Talk:Bureau of Indian Affairs

Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Old West / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rippaj5583. Peer reviewers: GROSSKRE8792, Graceluloff.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to clean up and update article

I added some current info, and changed a few things, please feel free to clean up, this is a ongoing project

also i listed Office of Indian Affairs to the info box preceding agency's not sure if this works since Bureau of Indian Affairs evolved from the first. --Vlarian559 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Balance Please

In addition to a criticism section, this article needs to mention the thousands of hard working and well meaning teachers, nurses and doctors that have worked to educate and enrich the lives of Native Americans over the decades this agency has been in existence. Have they all been good people? No! Have they always done the right thing in our “politically enlightened” eyes? No! But many of them felt they were doing the best they could to help. And in many cases they made a positive difference. Ask the many tribal leaders and state politicians that were educated by Bureau teachers. Ask the many people whose lives were saved in Indian Health Service Hospitals. And ask yourself where would Native Americans be now if not for the bureau? Many tribes would simply have ceased to exist; gobbled up by their surrounding state governments. Was it a good system? No, but it was better than total neglect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.202.96.27 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic!

This article is barely beyond a stub. I can't imagine a very short history and description is satisfactorily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.230.54.237 (talk) 06:55, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

BIA Website Availability

In a notice on the Bureau of Indian Affairs website it clearly states the BIA website and email servers are down until further notice due to the Cobell Litigation. You cannot navigate to any of the BIA pages therefore this notice should stay up. The only thing apparently that is available on this page is Non-BIA related pages. In the future before making reverts or changes regarding the BIA website please post a message here first for discussion. Misterrick 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been Restored way since. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian agents

We don't yet have an article Indian agent and the term is not even mentioned in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!

Granted, I was just skimming this article, but I don't see a single word of criticism here. What is up with that? This article needs serious expansion including a criticism section. And why isn't the AIM occupation of their offices mentioned in the history section? Ok, I should stop complaining and actually do something, but I'm too busy writing a term paper due in about 8 hours on the occupation of Alcatraz, so I gotta get back to work. But this really needs to be addressed. And on a related note, the Alcatraz article could due with some expanding--heck, the occupation deserves its own article IMO. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 10:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done been added already.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

references

Shouldn't this website cite its references? There are no source citations whatsoever. Isn't that a pretty major Wikipedia guideline?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduffman (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

It's 2009 and we're still using the term "Indian" throughout? I realize that it, in fact, is the official name of the agency. Imagine if the US government applied this logic to all groups, and started a "Bureau of Nigger Affairs" as well -- complete with a logo of watermelons and fried chicken.

Ok, I've cooled down a bit, but I have to agree with "The Ungovernale Force"'s comments just above; there needs to be more criticism included in this article. Mike the Pharmacist (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).—Chowbok ☠ 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term Indian was applied to native Americans by the European explorers and was never intended to be a derogatory remark. The term was used because said European explorers thought they made it to India, hence the geographic term West Indies. The term Nigger was an Anglicization of Negro which is Spanish for black, Negro being the collective discriptive. While currently perceived in politically correct areas of the US as a derogatory term, it is still used by some as a collective descriptive. Albeit falling out of general use. Derogatory terms for native Americans are redskins, savages etc, and have never been in general use, only limited use for a limited time in some parts of the US. So you are talking apples and oranges, and while I know a few, mainly AIM types, who don not like the term Indian, but most don't really care. Besides the term is used by the federal government and the tribes in all their legal Treaties, et al. So our opinion on wikipedia is really a non sequetor. Thomas Whitehead--209.213.220.227 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would have had a better comparison with Indian and African or Negro. Otherwise you would have to use Redskin with Nigger. The word Negro was used to refer to a person of Black ancestry prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s. The appellation was accepted as a normal and was used by those of Black African descent as well as those of non-African black descent during the eras prior to the Civil Rights movement. Application of the term "Indian" originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he had arrived in the East Indies, while seeking Asia. This has served to imagine a kind of racial or cultural unity for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Once created, the unified "Indian" was codified in law, religion, and politics. The unitary idea of "Indians" was not originally shared by indigenous peoples, but many over the last two centuries have embraced the identity. See article : Indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Derogatory terms for native Americans are redskins, savages etc, and have never been in general use, only limited use for a limited time in some parts of the US." Does the name 'Washington Redskins' ring a bell? HELLO! The terms are still used by many schools, institutions and in pro sports. I also have to agree that this article does not take into the account the corruption. The BIA has failed to recognize a few authentic tribes because of the possibility of Casinos. What does a business have to do with documented history? I personally predfer if they would remove the right of casinos for future tribes as most don't want them anyway. Also would like to see the real reason the BIA was formed, to assimilate and exterminate American Indians. Ramapoughnative (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramapoughnative, do you have a source for rour tirade. Naming a team the Redskins is only considered derogatory by you politically correct types. But why confuse you with the facts>--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about i'm Native American and I consider it offensive. There's your source! I'm not the only one, but why wake you from your dream?

here's your reference for the BIA - "The BIA was officially created on June 30, 1834. At first, the bureau was under the administration of the Department of War and later moved to the Department of the Interior (DOI). Historically, the bureau implemented and carried out the United States government policies of extermination, assimilation, termination and self-determination on American Indians and their land resources (Jackson & Galli, 1977) see http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=23558 As far as the term "Redskins", http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2009-05-15-mascot-lawsuit_N.htm "The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who argue the football team's trademark is racially offensive." We're considered the "politically correct type" when it doesn't go along with your perception. If it doesn't bother you, why not change the name to the "Washington Whiteskins"? Ramapoughnative (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the Lenape of the SE Pennsylvania and I DO NOT consider it offensive. It's not my team so I don't care. Grow up. -- Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!! Lenape in Pa? Are you a Tribal Card carrying member of a Tribe in Pa.? No. There are no valid Lenape Tribes in Pa., so your objection is moot. Ramapoughnative (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance is excused: See here: Lenape Nation in PA--Degen Earthfast (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we are not recognized by the federal lack of government doesn't mean that we do not exist. We have been trying for federal recognition for decades.-- Degen Earthfast (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "Tribal Community" is NOT a Tribe. Since claiming Lenape is the same as claiming English, tell me exactly WHAT Lenape Tribe(s) are you descended from? No ignorance here to be excused. I can document my ancestors to Munsi, the Oneida and family ties to a few other tribes. I know my history and this is not a hobby for me. There is no shame in claiming your true ancestry, so why pick mine? Ramapoughnative (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition attempts

Mention should be made of the various attempts to abolish the BIA on the grounds that it is a too unique government agency. There is no Bureau of Caucasion Affairs nor a Bureau of Hispanic Affairs, et al. The organization which claims to represent blacks is called the NAACP and it is a private organization. I have copies of several pamphlets quoting these alleged documents and others claiming they exist.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree that the BIA needs to be abolished, it is also important that we Native Americans are treated the same in every state. Leaving it up to the states to decide our status and many Tribes would not be recognized at all. The NAACP was formed by both Blacks and Jews for equality for all, including Native Americans. "Moorfield Storey, who was white, was the president of the NAACP from its founding to 1915. Storey was a long-time classical liberal and Grover Cleveland Democrat who advocated laissez-faire free markets, the gold standard, and anti-imperialism. Storey consistently and aggressively championed civil rights, not only for blacks but also for Native Americans and immigrants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Colored_People — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramapoughnative (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta 95

How come my Encarta encyclopedia says that the BIA was transferred to the Cherokee just before ww1? 208.96.111.56 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly did encarta say? please give a long quote. Rjensen (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried downloading a torrent but it won't open on my laptop. I have my tower that has it and I'll post a screenshot when I get the internet, however, it just said that it was "transferred to the Cherokee belating the 1st world war." 216.223.90.44 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Commissioners

How many Native Americans were appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bureau of Indian Affairs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723130904/http://ishgooda.org/peltier/copap7b.htm to http://ishgooda.org/peltier/copap7b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bureau of Indian Affairs. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111080552/http://www.overtime.com/ to http://www.overtime.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in "1800s - present" section

The comment, "Some were beaten for worshiping their own creator god." should be moved to a criticism section once it exists, if it is important at all. All schools would often discipline children physically at this point in history.

Dick Wilson

"being authoritarian" is not - last I heard - a crime. The article claims he was charged so. No, he was accused -almost certainly by only some critics - of being (or possibly just criticized for being) an authoritarian (I presume). This incorrect sentence appears in the Reform and mid-late 20th Century section. Since I don't have any references, I don't feel I should correct it, although it almost certainly is wrong.71.30.94.234 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]