
Show HN: Tribalpedia – Free Learning About Native American Indians - Cawbv
http://www.tribalpedia.com
======
Cawbv
The information for each tribe was obtained from various sources including the
Tribal websites, Wikipedia, and other educational sites involved in Native
Indian information. We have condensed the material from all of these sources
to make it easier for you to read or complete research. For Teachers, there
are links to complete Lesson Plans with Answer Keys for many of the Tribes. or
complete research. For Teachers, there are links to complete Lesson Plans with
Answer Keys for many of the Tribes. For those who are just interested in
learning about Native culture, history, and traditions Tribalpedia is very
informative. In either case, we hope that you enjoy the site.

~~~
dang
Nice work! And nicely uncorrelated with most of the stories people post here.

We added "Show HN" to the title because that's the convention when sharing
something you have personally worked on.

~~~
Cawbv
Thank you!

------
wnscooke
The discussions prompted about what terms to use when talking about the
various nations who preceded what is now called the USA and Canada are good.

The most accurate and respectful approach is to ask what actual nation some
one is. Terms like 'Native American', 'what tribe are you from', etc., are
frankly way off course. The best way to explain what I am trying to get at is
to refer to the word 'European'.

When I fly and land in Germany, I don't ask someone which European tribe are
they frok, or, 'how do I say Hello in European?'. When I go to Italy or Sweden
or the Netherlands and ask, "how do I speak European?", the response will be,
" well, since you are in Italy, you speak Italian", or, "In the Netherlands we
speak Dutch". No European I've ever met self-identified, nor liked being
called, a tribe of Europe. Nor would most visitors think in such terms.

But for some reason the various Nationalities in what is called the Americas
have all been lumped into one large ephemeral group 'called' Indian, or Native
American, or First Nations. When those terms are used with the same kind of
understanding that the word European is used it reflects actual learning,
understanding, and respect, which appears to be the attitude those involved in
these discussions aim to possess.

So forget the words Indian, first Nations, Native American. What is important
is what nation, or, what nationality the person, or group, is. The more this
is practiced the more I believe the overall situation is helped.

Tl;Dr. Ask someone which nation they are, NOT what tribe they are.

~~~
scrollaway
> No European I've ever met self-identified, nor liked being called, a tribe
> of Europe

Certainly not a "tribe" of europe but as someone who changes country on a
regular basis, which would not be possible if not for Europe's wonderful no-
visa-needed travel policies, I enjoy being called (and calling myself)
european rather than French or Greek or whatever. I care little for patriotism
and what not - we're all sharing the planet.

ymmv. :)

------
SwellJoe
I've often wished for a central location for learning how and when to visit
tribal reservations respectfully (i.e. not merely being a bumbling tourist
gawking at people's homes and such). I'm back to traveling full-time, and will
be passing through tribal lands across New Mexico and Arizona in the next few
weeks. It'd be cool to be able to learn more about tribal history in person,
but it's surprisingly hard to find the right ways to go about it (the web
presence of tribes is not always strong!). Sometimes, there will be native
history museums in larger cities, and I visit those every chance I get, but
that's also often far-removed from reality.

Hopefully, that kind of thing might find its way into this project...or maybe
a new project will spin up to tackle it. Regardless, I think it'd be really
valuable. So many folks live within a few hour drive of tribal lands, and yet
I doubt most people ever visit (except to gamble or buy cheap cigarettes or
alcohol) or go to the trouble to learn anything about the history or culture.

~~~
rdtsc
It depends on the tribe. A family member visited a friend on a Navajo
reservation a few years back. It was a flight to some rural airport then a
long drive. In general the advice is if you want to see how people live, it is
best to know someone. Some places are prohibited to go into if you are by
yourself.

Also, as you might imagine you might not like everything you see you there.
The beauty of the terrain was stunning, but a lot of issues like poverty,
drugs, drinking and such (even though alcohol I understand is prohibited on
the reservation, there are places selling it around the border).

~~~
SwellJoe
Which is why I was wishing for information about the right ways to do it.
There are several native nations in Alaska that are pretty friendly to
visitors, for example, and provide some information at small visitor centers,
or just on signs at border crossings, about things to do and places to visit
within the territory, which is cool. Unfortunately, it is mostly about hunting
and fishing, which I don't do (vegetarian on ethical grounds), but it was
still nice to know when and where I was welcome to travel without causing
offense, and where my tourist dollars would be appreciated. Talking to locals
who were out fishing (it was salmon season) was cool.

I never want to be the asshole tourist who assumes everyone wants to cater to
my whims, but I also know that many folks enjoy showing new people how they
live and explaining their history (while maybe making a few extra bucks as a
tour guide or similar). If I had a way to find those folks and those places,
that'd be awesome.

------
pappyo
Cool stuff!

One thing I was looking for and didn't see were maps. I love maps. I'd love to
see maps of Native American tribes populations, be it current or historical
(or both!). It gives context as to where tribes are currently located and the
land masses they once controlled years ago.

Anyway, great resource. Thanks for putting it together.

~~~
Cawbv
Hi,

Maps are a great idea! I'll think about it. Thanks

------
desireco42
We really don't have enough of these resources. We are trying to raise our
kids to respect and understand Native Americans.

This site leaves a little to be desired :), do you by any chance need a little
help :)? Seriously, contact me and I will be happy to help.

~~~
Cawbv
Hi,

Other than maps (someone already suggested this) What additions would you add?
Cawbv

------
tzs
I'm curious about the name "Native American Indians". I had thought that
"Indians" was the old-fashioned name for those who lived in the Americas
before 1492 and that "Native Americans" was a replacement for that name.

"Native American Indians" suggests that the nomenclature is more subtle than
that. So, what is the difference between "Native Americans", "Indians", and
"Native American Indians"?

~~~
red-indian
Many of us do not like the term native american. Native, related to nativity,
means born somewhere. When we use this term other people will inevitably say,
"Hey I just realized something, I'm a native american too - I was born here
just like you."

Use of the term Indian is considered rude in Canada where "First Nations" is
widely accepted as the preferred term. However, Canada did previously use
Indian, such as their law known as the Indian Act. The term "Aboriginal" in
Canada has generally replaced Indian in legal and formal contexts outside of
the Indian Act to inclusively refer to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples
collectively.

In the US, American Indian, Indian, and Native American are all used. Among
younger indians NDN, and Skins are popular endonyms. These terms probably
should not be used by those who are not Indian themselves though unless they
have been given the go ahead, any more than one would use the term "homeboy"
inappropriately.

In both US and Canada indians generally prefer the names of their nation when
dealing with issues specific to a particular nation or their own culture. But
there is also a need for a term to distinguish indigenous peoples of the
americas collectively, hence Indian, American Indian, West Indian, and First
Nations.

Why do we use an english word? Because there are hundreds of different
indigenous american languages represented. English is now a commonality in the
US and when we use the term we often do so when we find ourselves speaking the
English language to someone. Historically, there was no one term used by all
nations that had the same sort of meaning. Many of our native languages don't
use any term exactly like "indian" in meaning. However, in many native
languages of what is now called the United States, our own word to
collectively refer to the original peoples of Turtle Island, distinguishing us
from the invaders and occupiers (sometimes called white men), is red man, red
skin, red person. So that would be the most appropriate sort of term were we
to use something with an indigenous perspective. Unfortunately, these days
there are some activists claiming these traditional concepts are bad. So it is
quite common to find whites tell us that redskin is racist, to tell us that
indian is wrong, and to tell us that we are all natives, including them, the
illegal alien white occupiers of and squatters upon our sovereign lands.

As far as the term "Indian" is applied to the many various peoples groups east
of the Indus River Valley, that term used with them is a european construct as
well. It was not used by people in that area to describe themselves until
european colonialists and occupiers arrived and promoted the term. So to say
it is correctly applied to people from that region, but not to us is a claim
that comes from historical ignorance.

~~~
wutbrodo
> As far as the term "Indian" is applied to the many various peoples groups
> east of the Indus River Valley, that term used with them is a european
> construct as well. It was not used by people in that area to describe
> themselves until european colonialists and occupiers arrived and promoted
> the term. So to say it is correctly applied to people from that region, but
> not to us is a claim that comes from historical ignorance.

This is quite an odd claim. Most of the countries of the world that weren't
named quite recently were named by outsiders, including most of Europe. This
is probably just a function of the fact that, before the very recent notion of
a map full of well-defined state lines, outsiders were much more likely to
define them broadly as an entity than they themselves were. Using this as a
litmus test for any useful notion of "correctness" is just silly, since it
would invalidate the names of most of the world as "wrong".

When people talk about one name being less "correct" than the other, they're
talking about whether the naming has anything to do with the land being named.
India comes from the Greek word, which is describing a feature of the terrain.
Columbus deciding the people he encountered were Indians was based on
mistaking the land for an entirely different one on the other side of the
world. It doesn't require a condescending diagnosis of "historical ignorance"
to explain why some hold the opinion that those two instances of naming may
differ in their level of "correctness".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India#India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India#India)

~~~
marshray
I was with you until:

> India comes from the Greek word, which is describing a feature of the
> terrain

I'm not a scholar on these matters, but my impression was always that the
terms 'India' and 'Hindu' were closely related. It's not like the Greeks just
made up a Greek name for the place.

From your source:

> The name [India] is derived ultimately from Sindhu, the Sanskrit name of the
> river

and

> The name Hind (Persian: هند‎‎) is derived from the Iranian equivalent of
> Indo-Aryan Sindh

~~~
wutbrodo
I agree. I was just making the narrowest claim possible by sticking to the
word that is phonetically closest to "India" specifically (Ἰνδία). I've
learned to get into the habit of using the weakest possible evidence necessary
to make your point because you expose less of a surface for people to spin off
into irrelevant objections (and by the time that's resolved, the main point is
forgotten or one or both parties have lost interest). To wit, if I had talked
about the Sindh or Hind roots, I would've opened the conversation up to a
derailing diversion on how my main point was supported only by an unfair
goalpost-moving from "India" to "Hind".

I know it's a little ironic that this is sort of what ended up happening
anyway with this comment, but at least in this case I can firewall my main
point off by saying "sure, using your suggestion doesn't affect my main point
(or indeed strengthens it)".

~~~
marshray
The interesting thing is the GGP post claimed:

> [The term India] was not used by people in that area to describe themselves
> until european colonialists and occupiers arrived and promoted the term.

But your source indicates it was Persians who used the term Hindus while they
had conquered India. So it's probably not entirely true that European
colonialists gave the country its present name, except maybe to prefer the
Greek variant over the Persian.

The underlying problem here is that non-wandering non-seafaring peoples often
had no good pre-established name for themselves. The question "what is the
name of your people and land" was sort of nonsensical to them. They might
answer a term like "the people" or "the land" in the local language.

The term "Aryan" literally seems to mean "the land" or "farmer" as in "one who
works the land". But the land they're referring to is ... Iran. Get it? It's
the same word. White supremicists actually love Iranians.

------
Cawbv
Hi,

A few words about the term Native American Indian.

If you google Native Americans, you come up with the following: “a member of
any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.” The same with the term
American Indian.

The operative word is “indigenous”. Also, many members will identify
themselves as the name of their specific Tribe or Nation (e.g., Cherokee,
Mohawk, Navajo etc.) rather than say “I’m American Indian.” We are all
Americans.

In creating this site as an ongoing resource there was a need for a term that
identified all indigenous peoples. The term Native American Indians works in
this instance. Also,this is an ongoing process so Tribes will be added on a
continuing basis.

Thanks for the feedback and ideas (especially the maps) and I hope some of you
find the material useful.

Cawbv

------
stepmr
If anyone is interested in learning more about the contemporary Indigenous
world, my wife runs an excellent weekly email digest that focuses on First
Nations, Inuit and Métis (IE primarily Canadian) topics. See:
[https://makook.com](https://makook.com)

------
brerlapn
The Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian
([http://nmai.si.edu/](http://nmai.si.edu/)) has a _lot_ of publicly available
resources and references that would definitely be worth incorporating at least
as additional resources.

------
CodeWriter23
I wanted to read up on some articles, particularly about the Blackfoot since
they are in my lineage, but the copy rendered on top of a color layer with
transparency on top of a photo made it very difficult to read. I clicked away.

------
atomical
It's missing Havasupai.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasupai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havasupai)

------
la6470
Very US centric. There are thousands of tribes outside USA with rich cultural
heritage.

~~~
atomical
So?

~~~
namenotrequired
So there's lots of work left to do :)

------
civilian
My friend would like to point out that the Cowlitz tribe is missing!

~~~
protomyth
The Chippewa are also missing. You might want to find someone versed in the
whole Sioux / Lakota / Dakota parlance.

