Talk:Indian removal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Oklahoma Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Anybody who has the time to actually discuss "renaming" a frickin' wikipedia page should get a life.

Contents

[edit] 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
"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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{dablink}}
    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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Neutrality tag

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)

[edit] 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)