Talk:Cigar store Indian/Archives/2015

Move
Indians are from India. These people, are, I believe, First Nations people, or, if you must, Native Americans.70.74.35.144 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct, but much the same way that African people have changed over time in their preference for what they are called (Negro, Black, African American, etc.), these people have been called many things. First they were called Indians, ostensibly because Europeans were searching for a passage to India.  Then they were called Native Americans.  Actually, they were called a lot of other things... Redskins, Dirt Niggers, Diggers, etc.  The issue is that, for a time, the census statistics were being thrown off because a lot of people were sarcastically reporting that they were indeed Americans, and that they were native to this country, so they were checking the box to include themselves as "Native Americans".  The term "First Nations" or "First People" is no longer being used in the literature, so it is falling out of favor.  The term "American Indians" is currently the term of choice, since there is no question about which people this refers to.  And to be honest, many traditional people could care less what white people call them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.174.218 (talk • contribs) 18:04, February 16, 2012‎
 * The article title, per our manual of style, reflects the most commonly used name for the object. If people generally called them "giant purple rabbits", that would be the article title.
 * The text then describes them as being "an advertisement figure, in the likeness of a Native American". The selection of "Native American" here is used as the generally used term for Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States. "Native American" is more specific than "indigenous peoples of the Americas" (covering peoples from all of North and South America). "First Nations" usually refers to a subset of those from Canada. "First Peoples" is not specific to the Americas. (Later uses of "American Indians" in the article are inconsistent with our first usage in the article. I will correct those.)
 * There is clearly room for discussion here as "Native American" is not descriptive. To my eye, the statues generally depict Plains Indian men, almost invariably wearing a war bonnet. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is clearly room for discussion here as "Native American" is not descriptive. To my eye, the statues generally depict Plains Indian men, almost invariably wearing a war bonnet. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

History
One other thing... historically, the Cigar Store Indian has been used to advertise the sale and availability of tobacco products. However, it is also true that at one time, it also advertised that the shop would buy and sell Indian scalps and heads. This was much the same as shops that would advertise scales for weighing gold dust that miners would bring in for sale. Let's not forget that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.99.174.218 (talk • contribs) 18:04, February 16, 2012‎
 * I am unaware of a connection between cigar store Indians and scalp bounties. If you have a reliable source for this, it should probably be in the article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When did it ever mean that a shop would "sell Indian scalps"? This article was initially written in 2005 to say "the cigar store Indian is today considered the native equivalent of the black lawn jockey" then to "all but the serious collector or museum curator considers it the native equivalent of the black lawn jockey" then "the cigar store Indian is often considered the native equivalent of the black lawn jockey" and now it is "To some, the cigar store Indian is considered the native equivalent of the black lawn jockey" with a reference to a 1948 article that does not actually reference controversy but history.    So we have gone from "it is racist" to "to almost all it is racist" to "often it is racist" to "some see it as racist".  My gg-grandfather had one outside his tobacco store and his was proud of his native heritage.  I can't cite that for this article but there it is.  This scalp comment has no basis in fact that I'm aware of.  Wikipedia articles seem to have issues with people asserting things like this that are not true.  Like the comment above saying Indian is not an acceptable term - tell that to my family from Indianapolis Indiana who are proud of their Indian ancestry.  Objecting to a generalization, while generalizing all Indians as having the same opinion on what is offensive is counter-intuitive.  A real reference for the controversy around the cigar store Indian is this article: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cloud-of-Controversy-Thickens-Over-Statue-2964387.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki10032343254542 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)