, this article makes no mention of relations with the Canadian/British government, nor how they were treated [here].

Not trying to sound anti-American, I just feel it is an important aspect.


 * I agree. However, most of the current contributors are in the United States, which accounts partially for the "south of the boarder" slant.  Unlike the Anishinaabe communities in the United States that are struggling, the communities in Canada are in better condition, yet they are not mention currently.  In addition, there is no mention of the impact of the formation of the United States that lead to a mass relocation of many, many Anishinaabe groups into what now is Canada.  Dealings with the British and later the Canadians are not mentioned here as well.  In part, the Ojibwa article talks about some of these issues, but more can be said here, and in other Anishinaabe peoples' articles.  CJLippert 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anishinini
Trying to stay consistent, I changed the part that said the Anishinini were not Anishinaabe. Currently, Anishinini and Oji-Cree redirect to Nishnawbe-Aski. In the text it states:


 * The Oji-Cree people are descended from historical intermarriage between the Ojibwe and Cree cultures, but are considered a distinct nation from either of their parent groups. They are considered one of the component groups of Anishinaabe, and reside primarily in a transitional zone between traditional Ojibwe lands to their south and traditional Cree lands to their north.

I'm sure if you asked 100 Anishinini people if they considered themselves Anishinaabe, 95 would say "what?" or "who cares?" but I think they would be more concerned that a distinction is made with the Ojibwe. Anishinaabe being a more inclusive term would probably be okay. Of course, I am not a member of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, and I am speculating here. Someone who knows better is welcome to revert this, but I thought with the Saulteaux using Nakawē, referring to oneself by the word Anishinaabe is not a prerequisite for being included in that group. Besides, if Nishnawbe is becoming the preferred term, there's your cognate right there. Thoughts????

(Leo1410 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

The "Nishnawbe Aski Nation" is called Anishinaabe Aski Ishkonigaanan Ogimaawin (Fully pointed: ᐊᓂᐦᔑᓈᐯ ᐊᔥᑭ ᐃᔅᑯᓂᑳᓇᓐ ᐅᑭᒫᐎᓐ/Commonly: ᐊᓂᔑᓇᐯ ᐊᔥᑭ ᐃᔅᑯᓂᑲᓇᓐ ᐅᑭᒪᐎᓐ) in Anishinaabemowin/Anishininimowin/Nehinâmowin. Take a look at Treaty 9 and NAN's website. (You will need a UCAS-ranged UniCode font to read the syllabics.) However, I am not quite convinced the article is accurate. Unfortunately, I am more familiar with Anishinaabe communities in the US and some of the Canadian Treaty 3 First Nations, so I really cannot make an input to that matter, and my resources regarding Treaty 9 Nations are limited to the internet and one 54-paged booklet. So with that said, any rewording would be fine. However, every Wikipedia article would need to be referenced to something... preferably a written document, but in case of oral history, which Wikipedia shy away, but with documentation of interviews, even oral histories are possible. See the Wikipedia's article guidelines for details. CJLippert 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Relations section has problems
Generally it is not in an encyclopedic tone, specifically it falls in to a rant at paragraph four and beyond. It doesn't agree with the singular/plural scheme established by the beginning of the page. It uses only one source. The sentence structure is sometimes REALLY awkward ("they will not allow those that lived in this land before them to honor their own dead and, after traveling the trail of life, to be able to lie down beside them" is a massive run-on setence. I *think* it's trying to say something like "Settlers passed legislation preventing Anishinabeg from visiting their ancestral dead.  They further limited the expression of Anishinabeg culture by preventing traditional burials," but I'm *not sure*.  Nor could I defend this changing of the sentence, because I don't even know if the current is historically correct as it seems to be referring to a newspaper article at http://www.saulttribe.com/index.php, which only has archives back to 2005).

I'm not well read enough to make any changes, but the relations section needs some serious editing for content, style and references. comments by 71.221.24.26
 * Yes, I have noticed this as well. That section was a recent addition by an anonymous user, and speaks more specifically about the Ojibwa in the United States rather than the Anishinaabeg as a whole.  After pondering about it for a while, we may move this awkward section into the Ojibwa article and try to write here something about the subject the user was trying to address but in a more broad Anishinaabe context, convering the collective experiences on the Anishinaabeg in both Canada and the United States.  CJLippert 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This section has been revamped to separate out relations with the French, British, US and Canada. Somewhere along the lines here, relations condition with other indigenous groups discussion is needed.  Meanwhile, though I worked on the US portion, admittedly it still can be massaged to be in a better Neutral Point of View (there still is some bias showing through).  Meanwhile, we have had contributions to the British and Canada portions, but both of them need serious clean-up to meet the NPOV guidance and to wikify key words found in those sections. CJLippert 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * cleanup tone done, but not diction. POV tag removed -- Steve Hart 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I revised the other indigenous groups section heavily. Mainly I take issue with generalizations being made about all Native Americans identifying as Native American, not their nation. The section is supposed to deal with relations, not identity anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbob the Nishnaab (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs sources
There are few articles on Native Americans/First Nations that are as poorly sourced as this one. It will be difficult to make progress without valid third-party sources, preferably academic studies, of which there have been many.--Parkwells (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Algonkin do not use the word Omàmiwinini to distinguish themselves from other Anishinaabe.
I dont know why anyone would put this but it is obviously not correct. The term was used historically as a regional grouping of people along the St. Lawrence but it is not used by modern Anishinaabe people in the Abitibi region of Quebec. They readily identify themselves as Anishinaabe/Anishinaabekwe. The word might be used in Kitigan zibi but these people speak a different dialect than those in Abitibi and also represent a historically distinct group of Anishinaabe people. I removed the statement since there is no evidence that the so called Algonquin distinguish themselves from other Anishinaabe people and it didn't have any citation either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.217.214.194 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find a source for that. Though it isn't incorrect, the statement is definitely misleading. I will re-insert and rephrase that with a citation. CJLippert (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As CJLippert has stated, Omàmiwinini is not incorrect. Algonquin people do call themselves "Omàmiwinini" (|"Omàmiwininì Pimàdjwowin" means "Our People's Lifestyle").  According to the creation stories and legends all people are descendants of Anishinabe (the Original Man), hence the term is readily and broadly accepted by most Algonquian peoples.  I would suspect that someone has not fully understood that Algonquin (people) and Algonquian (languages) are not the same thing, as the peoples of three fires (Ojibwe, Ottawa, Potawatomi, et al) are generally "Algonquian" (descendant of those speaking an Algic dialect) and the peoples of the Ottawa basin are "Algonquin".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Anishinaabe Vs Anishinaabek(g)
What is the reason this page is titled Anishinaabe? When Anishinaabek(g) is the name of the people (The original/first people) On the other hand Anishinaabe is a person (one of the people).

I was surprised to see "more properly" Anishinaabeg or Anishinabek. Why is this considered more proper? Then I thought maybe this is a "qualifying sentence" stating that the "proper" name of these people wasn't used? New to Wikipedia and just wondering. - Niineta (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the academic orthography, also known as the Fiero Orthography or Fiero-Nichols Orthography, but more commonly as the "double vowel" spelling, anishinaabe is correct singular and anishinaabeg is the correct plural. However, as there are no universally-accepted orthography across all the Anishinaabe communities, many spelling variations do exist, some occuring more frequently than others. See List_of_Ojibwa_ethnonyms for examples. CJLippert (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The word "Anishinabe" is the actual name of the "Original Man" of Ojibwe/Ojibway legend. Broken down, it is translated as Ani (from whence), Nishina (lowered), Abe (the male of the species). Variants on the grammar and spelling are resultant from dialect, European translation, and modernization/standardizing of the many different interpretations and tribal dialects of the region.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Three Fires
Ojibway, Ottawa, and Potawatomi (Faith keepers, Traders, and Fire keepers) originated following the second stop (Niagara) of the migration, when it became necessary to hold council to deal with the aftermath of Iroquios aggression, and to determine future actions (which includes conflicts with Sauk and Fox on the Southern Michigan peninsula, as well as deal with separation from the main body after the third stop (Detroit) and rejoining at the fourth stop at Manitoulin Island). This has been estimated to have occurred between the years 900 and 1200 A.D. using records found at Madeline Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.189.48 (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Historical relations between the Anishinaabeg and European settlers
"Warfare cost many lives on both sides."

What the fuck kind of milquetoast, unref'd whitewashing garbage is this?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. I don't trust Ref 1 (http://www.anishinabe-history.com/tribes/metis.shtml) because a) there are no sources given for the assertion of "600,000 to 700,000" Anishinaabe, and b) the author demonstrates his/her unreliability by asserting that the Sioux (Dakota) are Anishinaabe because their exonym (Nadoues)sioux happens to sound like the archaic French term Sault and the related French-provided Anishinaabe identifier "Sauteur" or "Saulteaux". (He or she also expounds on Chemtrail conspiracy theory, how the Native Americans/First Nations are the true children of Atlantis, and the need for the Chinese military to invade North America and overthrow white Americans & Canadians.)


 * Any other sources confirming a current Anishinaabe population of about 2/3 of a million people? A.w.stephens (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Shawnee
How does the Shawnee Nation fit in it? What from I understand they consider the Lenape 'their fathers' and the Algonquin consider them their southern branch correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.170.134.154 (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Shawnee are not Anishinaabeg nor are Delaware. Yuchitown (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

Sorry my bad, Algonquian not Algonquin that explains a lot. --108.170.134.154 (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! Yuchitown (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anishinaabe. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427111534/https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Living+Cybercartographic+Atlas+of+Indigenous+Perspectives+and+Knowledge to https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Living+Cybercartographic+Atlas+of+Indigenous+Perspectives+and+Knowledge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandwe
A section on this page states that the "Mandwe" (I've also seen it spelled Mandaawe, or Mundua in Warren's history) who were incorporated by the Anishinaabe in oral history were originally part of the Fox/Meskwaki people. What is the source on this? I am unable to find any information linking the Mandaawe to any other group. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValiantStag (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Culture
At present, the culture section focuses entirely on historical culture and specific actions (e.g., slavery and cannibalism). There is no mention of present-day culture or traditions. I've added the Teachings of the Seven Grandfathers and Storytelling, but it'd be good to still expand upon this section further.Significa liberdade (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I created the culture section as a subsection of history specifically for this reason, though I can see benefits for breaking it out as you've done.--Brett (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Brett--I created the History section yesterday. The culture section has always been a heading.Significa liberdade (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're very right. I should have checked instead of relying on memory.--Brett (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)