Talk:Stereotypes of Indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wesley Beard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mike DeSain13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karteta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special importance?

The article is focused on a very small group. It doesn't even include all of the indigenous people in North America, never mind any other.
Please someone explain why or how this is different from other kinds of stereotyping or more important.
If the Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America rate their own article, why not the Stereotypes of [insert any people here] as well?
Examples: Romani people, Frisians, Kurds, any of the 55 ethnic minorities in China... 77.176.116.54 (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of North America

We're missing the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the countries of Central America, and the Caribbean--if its indigenous population is still substantial anywhere. There are some popular stereotypes of American Indian Mexicans.

Comment

Hello. This page is directly copied/pasted from Ethnic stereotypes in American media. I created it because I believed this subtopic deserves its own focused page. Also, I want this new article to be able to explore racial stereotyping in all areas of public consciousness, not confined to just "media." Since it's basically a direct copy/paste it is obviously in need of extensive editing to make it an independent article, so please contribute. Thanks! --Drenched 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Portrayals of Native characters as primitive, violent and deceptive...."

I have often seen Hollywood movies, dare I say it, stereotyped in this way, although I have never seen such movies. Indians in Hollywood movies I've seen (and I've seen a lot), are almost always portrayed as wise and noble and peaceful, and only provoked into violence by the machinations of the white man.

I would be interested in learning the names of movies that portray the Indians as primitive, violent, and deceptive. Best wishes.

categories of first nations

i say we should divide the stereotypes of first nations peoples into the following categories: North american native americans, mesoamerican native americans, caribbean indians, and rainforest indians —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.1.108 (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dying Indian man Drums Across the River 1954 film.JPG

Image:Dying Indian man Drums Across the River 1954 film.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism against Native Americans

American Indians or Native Americans (there's a huge debate among the NA/NDN community on what's the proper title of the peoples) continously struggle with stereotypes: mainly the negative kind (i.e. drinking, drug addiction, welfare dependency etc.), exaggerated by the western movies, or propagated by early 20th century scientific racism of a "defeated, dying" race. What gets me is many white Americans claim American Indian ancestry instead of lets' say African-American or "black" ancestry in the distant part of their genealogical family trees. But for those of 1/4th or around that part of the blood quantum degree law, to exhibit ethnoracial or anthrophysical American Indian traits will invite some sort of racism, discrimination and marginalization by the white majority whom may notice "you don't look white, you're not one of us" mentality. Note the social stigmas around Half-breeds of white and Native American ancestry in both white society and among some Native American tribes may exclude them from acceptance or in tribal membership. + Mike D 26 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Hair

The link for citation 7 is broken - the page can no longer be found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoroth (talk • contribs) 00:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a misconception when the text says facial hair comes from breeding with Europeans?! You never hear that caucasians can have epicanthic folds if they mated with asians... 193.226.105.89 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Indians are able to form beards, but scientists for decades studied and analyzed the variation for each indigenous tribe in North or South America. Same misconception of "beardless men" goes to East Asians, although you can see photos of mustached and some bearded men in the Japanese samurais, the army and otherwise. Genetics among groups of people, such as European, African, Asiatic and American Indians, have determined the racial appearance while the fact remains there's only one human race regardless of their skin color or whatever. Several American Indian tribes encouraged young males after they hit puberty to remove any face hair by plucking it out...that's a valid explanation of white Europeans came to notice the men of those certain tribes had no face hair roots! Epicanthic folds are indicators of distant Asiatic ancestry in European/Caucasian peoples, but again these sort of anthrophysical traits can develop on their own or hadn't completely died out over the centuries or eons (why is it more common among East Asians?), but the Bushmen or !Ngumas in southern Africa have a high presence of epicanthic eyefolds, allegedly not a "common" trait associated with the Africoid race.+ Mike D 26 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense, It is a well-established fact that prior to European contact, Amerindian populations-with well-noted exceptions, such as many Pacific Northwestern groups- generally lacked significant facial hair. Hair on the face was often perceived as anomolous, and in Andean and mesoamerican cultures, tweezers (used to remove the odd stray hair) are among the most common metal implements to appear in the archaeological record. as far as epicanthal folds among the Bushmen are concerned, It is likely that the East Asian trait is actually descended from the ancestors of the Bushmen, who have the oldest known mitochondrial DNA markers of any human group.

Unless this dubious material has a source it ought to be removed completely Angustifolium (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is the coward anonmously changing this section must stop ... post a username not an ip if you got something to say. I posted historic images that show native americans with facial hair, both paintings and photographs. Rob (talk)

See also this [1] on the Aché, a Paraguayan group of Indians who show no genetic evidence of European or African heritage but have body hair, heavy beards, light skin, etc. [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Bold

Before I really get started, I would like to know if there is anyone else who has an interest in the content of this article. The answer would appear to be NO based upon the current state and lack of recent edits. I have been working on the related article Native American mascot controversy.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think anyone outside the USA cares about whether Red Indians are victims of outrageous stereotyping or not. Anyway, they all own casinos these days, surely?
If I were you, I'd delete the whole article.
Djwilms (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that's a joke. I've raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America where it should have been mentioned anyway to get help, as it clearly needs it. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only been editing for a year, but this is the first time anyone has suggested that contributors should touch base with relevant projects before editing.
I am very shocked that anyone would say this is not a topic worthy of an article, even as a joke. Reading it I assumed Djwilms was a fool.
FriendlyFred (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily before editing, but if you plan major edits, or think that other editors might be able to help, it's always a good idea to mention it on related wikiprojects. I do that frequently. That's a big part of the reason they exist. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, why not widen this topic? There is scope for a whole sheaf of articles: Stereotypes of Americans (a bit worthy and serious), Stereotypes of Brits (prone to deploy ironic humour which often goes over the heads of Americans), Stereotypes of Wikipedia editors (you can do this one yourselves). The sky's the limit.
Djwilms (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Djwilms, just the use of the phrase "Red Indian" is racist in the extreme, you might as well say the infamous "n-word" in reference to African-Americans. I am shocked that a modern person should resort to such crass commentary. FreindlyFred, your suggestion that this article could use improvement is well taken and worthy of serious discussion. The main lack of activity is not due to lack of interest but rather a "where to start/the problem is so vast" situation. A number of editors at the relevant wikiproject would be glad to keep an eye on things and offer suggestions. Montanabw(talk)
Oh dear! I was, in fact, joking (see my previous comment). Now, to be serious, the problem with this article is that a long list of stereotypical perceptions is not terribly useful to anybody. What is needed, in my view, is an article entitled 'Changing perceptions of indigenous people in North America'. There is plenty of source material, and it would be quite interesting to chart the evolution of these perceptions. Native Americans have gone from being noble savages in the eighteenth century, to objects of hatred and contempt in the nineteenth century ('The only good Indian is a dead Indian'), and are now widely perceived as a cuddly endangered species which must be sustained with all the resources of the liberal establishment. Modern stereotypes need to be fitted into this article as a legacy from the nineteenth-century attitude, and probably deserve a couple of paragraphs at most in a much longer article.
I am perfectly serious too when I suggest that this approach could profitably be used on a wider scale. I live in Hong Kong, and at a recent meeting of the local branch of the Royal Asiatic Society a speaker gave a historically-informed talk with the title 'When did the Chinese First Become Yellow?' The answer is, in the early nineteenth century. Before that, they were white. This gave rise to a fascinating discussion on changing Western perceptions of China. In the eighteenth century, most Europeans and Americans who gave any thought to the matter regarded Chinese culture with a degree of respect. This view rapidly gave way in the nineteenth century, mainly because China was weak and the West was strong, to an attitude of hostile contempt (fully reciprocated by the Chinese, by the way) that persists to this day. 'Changing Western perceptions of China' would be a fascinating article, and I might even start it off if I have time.
One final comment. Much though liberals may deplore the fact, stereotypes often have a lot of truth in them. They do not suddenly appear from nowhere. Any article worth its salt might profitably consider why native Americans are stereotyped the way they are.
Djwilms (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be expanded to include not only stereotypes but their effects and efforts to correct them, without changing the title. There is already an article on stereotypes in general.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My plans for this article were shelved when the Washington R*dskins controversy heated up, and continues somewhat even though their season is over (13 losses in '13). I have some refs here if anyone else wants to use them.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books

In addition to the one already used as a ref:

  • MariJo Moore, ed. (2003). Genocide of the Mind: New Native American Writing. New York, NY: Thunder Mouth Press. ISBN 1-56025-511-0. A collection of fiction and non-fiction which I have mainly for one section on the mascot issue.
  • Ward Churchill (1994). Indians Are Us? : Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-020-5. A collection of essays generally about the appropriation of Native culture by Euro-Americans, such as Wannabees and New Age gurus performing bastardized imitations of [native] ceremonies.
  • Eduardo Duran; Bonnie Duran (1995). Native American Postcolonial Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2353-0. Addresses the failure of Western psychology to deal with the true cause of problems such as alcoholism, drugs, and suicide because Western science is part of colonialism; and frames the problem incorrectly. A truly cross-cultural approach would begin by accepting the Native worldview as equally valid.
  • Zinn, Howard (2003). A People's History of the United States: 1492-present. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-052842-7.

FriendlyFred (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another fruitful approach would be to look at the changing portrayals of Native Americans in Westerns. I am thinking in particular of films such as 'Little Big Man' and 'Soldier Blue', which overturned many of the conventions of the genre by portraying the US Army as cruel and the Indians as innocent victims.
On the subject of books, the article should also mention the enormous impact of Dee Brown's 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' in challenging received views.
Djwilms (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

I am collecting sources here, if anyone else wants to use them, great.FriendlyFred (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

This article would become difficult to read if the phrase "indigenous peoples of the Americas" or multiple references for the US and Canada must be used. What is the acceptable shorthand? American Indians, or even just Indians? A number of the reference sources use the latter. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, use of the term "indigenous" in this context is problematic. Indigenous means "originating or occuring naturally in a particular place". With reference to human beings, there is no such thing as an "indigenous" American or Canadian: to the best of our current knowledge, no human beings evolved in North America.
There are, to be sure, aboriginal North Americans; First Peoples of North America, if you like; First Nations; all of that.
But no indigenous, unless someone has a citation to some new anthropological discoveries that I've not seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Geronimo misrepresented the source

I've removed this as a misrepresentation of the source.[2]. The first sentence used the word save, not in the source. The second sentence was "The Native American hero remains a terrorist in the mind of mainstream America." The article doesn't suggest this in any way. It calls Geronimo an icon, and it doesn't call him a terrorist. Do I now have to go through all the rest of the new edits? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation does talk about the association of Geronimo with terrorism. I have added a minimal restatement of the source, with a link to the WP article on the subject, which I did not know about before.FriendlyFred (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the citation does not, although it mentions some Facebook posts that relate to terrorism, but that's not the same thing at all. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren

It is preposterous to suggest that the Elizabeth Warren Native American controversy is an example of people stereotyping Native Americans based on skin tone. Warren was being ridiculed because she claimed to be Native American to Harvard and Penn despite having no documented ancestry or tribal membership; it had nothing to do with being fair-skinned. The New York Times opinion piece is also not a good source on what should be a dispassionate (non-moralistic) discussion of how Native Americans are stereotyped. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the purpose of the example. I am not saying that Elizabeth Warren is Native American or that there were no valid reasons to question her claim. I am saying that Euro-Americans felt justified in saying that she "obviously is not" based upon her appearance. The "tomahawk chop" incident and the statement of her opponent in the debate show behavior motivated by stereotyping. Perhaps the "opinion" of David Treuer, a noteworthy Native American writer is insufficient for you, but simply deleting it is substituting your own opinion for his. FriendlyFred (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the intent of the people ridiculing Warren was not to mock a 'fair skinned Native American', but to mock a 'fake Indian.' We should find an example of a real-life (not imaginary/make believe) Native American being demeaned for her/his fair skin tone and cite that. Steeletrap (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Treuer's commentary only states that he, as a Native American, saw the mockery as based upon stereotypes. His opinion was published in the NY Times, so I added it as an example. Simply deleting the example without discussion because of a contrary opinion amounts to WP:OP. I reverted the deletion (twice) and then edit the example to make the nature of the source clear, but also did more research and found the debate comment that shows that while Brown had every reason to question Warren's claims, he did not stick to the facts but used the stereotype as a rhetorical short-cut. I am not saying it is the best example of physical stereotyping, but it is one. FriendlyFred (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what a 'tomahawk chop' might be. Being British, I have never heard this term before. British children continue (alas) to play 'Cowboys and Indians' in primary school playgrounds, with everybody wanting to be a cowboy, but I've never heard them use this expression. Is this some kind of chopping gesture with the arm, like a Japanese 'karate chop'? We talk about 'Chinese burns' (whoops, more stereotyping), where you can inflict exquisite pain by twisting someone's arm in both directions at once, but this is a new one on me.
Djwilms (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better than any description: go to youtube and search for "FSU Tomahawk chop".FriendlyFred (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inuit section

Found a possible ref: [3]

Eskimo on the south pole

I have never seen anything that shows eskimo at the south pole. It also is unreferenced. Reedman72 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straight black hair

Native Americans are perceived as having one identical look, one certain shade of skin color as well as having only straight, black hair.

Considering that, notwithstanding the existence of mixed-race individuals identifying as Native American nowadays, Native Americans originally universally belong to the East Asian ("Mongoloid") type, associated with Y-DNA haplogroup C-M217, at least the hair part is no more a stereotype than the perception that indigenous Chinese people have naturally straight black hair and that Zulu people have dark skin and naturally black, tightly coiled afro-textured hair. It's an accurate observation that has virtually no exceptions that are not easily explained (such as mixed-race individuals accepted into the ethnic group or albinism). (Full) Native American ancestry correlates with these characteristics extremely reliably, this and similar correlations being, after all, the basis of racial classifications.

What is an inaccurate stereotype is, for example, the perception that Sami people generally look East Asian (in fact, there might not be a single Sami who looks East Asian, unless they have known recent East Asian ancestry; in fact, many if not most Sami actually look typically Scandinavian), that Germans are always blond and native Irish people red-haired, or that Native Americans always sport feathers and mohawk hairstyles, which is what the citation given really addresses. (Or that Chinese people literally have yellow and Native Americans red skin, for that matter.) But not every generalisation is wrong, even if it may not apply in 100% of cases (for some reason or another). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tweaked the phrasing to refer to hairstyles instead of natural hair. This also fits the citation, although it is still irrelevant as it does not discuss physical stereotypes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing in cultural misconception section

I found the phrasing of part of the cultural misconceptions section objectionable.

"Native American women are perceived as being sexually available and willing to have intercourse with any and every man. Such misconceptions lead to murder, rape and violence of Native American women and girls by non-Native men."

I think the first sentence here sounds unprofessional and needs to be rephrased. Firstly, saying "Native American women are perceived" sounds too general and absolute. It makes it sound as if literally everybody thinks this is the case, which is definitely not true. Secondly, I think the phrase "sexually available and willing to have intercourse with any and every man" goes well beyond what the source is saying.I also think it sounds a bit vulgar and generally unprofessional. The second sentence is more or less supported by the source and reasonably phrased.

I propose changing it to something like

"Native American women are frequently sexually objectified and are often stereotyped as being promiscuous. Such misconceptions lead to murder, rape and violence of Native American women and girls by non-Native men."

I think this is closer to what the source is saying.

Your rephrasing is fine.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Canada

I edited a section on indigenous women in Canada that had a malicious racial bias that wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere.

  • Article said "The effect that stereotyping has had on Indigenous women is one of the main reasons why non-Indigenous people (mainly Euro-Canadian men) commit violent crimes of hate towards First Nations women and girls."

Source said "Aboriginal women have confronted unique problems stemming from stereotypes of them perpetuated by non-Aboriginal men since contact". Did not give statistics of how many are European or not

  • Article said "Because Aboriginal women have been associated with images of the "Indian Princess" and "Squaw" a majority of non-Indigenous people believe that Aboriginal women are dirty, promiscuous, overtly sexualized, which makes these women vulnerable to violent assaults"

Source says absolutely nothing about "majority", and how could anybody ever know? Polling?

  • Article said "Indigenous women make up approximately 4% of Canada's population, and are over represented among the missing and murdered women, highlighting that affect that colonial images have had on North American beliefs on Aboriginal women today. It has been found in September 2013, that approximately 1,017 Aboriginal women have been murdered, which is 16% of all homicides in Canada.

Source has the statistics, but not the WP:SYNTH between stereotypes and these crime figures. The source says "The removal of Aboriginal people from their land, their placement on reserves and the loss of the traditional male roles of hunter-provider have caused role conflicts, frustration and anger which often finds its outlet in violence against women." and "High rates of domestic violence afflict Aboriginal women throughout North America...the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba (1990) noted that one in three Aboriginal women suffered abuse at the hands of her partner". Do you really honestly think that it's white men who are doing all this violence, or even the majority of it? This sounds just like the KKK or BNP saying that all white girls are raped by blacks or Muslims, when anywhere in the world it's always family members and partners who are most likely abusers. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And read http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/aboriginal-women-more-likely-to-suffer-violent-death-rcmp-says-1.2644827 this for example. As I said, in any community, it is family and friends who are the most likely to kill a woman. It is sick to exploit this to create racial division. This is a sick BNP-style fantasy of drooling "others" driving around looking for girls to abuse because of their race. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/19/canada-aboriginal-women-murder-homicide-police and this is pretty clear Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico

This article has a serious omission, stereotypes regarding the indigenous peoples of Mexico, both within Mexico and within Canada and the United States.-WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article moved. (non-admin closure) WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Stereotypes about indigenous peoples of North America → Stereotypes of Native Americans and First Nations people – Due to historical and cultural differences from the US and Canada, the topic of this article has never included Mexico, thus the current title is incorrect. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 14:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After attempting to find references to include Mexico in the article with the current title, I soon concluded that most sources include Mexico with other Spanish-speaking countries as part of Latin America. The stereotypes held by non-Hispanic people toward Mexicans make no distinction regarding indigenous peoples, thus making them a distinct topic. -WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the titles of related articles such as Stereotypes of African Americans, "about" in the current title should be "of" in the new. WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the usage of "Indigenous peoples" is based upon reliable sources generally using the term "Native Americans" in the United States and "First Nations" in Canada. Whether these terms include or exclude peoples living in the Arctic region in each country is debated, which could be discussed in the article. -WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canada

Despite the "Canada" in the title, much of the article covers stereotypes specific to Americans, or mentions the Federal government of the United States and its treaties. We need a better coverage of the situation in Canada.Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly; but although I changed the name, this article is not within my current plans for editing at this time. However, I did a brief search of possible sources, the result being listed at User:WriterArtistDC/scratch2#First_Nations_Canada. Unfortunately access to a university library would be needed to read these articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"KAPPAN" (Walter C. Fleming) source

Someone might want to check to see the text still matches the source, which is actually here.[4] I've spotted one instance in which it clearly doesn't. It's possible the reference was moved at some point - I've seen that happen. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deletions

This article could use work, but deleting content with references does not help.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piece by piece (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_indigenous_peoples_of_Canada_and_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=917059659&oldid=917056223 )

"All of the myths about Native Americans can be understood in the context of the metanarrative of the United States, which was originally "manifest destiny" and has now become "American exceptionalism". Myths and stereotypes persist because they fit into these narratives, which Americans use to understand their own history.[1]"

Really? All of them? Really? Every single active stereotype about Native Americans persists because they fit into American narratives? Really? And we're just going to go with one source from one book to assert this? Good night, that's absurd.

"One stereotype held by non-Indians is that Indians receive special privileges that other American citizens do not. This view is based upon failure to understand the nature of the relationship between Native tribes and the Federal government of the United States. Tribes signed treaties that grant certain rights in exchange for the cession of land, therefore, many of these "privileges" are considered treaty obligations. So education and health care have been "bought and paid for" by Native ancestors.[2]"

Okay, so that's a "stereotype" but it's actually true. By dint of the treaties that protect them, Native peoples of the United States do have certain privileges that other Americans do not. Why are we including this in the article?

"Today, Native Americans are perceived to have become wealthy due to casino revenues. Not all tribes own tribal gaming operations/establishments and many tribal groups have issues related to tribal ancestry, such as not being able to obtain paychecks unless they can not prove their tribal membership roll.[citation needed]"

Totally uncited and weird.

"The use of Geronimo as the code name for Osama bin Laden in the operation that killed him is seen by some Native Americans as the continued stereotyping of Indians.[3]"

How does that have anything at all to do with stereotypes? People were offended, and perhaps even rightfully so. But what possible stereotype was perpetuated here? The source doesn't say.

"Native Americans are perceived as drug addicts. They are expected to smoke marijuana and other such illegal substances in their prayer pipes, which are erroneously labeled by non-Natives as "peace pipes".[citation needed] "

Uncited and bizarre. Red Slash 03:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made minor tweaks, but the content referencing the book co-authored by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a PhD historian, can only be rebutted by referencing a work with equivalent academic standing, not simply deleted.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking, or is there something I'm missing? I just exhaustively explained why all the content I deleted got deleted. There's no sourcing or backing for most of it, and... I mean, just read what I wrote. The burden of proof lies with the person who wants to have "information" in the article - I put it in quotes, because most if not all of what I removed is garbage. (Seriously, who depicts Inuit with penguins?? Among other absurd and unsourced assertions.) Red Slash 01:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something that it is perfectly obvious; what you present above are personal opinions, which is the opposite of a NPOV, which WP requires.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for any of the things I've deleted. You are showing a ton of WP:OWN behavior. Red Slash 23:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I originally viewed your edits as simple vandalism. Repeatedly deleting content supported by the citation of an academic book as "unsupported" makes no sense, as does deleting the addition of a valid url parameter to a citation. Deleting content that is already commented-out is a waste of time, as is changing language that recognizes the historicity of Pocahontas in favor of less precise language. Far from being an article I "own" it has not attracted my attention very often, in spite of my being the most frequent editor, which shows how little interest there is in the topic. I could improve the content, but you appear to be interesting in nothing but your own POV, and would impede that effort. I could request admin assistance, but my experience has been that doing so is tedious exercise. I have better things to do at this time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed a number of individual edits and restored several.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's crazy how when you actually looked at the exhaustive editing and work I did instead of just edit warring, you saw that a lot of it was valid. I just re-read the whole article again, with fresh eyes, and only two little things stood out to me. Feel free to revert them if you'd like; I think we're done here either way. Thank you for finally actually looking at what I did and taking the very serious concerns I had seriously. Red Slash 02:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "or Indians" since, while "American Indians" is used by some, "Indians" alone is insulting to others. The reference for the line uses the term, but it is to highlight its stereotypical nature, rhetorically useful but not valid in a WP article. The section on the terminology controversy needs work with and a better summary in the lead.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne; Gilio-Whitaker, Dina (2016). All the Real Indians Died Off: And 20 Other Myths About Native Americans. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-080706265-4.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference fleming was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Townsend, Allie (May 3, 2011). "Why 'Geronimo?' For Some, Bin Laden Code Name Holds Anti-Native American Implications". Time Magazine. Retrieved November 7, 2013.

Compulsive gambling

With the number of Indian casinos, there has been a noted rise in compulsive gambling among Native Americans. Does that bear fruit, or the simple issue of Indian gambling in and of itself is a stereotype? Shows such as Family Guy and the Simpsons have often portrayed Indians are gamblers. 2601:140:8D00:33D0:3DD0:D1F4:CC16:78C0 (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of Indigenous

The trend is toward capitalization of Indigenous when it refers to people, which would mean a move/rename of this and several other articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should move this to Stereotypes of Indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States. If you want to start of the other articles needing these moves over at the talk page of WP:NDN, that would be a good place to coordinate it. If there are no objections, we can get on this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the lede image

I kind of think that the lede image -- an old Cleveland Indians logo -- does not represent accurately stereotype of Native Americans. The primary elements are a huge grin and a large hooked nose. It's an offensive cariacture, sure, but I pretty much don't think of either of those when I think of such stereotype and I don't suppose most people do

Bloodthirsty savage, drunkard, howling horse warrior, chief in full feathered headdress (a rarity in real life I think), savvy tracker, noble savage in touch with nature, scalper, ignorant savage, defeated peoples... these are more representational of Native American stereotypes, I would think

So I replaced the image with one of a "bloodthirsty savage" type. Other free images that are also possible would include File:The Death of Jane McCrea John Vanderlyn 1804.jpeg (more assaulting of white women), File:Native American art detail, School Begins (Puck Magazine 1-25-1899) (cropped).jpg (illiterate), probably others on Commons. Here is one which shows distaff members of the Improved Order of Red Men laughing as they "play Indian" File:Pocahontas Degree.jpg. A "noble savage" type image might be better, but I didn't see any free ones right off, but there are a plethora in File:Improved Order of Red Men certificate 1889.jpg which is too detailed to use as is, but you could pull out a panel or something. These are positive stereotypes, but they are still stereotypes and some of them are made up I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Stereotypes_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_Canada_and_the_United_States"