Talk:Indian removal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

name of page?

This page should be renamed, I think. "Indian Removal" is not a proper name. I'm not sure what the title of the article There was a federal Indian Removal Act of 1830 which called for the removal of all eastern Indians. This policy was carried out both in the south and the north. The events in the south attracted more attention. However after the tribes were moved west of the Mississippi, with some exceptions (such as the movement of tribes from Kansas to the Indian Territory it is a stretch to say Indian Removal was the policy as it changed to one of establishing reservations. So the topic name is viable but applies to a limited period. Probably we should have done a Native American history topic rather than the diffuse set of topics we have come up with. User:Fredbauder

I understand the sentiment, however I think this article, if properly constructed, should become about the specific period in American-Indian relations when the Indian Removal Act was made and enforced, so it can then be put as a link if a more general Indian history is generated, to better flesh out the specifics of this particularr period for readers.
-Workinonit 14:00 (PST) 22:00 (UCT) 21 December, 2008
I agree with Workin'OnIt. Let this become a specific article on the Removal Act (before, during, after), enriched with text, discussion of the act, debate, etc.--Bill W. 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think Indian Removal is a very appropriate or apt name as it is even specified by the U.S. government as the proper definition of a behavior. Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok you guys.

Listen up. Jackson needs to get his act together. you guys do too. He went against treaties and supreme court rulings. y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.171.101 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

With the eyes of a wikipedia reader from another corner of the world the title or lemma "Indian removal" is a bit of an enigma to me. From what I read it deals with a form of ethnic cleansing by way of forced deportations. The fact that the US-government called it this way is not really a strong reason to take that as a lemma; I have not yet met anybody alive who would write about "Jewish removal from Germany" although that would be pretty close to what the German government then liked to call "Umsiedlung der Juden in den Osten" or "Gesamtabschiebung der Juden“. Not good to call spade a spade? --91.98.113.164 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Umm, read the discussion further down the page where it better discusses the reason for the title. Talk:Indian removal#Move back to Indian removal Heiro 15:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Read it - that is not my point. How the perpetrators back than called is something to be mentioned in the ext but not a good reason to choose a lemma. "Removal" is an euphemism, a term chosen to make a very ugly thing look nicer. That is why the Nazis talked about "Removal of Jews to the East". Turkey until now officially also talks about the 1915 "Removal of Armenians" to Syria. Nobody else calls it that way. This is a universal encyclopedia. Why should regional sensitivities (I imagine it may be a bit sensitive in the US) lead to use euphemisms instead calling a deportation a deportation and ethnic cleansing just that? --Kipala (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Because we are not here to make up new terms or retroactively assign names to past events based on our modern sensibilities. If a majority of sources or scholars started referring to it as the "Native American Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing Policy", we would change our titles accordingly, but since it was an actual governmental policy named Indian Removal Act most scholars still use variations of this name to describe the phenomenon. While I agree that Native American Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing better describes the actions, this is not how it is referred to in sources. Besides, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Heiro 15:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I am not deep enough into that debate to judge on the scholarly debate (inside US? internationally?). But that is surely no sound base for continued use of euphemisms in the text? Opening sentence "policy .. to relocate Native American tribes", further down: "plans to move all Indian tribes" , "policy of Indian removal, which called for relocation of Native American tribes ", and so on. A few times "forced removal". I imagine someone living in a valley to become a water reservoir may be "forcibly removed" or evicted - deportation is a different level, right? Do you really think these euphemisms should stay in place, even if the title is what US-scholars prefer to use (btw: are there native american historians writing? What do the use??)--Kipala (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Find reliable sources to support such uses and then update the article accordingly. As Heironymous Rowe indicated, we are not here to make up revisionist language based on current sensibilities. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(EC)To quote the section below that I earlier linked to: You'll notice a big difference typing in "Indian removal" into google as opposed to "native American removal" — it's about 160,000 to 1,000. And nearly all reliable sources refer to the period as "Indian Removal", including PBS, the United States Government, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Teach US History.org, the State of Alabama, the encyclopedia Britannica, the National Center for the Humanities, and most, if not all, educational institutions, such as : University of Houston, University of Arkansas, Tennessee Technology Institute, Columbia University, Oklahoma State University, Washington University, and University of Wisconsin, Utah Education Network. Each of those links connects to a page that refers to the period as the time of "Indian Removal".
At least one Native American tribe is included in that list as well as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Now, can you find a majority of scholars elsewhere arguing that is is named something else? We are an encyclopoedia, not an activist group. We use what the real world professionals use as a title, not what we may personally feel is ethically the right thing to call it. See WP:SOAP. Heiro 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear enough. If the lemma is the prevalent scholarly use - so be it. Protest shelved. Understood? But what about the use of euphemisms in the text? The contents describe deportations ( and you could say: ethnic cleansing as per international definition "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)"). So what would be a reason to describe in the text of the lemma "Indian removal" the deportation and cleansing measures as "removals, move, relocation" ? --Kipala (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Same as the reason above, that is the way it is described in scholarly texts. If you can find scholarly sources describing the events in the terms you are describing, then such information can be integrated into the article. This has nothing to do with international definitions of what is or is not ethnic cleansing, but what published reliable scholarly sources use to describe THESE events. We do not get to WP:SYNTH or Wikipedia:No original research our personal interpretations into articles. See WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE, and all of the other bluelinked Wikipedia policy pages I have linked to here and above. Heiro 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I broke something while adding indent 

Pokeuser212121 (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality Problem

The intro is definitely not neutral in its choices of words: {my emphasis in bold & bold-ital; comments in braces} "The reasoning behind the removal {needs a cite} of Native Americans was Americans' hunger for land (stemming from Andrew Jackson’s talk of “agriculture, manufacture, and civilization”), {needs a cite, and this attribution to Jackson is wrong; it's Jefferson. Zinn's A People's History of the United States (hereinafter APHOTUS) there is this, at pg 126: When Jefferson doubled the size of the nation by purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803…he thought the Indians could move there. He proposed to Congress that Indians should be encouraged to settle down on smaller tracts and do farming; also, they should be encouraged to trade with whites, to incur debts, and then to pay of these debts with tracts of land. '... Two measures are deemed expedient. First to encourage them to abandon hunting…. Secondly, To Multiply trading houses among them … leading them thus to agriculture, to manufactures, and civilization…' "}

I note as an ironic aside that Jefferson's 1803 suggested policy of enticing the Indians into indebtedness and then forcing them to sell their land to pay off the debt is EXACTLY the practice the World Bank and International Monetary Fund adopted, particularly under "The Chicago Boys" and the late Uncle Miltie Friedman (whom I'd term a neo-fascist; ditto Wolfowitz, Podhoretz et ux, the Kristols, pere et fils, Dick Perle, etc.), to steal poor nations' natural resources, lands, industries, kill/disappear their unionists, dissidents, those with a social conscience--and economically enslave them in the name of "democracy" and "free markets." IMHANNNO--in my humble and not necessarily neutral opinion. But one gets that way after reading Zinn's APHOTUS (and Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" I can say, from first-hand experience.

…{continuing article} though not all Americans supported the policy as many poor {and apparently some rich ones like Wm. Holland Thomas} white frontiersmen were neighbors and often friends to the Native Americans. Principally, it was the result of Americans who envisioned a cultivated and organized nation of prospering cities and productive communities {"prospering" by whose definition? Ditto "productive communities} which fueled the forces of removal. The growth of populations, cities, transportation systems, and commerce in the decades following the American Revolution created demand for agricultural development {Probably more than just agricultural--yes, in fact: see APHOTUS quotes above & below}.

"President Jackson and his followers, recognizing {that} the Native Americans were in their way {"in their way" is really, really loaded (non-neutral)}, set out to civilly and gently move them out of the way.[1] {And "civilly and gently" are also loaded words--and inaccurate. Even worse (IMHO), attributing the sentence to Howard Zinn's APHOTUS --as note 1 --is REALLY off--profoundly inaccurate and a misrepresentation.}

Here's Zinn's Chap. 7, As long as grass grows or water runs (beginning at pg 125)

¶1. If women, of all the subordinate groups in a society dominated by rich white males, were closest to home (indeed, in the home), the most interior, then the Indians were the most foreign, the most exterior. Women, because they were so near and so needed, were dealt with more by patronization than by force. The Indian, not needed — indeed, an obstacle — could be dealt with by sheer force, except that sometimes the language of paternalism preceded the burning of villages.

¶2. And so, Indian Removal, as it has been politely called, cleared the land for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, cleared it for cotton in the South and grain in the North, for expansion, immigration, canals, railroads, new cities, and the building of a huge continental empire clear across to the Pacific Ocean. the cost in human life cannot be accurately measured, in suffering not even roughly measured. Most of the history books given to children pass quickly over it.

¶3 Statistics tell the story. We find these in Michael Rogin's Fathers and children: In 1790 there were 3.9 million Americans, and most of the lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. By 1830, there were 13 million Americans, and by 1840, 4.5 million had crossed the Appalachian Mountains into the Mississippi Valley…. In 1820, 120,000 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. by 1844, fewer than 30,000 were left. Most of them had been forced to migrate westward. But the word "force" cannot convey what happened.

{back to the article:} This resulted in numerous treaties in which lands were purchased from Native Americans. Eventually, the U.S. government began encouraging Native American tribes to sell their land by offering them land in the West, outside the boundaries of the then-existing U.S. states, where the tribes could resettle. {also not accurate.}

Well, I'm at a bit of a loss here. The page should be completely rewritten, IMHO.

Further, I'm flat-out no expert on First American, or Indian, affairs at all, but, in writing a little screed on the latest Israeli activities vs. Gaza, I started looking at indian tribal names, habitations & languages, and just finished reading Charles Frazier's novel thirteen moons, in which the protagonist, Will Cooper, a white male orphan, has lots of attributes of the real William Holland Thomas. Frazier says "Will Cooper is not William Holland thomas, though they do share some DNA."(p. 421, author's note). And it certainly covers the North Carolinian Cherokees in the time before, during and after the Removal Act, Civil War and later. All of which personal experiences suggest that Indian/Whiteman interactions need a thorough, truthful treatment in Wikipedia.

Thus this question: Is there an effort to 'rationalize' or 'organize' the entire treatment of American Indian vs. the White Man (and/or vice-versa) in the wiki? If you take a look at this map, purporting to show the Indian "states," as I'd call them, around 1600, you'll notice that the entire continent is "covered" (occupied), and that the legend lists 90 of these "states."

Then there's a nice list of indian languages here, that number 699 (not including alternative language/tribe names, which would take the count to 1,040. Here is that list. Skim it and, I think, you'll be surprised at how familiar the names are, because of current products, buildings, cities, towns, bodies of water, other things:

A'ananin (Aane); Abenaki (Abnaki, Abanaki, Abenaqui); Absaalooke (Absaroke); Achumawi (Achomawi); Acjachemen; Acoma; Agua Caliente; Adai; Ahtna (Atna); Ajachemen; Akimel O'odham; Akwaala (Akwala); Alabama-Coushatta; Aleut; Alutiiq; Algonquians (Algonkians); Algonquin (Algonkin); Alliklik; Alnobak (Alnôbak, Alnombak); Alsea (Älsé, Alseya); Andaste; Anishinaabe (Anishinabemowin, Anishnabay); Aniyunwiya; Antoniaño; Apache; Apalachee; Applegate; Apsaalooke (Apsaroke); Arapaho (Arapahoe); Arawak; Arikara; Assiniboine; Atakapa; Atikamekw; Atsina; Atsugewi (Atsuke); Araucano (Araucanian); Avoyel (Avoyelles); Ayisiyiniwok; Aymara; Aztec; Babine; Bannock; Barbareño; Bari; Bear River; Beaver; Bella Bella; Bella Coola; Beothuks (Betoukuag); Bidai; Biloxi; Black Carib; Blackfoot (Blackfeet); Blood Indians; Bora; Caddo (Caddoe); Cahita; Cahto; Cahuilla; Calapooya (Calapuya, Calapooia); Calusa (Caloosa); Carib; Carquin; Carrier; Caska; Catawba; Cathlamet; Cayuga; Cayuse; Celilo; Central Pomo; Chahta; Chalaque; Chappaquiddick (Chappaquiddic, Chappiquidic); Chawchila (Chawchilla); Chehalis; Chelan; Chemehuevi; Cheraw; Cheroenhaka (Cheroenkhaka, Cherokhaka); Cherokee; Cheyenne (Cheyanne); Chickamaugan; Chickasaw; Chilcotin; Chilula-Wilkut; Chimariko; Chinook; Chinook Jargon; Chipewyan (Chipewyin); Chippewa; Chitimacha (Chitamacha); Chocheno; Choctaw; Cholon; Chontal de Tabasco (Chontal Maya); Choynimni (Choinimni); Chukchansi; Chumash; Clackamas (Clackama); Clallam; Clatskanie (Clatskanai); Clatsop; Cmique; Coastal Cree; Cochimi; Cochiti; Cocopa (Cocopah); Coeur d'Alene; Cofan; Columbia (Columbian); Colville; Comanche; Comcaac; Comox; Conestoga; Coos (Coosan); Copper River Athabaskan; Coquille; Cora; Coso; Costanoan; Coushatta; Cowichan; Cowlitz; Cree; Creek; Croatan (Croatoan); Crow; Cruzeño; Cuna; Cucupa (Cucapa); Cupeño (Cupa); Cupik (Cu'pik, Cuit); Dakelh; Dakota; Dakubetede; Dawson; Deg Xinag (Deg Hit'an); Delaware; Dena'ina (Denaina); Dene; Dene Suline (Denesuline); Dene Tha; Diegueno; Dine (Dineh); Dogrib; Dohema (Dohma); Dumna; Dunne-za (Dane-zaa, Dunneza); Eastern Inland Cree; Eastern Pomo; Eel River Athabascan; Eenou (Eeyou); Eskimo; Esselen; Etchemin (Etchimin); Euchee; Eudeve (Endeve); Excelen; Eyak; Fernandeno (Fernandeño); Flathead Salish; Fox; Gabrielino (Gabrieleño); Gae; Gaigwu; Galibi; Galice; Garifuna; Gashowu; Gitxsan (Gitksan); Gosiute (Goshute); Gros Ventre; Guarani; Guarijio (Guarijío); Gulf; Gwich'in (Gwichin, Gwitchin); Haida; Haisla; Halkomelem (Halqomeylem); Hän (Han Hwech'in); Hanis; Hare; Hatteras; Haudenosaunee; Havasupai; Hawaiian; Heiltsuk; Heve; Hiaki; Hichiti (Hitchiti); Hidatsa; Hocak (Ho-Chunk, Hochunk); Holikachuk; Homalco; Hoopa; Hopi; Hopland Pomo; Hualapai; Huelel; Huichol; Huichun; Hupa; Huron; Illini (Illiniwek, Illinois); Inca; Ineseño (Inezeño); Ingalik (Ingalit); Innoko; Innu; Inuktitut (Inupiat, Inupiaq, Inupiatun); Iowa-Oto (Ioway); Iroquois Confederacy; Ishak; Isleño; Isleta; Itza Maya (Itzah); Iviatim; Iynu; James Bay Cree; Jemez; Juaneno (Juaneño); Juichun; Kabinapek; Kainai (Kainaiwa); Kalapuya (Kalapuyan, Kalapooya); Kalina (Kaliña); Kanenavish; Kanien'kehaka (Kanienkehaka); Kalispel; Kansa (Kanza, Kanze); Karankawa; Karkin; Karok (Karuk); Kashaya; Kaska; Kaskaskia; Kathlamet; Kato; Kaw; Kenaitze (Kenai); Keres (Keresan); Kichai; Kickapoo (Kikapu); Kiliwa (Kiliwi); Kiowa; Kiowa Apache; Kitanemuk; Kitsai; Klahoose; Klallam; Klamath-Modoc; Klatskanie (Klatskanai); Klatsop; Klickitat; Koasati; Kolchan; Konkow (Konkau); Konomihu; Kootenai (Ktunaxa, Kutenai); Koso; Koyukon; Kuitsh; Kulanapo (Kulanapan, Kulanapa); Kumeyaay (Kumiai); Kuna; Kupa; Kusan; Kuskokwim; Kutchin (Kootchin); Kwaiailk; Kwakiutl (Kwakwala); Kwalhioqua; Kwantlen; Kwapa (Kwapaw); Kwinault (Kwinayl); Laguna; Lakhota (Lakota); Lakmiak (Lakmayut); Lassik; Laurentian (Lawrencian); Lecesem; Lenape (Lenni Lenape); Lillooet; Lipan Apache; Listiguj (Listuguj); Lnuk (L'nuk, L'nu'k, Lnu); Lokono; Loucheux (Loucheaux); Loup; Lower Chehalis; Lower Coquille; Lower Cowlitz; Lower Tanana; Lower Umpqua; Luckiamute (Lukiamute); Luiseño; Lumbee; Lummi; Lushootseed; Lutuamian; Macushi (Macusi); Mahican; Maidu; Maina (Mayna); Makah; Makushi; Maliseet (Maliceet, Malisit, Malisset); Mandan; Mapuche (Mapudungun, Mapudugan); Maricopa; Massachusett (Massachusetts); Massasoit (Massassoit, Mashpee); Mattabesic Mattole; Maumee; Matlatzinca; Mayan; Mayo; Mengwe; Menominee (Menomini); Mescalero-Chiricahua; Meskwaki (Mesquakie); Metis Creole; Miami-Illinois; Miccosukee; Michif; Micmac (Mi'gmaq); Migueleño; Mikasuki; Mi'kmaq (Mikmawisimk); Mingo; Minqua; Minsi; Minto; Miskito (Mosquito); Missouria; Miwok (Miwuk); Mixe; Mixtec (Mixteco, Mixteca); Mobilian Trade Jargon; Modoc; Mohave; Mohawk; Mohegan; Mohican; Mojave; Molale (Molalla, Molala); Monache (Mono); Montagnais; Montauk; Moosehide; Multnomah; Munsee (Munsie, Muncey, Muncie); Muskogee (Muscogee, Mvskoke); Musqueam; Mutsun; Nabesna; Nadot'en (Natoot'en, Natut'en); Nahane (Nahani, Nahanne); Nahuat; Nahuatl; Nakoda (Nakota); Nambe; Nanticoke; Nantucket; Narragansett; Naskapi; Nass-Gitxsan; Natchez; Natick; Naugutuck; Navajo (Navaho); Nawat; Nayhiyuwayin; Nde; Nee-me-poo; Nehiyaw (Nehiyawok); Netela; New Blackfoot; Newe; Nez Perce; Niantic; Nicola; Niitsipussin (Niitsitapi); Nimiipuu (Nimi'ipu); Nipmuc; Nisenan (Nishinam); Nisga'a (Nisgaa, Nishga); Nlaka'pamux (Nlakapamux); Nomlaki; Nooksack (Nooksak); Nootka (Nutka); Nootsak; Northeastern Pomo; Northern Carrier; Northern Cheyenne; Nottoway; Nuxalk; Obispeño; Ocuilteco; Odawa; Ofo; Ogahpah (Ogaxpa); Ohlone; Ojibwa (Ojibway, Ojibwe, Ojibwemowin); Oji-Cree; Okanagan (Okanogan); Okwanuchu; Old Blackfoot; Omaha-Ponca; Oneida; Onondaga; O'ob No'ok (O:b No'ok); O'odham (Oodham); Opata; Osage; Otchipwe; Otoe; Ottawa; Pai; Paipai; Paiute; Palaihnihan (Palaihnih, Palahinihan); Palewyami; Palouse; Pamlico; Panamint; Papago-Pima; Pascua Yaqui; Passamaquoddy; Patuxet; Patwin; Paugussett (Paugusset); Pawnee; Peigan; Pend D'Oreille; Penobscot (Pentagoet); Pentlatch (Pentlach); Peoria; Pequot; Picuris; Piegan (Piikani); Pima; Pima Bajo; Pipil; Pit River; Plains Indian Sign Language; Pojoaque; Pomo (Pomoan); Ponca; Poospatuck (Poosepatuk, Poospatuk, Poosepatuck); Popoluca (Popoloca); Potawatomi (Pottawatomie, Potawatomie); Powhatan; Pueblo; Puget Sound Salish; Purisimeño; Putún; Quapaw (Quapa); Quechan; Quechua; Quilcene; Quileute; Quinault; Quinnipiac (Quinnipiack); Quiripi; Raramuri; Red Indians; Restigouche; Rumsen; Runasimi; Saanich; Sac; Sahaptin; Salhulhtxw; Salinan; Salish; Samish; Sandia; Sanish (Sahnish); San Felipe; San Ildefonso; San Juan; Sanpoil; Santa Ana; Santa Clara; Santiam; Santo Domingo; Saponi; Sarcee (Sarsi); Sastean (Sasta); Satsop; Savannah; Sauk; Saulteaux; Schaghticoke (Scaticook); Sechelt; Secwepemc (Secwepmectsin); Sekani; Selkirk; Seminoles; Seneca; Seri; Serrano; Seshelt; Severn Ojibwe; Shanel; Shasta (Shastan); Shawnee (Shawano); Shinnecock; Shoshone (Shoshoni); Shuar; Shuswap; Siksika (Siksikawa); Siletz; Similkameen; Sinkiuse (Sincayuse); Sinkyone; Sioux; Siuslaw; Skagit; Skicin; S'Klallam; Skokomish; Skraeling; Skwamish; Slavey (Slave, Slavi); Sliammon (Sliamon); Sm'algyax; Snichim; Snohomish; Songish; Sooke; Souriquois (Sourquois); Southeastern Pomo; Southern Paiute; Spokane (Spokan); Squamish; Sqwxwumesh; Stadaconan; St'at'imcets (St'at'imc); Stockbridge; Sto:lo; Stoney; Straits Salish; Sugpiaq; Suquamish; Susquehannock; Suwal; Swampy Cree; Swinomish; Tabasco Chontal; Tachi (Tache); Taensa; Tahltan; Tagish; Tahcully; Taino; Takelma (Takilma); Takla; Taltushtuntude; Tamyen; Tanacross; Tanaina; Tanana; Tano; Taos; Tarahumara; Tataviam; Tauira (Tawira); Teguime; Tehachapi; Ten'a; Tenino; Tepehuano (Tepecano); Tequistlateco (Tequistlatec); Tesuque; Tetes-de-Boules; Tewa; Thompson; Tigua; Tillamook; Timbisha (Timbasha); Timucua; Tinde; Tinneh; Tiwa; Tjekan; Tlahuica (Tlahura); Tlatskanie (Tlatskanai); Tlatsop; Tlicho Dinne; Tlingit; Tohono O'odham; Tolowa; Tongva; Tonkawa; Towa; Tsalagi (Tsa-la-gi); Tsattine; Tsekani (Tsek'ehne); Tsetsehestahese; Tsetsaut; Tsilhqot'in (Tzilkotin); Tsimshian (Tsimpshian); Tsitsistas; Tsooke; Tsoyaha; Tsuu T'ina (Tsuutina); Tualatin; Tubar (Tubare); Tubatulabal; Takudh; Tulalip; Tumpisa (Tümbisha, Tumbisha); Tunica; Tupi; Tuscarora; Tutchone; Tutelo; Tututni; Tuwa'duqutsid; Twana; Twatwa (Twightwee); Uchi (Uche, Uchee); Ukiah (Ukian, Uki, Ukia); Ukomnom; Umatilla; Unami; Unangan (Unangax); Unkechaug (Unquachog); Upper Chehalis; Upper Chinook; Upper Cowlitz; Upper Tanana; Upper Umpqua; Ute; Ventureño; Virginian Algonkin; Wailaki (Wailakki); Wailatpu (Waylatpu); Walapai; Walla Walla; Wampano; Wampanoag; Wanapam; Wanki (Wangki); Wappinger; Wappo; Warijio (Warihio, Warijío); Warm Springs; Wasco-Wishram; Washo (Washoe); Wazhazhe; Wea; Wenatchi (Wenatchee); Wendat; Weott; Western Pomo; Whilkut; White Clay People; Wichita (Witchita); Wikchamni; Willapa (Willopah); Winnebago; Wintu (Wintun); Wishram; Witsuwit'en (Witsuwiten); Wiyot (Wi'yot, Wishosk); Wolastoqewi (Wolastoqiyik); Wyandot (Wyandotte); Yakama (Yakima); Yanesha; Yaquina (Yakonan, Yakon); Yavapai; Yawelmani; Yaqui; Yinka Dene; Yneseño (Ynezeño); Yocot'an; Yokaia (Yakaya); Yokuts (Yokut, Yokutsan); Yoncalla (Yonkalla); Yowlumni; Ysleño; Ysleta del Sur; Yucatec Maya (Yucateco, Yucatan); Yuchi (Yuchee); Yuki (Yukian); Yuma; Yupik (Yu'pik, Yuit); Yurok (Yu'rok); Zapotec; Zia; Zimshian; Zoque; Zuni.

That is one whole heckuva lot of human beings that got "treated" in some way by the Round-Eyed White Man, seems to me (and I are one). How should that body of history be treated in wikipedia? --Bill W. 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC) --Bill W. 18:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Considered two of the largest stains?

"The horrible mistreatment of the indigenous population and the practice of slavery are considered two of the largest stains on the history of the United States. "
Considered by who ? There are many worse things they did, like in Hiroshima, Drezden and Vietnam. Taw 17:31 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And those two are "considered by who?" not to mention US isn't alone in the firebombing of Dresden; UK did its fair share of it as well.

Germans still speak German, Japanese still speak Japanese... I speak English. Yet, I am Ojibwe.

Although I agree that the statement doesn't belong in a wikipedia article, I can hardly believe anyone would think Hiroshima, Dresden, or Vietnam a worse stain than the systematic official genocide of millions of people or the constitutionally-enshrined forced labor of millions more. These were the products of official policy for generations, and their effects are still found everywhere today.Prodes111 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima, Drezden and Vietnam are all considered worse by the general population because the general population has no idea exactly how immoral and conniving the policies of the government towards Indian peoples were. As far as they know, we got all that land through legitimate treaty and business deals, the idea of which is laughable. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Drezden, and Vietnam, combined, don't total the number of deaths incurred by the indigenous population over the history of their contact with Europeans. -Workinonit 14:06 (PST) 22:06 (UCT) 21 December, 2008 Indian removal is like saying he Killed Native Americans to Remove them from the United States! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.78 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Talk of the 'official genocide of millions of people' is not very academic and in any event certainly untrue. Throughout the course of the whole 19th century around 30,000 Indians met violent deaths at the hands of white men (say 300 per year on average). In the same period around 20,000 white people died violent deaths at the hands of Indians (say 200 per year). That's nasty and unpleasant but it's hardly genocide on either side. What killed the Indians was that (unlike the Indians of India, or the native populations of Africa) they had little resistance to the regular and often fatal epidemics of Eurasian diseases - which also affected the white immigrants but far less badly. This was a tragedy, but it certainly was not genocide. There is only one single documented case of an attempt to infect Indians with smallpox - during King Phillips War - in the greater scheme of things it was no more than a pinprick. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.35 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed "see also"

While reorganizing this article, I removed these "see also" links:

These have ambiguous or tenuous relationships to Indian Removal. Consider apartheid: most Native Americans are essentially pro-apartheid. That is, they prefer to keep a distinct identity and a separate living area where a different set of race-based laws apply. Is that what is meant by this "see also" link, which links to an article almost exclusively about South Africa? It's hard to say. Cultural imperialism seems to have even less connection, since removal is essentially an opposite phenomenon. Genocide is a serious word that gets thrown around rather too freely; its use here is more understandable than the other links, but is still problematic: removal and destruction are not synonymous. After the many deaths from disease on the "Trail of Tears," for example, Cherokee population steadily increased. (Today the population is at least 20 times the pre-removal population.) Andrew Jackson believed that removal saved the "Five Civilized Tribes" from extinction; historian Robert Remini thinks he was right. Some experts might have argued that Indian Removal was genocidal; if so, that should be cited in the article, rather than in an ambiguous link. --Kevin Myers 00:05, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I want to see Kevin use this same racist argument to support eliminating the use of the word genocide in reference to the Jewish population in WW2. Clearly another wikiracist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.16.11 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy those, but I think it would be harder to argue against a parallel to Ethnic cleansing. -- Mwanner June 29, 2005 19:15 (UTC)
It was Ethnic Cleansing in the view that one ethnic group was completely removed from a territory. Alatari (talk) 10:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
cultural imperialism refers to what happened to the Natives that stayed behind. The choice was between being culturally absorbed or ethnically cleansed so I'm replacing the cultural imperialism. It gives an important view on those that remained and those that remained are heavily mentioned in this article. Alatari (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the term genocide is applicable, if you define the term as the purposeful destruction of another culture. However, since some don't see genocide this way, I'd suggest perhaps making another heading in the article concerning the lasting effects of the indian removal policies as far the decimation of indigenous culture is concerned. While I personally feel that the term genocide is applicable, the argument that calling it genocide opens the door to all kinds of questions of bias is also true, so for the sake of historical integrity I would try to avoid using such a charged word in what is supposed to be a recounting of known facts, and leave the debate over whether or not the policy has led to a slow and quite genocide for discussion outside the article itself. Apartheid, perhaps. Generally it is apartheid on both sides, so I think the term applies. Just have a section in which apartheid is used to correctly frame what is meant by the word in this context. And cultural imperialism most certainly applies, as the Indian Removal policy was accompanied and partnered with huge amounts of missionary work and rhetoric about "civilizing" the red savages.
- Workinonit 13:54 (PST) 21:54 (UTC) 21 December, 2008

Andrew Jackson removed native-Americans from land that he wanted to make available to (white) citizens of the United States. The Germans/Nazis removed Poles from land that they wanted to make available for Germans. I believe the record shows that Germans were executed as "war criminals" after World War II for their involvement in "Pole removal" during the war.

Perhaps a supporter of Jackson's policy can explain how the American policy of "Indian removal" differed in intent or execution from the German/Nazi policy towards Poles during World War II. [22:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.47.232 (talk)

it's not a different policy - the difference is that Germany lost the war134.3.76.108 (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Table in progress

My crack research team is still working on this table. You can too. --Kevin Myers 05:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[table since moved to article]

Lowest Bidder?

"contracts for transport and provisions were often awarded to the lowest bidder"

Someone want to clue me in here? Isn't that like stating water's wet (in an article having nothing to do with water or wetness)? The whole idea is to give contracts to the lowest bidder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.143.67 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

As anyone in business could tell you, blindly awarding contracts to the lowest bidder is a recipe for disaster if steps are not taken to ensure that the desired quality is maintained at such a low cost. In the case of Indian Removal, those steps were not taken: travel arrangements were done on the cheap, creating more suffering. This will be clearer if and when the body of the article is more developed.

reorganization

The intro to this article is way too long. It seems a good portion of that info could be moved to the main body of the article. Murderbike 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, people seem to be adding additional information to the intro, rather than expanding the stubby sections. The intro I've provided is an accurate overview of the topic, to the best of my knowledge; new stuff should go below. —Kevin Myers 13:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So much bias in this article, as well as inaccuracy. How could aboriginal people "adopt democracy" when so many of them practiced democracy for a long time and the iroquois confederacy was an inspiration for the united states government? Reading this article makes me think that all the horrible things i've heard about US history text books are actually true. Doviende 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory that the Iroquois inspired the US government is controversial, to say the least, but you're right that the background section needs work.
The article certainly needs much more attention to fact checking. Meganslaw 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you list the separate issues that you believe need to be amended in order to remove the NPOV tag? Alatari (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian Removal

When the page was move to Indian removal with out reaching consensus it violated the common usage of the term and the POV of the tribes who use the term as a proper noun. Alatari (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence please. Because one group might use the term as a proper noun does not necessarily mean that the term is a proper noun in common usage. How is the term commonly capitalized in current scholarly and popular publications? If the term is only used as a proper noun by a limited group, it would be violating WP:NPOV to promote that usage against common usage. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

From searching it's obvious the most common usage is lower case but I did find these mostly Native American references; there were others but they were book or article titles.

The Chickasaw seem to use the Removal version most. Two questions:

  1. There are many WP pages that have the Indian Removal language in place. Do we need to modify it all over WP?
  2. Would a {{Hatnote}}
    Indian Removal redirects here. Sometimes referred to as the Removal.
    be acceptable? Alatari (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, whether this article is titled "Indian Removal" or "Indian removal" is among the least of its problems. To your specific questions:
  1. No, provided the capitalization is not being used to promote a POV regarding the events
  2. No, a dablink is generally not appropriate for differences in capitalization. It would be better to include an explanatory note in the introduction, with appropriate references substantiating the explanation. older ≠ wiser 03:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What's your opinion of the articles major failings? My resource count and understanding is increasing to the point I may feel bold and rework some of it. Alatari (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Holes

Looking through this article, there seems to be no discussion of the groups which were removed from areas outside of the "Old Northwest" and the "Southeast". There are any number of tribes from the Great Plains who were forced to relocate (Kaw/Kansa, Missouri-Otoe, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Quapaw, Tonkawa, Comanche, Anadarko, etc.) and there were attempts to remove tribes from the Far West to "Indian Territory" as well (Modoc are still there; Nez Perce got out of it). That's not even covering any attempts at "removal" to areas that aren't Indian Territory. Or the removals of "smaller" tribes that are uncovered in this article (Wyandotte, Seneca, Peoria, etc.). 204.52.215.69 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason those aren't included in this article is that for the most part Indian Removal in its proper-noun form refers to the policies and actions, some unquestionably illegal, of Presidents in the late 1700's and early 1800's, most notably Andrew Jackson, who ignored a Supreme Court ruling stating that the removal policy was illegal on the grounds of "states rights" while simultaneously attempting to enforce federal tariffs in other states hand over fist. This particular era in American-Indian relations is very well documented and studied, which means there is plenty of source material for an article. I believe that is why they aren't mentioned. I understand why you think they should be included, and don't disagree (I'm Odawa, and the article doesn't mention us either) but I also can see why that would not be immediately included in the article.
-Workinonit 13:56 (PST) 21:56 (UCT) 21 December, 2008

Neutrality tag

I agree, it was not very neural but in a different manner. To say in the introduction that Andrew Jackson dealt with the Indians civilly and gently is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. 192.91.253.52 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is highly critical of the U.S. government during the period of Indian Removal, and how ever justified that may be, articles must be written in a neutral manner, not a skewed tone. This is my first time looking at this article in a while, and it appears to have obtained a strong POV since I last saw it. Okiefromokla questions? 06:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed some of the links in the see also section:
American Empire - the wider picture.
Manifest Destiny - explains the United States perspective on why Indian Removal was necessary.
Cultural Imperialism - spreading of English and United States culture amongst the Tribes.
Ethnic Cleansing - removal of one ethnic group from land to make room for other groups.
The top three on the above list are really unrelated to this — an example of personal unsourced conclusions about a historical event. Manifest Destiny (the idea that the US should reach coast to coast) had nothing to do with Indian Removal, and the article about the "American Empire" doesn't either. Cultural Imperialism falls into the same category. A general rule of thumb is that if you have to justify the inclusion of a link with unsourced commentary, it probably doesn't belong in a see also section. "Ethnic Cleansing" was removed because it's linked to in the first sentence already. Okiefromokla questions? 06:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Manifest destiny, does have something to do with the indian removal. The concept of Manifest destiny originated Among the jacksonian democrats, and was an integrate part of the political climate that lead to the indian removal act. I am reinserting that·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah no someone else already did that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) I think it is nuetral.Dcollins52 (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with keeping manifest destiny in the "see also" section. It has everything to do with Indian removal -- how exactly was the US to "reach coast to coast" without displacing the Native peoples who lived there ... the idea of Manifest Destiny implies Indian removal.Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

Manifest Destiny has everything to do with Indian Removal.

This is an extreme example but, you wouldn't remove "See also" links to the Halocaust in an article about Hitler just because it paints him in a negative light.

To think Manifest Destiny doesn't apply to Indian Removal and the ideas shouldn't be interlinked because it paints the American government in a negative light is simply naive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.221.227 (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Move back to Indian removal

The page was moved to "Native American Removal" today and I've moved it back. I understand the reason for the move, but the term "Indian Removal" is kind of a set-in-stone term that specifically refers to the period in the 1800s when the US government removed native Americans. "Native American Removal" is not the correct term for the period. For example, one of the major government acts of the era was called the Indian Removal Act. You'll notice a big difference typing in "Indian removal" into google as opposed to "native American removal" — it's about 160,000 to 1,000. And nearly all reliable sources refer to the period as "Indian Removal", including PBS, the United States Government, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Teach US History.org, the State of Alabama, the encyclopedia Britannica, the National Center for the Humanities, and most, if not all, educational institutions, such as : University of Houston, University of Arkansas, Tennessee Technology Institute, Columbia University, Oklahoma State University, Washington University, and University of Wisconsin, Utah Education Network. Each of those links connects to a page that refers to the period as the time of "Indian Removal", and not only to the "Indian Removal Act". Okiefromokla complaints

In addition, the article states it is about the "nineteenth century policy of the government". In fact, the policy was officially referred to by Andrew Jackson and the US government (and historical sources today) as "Indian removal" and not "Native American removal."[1] Okiefromokla complaints

Letter by Andrew Jackson

The original letter handwritten by Andrew Jackson and sent by Major David Haley to Choctaw and Chicasaw leaders was recently discovered in a private family collection, and resold to an undisclosed buyer by Nathan and Jonas Raab of the Raab Collection. See http://www.raabcollection.com/ShowSection.aspx?ItemID=23 for an image of one page of the letter. I am not sure how this should be integrated with the Wikipedia articles about the Indian removal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

POV dated April, 2008

The POV template on this article is dated April, 2008. Since that time there have been numerous edits of the article, and it has become smaller by about 4,000 characters.

So, is there any way to resolve the point of view problem of this article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see the tag as being warranted anymore. If some still thinks it's POV, they can readd it w/ an explanation. I'm removing it now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Map

Why should there be a map that mostly depicts battles against western Indians like the Sioux and Apache in an article about Indian removal? Note that there is nothing depicted in the eastern United States, where removal actually happened, and that the ones shown in Oklahoma are all much later than removal. Jrtayloriv's claims in his edit summary here are inaccurate - it does not show military conflicts that took place as a result of Indian removal; such conflicts would have occurred in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi, not South Dakota, Wyoming, and Minnesota. john k (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing?

Its strange how this article makes no mention of the words ethnic cleansing, except in the see also part wayyy at the bottom. If you look at articles focusing on the holocaust or the armenian genocide or even yugoslavia, those words show up many times.--GoodandTrue (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add this but lost the fight. If you have sources that call it ethnic cleansing then be WP:BOLD and ad the language. --Alatari (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun

Why is there no reference to John C. Calhoun anywhere? I took several classes in American history, and one of things we covered is that Calhoun was the architect of what became Indian Removal. As James Monroe's Secretary of War, he devised a plan to remove Indians West of the Mississippi River because it was the only way to protect them from the aggressive expansion of white frontiersmen and that such removal had to be voluntary. Monroe fully endorsed Calhoun's plans in his final annual messages to Congress. Calhoun even oversaw the test-cases involving the Chickasaw and Choctaw to make sure that they were done fairly and voluntary. Emperor001 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources WP:RS then be bold WP:bold and make the editions. --Alatari (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has major gaps in it. It lacks links to certain tribes such as the Muscogee and the Seminole. There is a lack of pictures in the article. Suggestion of a brief summary on each tribe is recommended. A more accurate chart on removal numbers. In addition more information on tribes in the North that was affected by the Indian Removal should be added. Etiennebarr (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to multiple deletions and reverts: August 2014

Reviewing the recent edit history of this article -- where 12K bytes out of 34K bytes are being deleted and added back in repeatedly -- I am restricting editing to registered users, in accordance with Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. I am asking that all editors use this talk page and attempt to reach consensus before removing such large sections of the article.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Per the previous section here (#Possible copyright problem), it seems like the content was removed due to copyright concerns. That's not something that can be superseded by editorial consensus about the relevance or writing style or other such aspects. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate what you are saying, DMacks, but I see that these deletions and reverts seem to have taken place after User:Diannaa's last edit to the article and her post about the copyvio. -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

New approach: I am changing the protection to require review of edits by new and unregistered users. BCorr|Брайен 14:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

These changes disrupted the consensus. Wikipedia policy is that if there are disputed edits, they must stay removed until consensus is reached. With the current edits, half of the article consists of cherry-picked quotes that are entirely peripheral to the topic of the article. Plus the lede is terrible. I am fine with keeping some of the edits, as long as we can achieve a consensus on what stays. Otherwise this will just go on and on.2605:6000:8343:5400:1CFB:62F5:EEAC:BFDD (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:2605:6000:8343:5400:1CFB:62F5:EEAC:BFDD -- I think you are operating with a misunderstanding. Consensus is not a static thing that can be "disrupted" and so removing 12K+ bytes from the article in a single edit is not the best way to proceed. There needs to be more detailed discussion about the specific things that should stay and go. You could start editing out very specific items with a clear explanation on the talk page and in the edit summary, and see how that goes. I'm afraid it will go on and on if you insist on cutting out the same large sections of the article despite warnings and suggestions to do otherwise.
Also, I am not sure what specific Wikipedia policy you refer to when you say, "Wikipedia policy is that if there are disputed edits, they must stay removed until consensus is reached." Please carefully review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I know how Wikipedia actually works, as opposed to the legalism you mention above. This will go on for a very long time.2605:6000:8343:5400:1CFB:62F5:EEAC:BFDD (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lede: "move" vs. "encourage to move"

I changed "encourage to move" to "move" in the lede regarding what the U.S policy was. The policy was to remove the native people from lands, and one of the strategies was to provide incentives, etc. Providing incentives wasn't the actual policy. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. PRRfan (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is misleading, because in a modern context "remove" implies a mandate by the person doing the removing, whereas in the mid-19th century context "remove" simply means "migrate to elsewhere." For example, decades earlier Benjamin Franklin wrote advice for those wishing to "remove themselves" to America. The current wording of the lede suggests a forcefulness that was not necessarily present in each case, and which is a common misconception regarding Indian removal. The federal government's goal was for the Indians to "be removed" (that is, to migrate), the policy was to move them (in a modern sense) by force in some cases, or to encourage them to move on their own in other cases. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think that would be an anachronistic interpretation of saying that the police was to "remove the Indians". In that case, remove is a transitive verb, whereas when someone removed to the West (as you refer to). I don't think it's accurate to say that "to migrate" and "to be removed" mean the same thing, nor to say "migration" and "removal" are the same thing. The first in each pair is something one does, the second is something done to you. As I sad, there were many ways to remove the Native Americans, but the goal was to get rid of them, pure and simple.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian removal. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_removal/Archive_1&oldid=1136816847"