Talk:Tecumseh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] General Tecumseh?

I've read several times that Tecumseh was commissioned as a Brigadier General by Great Britain before his death. It's not in this article, and I wonder if it's just a popular myth. Mingusboodle 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradict

treaty of fort wayne = 2.5 mil or 3 mil?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaphias (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Opening para and Harrison quote

Rather than simply reverting the most recent edits on the Tecumseh article as of 03:14, Dec 30, 2004, I'd like to ask for discussion here on the Talk page about these changes.

The prior opening paragraph read:

Tecumseh (c.1768–October 5, 1813), whose given name is more accurately rendered as Tecumtha, was a famous leader of the Shawnee people. One of the most important Native Americans in history, he spent much of his life attempting to rally disparate Indian tribes in a mutual defense of Indian lands, which culminated in his death in the War of 1812.

The current version reads:

Tecumseh (c.1768–October 5, 1813), whose given name might be more accurately rendered as Tecumtha, was a famous leader of the Shawnee people, who spent much of his life attempting to rally disparate Native American tribes in a mutual defense of Indian lands, which culminated in his death in the War of 1812. William Henry Harrison, his military opponent, called Tecumseh "one of those uncommon geniuses which spring up occasionally to produce revolutions and overturn the established order of things."[1]

Some points for discussion:

First, I'm not at all opposed to including the Harrison quote in the article, although he was AFAIK a rather unimportant and undistinguished President of the United States. One might in a similar context include a glowing tribute from a minor, later British Prime Minister about George Washington, for example, if such a quote exists.

Second, I think the inclusion of the quote in the opening paragraph of the article is not at all accurate to the subject of the article, because of what it excludes:

  • Harrison was not in fact a military opponent of Tecumseh. At the Battle of Tippicanoe where Harrison established his later political reputation for military success over Indian tribes, Tecumseh wasn't even in the vicinity. As the article on Tecumseh mentions, further down.
  • Setting aside the above point (and assuming for the purposes of discussion it was/is accurate) Harrison was only one of Tecumseh's military opponents -- and one of the very few of those military opponents who did not emerge the loser, in a military battle with Tecumseh. To describe, or to covertly imply, that Harrison's supposed-victory over Tecumseh was in any way typical of Tecumseh's military efforts -- is to ignore the historical record. Tecumseh won more battles than he lost. His opponents lost more battles than they won. This is history, as far as we know it today.

Third, the most recent edit removes the phrase "One of the most important Native Americans in history..." -- a phrase which I think is entirely deserved.

IMO, Tecumseh earned this deserved praise by his successful work as a diplomat and negotiator, as well as by his military genius. He played a much larger and much more important role in the many struggles of the First Nations peoples with the European colonists than, for example, Sitting Bull or Geronimo did -- yet he's far less well-known and recognized than either of them are today.

Finally, I'd very much welcome discussion about any of the points above, but if it isn't forthcoming in the next week -- say, by January 7th, 2005 -- I'll restore/reword the prior opening paragraph and move the Harrison quote down to the existing section on Tippicanoe in the article.

Seems only fair to me to give the man his due. Tecumseh was a brilliant hero for his time and for his people, and he deserves sincere and accurate praise for his real record of struggle, and for his real achievements.

Cheers, Madmagic 07:11, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of Madmagic's comments. I might note that although Harrison was a minor president (at least in large part due to the fact that he died a month after taking office), he was a fairly notable military figure and was major regional figure, serving as the first and only governor of the Indiana Territory. So the quote is OK, as far as I'm concerned, although it doesn't need to appear in the first paragraph. I agree that calling Harrison Tecumseh's "military opponent" makes it sound like H is the principal or only opponent, which is misleading. And T certainly is one of the most important Native American leaders, and not solely for his military exploits. older≠wiser 14:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I guess I should address this, since I wrote both versions! ;-)
The change was prompted by my recent reading the article Wikipedia:avoid peacock terms, which cautions against using such phrases as "one of the most important..." I thought, oh crap, that's exactly how I described Tecumseh. The change was also prompted by my recent reading of Ray Raphael's "Founding Myths," which has a trenchant chapter about how, when historians anoint their subjects with adjectives like "great" and "genius", they're really not shedding much light.
So, my goal was to avoid the peacock platitudes by having a more authoritative person assess him. Who better than his "archenemy", William Henry Harrison?
Of course Harrison was an undistinguished president, since he was president for only one month. His fame and reputation, such as it is, rests on his long years of activity on the Northwestern frontier. He and Tecumseh probably first crossed paths in 1794, both as junior participants in the landmark Battle of Fallen Timbers. As Governor of the Indiana territory and later (in 1812) commander of the Army of the Northwest, Harrison might have been the most important American in Tecumseh's public life. That Harrison thought Tecumseh was a genius -- especially in that era of Indian hating -- speaks volumes.
Now I realize the drawback of this approach -- readers today generally don't know that Harrison was essentially Tecumseh's archenemy. Probably the Harrison quote, if kept in the intro, should make more clear the relationship between the two men.
By the way, Tecumseh's career and context needs explored in greater detail in this article, which will make his genius and importance even more obvious. --Kevin Myers 15:05, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Madmagic's suggestion that the quote should be moved to later in the article. IMO, while it is an important quote, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Sunray 20:24, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

[edit] "Native Americans" vs. "American Indians"

Sunray wrote: "Let's avoid use of the term "Indians."

Kevin Myers responded: "Let's not avoid the term 'Indians.' Indians call themselves Indians. Some white folks want to impose a new name on them (again), but we don't have to play along. :-))"

Sunray responded: "Correction: Some aboriginals call themselves 'Indians' however, Indians actually live in India. Check it out."

Kevin Myers's response: Wow, so what you're saying is that some of those ignorant aborigines don't even know what to call themselves. Keep working at it, and maybe you can enlighten them. --Kevin Myers 19:22, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

My edit has less to do with political correctness than simply correctness. In your rant you have chosen to ignore my point: "Indian" refers to a Native of India.
"Native American" is not a term I particularly like. Consideriing all the alternatives, Aboriginal is probably the most accurate, unless distinguishing one group from another. Canadians use the term First Nations which seems better than Native American. However, each nationality has its own pecularities. The fact is that Native American has become the common term in use in Wikipedia. You might consider the following passage from the article on Indians
  • Some U.S. Natives call themselves Indians, although this may be considered offensive. It is considered more correct to refer to American aboriginal people as Native Americans. In Canada, First Nations or Aboriginal People are the preferred terms, though Indian is also used by many within First Nations communities. Others believe the idea of Indians (or Native Americans or First Nations) represents a Eurocentric point of view and consider themselves members of a tribe or nation, identifying only with the name of their tribe in their own native language; often this name is a word which translates as, "the people".
So don't lay none of your political correctness on me. Sunray 20:02, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
We won't resolve this issue here, to be sure. I'll stipulate that most Wikipedians (presumably mostly middle class, white, young people) consider "Indian" or "American Indian" to be passe, hence that's how the article you've cited reads. However, American Indians generally call themselves Indians, and have for a couple centuries, a fact many Wikipedians clearly consider irrelevant. Why is this? It's because people who call American Indians "Native Americans" or "aborigines" tend to be interested in Indians as symbols rather than as actual people. (And of course they would probably never refer to, say, an Irish person as an "Irish aborigine.")
Regarding Tecumseh, John Sugden in his introduction to his Tecumseh biography writes: "After consulting Indian friends and acquaintances, I decided against using the term 'Native American.'" So when it comes to deciding what term to use to describe, um ... Indians ... I have to come down on the side of Indians, and historians such as Dr. Sugden. Sorry Wikipedians.--Kevin Myers 22:13, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
Sunray, I've had the benefit of befriending and being acquainted with several Amerindians from various tribes and none of them refer/ed to themselves as Native Americans, the word is a white term. Each refers/ed to himself as "Indian" or by tribe (Sioux, Lenape, etc).--Mt2131 10:24, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
According to a survey from 10 years ago, more "Native Americans" in the U.S. prefer the term "American Indians." [2] Many white Americans mistakenly believe "Indians" is offensive -- clearly not the case; some American Indians are actually offended by the term "Native Americans." [3] Most American Indians are comfortable with either term, though some suspect that the relatively recent invention of the term "Native Americans" is an attempt by whites to ease their consciences about past injustices done to American Indians, since "Native American" does not carry the negative history that "Indian" does. [4] When it comes to refer to living people, it might be best to use the label they themselves prefer, even at the risk of perturbing anonymous white kids on the Internet. ;-)
When it comes to writing about historical people, I think the criteria is a bit different. You have to write with your audience in mind -- will they understand to whom you're referring? After that, it's probably best to use the terms the people actually used back then, rather than recently invented terms, unless the old terms are now offensive. "Indian" is not currently offensive, nor was it then, Tecumseh thought he was an Indian, as did everyone else back then, so we should be comfortable with "Indian," throwing in the occasional "Native American" to make sure younger readers follow along. --Kevin Myers 21:19, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Kevin, I appreciate your reasonable approach. I also agree with everything you have said, except for the last sentence. I'm not sure how Tecumseh would have referred to his people other than as Shawnee. Do we know this? As to using the terms "Native American" and "Indian" interchangeablly, I don't think it is up to you or me to decide that. This is an encyclopedia and we are part of a community of editors. I've been doing some thinking about this and will post more below. Sunray 00:27, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Kevin makes the point that many, if not most, aboriginals in the U.S. call themselves “Indians.” Mt2131 seconds this and says that he knows several people who prefer to be called “Indian.” He states that the term “Native American” is a white term. I agree on both counts. In fact the term “Indian” has been gaining in popularity recently. Now I assume that both of you have read the lengthy discussions amongst Wikipedians on this topic (which can be found at Talk: Native American). One of the great things about Wikipedia is the tremendous potential for learning. I have learned from this discussion and the research that it has led to. Hopefully we can all learn and come up with some concepts we can agree to.

There is a very good discussion of the terms by Christina Berry, a Cherokee woman. She asks: “So what is it? Indian? American Indian? Native American? First Americans? First People?” She points out some of the problems with the term “Native American,” and notes that many of the people continue to call themselves “Indians” or “American Indians.” In considering why, she points to two main reasons: 1) Habit, and 2) political considerations. She describes the political aspects in the following way:

While the new politically correct terms were intended to help ethnic groups by giving them a name that did not carry the emotional baggage of American history, it also enabled America to ease its conscience. The term Native American is so recent that it does not have all the negative history attached. Native Americans did not suffer through countless trails of tears, disease, wars, and cultural annihilation -- Indians did. The Native people today are Native Americans not Indians, therefore we do not need to feel guilty for the horrors of the past. Many Indians feel that this is what the term Native American essentially does -- it white-washes history. It cleans the slate.

Berry concludes: “When you don't know the specific tribe simply use the term which you are most comfortable using.” [5]

All well and good. However, the issue here is what is the correct term to use in an encyclopedia. I believe we all agree that it is best to refer to aboriginals by their tribe or nation. However, sometimes it is necessary to generalize. What then? Well, first of all, we have to bear in mind that we are part of a community of Wikipedians, so it isn’t only up to us. And that community as a whole has to decide on the most reasonable term for an encyclopedia format. The terms “Indian” and “Native American” are both Eurocentric. Which is best? We know that it is preferable to let groups name themselves. Yet, these peoples didn’t give themselves either of those names and there is no consensus amongst them as to which is best. For every American Indian Movement, there is a Native American Rights Fund. For every Native American Radio, there is an American Indian Radio. The terms are used interchangeably.

We also know the following: 1) that “Indian” correctly refers to someone from the country of that name in South Asia. Using the term “American Indian” could solve this, but fewer people have adopted this term than “Native American.” 2) Anthropologists and other social scientists in the U.S. generally come down on the side of the term “Native American.” Thus it has been adopted by academia, government and by many educated aboriginals. 3) Wikipedians who have debated this in the past have generally concluded that it is best to refer to people by their tribe or nation and that “Native American” is the preferred term to use when generalizing. 4) We are a learning community and if compelling reasons for changing a usage are brought forward, surely we can adapt. Sorry to be so long-winded. I hope it is of some use. Sunray 00:41, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

I have to say, Sunray, I find your use of the term aboriginals extremely offensive. It sounds like a british colonial looking down their nose at the dirty "natives" who are fouling up their occupation. Furthermore, what anthropologist and academics have decided to call an enthnic group is of less significance than what that same group prefers to call themselves. At this point American Indian seems to be the prevailing term preferred among people indigenous to North America.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that you were offended. However, I don't think that the term "aboriginal peoples" has much to do with colonial attitudes. In fact, I believe that it is a post-colonial term. It is acceptable usage in Canada at various levels and is used by the folks formerly known as "Indians." You say that "American Indian" is "the prevailing term preferred among people indigenous to North America." What sources do you have for this assertion? Sunray 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A 1995 Census Bureau Survey of preferences for racial and ethnic terminology (there is no more recent survey) indicated that 49% of Native people preferred being called American Indian, 37% preferred Native American, 3.6% preferred "some other term," and 5% had no preference. Watersoftheoasis 18:59 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is clearly established that Indian by itself would refer to someone from India and American Indian would refer to someone belonging to the Tribes of the Americas. I personally feel a little offened if someone were to call me a Native American and it is only WHITE people that do that. A bit of a correction, It is only WHITE ENGLISH SPEAKERS that do that. I really don't see the need to force another word onto my people and if it is going to be forced then how about some of the words we have your y'all pale faces coming from us being forced onto anglos. I could spend a lot of time at the computer making sure every article mentioned the Indian name for every race. Is Wikipedia only for "the bearded man" (white people)? That would be a very sad state of affairs if that were true. I can see that it is not just for English speakers but maybe it really is just to use terminology that makes Whites happy. Then is Wikipedia RACIST? This would be very alarming and I would have to withdraw my support. If Wikipedia really wants to be the most accurate it can be then I suggest not refering to Indians as Indians or or the newly coined and slightly offensive Native but for Wikipedia to actually take the time to be respectful of the people talked about and find out which tribe that person belonged to and post only that which really would be the most accurate and most respectful. Saying a blanket term like "Native American" makes assumptions in the language that Indians are so small and weak that we should only ever be thought of as an entire group. --Billiot 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can offer myself as a counterargument. I am of Japaneese and Chineese descent and much prefer the term "Native American" to any name with "indian" in it. Besides, it is not always feasible to use specific tribes. This can be somewhat likened to having the need to identify an American by the state they live in.It offends me that you are so opposed to caucasians as a group, and have an irrational hate and fear of them. I appreciate your intentions, but must point out that your argument is flawed. To oppose a term because you see it as belonging to a certain race is not the point and not a valid argument. Personally, I would like you to think over your comment or "withdraw your support". That being said, I admit I have nothing to contribute besides negate the above editor's comment. 76.170.202.84 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tecumseh and The Commons

There is a very interesting discussion of Tecumseh on page 638 of the 5th edition of Dukemenier and Krier's property book. Tecumseh is paraphrased as saying that "...the Great Spirit had given the North American continent to the Indian [sic] people, as their common property, and that no tribe could sell the part of the commons it used without the consent of all tribes..." [again, this is a paraphrase in the textbook, not a direct quote from Tecumseh] The footnote goes on to discuss Tecumseh's denunciation of tribal chiefs who had sold 3 million acres of land to the United States for $7k." Seems like an interesting discussion of the idea of the commons as part of Tecumseh's legacy. User: Aric Bright

[edit] Commodore Perry

Commodore was a temporary title awarded to any naval officer bearing the rank of Captain (the highest permanent rank in the American Navy at that time) who commanded a flotilla instead of just one ship. It was a courtesy title, but it was one that was recognized by naval regulations and would have applied to Perry at the time in question, as he was in command of the Lake Erie fleet.

Oops, I forgot to sign that. And BTW, I was not the person who did the first edit. I just happened to notice the revert because this is on my watchlist. --Jpbrenna 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Creek War

The article doesn't mention Tecumseh's mission to the Creek. Here are some possible links

Creek (people)

Creek War

For starters--post second link to See also

Vern Reisenleiter 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I recommend that we combine the "tributes" and the "Tecumseh in fiction" sections into one new section to be entitled "legacy" or, perhaps, "Tecumseh's legacy." This new section would include, hopefully, more information about said legacy, including a more detailed discussion of his importance in US history, and his appearances in fiction, etc. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)