Talk:Slavery among Native Americans in the United States/Archive 2

Name of the article
Should this article be renamed "Slavery among Native Americans in the United States"? The current title isn't very clear: it suggests the article might be about the enslavement of Native Americans.—Malik Shabazz 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess that is a better title for the article. I have no problem with it.Mcelite (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging
I think that would improve the article more. The article Slavery in Indian Territory just seems to be own it's own and is more of a stub than an article.Mcelite (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs differentiation
Given the wide variety among Native American tribes, their practices, and their relations with differing European colonial powers and the US in different regions and over time, the article needs more structure to show how practices varied in different areas and at different times. It jumps from broad generalizations to too many details - as in the recounting of Cherokee slaveholding, alone among all the Southeast tribes. It relies on racial reasons for slaveholding - "white blood" among mixed-race Cherokee, for example. Both traders and high-status Southeast Indian women made marriages for strategic reasons; the Native American tribes gained from the strategic alliances as did the traders, who had access to outside capital and goods. These were matrilineal tribes, and the women's children were born into the mothers' clans, where they gained their status. At the time, property and hereditary leadership generally passed along the maternal lines, and the mother's eldest brother was more important than the father to the children. Some leaders felt the new leaders of mixed race were best equipped to lead in the changing environment. Because of the status of their mothers, Numerous mixed-race descendants became chiefs in the Southeast tribes during these years. It was as part of the elite class that they became slaveholders. The bands living closer to European-American settlements, as with the Lower Creek, tended to have adopted more of the new ways because of closer association and sometimes education in American schools, not just because of having mixed-race heritage. Read works by Greg O'Brien for more insight into Choctaw society, for example. Greg O'Brien, Choctaws in a Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005).Parkwells (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Cherokee slaveholding, alone among all the Southeast tribes." Most, if not all southeastern tribes, have a slavery tradition. Hence, Seminole, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw freedmen. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Yes, that's what I was trying to say; had added material about SE tribes. That's why the emphasis on only the Cherokee in terms of details is inappropriate, or the editor should have identified if the Cherokee were to stand for all the Southeast tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I gotcha now. The scope of this article is difficult since most of the time period being discussed tribal lands weren't part of the US yet. Since the proposal to expand the scope of the article to North America was nixed, most material will need to go to the Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, such as Tlingit people owning Haida slaves, Kiowa and Comanche owning Mexican slaves, Colorado River tribes women being sold into slavery into Mexico, Atlantic Coast tribes being sold into slavery in the Caribbean, etc.
 * The remaining information could be divided into broad cultural/geographic regions (e.g. Northeastern Woodlands, Southeastern Woodlands, Great Plains, Southwest, Great Basin, Plateau, California, Pacific Northwest Coast and Alaska, or whichever schema seems appropriate), first and secondly divided chronologically. Describing the cultural regions and going straight to the tribes affected (either as slaves, slave-owners, or participants of the slave trade) might discourage broad generalizations and opining. Then a following section might outline US law pertaining to Indian slavery (both as slaves or owners). If you form a structure for the article, I can add info from Handbook of North American Indians, since that's largely NPOV. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * As per my comments in the section following, the term "Native American" is not used for Native Alaskans and become problematic when the many Canadian First Nations people on the NW Coast overlap often enough with both tribal groups and def with the subject of slavery; the USS Massachusetts (1845) got caught up in a major battle with "Russian Indians" (an alliance of Haida, the Cape Fox Tlingit (the Tongass) and one group of Tsimshians, the bunch from Lax Kw'alaams (Port Simpson) I think.....09:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Boarding Schools
There should be a section for the native boarding schools as the students where forced to do labour in the campuses as late as 2007. --58.7.91.21 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would go under American Indian boarding schools and Canadian Indian residential school system. While the children definitely performed forced labor, it would be difficult to argue that was slavery, especially since the children were ultimately released at graduation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Over-reliance on one source
While Seybert's study may be excellent, there was earlier academic work published on slavery among Native Americans, and more authors and sources should be used. This is over-reliance on one source; admittedly the topic is large.Parkwells (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Parkwells, not sure why I'm just now noticing this I've been busy. I may be able to find some new sources this weekend, do you have any journal articles in mind or books I might be able to cite.Mcelite (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * see section below about a major new book on Indigenous slavery in the Pacific Northwest. The one caveat on that is it adresses slavery among Alaskan Natives and First Nations peoples in BC who are not "Native Americans" per this article title.  Those enslaved by the Tlingit and Haida and Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwakwaka'wakw were often enough Coast Salish Native.American peoples in the Puget Sound region, however,.and I think.the book also discusses slavery of neighbouring groups such as the Chehalis by the.Chinookan peoples.  Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Major source for PacNW slavery
This book I'm surprised to not see having been used here yet. NB the term "Native American" is not used for the Haida and Tlingit, who are Native Alaskans....and any discussion in this area should most easily use "indigenous peoples" instead of "Native Americans" because of the overlap with First Nations terminology (Canadian indigenous poeples are not "Native Americans")........lots to add, and which belies the section here on aboriginal slavery by other aboriginals........and the ties to the fur trade, which so abhorred Governor Douglas re the trade at Fort Stikine, where Haida were trading slaves in exchange for furs to be brought to the fort; so dismayed he recommended it be shut down......families in the region are often still divided as to whose was a slave family and who were "chiefly".......brutal attitudes remain. In the case of the Coast Salish slavery is a bit different, more of a generic lower class rather than someone taken in raids....Skookum1 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering the above source, this article needs some serious attention. It bends over backwards to apologize for issues of Native slavery while stating, "Yeah, but we sure weren't as bad as white people!" Considering that Aztecs engaged in human (rarely even mass) sacrifice to the south with what this book referenced in the pacific north west, this article is at best, not encyclopedic, at worst, a slightly referenced OpEd. DocHellfish (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As of right now I'm a bit swamped with school work and research projects but if you know or have more sources by all means add them to make it more wikipedian. If I can i will look into it more this weekend. Just to be clear since you brought up the Aztecs Doc keep in mind this is just dealing the natives of the United States especially since the bloodlines are different as well.Mcelite (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
no consensus. There appear to be cogent arguments in favor of either title but I don't see a consensus to move the article. --rgpk (comment) 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavery among Native Americans in the United States → Slavery among the indigenous peoples of North America—This needs a "globalized" title. "Native American" is a USian term ONLY, and given the context of this article bridges the US-CAnada border in several places, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, the "Native American" title is entirely unacceptable; not the least because the Haida and Tlingit (and Tsimshian, who also took part in the slave trade) aren't "Native American" but "Alaskan Natives", and also the cultural continuity of the region means that e.g. the Coast Salish who were slaved (and btw had their own slave-class) were from both sides of the border. The USian penchant for using "Native American" as if that were a global usage needs a style guide advisory; too many categories which affect Canadian (and Mexican) indigenous peoples/contexts are titled as if the US language were standard; it's not. And there's no reason to limit a discussion of native culture by the modern national borders. I'd also say split of Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest (not just the Coast, there was also slavery in the Interior) as it's a very special case with a very special context....I moved the passage which because of its location made it sound like the practices of the Haida and Tlingit were imitated by "Europeans", which is the exact opposite of the situation on the Northwest Coast, where "Europeans" (British, usually, not just "European=white"; also often enough the Russians) regularly liberated/ forced the liberation of slaves, and the HBC in particular was horrified tha their opening of Fort Stikine accelerated Haida slaving (one reason they closed that post was to end that situation). The jumbling of locations and cultures in this article is highly problematic, and the language equally problematic. Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support . Sounds good to me (although "Native American" means "indigenous peoples of the Americas" everywhere south of Canada - it's not just a US term). Of course, North America includes the Caribbean, which would greatly expand the scope of the article. Since many Native peoples from the East Coast of what is now the US were kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Caribbean by the English, including all of North America would present a more complete and coherent picture. The slave raids from the US in which Natives were sold into slavery in Mexico could be included. These continued at least into the 1960s, if not into the present. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I have yet to see a Mexican or Latin American source that uses "Native American" for the indigenous peoples there (indigeno or indio are what's used, not americanos de nacio or nativo-americanos); any such publication would be of American origin, i.e. in USian; just as American articles/books on Canada constantly and completely inappropriately/insensitively use "Native Americans" for Canadian indigenous peoples. It might be better, though, to break this article up, at least by sections if not into subarticles, for different culture/geographic regions, so they're not jumbled up and transposing contexts as this one does/have (ditto the "Americas" larger article); the distinction between slavery practiced on the natives and slavery practiced ON them are two different topics and should probably be different articles; this title's preposition "among" for native-native slavery, and "of" used for slavery of natives by whites; there's also many instances of white slaves (and others such as Japanese and Chinese) held by natives, especially in the Pacific Northwest.Skookum1 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously "Native American" is used only when people are writing in English, not Spanish, Portuguese, Quechua, Nahuatl, Mayan, Aymara, etc. etc. Here's a sampling of secondary writings using the term "Native American" for indigenous peoples of the Americas written by Latin Americans: Santiago Times (Chile) Santiago Times (Chile) Bogata Free Planet (Colombia) Colombia Reports Business News (Venezuela) Moment 24 (Argentina) Miguel León Portilla (Nahuatl, Mexico). Regarding how the article should be divided, lines get blurred when one tribe is capturing slaves from another tribe to sell to non-Indians. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Yabbut, is the Santiago Times a paper staffed by American-educated writers. What do academics and ethnologists etc use? What an English newspaper says there is journalistic in origin, and as suggested probably just a transposition of a USian usage onto the local cultural landscape; Business News America would seem to be a USian-based publication, also, also Colombia Reports; that the authors have American copy-editors or American-based education seems very likely; I'll look for alternate examples as time permits. As for "lines get blurred" etc this is why, for example, teh Pacific Northwest does not "fit" with the situation with slavery elsewhere, as that kind of thing nver happened (except for e.g. Govs. Douglas and Seymour discovering and buying white, Japanese etc slaves from natives and thereby liberating them). Slavery was an economic and social institution in the Pacific Northwest; and the removed line about slavery there not being the same as American slavery towards blacks I'll reinstate once I can cite it - there will be multiple cites as this is a common observation; Haida and other northern tribes could be brutal to their slaves, who were mostly captives though some from the local slave class; among the Coast Salish, slavery was a social class, inherited, and active slaving was very rare (other than their being subject to slave raids by the Haida and the Euclataws Kwakwaka'wakw etc).Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, if this article is to include Pacific Northwest slavery, then the use of "Native American" is decidedly incorrect, as such coverage must include Canadian FN peoples, and also involves the Haida and Tlingit for whom the correct terminology, even in USian, is NOT "Native American", but "Alaskan Natives". Your statement "Obviously "Native American" is used only when people are writing in English" is factual only when amended to "Obviously "Native American" is used only when people are writing in American English", and to me the citations you've provided, even though published in Latin America, are not sufficient proof that globalized English uses the same terms Americans think is universal (and so use it that way, especially journalists); what do the British use to refer to South American and Central American native peoples, for example?Skookum1 (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm agreeing with you, hence the word "Support" in bold letters. Secondly, as adamantly as you feel the term "American" refers only the United States, many Latin Americans feel strongly that the term refers to all the Americas. Chilean artist Alfredo Jaar expresses this sentiment directly and succintly in his work Logo for America. Thirdly, on the separate subject you introduced, how to divide the article, I agree that the current sections are inadequate. Dividing it between Native Americans owning slaves and Native Americans being owned as a slaves are not mutually exclusive, and in instances, such as the Choctaws enslaving Caddos and selling them to French people, the divisions are blurred. I would propose dividing chronologically then regionally or vice versa. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I'ts the term "NATIVE American" that's at issue here, not "American". The term is rejected (or at best, sniffed at) by Canadian First Nations, who coined their term because the convention "Native Canadian", though around back then, wasn't acceptable (and born-in-Canada non-natives didn't want to see it as a legal term, I imagine neither did govt lawyers either). Kwakwaka'wakw and Gitxsan, for example, are viably "indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast"; only in American publications (or badly-named Wikipedia categories/articles) are they called "Native Americans". I repeat, what do the British use to refer to indigenous peoples in South America? It's not just the Canadians - and Canadian First Nations - who don't use "Native American", it's an issue of global English; I'm well aware of the Spanish meaning of americano and america and do not make a point of confusing it with the USian meaning/regular English meaning. And I've been in the UK, where sometimes, very gratingly, CAnada is referred to as "America", but the Brits in that context, I know, mean the continent(s) (e.g. "he's just come in from America" could just as well mean someone arriving from Edmonton as Atlanta). The context of this article is continental, or should be, given its contents; its title is currently US-specific but if made "continental" ("of North America") then the imposition of the USian term on Canadian peoples/history.....sorry, it ain't gonna wash and there's pretty much a Wiki convention on recognizing Canadian usage in this regard - by either not using it, or using it in double-barrelled form. Slavery among Native Americans and First Nations in North America is a bit cumbersom....and because the real context is - even in USian Slavery among Native Americans, Alaskan Natives and First Nations in North America but you know what? There was, I think, Inuit slavery, and they're none of the three (unless Alaska's Eskimos are in the classification "Alaska Native", I'm not sure). The Eyak and the Koniag were subject to slaving by the Haida and Tlingit; they are not Native Americans and, like Canadian First Nations peoples, do not use that term for themselves. The simple solution and in harmony with other similarly -named articles is Slavery among the indigenous peoples of North America. As User:OldManRivers quipped long ago, before going back to his war canoe (literally), dividing and discussing indigenous history by national boundaries is ethnologically incorrect, an imposition of someone else's reality on their own; we were discussing how to group/label/map the peoples of the Strait of Juan de Fuca/Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia (who were the principal subjects of northern slaving expeditions btw). By limiting this article to the United States, it limits its contents; by using the popular non-global USian term "Native American", it will not only offend but also be wildly inaccurate (because Haida, Tlingit and tribes NW of them are NOT, repeat NOT, Native American - not even in USian, nor in their own frame of reference).Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can yell at me all you want but thus far I'm the only person agreeing with your proposed name change. -19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Oppose.
 * We do not switch varieties of English without cause; and adopting a Canadian term will exclude other anglophones exactly as much as the present title excludes Canadians.
 * Comment. "Indigenous peoples" is used in the United States - it's hardly a Canadian term. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * You missed the point(s). "Indian" is just not used in Canadian articles, not in article titles anyway (other than items like Fraser Canyon Indian Administration where it's part of a name), and "Plains" is a US term only, though "Great Plains" is shared (in Canada it's only a landform, part of what we call the Prairies, whcih is the equivalent to the US "Plains"). It's because indigenous peoples" is used on both sides of the border that the change is viable (and again, it's why the Indigenous peoples WikiProject is called what it is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article deals with the United States, by its present title; since both the Haida and the Tlingit extend into Alaska, it still will if expanded.
 * When their territories were engaged in the slave trade, they were in Russian and British territories; and only some of their victims were in the US. Oh, well, it's true the Haida and Tlingit kept on owning slaves and some raids still happened after the US Purchase of Alaska; but taht topic cannot be separated from British/British Columbian territory and the Russian imperial era also cannot be arbitrarily separated out; the raiding Haida were always from what is now BC - the Kaigani were slaved upon, SFAIK, not slavers like the other Haida (who had driven them from the QCI). The Chinooks and Modoc and Shoshone had Lillooet and Coast Salish slaves; native history in that region cannot be arbitrarily decided by teh drawing of a line and imposing an artificial "white man's" separation of what must always be treated as a single topic.Skookum1 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Expansion would be regrettable. Calling the lower social statuses of the Tlingit (and the Nahautl) by the same name as the chattel slavery practiced by the Cherokee (and the wider United States) is deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, well that's exactly what Tlingit and Haida and Tsimshian and Kwakwaka'wakw and other tribes use to describe their slave-class. Among the Coast Salish, it was more of a low social standing; among the Haida and Kwakwaka'wakw it was often very much like chattel slavery, though without chains. One chiefly accoutrement was a heavy club called a "slavekiller", which was used at potlatches to dispatch slaves to show the chief could always afford to buy/capture more. Thinking that the US context of chattel slavery is the same as Pacific Northwest - or Roman or Greek or Norse - slavery - is a USian bias; "slavery" is not "owned" by the US slave era, it has many meanings and contexts. And I'll repeat, Haida and Tlingit are not "Native American", nor the tribes between them and their Coast Salish victims (who on the US side of the border are called Native Americans, but on the CAnadian side explicitly NOT) - who were also slavers, and/or victims of slavery.Skookum1 (talk)
 * Comment. Most Indian slavery occurred before the United States existed, including Native slaves owned by non-Native people. What is today's southwestern United States today was New Spain or part of Mexico when the Indian slave trade was active. More often than not, Native slavery crossed international borders; i.e. Eastern Woodland tribal peoples being enslaved and sent to Europe or the Caribbean; tribespeople being sent from their lands to Mexico, which happened well into the 20th century. On your other comment, is Cherokee slavery somehow different than Choctaw, Muscogee, or Chickasaw slavery? -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Slavery in the Pacific Northwest, at least in the Alaska Panhandle, stepped up with the fur trade, for various reasons.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Somewhere in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America there's a long discussion about this in the past, but it keeps on surfacing again because USian is such a navel-gazing perspective, assuming that how Americans speak is how everyone does. Note the title of that WikiProject - it's not "WikiProject Native Americans", is it? Another more acceptable, less USian usage, could be "Native North Americans" or, as similar to th Candian Census use ("North American Indian", which can include "Indians" from other countries than Canada), "North American Native" (which is indeed what a friend of myself used). This is starting to remind me of the denouement to the reqmove at Talk:Plains Indians, where the prevailing winds continued to assert both the OK-ness of the term and the claim that "indigenous peoples" doesn't get as many googlehits. But there's a good reason that phrase was chosen by the WikiProject; and you should really stop and think about it.Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why do people in Wikipedia interpret lengthy, detailed (and actually as compressed as I can manage) explanations as "Yelling". Is at-length writing really so intimidating?Skookum1 (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ""Slightly oppose"" This article specifically deals with the issues in the United States. That is its main purpose, however I do not oppose another article being created dealing slavery (even though a number of people would argue that the term slave wouldn't properly apply) among native peoples and how it was changed drastically when Europeans arrived. So I am for another article being created just not this one being renamed and moved. I don't have a problem expanding sections either. I've just been overwhelmed with school and I haven't had to time to look for new information or cite new information I have. I hope you guys had a Merry Christmas.Mcelite (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Klee Klissmass (that's Chinook Jargon; you can also say "Kloshe Hyas Sunday" (happy holiday, roughly). You are wrong; this article does not deal specifically with the issues in the United States - so long as mention of Haida and Tlingit raids on Coast Salish peoples (actually, um, on everybody around them, and by those people on others) is in the article, it's not about the United States. In the period in question (ending 1850s-1860s, the last Puget Sound/Georgia Strait raid was in 1856, Haida and Tlingit territories were in Russian America, not the United States and the peoples they raided weren't only in Washington Territory; and many of those peoples' territories/societies bridge the border to this day. It's the same inland; Lillooets were enslaved as far south as Modoc territory and as far east as Blackfoot....to even mention the slave trade in the Northwest is to mention Canada, or what became Canada; they cannot be separated; and even the comment that the "some people would argue taht the term slave wouldn't properly apply", couldn't possibly apply about that region, where even today there's no shirking on the reality of the slaving past - from either side, and within bands/tribes. The American idea of "slavery" having a certain meaning, when slavery in other societies was not anything like it; whether among Coast Salish peoples, where it was simply a lower class, or the Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka, where John Jewitt and other whites were enslaved) where it was hard/skilled labour, or among the Haida where they were disposable chattel, all different; but all use the term "slave" unabashedly. Greek slaves could own property, even run businesses, which is another side to the word "slave" which has nothing to do with the American experience/use of the term. Core point here though is that if the title remains, mention of the Northwest Coast slave trade (and related inland trade) should be omitted and should, if anything, be an entirely separate article because slavery and the slave trade in the region has such a different context than elsewhere; and while they may be in the US now, as far as slavery goes, again, Tlingit and Haida raids were entirely originating in British and Russian territories; and for them anyway the proper USian term is "Alaskan Native", NOT "Native American" ( this comes up in WP:Alaska all the time btw).Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For your edification: Aboriginal slavery on the Northwest Coast of North America - Google Books Result, and Indian Slavery in Pacific Northwest (JSTOR). The cursory mention here of the NW Coast trade - which was originally jumbled up with something about the Creek and whites starting to get black instead of native slaves - really doesn't belong with the other material here anyway; different phenomenon, and while yes, it did chagne after Contact, it accelerated, not diminshed, and white misperceptions were not involved with what was a very blatant, and very brutal, component of the regional economy/culture.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay well I do not have a problem with an article being created specifically dealing with slavery amond the indigenous peoples of North American. This article in particular was meant to just deal with the United States, that's why I created it because there was nothing what so ever really dealing with the subject as in depth as it is right now. Furthermore, there is still more that need to be done in this article hopefully I can add more this week. Again if infomation needs to be moved to a new article I don't oppose that what so ever. However, the full movement of everything in this article having it redirected to a new article I do oppose. I'll have to read the source you've given I find this subject quite interesting and under studied. PeaceMcelite (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response but I still slighty oppose
 * The subject of Pacific Northwest slavery is actually well-studied and there's more out there about it than those two links; yes, not known about on the rest of the continent so much, and in soc.culture.native years ago I was taken to task for presenting a "white man's perception" by some native activist in the southern US; I was backed up by a Kwakwaka'wakw who was studying at U.Wash that, yes, slavery was an important part of regional society/culture/economics. It's such a different context that, yeah, it really is its own subject and not related to what went on elsewhere; but any mention of it taht remains here should say, e.g. "Coast Salish peoples around Puget Sound and others on the Olympic Peninsula, along with their Coast Salish neighbours in what is now British Columbia, were subject to slave raids by the Tlingit from Russian territory and Tsimshian, Haida, Kwakwaka'wakw and others from British territory. The Chinooks of the lower Columbia also were noted slavers of victims from nearby tribes, or bought from the northern tribes" etc....thing is it's not so neatly defined as in the Interior (the Plateau) it was a different thing again, and similarly "cross-border" in nature. Native history is not defined/restricted by modern-day boundaries and states (meaning countries, not US states) and cannot be so treated encyclopedically here. It's different with "Native Americans in the United States" or Category:Native American tribes in the United States because those are about legal status/entities and also relations with the United States as such. Slavery as a topic predates the border by centuries; it's why regional articles such as Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Indigenous peoples of the Northwest Plateau are titled as they are, and why Category:Coast Salish and its parent article are cross-border; they have to be.Skookum1 (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm withdrawing previous support based on McElite's statements and the fact that the Slavery among the indigenous peoples of the Americas is woefully inadequate and desperately needs more information. A possibility is to create an article for Slavery among indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Comment is that "Americas" article exists and needs improvement, it's the proper context for this subject, not a definition by modern political boundaries; unless the subject is totally contained within the United States, which it's not (e.g. Caribbean and Mexican slavery), it's New World-wide. And yeah, IMO the PacNW should be its own subarticle because it's such a unique situation/history and very complex/detailed, and does not resemble slavery issues in, say the Southeast or New England.Skookum1 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading through that debate over the move is frustrating. The one fellow who says "Native American" should not be used because it a US-centric term, insisting that a Canadian-centric term be used when some small spillover occurs across a border. Yet he uses the term "USian" to refer to Americans. Why? Because people like him say the entire continent is America, and the people of one country should not monopolize the term. So if that's what you believe, wouldn't "Native American" be the more proper universal term? But then, I probably expect too much from bigotry to be logical. "Native Americans" is something "USians" use, even though it's more consistent with their preferred terminology referring to anyone on the continent of America as American. And because they use it, it must be rejected.206.39.60.5 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Indigenous" is not a "Canadian-centric" term; it has been used for articles e.g.Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast where the subject is cross-border and not limited to the United States; which this article should not be because indigenous slavery crossed boundaries (including that of Russian America, not just British Columbia or other British possessions). "USian" is a term I picked up here in Wikipedia, and is used to avoid the vaguenesses of "American" in all its various potential meanings depending on where the reader is (many Brits for example use "America" to include Canada).  And "Native American" is NOT consistent with preferred terminology in Wikipedia, specifically what has already been explained about cross-border content; see Native American name controversy and Talk:Native American name controversy for more on all that.  And I'll repeat what many in the Lower 48, including yourself 48, do not get at all about Alaskan Natives, the term "Native American" is NOT used for them or by them.  "Some small spillover" is hogwash, if you knew anything about the history of indigenous peoples or, indeed, about aboriginal slavery or other matters including language.  Bigotry is defined by ignorance; your claim *I* am bigoted when you display your own ignorance about these matters is more than ironic.  The current title has been retrenched for "no consensus" but it's still wrong.  Consensus should not be formed by giving false/misguided opinions vs those bringing forward facts; but such is Wikipedia; bad idea compounded by bad call compounded by bad ideas.Skookum1 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone should talk about enslavement of California Indians: http://www.1849.org/index2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.24.151 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of too much reliability one source
I believe it is time for the removal of the citation issue tag. I do have other reliable sources that will soon be added along with the numerous others that have been added by me and others. The article has expanded and improved significantly since the tag was added. I vote to have it removed while still in progress of adding others from reliable sources.Mcelite (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Subdividing the "Native American adoption of African slaves" heading
Right now, the "Native American adoption of African slaves" section on this page is very long right now. It is not subdivided nor very clearly organized, though appears to be roughly grouped by tribe.

It might be worth it to add subheadings within this larger section, possibly for different tribes, regions, time periods, or specific practices, that would make this section less imposing/untidy and a little easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapqueen (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Minor matters
Focus of major edits this date. The point of the editing was to check sources, fix links, etc. Also, to begin to remove redundancies in citations (repeatedly cited books do not need full bibliographic content to appear each time cited inline). Three of the most cited books are now done. In this regard, note, I do not have any opinion or view about the markup/style that is eventually used to create the short references that appear. I do ask that any changes to these markups/styles wait until after I finish the transition of the article to the less redundant form, in the next few days. The citations done thus far are Krauthamer, Snyder, and Lauber. See below for regarding the Seybert issue.

Sectioning. I would also take up the call, appearing above, that the long sections be broken up into subsections. This is an urgent need, from a readability standpoint, as the text is not much broken by quotes or images, either.

Style issues in the citations. While I have been dealing with the variations in styles appearing in the cited references, I have done this "majoring in the majors." That is, I am near to finished checking the citations for validity, completeness, active URLs, etc., and when this is complete (and the article GA ready, in this aspect, as a result), all citations that I have dealt with will be of consistent style (Last, First authors, titles all appearing consistent, dates all the same format, etc. I have done it this way, rather than doing all the formatting and styles first, because, frankly, it was clear some citations were not worth spending time on, either because dead and untraceable, or because the citation was not of high quality. Granted there are few of these—kudos to earlier editors for their commitment to good sources—but it still made sense to to citation checking before beautification.

More major matters
The PBS mis-quote issue. Editors will find a long hidden explanation of this in the markup, but in brief, the edited quote from the 1705 Virginia declaration, appearing at the WGBH/PBS site, contained a sentence that simply does not appear in an authoritative sourced version of the original declaration. This is worth stating for two reasons: first, so that experts in the literature for that time period can examine the matter, and rectify it, either deleting the hidden note and former quote, or re-adding it with a source supporting it. (Experts, please, attend to this; no other knee jerk removals; the point is to settle the matter, not make the hidden material go away.) Note, normally I would not check a PBS source, but when a quote has as many ellipses in it, as the purported declaration did, it makes one wonder who had done the primary source editing, and why.

And second, to make the point that we have to walk a careful line with these historical articles. Per WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, not relying on primary sources except as they provide amplifying, valid examples echoing those presented to us by published experts... and not relying on very weak secondary or tertiary web materials either. Earlier, elsewhere, I removed an original revolutionary period document being cited at a commercial, advertising-driven website (constitution.net). This original edit broke both rules—it was picking and interpreting original historic documents, the way our secondary sources should (not us), and it was using a primary source from an unreliable cache of documents (who knows how carefully compiled or maintained). With such period documents, given the Yale Avalon effort, the state and federal historical efforts, etc., there is no excuse to send a reader (imagine a young person) to site that is advertising weight loss and sexual potency remedies, to see a copy of a Washington Congressional address. Bottom line, we need to exercise care, and discretion, in picking the sources, and rely as little as possible on sources whose material is only web-based. In this regard, the dayton.edu citation is very poor, the nps.gov citation is weak, as was the PBS mentioned above, etc. (More to add later.)

Citing Seybert. I am aware that this matter has been raised before, but it has to be raised again (and again), until the matter is remedied. There is no justification, in a field as rich in scholarship as this is, to be citing a self-published version of a student master's thesis. We hope, but do not know it was accepted. Even if accepted, it was at a second tier institution, and is a very short work. The quality of dissertation work is only ultimately established when it is submitted as reports in journals, or as a book length treatment. I have looked for publications by this author, based on this thesis, and have as yet found none. If we were to find such works, we could begin looking to replace the dissertation citations with citations to the peer-reviewed, independently published work. But we have no guarantee that this will ever happen, and meanwhile the Seybert self-published tome is the primary source of the article, with 68 inline citations, last count. This is indefensible. I did not (and will not) replace all those with tags, but if this article were one of my student's work, I would not allow Seybert remain in before the next draft was submitted. It really is that poor of academic practice, citing a self/blog-published (unofficial) version of student work, un-reviewed by any known scholarly body. Northridge in the 2000s is not Oxford or Harvard or Cambridge or Chicago in the early last century. Masters there are not putting out seminal work. The source needs to be replaced. (This academic's strong view.)

Page ranges. To start, as a clear example, look at citations 38 and 39. This sort of observation was what drew me to do the citation checking and completion work in the first place—here, two book citations, redundant, and incomplete (no page numbers, isbns, or URLs, etc.). But this clear-cut type of example is the tip of the iceberg. And to see the bigger, more complex, and less easily solved issue, note that WP guidelines state that page ranges of cited works should be narrow, with 1-2 pages preferred. Knowing this, skim through the citations. Critically, our best citations cite full chapters, repeatedly, often on the order of 30 pages or more in length. This moves the article from being on track for GA, to being an article—if the pattern continues long, or if it expands—that will never be good. This is said because no one can verify facts in contention if sentence after sentence, the challenge is to find the stated material somewhere in a mass of thirty pages. The occasional citation okay. But not the very pattern of the article being a failure to narrow page ranges so people can actually go to quotes, facts, etc. 'This issue is one that I can only hope will be dealt with, by the individuals introducing the source (Krauthamer, Snyder, etc). You have the books, you added the prose, knowing from whence it came. You need to narrow these down.'

Meanwhile, as an educator, I would simply not send students to the article at this point in time, between the Seybert issue, and given that any question that arises about interpretations appearing cannot readily be traced and checked. If one really needs most of Snyder, and most of Krauthamer, all those pages, to make the case, then students should simply pass on the article, and read their works.

Sorry to be tough about this, but it is all I can do, coming on the scene so late. Someone needs to have raised the matter earlier. There is far too much "just trust us" material here, at WP, already. Readers and fellow editors need to be able to go to our sources.

Cheers, that is where things stand (and I stand), as of this evening. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-stanard edits
This edit by User:Leprof 7272 introduced many problems into the wikitext.


 * 1. Please use CS|2 templates such as whenever possible. There's almost never a good reason to delete them, rather the the editor has not read the documentation on how to use CS1|2. There are many good reasons to use CS|1 in particular with articles like this that require dead link maintenance by bots and tools.
 * 2. Templates like and  should go inside the references not outside. Also, only one copy of the template is needed. Using two confuses bots and tools that try to fix these problems.
 * 3. It's rarely a good idea to use wikicomments to comment out portions of CS1|2 template as it confuses bots and causes errors down the road.
 * 3. Checklinks is an old tool that has not been maintained and is broken and currently under discussion for removal. It has been replaced by IABot which can be found under the History tab labeled "Fix dead links".

I would highly recommend undoing the recent changes and following the guidelines suggested above. My Bot WaybackMedic is throwing tons of errors trying to process this page so I'm just skipping it and the dead links won't get processed (Medic can recover dead links IABot can't so this a loss for the article). -- Green  C  14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out that edit. Some non-templated references were turned into templated references, and some templated references had their templates removed. Is it possible that the semi-automated tool the editor was using made this error, and the editor did not catch it? I don't know why a human editor, editing manually, would make this sort of error. Perhaps can enlighten us. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have cleaned up the worst of the duplicate templates and HTML comment problems. Perhaps your bot could have another go at the page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks Jonesey95. The bot is currently processing a batch but when it's done in the next few days I'll send it through again. -- Green  C  21:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Movement of Native American enslavement of Africans
A major move like this needed to be discussed first not just moved because an editor got the time to do it. That is a major section and extremely important. (Chlostall) it seems like you were the one who moved everything but an unregistered user also did things. Were you the unregistered user? Please confirm thank you.Mcelite (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the section American Civil War
Hello, my name is Mariel and I am second year college student taking a U.S. history course. One of my assignments is help make edits on Wikipedia, and try to focus on our chosen topic. The topic that I chose is the enslavement of indigenous folks in the U.S. I noticed that the last section of this article titled American Civil War, and I would like to propose its removal from this page. It only has three sentences, two of which do not have citations. Though I feel like it is relevant to the topic, I feel this same information could be found and would be better placed in the article Native Americans in the Civil War, as listed under the See Also pages. Mnhoac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Romanticization
The British/Americans made no effort nor did they ever set up a system to "romanticize" natives and attempt to "convert" to Christianity like the Spanish or Portuguese did. There is nothing comparable. In fact there is evidence that the British believed the natives to be just as inferior if not more than than Africans:

"Amherst told Lieutenant Colonel Henry Bouquet of the Royal American Regiment that he approved of this method of dealing with the native Americans: 'You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race This chimed with Amherst general order to his commanders to take no prisoners during the revolt and matched his general contempt for the whole native American race"

https://books.google.com/books?id=jfWpCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT72&lpg=PT72&dq=You+will+Do+well+to+try+to+Innoculate+the+Indians+by+means+of+Blanketts,+as+well+as+to+try+Every+other+method+that+can+serve+to+Extirpate+this+Execreble+Race&source=bl&ots=Iyp8te_-V9&sig=pbVXN7u2zeXnkDnTdkgGDraH6ls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJz6WC9bLVAhVml1QKHWN9BsAQ6AEINjAC#v=onepage

Hence why it should be pointed out. Mexico looks nothing like the US or Canada for a reason, natives were never integrated into American society. All these fictitious of natives being part of the family, are a fairy tale. It's post-history/alternative facts, it wasn't history and nothing backs this up. Not even DNA.

Hence why I attempted to point this out but was moderated by username:Malik Shabazz

It should be explicitly pointed out, as it propagates a bias view of natives in north America. It is giving into that very romanticized narrative that never existed in the first place, at least not historically. You can't romanticize it after it happened. 107.0.114.14 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read more than just one word. The sentences contrast British and American views of Africans and Native Americans:
 * Europeans also viewed the enslavement of Native Americans differently than the enslavement of Africans in some cases; a belief that Africans were "brutish people" was dominant. While both Native Americans and Africans were considered savages, Native Americans were romanticized as noble people that could be elevated into Christian civilization.
 * Despite their brutish treatment of Native American people, the British and Americans romanticized them relative to the way they viewed Africans. They viewed Africans as savage brutes, but they viewed Native Americans as noble savages. Just as an example, they referred to one group of nations as "civilized"—high praise they never lavished on Africans.
 * Unless your source has something to say about the relative views the British and Americans held of Native Americans and Africans, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The English and Americans did sometimes attempt conversion of Native Americans, as shown in John Eliot (missionary), Five Civilized Tribes. More careful scholarly assessments of English/Iberian differences appear in:
 * --Carwil (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Carwil (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * --Carwil (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Malik Shabazz. The source makes it clearly that they did view Africans and Native Americans in different ways even though Native Americans were still forced into slavery. There is the fact that they still treated the two groups differently.Mcelite (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems with English
The English, sentence structure, choice of words, absence of prepositions or use of wrong prepositions, etc., are pretty bad. I've tried to fix part of it, but there are occassions where I cannot figure out the point(s) that the writer(s) were trying to make. deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems with primary article source
There are at last count 66 inline refs to Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865 by a Tony Seybert. The only problem is I cannot find any other works by this author, the author's credentials or an ISBN, ASIN or anything else about him and this work, other than an oft-cited dead link to an essay which is mirrored at the internet archive featured in this entry. At the very least, 66 refs to this essay is undue weight, but I am now questioning whether this work is even a suitable source. - CompliantDrone (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the article is still based around the same cached dead link. It is not clear why the source is reliable. Adding the Unreliable sources tag. MyMainAccount (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as to when the source became a deadlink if an archive of it can't be found that's not a major problem majority of the other reliable sources state everything this source also stated. I'll try to look into this to fix the issue.Mcelite (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Make "Indian slave trade" a separate article
The title "Slavery among Native Americans in the United States" infers that the article is about slavery in Native American societies which this article provides. It discusses the enslavement of other Native Americans and African Americans but the enslavement of Native Americans by European colonists is an entirely separate phenomenon. The info here about it should be placed into a separate article more geared to that topic.Mangokeylime (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Splitting may be hard, since Europeans bought Native Americans who had been enslaved by Native Americans. Those purchases incentivized Native Americans to fight each other, to enslave each other, to sell to Europeans, so the phenomena are not separate. I think "among" in the article title covers all of this, and earlier efforts to change the article title didn't get consensus. Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Different title
Article should be titled "Comparison of Slavery as practiced among Native Americans vs among European Americans". Because the majority of the article contains constant comparisons of these two systems rather than just focusing on Slavery amongh Native Americans. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would also make much more sense to make a comparison with the slavery systems in Ancient Rome and Greece, rather than 19th century America, which was an advanced capitalist system with a completely different internal dynamic and dialectic than the almost "natural" systems of slavery that existed in pre-Columbus America, pre-white Africa, Ancient civilizations, practically everywhere on Earth in fact. 46.109.77.155 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Kidnapping whites and tone
This does not give due mention to Indians enslaving whites, even kidnapping them. I also get the impression the article is essentially saying "since many tribes would integrate slaves into their society, their kidnapping and enslaving whites is okay" 140.32.88.80 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree there needs to be better coverage of events at particular periods - such raiding and captivity was especially common in the early eighteenth century through the Revolution in New England and mid-Atlantic states, during warfare between the French and English allies of Indians; it also followed settlement as it went west and European-Americans encountered tribes west of the Mississippi. Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this was brought up 2 years ago and nothing has been done about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.218.130 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly omits the capture and enslavement of whites, of which there are hundreds of examples--most prominently Mary Draper Ingles, John Stark, Mary Jemison, and Catherine Gougar. While the definition of "slave" may be debated, they were most definitely held against their will, subjected to violence and usually engaged in forced labor. Cmacauley (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The issues isn't omitted, it can be easily be debated there is a difference between forced labor and enslavement. A reliable source must be provided before anything is added to the article.Mcelite (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The coverage of this topic is only slightly better than it used to be. It still has the tone "It was the Indian custom to use slaves, so enslaving people by them is okay, especially if they were white". Note that a much smaller portion of the article covers Indians enslaving whites and other tribes compared to whites enslaving Indians. Make it fair and balanced. 199.112.128.15 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The level of slavery practiced by the Europeans on the Indians resulted in genocide, there's a difference.134.223.121.43 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnhoac.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

failed verification, 6/23
Lead currently says: "European influence greatly changed slavery used by Native Americans, as pre-contact forms of slavery were generally distinct from the form of chattel slavery developed by Europeans in North America during the colonial period." This is incredibly vague, all it really says is that the slavery was distinct, but doesn't say how and seems to imply the distinction had something to do with chattel slavery. I've seen this sort of special pleading before ("yeah, it's slavery but it's not real slavery") and here it's not supported by either source, which are just gestures towards 22 pages in one book and 32 in another. To save time, I read all 54 pages. Lauber doesn't even mention chattel slavery in these pages, or make that distinction. She actually outlines a number of forms of Native American slavery which are identical to European slavery: slave trading, slavery for life, slave plantations, slaves as gifts, slaves to pay debts. The only major distinction she draws is in scale "the institutions of slavery in some form was practically universal [...] but nowhere in the territory under discussion did slavery exist on such an extensive scale" (24). Gallay says "Slavery itself existed in Native America before European arrival, but the scale altered considerably" (2) and does make a distinction between slavery as a by-product of war and slaving societies (7) but places Natives in both groups "Some Native American societies were slaving societies" (9). His only mention of chattel slavery is an off-hand mention of African slaves. As such, I'm changing the sentence to remove the unsources implication and reflect that the scale changed, per the source. If there are any other distinctions not included, they should be mentioned more specifically (ideally with a quote). 2600:8800:239F:A900:387D:29B0:D8CE:7923 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)