Talk:Tecumseh/Archive 1

One Example of a Glaring Error

I am reluctant to edit what looks to be a lot of hard work, and inasmuch that I appreciate some debate whether "Native Americans" should be racially called "Indians" it seems we are missing the point of accurately describing this person. Just one example, in the "box" it is listed that he was born on the Scioto River and in the text he was born near Xenia. (The correct answer is Xenia). Allan Eckert is the foremost expert on Tecumseh and frontier history, and his "A Sorrow In Our Heart" is the most recent comprehensive study on Tecumseh. (The amplification notes are a book in themselves.) I would like to help clean this entry up, but with folks blathering on about Native American vs Indian. (when the encyclopaedic preference is obvious), I'm a bit squeemish diving in here. Not that I care if anyone disagrees with me, but I hate typing things to have them deleted. So, anybody object to my fixing a least that one contradiction? If not, I'll tackle a few more problems.

BTW, Tecumseh's mother was a Cherokee. Even Eckert didn't acknowledge this until after 25 years of research. It's important when you realize the ease with which he communicated with this traditional foe when he attempted to build his alliance.Ismaelbobo (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the debate is that significant here. It's been awhile since this article has had much attention too. So if you have some good sources please feel free to edit away! As far as American Indian or Native American, I'd use Native American but stick to tribal names as much as possible because that prevents the issue from coming up. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 14:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add that the photo link concerning Tenswatawa says that he was blind in the left eye. All historic references that I've heard have him blind in the right eye and it's also obvious in the JPG. I do not have enough experience to edit this and I also feel that someone should verify my comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ten-sq%C3%BAat-a-way.jpg 98.28.184.152 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited!--Jeanambr (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

It says in the article (underneath the 1848 drawing of him) that it is a myth; however, I have in front of me a textbook (American History: A Survey by Alan Brinkley) which says otherwise (that he was a brigadier general during the War of 1812). If anyone else finds a concurring source, let's add it to the article.67.54.234.200 (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a source used in the article that says he was a made a brigadier general in the British army, in charge of the Indian allies, so I've added the content with the related reference. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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).

contradiction #1

"Tecumseh is honored in Canada as a hero and military commander who played a major role in Canada's successful repulsion of an American invasion in the War of 1812,"

BS.. "Tecumseh is honored in Canada as a hero and military commander"....so huge a BS. He was totally ignored in favor of General Brock who did very little in 1812 war. I had a whole whole paragraph on the whole dismal affair, but it was too truthful, and was erased.

Its a very recent thing that people in Canada has taken an interest in Tecumseh, mostly started in the 60's when people in Canada became a bit more sensitive to people and ideas that weren't anglo How many people actually know who Tecumseh is? That is the Question as apposed to the others?

Please show us the list of honors by canada... a few dead villages don't cut it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove the statement and replace it with somethign else if you have a reliable source. Be bold :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

I am Seminole and Creek. I’m sure anyone reading this probably is educated enough to use the term they believe is the least offensive. The other 90 percent of America still know us as Indian though. People living in Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona, or near any large population of Native Americans, yes that is what I prefer to be called, would disagree. Trust me, I know this first hand. Currently residing in Mass., it takes me ten to twenty minutes to explain why I’m not Indian. Not because they’re dumb, but the stereotypes have been drilled into their head for so long, they can see past it. I might as well be telling them that the color red is actually green. When someone asks me what’s my nationality, and I say native American, they say, “Oh, you mean Indian!”. Not Native American, American Indian, Alaskan Indian, American Eskimo, or any other politically correct term. It’s “Indian”, as in cowboys and Indians, howe white man, arrow shootin, pipe smokin, “Look at me, I’m wearing a f@#*ing loin cloth!”, Indian. It’s racist word, period. PERIOD!! That being said, calling us American Indian is a slap in the face. It’s U.S. saying “We’re not going to admit we were wrong for calling you that, because that’s what we decided you are.” You don’t call black people African N@#$&%s do you? didn’t think so. It’s still calling us Indians, and in doing so ignoring years of persecution that still goes on today. Oh yes, don’t kid yourself into believing the government stopped screwing us over, they’re just better at hiding it, and anyone other than us doesn’t care. Personally, the term American Indian disgusts me. As for people saying using “Native American” is a way for the country to forget our painful and undeserving past is steaming s@#t. Your just being lazy. When people hear the phrase African American history, they don’t’ think of roses and candy. They very easily make the connection to they’re equally undeserved past. The country will be able to make the connection as long as they’re educated correctly. It is true though, that many Native Americans call themselves Indian. I call myself Indian all the time; as well as a red skin, a brown person, a feather head, and my favorite and most commonly used word, Injin. Injin is an old slurred way of saying Indian(watch some old westerns); if your gonna be racist, no better way to do that than saying it wrong!LOL I can do that though, because I AM Native American. When me and my family get together we call ourselves brown folk, and me and my siblings will joke about being “poor brown trash”, because WE are. Everyone else is not, and CANNOT. Make sense? Let’s see, I covered why ANYTHING with “Indian” is wrong; why I can say Indian and you can’t, oh, why do I prefer Native American. This is America, I am American, I was born here, I love to be American. My bloodline dates to the first settlers, the “natives”. I am native, to America, Native American. Simple. I would like to just say my tribe, but there’s so many, it is confusing to people who aren’t familiar with them all; crap, I don’t even know them all. I also agree with who ever said aboriginals was wrong. Aboriginals? Seriously? That’s just plain dumb, Slap yourself it you think that’s a good term to call us. What else was there…. The Japanese, Chinese guy. What makes you think what YOU prefer to call US matters in any way, shape, or form? I prefer to call you a moron, and since I’m not a moron, that means my opinion can be a “counterargument”, right? Idiot. By the way, any people with Native American friends who are not Native American themselves; stop posting your opinions, you don’t count. I hope I covered everything, and helped everyone see things from a Injin’s point of view of what to call us. At the end of the day though, and my friends would agree this truly is what I say; when after countless guesses at my nationality I’m finally asked, ‘So what are you?”. My response is simply, “Human”. Ripper657 (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Ripper657

Noones opinions count whatever their ancestry. Arguments count. The policy on wikipedia is not necessarily to prefer endonyms if these are not not widely known and used. When dealing with several terms that are all in wide usage the of course the one that is most acceptable to the people in question should be used. This is a case where there are several terms in wide usage, most english speakers will be able to understand and use both "indian", "native american", "american indian", "first nation people", "indigenous americans" as referring to the indigenous populations of the Americas and their descendents. However there is not really any consensus within this group about what they prefer to be called. Some prefer to be called "native american", as we have seen above, but others prefer other terms. The group of indigenous peoples of the americas are not homogeneous and no one can speak for all of them. I think that we should use the official usage of the countries in which the populations we talk about live. In Canada "first nations" are used consistently, in Mexico and latin america the word "indigenous peoples" are preferred and it seems that in the US "indian" is preferred by the US governement and by some of the peoples' own organisations (for example "The Bureau of Indian Affairs" and "American Indian Movement") - although in recent years "native american" has been considered more politically correct and has been used more in academia and in the general public. I realise that there are strong opinions and equally strong feelings about this topic but I think that we cannot avoid offending some people which ever term we use.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of us natives do prefer Indian. We too though, are also subjected to the same stereotypes as everyone else. We grew up hearing the same titles. Ask a native what he is, and he’ll say, “I’m Indian”. You see, no one ever asks him why. Ask a native why he’s Indian and he’ll most likely say something similar to “Because that’s what we’re called”. That’s what we’re called. That’s what everyone calls us. It’s just a native conforming to the country without thinking about it. You can tell him he has a choice, but the choice has already been made for him years ago. Unfortunately, It’s just as hard, if not harder, for a native to see the wrong in this, to see the wrong in his title. It’s difficult for anyone to admit that he is still controlled, especially one who doesn’t even know it. It seems fitting that this discussion is on Tecumseh’s article, he saw the wrong in this country when most others didn’t. When they conformed. That is exactly what is happening here. The country as a whole doesn’t really care about us to see “Indian” as wrong, so it won’t educate itself enough to be aware about it. People accept Indian because people don’t know any better. If ignorance is bliss, then we live in Eden. Ripper657 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Ripper657

I agree with Sunray. We should not call the Native Americans Indians. Indians are people from the country India. Not the United States. Plus,they were the first here so the should be called Americans or Native Americans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.108.105 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015‎ (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule is that editors should follow the reliable secondary sources. They prefer "Indian" as shown by the leading biographer Russell David Edmunds, Tecumseh and the Quest for Indian Leadership (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984), as well as The patriot chiefs: a chronicle of American Indian resistance by AM Josephy - 1993; James Howard, Shawnee!: the ceremonialism of a native Indian tribe and its cultural background (Ohio University Press, 1981); Fixico, Donald. The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge (Routledge, 2013); William Macleod, The American Indian Frontier (Routledge, 2013); Roger Carpenter, American Indian History Day by Day: A Reference Guide to Events (ABC-CLIO, 2012); Colin Calloway, ed. The American Indian: Past and Present (2014); etc etc Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've followed the secondary sources terms, as Rjensen explained above, and they tended to use the phrase American Indian and the shorter version, Indian, interchangeably, so the article consistently uses the same terminology to match the reference sources. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I set up a separate section for Legacy, and kept a section for Tributes and memorials, such as places named in his honor, sculptures, etc. There is also a separate section for references to Tecumseh in popular culture, that include more than fictional stories. Rosalina523 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

Should there be a thingy at the top that says "Not to be confused with William Tecumseh Sherman" I've seen those before (example: Lynx), but am not sure what the guidelines are 88.11.150.218 (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty hard to confuse the two of them. Most people probably would not even know Sherman's name to get confused in the first place. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but... An awful lot of people must wonder why Sherman was given that unusual name. Valetude (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Birth dispute.

I would go ahead and edit this entry, but I'm new to the process and thought I'd just post my comments here. There seems to be some dispute about the location of Tecumseh's birth. After watching with fascination the episode "Tecumseh's Vision" from the mini series "We Shall Remain" on PBS's American Experience, I contacted 2 of the historians who were on the program. They acknowledged that John Sugden, another historian on the same program, to be the foremost authority on his life. Sugden has devoted the last 30 years researching Tecumseh. On page 22 of his book, Tecumseh: A Life, Sugden gives his best shot at answering the question:

"Tecumseh was almost certainly born on the Scioto, at either Chillicothe, or Kispoko Town. Many early commentators erred in putting his birthplace farther west, at towns which did not exist at the time."

I urge anyone interested in learning about this great human being to read Sugden's book.

Allen Eckert is fun reading, but much of his work has turned out to be fiction. The Blue Jacket blunder is a sad case in point.

Joepayne6 (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sudgen's book on Tecumseh is one of the primary sources used to write this article. If you have access to the book and would like to expand or correct any information using that souce, please feel free to do so. Simply place a "<ref>Sudgen, p. ### </ref>" after each new fact you add so that it can be traced back by readers for verification. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the content to explain why there's a discrepancy in Tecumseh's birth location - which Sudden explained in his book.Rosalina523 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Rebecca Galloway

I am little concerned about the information in the article regarding Rebecca Galloway. I am quite familiar with this topic, and have access to some of the source books used in the article. None that I have make any mention of Rebecca Galloway, and most make it clear there is very very little known with certainty about Tecumseh's life before 1807. Does the source of the information about Rebecca Galloway explain their sources? How do we know this is just not a myth? And since it is not included in any of the more recent Tecumseh biographies, I think we sould be careful not present this information as fact, but attribute it to the person making the claims. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just making a little research, according to this book [6], this story was first published by William Galloway, grandson of Rebecca, and this source [7] makes it clear that the story is a family legend and actually argues that it is a falsehood. I think if we are going to include it in the article, we need to at least point out that other historians believe the story is false for balance. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tecumseh

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tecumseh's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jones":

• From Pushmataha: Jones, Charlie. "Choctaw History - Pushmataha". Retrieved 2006-11-29.
• From Choctaw: Jones, Charile (1987). "Sharing Choctaw History". University of Minnesota. Retrieved 2008-02-05. {{cite web}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In Literature

Can anybody add book series by Fritz Steuben? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.112.14 (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. GenQuest (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Speech to the Osages

This section and the section called "Conflict between Native Americans and settlers", were dumped into the article on February 27, 2012.

The material provides little context, and appears to be more of an analysis of a speech ascribed to Tecumseh, allegedly delivered during the winter of 1811-1812.

The analysis appears to be largely cribbed from a language learning website called lang-8.com, titled "Analysis of Oratory (part 9)", found at http://lang-8.com/33077/journals/94590. Sources listed are Baym, Nina, Robert S. Levine, and Arnold Krupat. The Norton Anthology of American Literature. Vol. A. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2007. Print and Henretta, James A., and David Brody. America: A Concise History. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.Print

Other editors have attempted to clean this up; besides lacking context, it also needs to be wikified. It may be original research, and might not be valid to include in this article.

I'll attempt to isolate this material and place it chronologically. I'll leave it to editors with more subject matter knowledge than I to decide what to do with this material ultimately. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In order to tackle the problems related by Chaswmsday I have partly restored the 1 June 2011 edition, which already reported the speech allegedly delivered to the Osages. I have therefore removed the section "with multiple issues".--Jeanambr (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

ftr, this text dump was added by Jkgoodloe (talk · contribs). --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Link to the Wabasha/Wapasha disambiguation article

Ernest Thompson Seton ascribes the poem cited in the section Film and television to some of the Wabasha chiefs without exactly saying (AFAIK) to which one. I think that, exceptionally, in this case the link to a disambiguation article listing all possible Wabasha chiefs is correct and can be helpful to the reader. --Jeanambr (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. DAB solver keeps kicking it out, and will do so until the link is further focused and using the correct syntax. (Wapasha/Wabasha is not referring to an individual here, is it? If so, the sentence needs a re-write for further clarity. If referring to a tribe or group, then a redlink would be in order until the article about such a group is written.)

Also, we should never knowingly add article links to a disambiguation article, per WMoS.

Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Budd...

Thanks for this article which is substantively informative. Thought it might be of interest to know that Herman Melville describes one of the characters in 'Billy Budd, Sailor' as being "...beardless as Tecumseh". I confess that I expected it to be a Biblical reference (!) and it seemed an interesting illustration of the visual culture in the mid-19th century.86.130.52.103 (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tecumseh's Speech, of August 11, 1810, To Governer William Harrison

There is a authenticity/copyright discussion about wikisource:Tecumseh's Speech, of August 11, 1810, To Governer William Harrison happening at s:Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Tecumseh's Speech, of August 11, 1810, To Governer William Harrison. Please contribute any information or sources you may have access to that might enlighten the discussion there. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ice cream

It's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.213.150 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

#Bibliography and #Further reading

I wonder what guidelines say about listing Tecumseh's Last Stand under both headings. I do not deem this an obvious mistake, but ... Uwe Lück (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Tecumseh an ally of the British in war of 1812?

Over at the war of 1812 article there was a question raised whether T was really an ally of the Brits. Here is what I responded: The RS say Tecumseh was a critical ally of the British in 1812-13. 1) Paul Finkelman, ‎James A. Percoco - 2009 says: ‎"Tecumseh and his war band joined the British against the United States in the War of 1812." 2) Sharon Malinowski - 1998 "A British ally during the War of 1812, Tecumseh was made a brigadier general in command of all Indian forces." 3) Charles Esdaile - 2009 -"they found a powerful ally in the great Indian leader, Tecumseh. Of mixed Shawnee and Creek backgrounds, Tecumseh hated white America and believed the Indians faced a choice of either fighting or being overwhelmed"; 4) Robert Utley, ‎Wilcomb E. Washburn - 1985 - ‎"But Tecumseh could no longer wreak his vengeance, as he had wished, at the head of a host of unified tribes. He needed an ally. And so, reluctantly, he turned to the Canadian garrisons where the British were getting ready for their second war against the Americans." 5) Michael Lee Lanning - 2005 "In addition to losing the battle, the British lost Tecumseh, their most important Native American ally, who was mortally wounded."; 6) Leslie Monkman - 1981 - ‎"Only after his failure to reclaim the lands of the west for his people does Tecumseh ally himself with Brock." 7) Carol Cartaino - 2010 writes: "Finding Prophetstown reduced to ashes upon his return, Tecumseh vowed to go to Canada and ally with the British. Tecumseh rallied his Indian allies to join the British forces in the siege of Detroit. Tecumseh and four hundred of his warriors..."; 8) Gordon M. Sayre - 2006 says: "But with Tecumseh, we for the first time find an Indian leader and his warriors fighting with one colonial power against another." 9) On the image of Tecumseh in Canadian thought see William H. New (1990). Native Writers and Canadian Writing. UBC Press. pp. 96+. ISBN 9780774803717. Rjensen (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh,_Nebraska#History

Why would the supposed killer of Tecumseh , change the name of the town , Frances , named for his wife. to Tecumseh ? Catweasel (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Schools Named After Him...

In the Towns' and buildings' names section there are a lot of citation needed tags on the schools. Is someone insinuating that there is no proof that the schools are named for him? Question: who else would they be named for? Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tecumseh. 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/20070721053247/http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/www/ihb/resources/docdelawares.html to http://www.statelib.lib.in.us/www/ihb/resources/docdelawares.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209031614/http://www.historytools.org/sources/tecumseh.pdf to http://www.historytools.org/sources/tecumseh.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729102730/http://www.vcsc.k12.in.us/th/index.htm to http://www.vcsc.k12.in.us/th/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224212732/http://www.tps.k12.mi.us/web/index.html to http://www.tps.k12.mi.us/web/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808053544/http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20110707/NEWS01/107070327 to http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20110707/NEWS01/107070327

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for "accursed waves" quote

Numerous scholars and authors have treated the "accursed" waves speech from Tecumseh as historical. These scholars report that the speech was to the Creeks in the South. This is mentioned in Wikisource. But Wikisource also had something about the British being in Detroit, which doesn't seem to matter because the Creeks lived nowhere near there. I removed that part to avoid confusion. Display name 99 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

So, we have two novelizations, one historical narrative that doesn't evaluate the authenticity, and two books compiling great speeches. And one scholarly comment on its authenticity (Dionysus Clark), who states, "Though no transcript was made of what is presumed to be Tecumseh's dramatic appeal to the Creeks, the revered frontiersman Sam Dale was present. Historian J. F. H. Claiborne, relying upon Dale's report, preserved the essence of Tecumseh's oratory." Against this we have the following scholarly claims.

Historian John Sugden writes,

"Tecumseh's canvass of the Creek Nation is the most documented, the most legendary and the most momentous of his visits to far-flung tribes, and yet it is repeatedly chronicled from unreliable traditional materials of which the most quoted single account appears to be bogus. An analysis of the latter reminiscences yields instructive examples of the distortion, plagiarization and invention which characterizes material of that kind, but there is not space here to treat the subject adequately." (284) "Claiborne's description of Tecumseh at Tuckabatchie in the alleged autobiography of the Fontiersman, Samuel Dale, however, is fraudulent. The book was purportedly based upon what Dale had told Franklin Smith, Henry Garrett and Claiborne at different periods, and to be in many parts an almost verbatim transcript of his words. Although they adopt the style of the first person, as in conventional autobiography, the passages dealing with Tecumseh were largely based upon published sources, including McKenney, Pickett and Drake's Life of Tecumseh. The story is cast in the exaggerated and sensational language of the dime novelist, with embellishments more likely supplied by Claiborne than Dale, and the speech put into Tecumseh's mouth is not only unhistorical (it has the British in Detroit!) but similar to ones the author concocted for other Indians in different circumstances. There are also small but significant discrepancies between the version of Tecumseh's speech given in Sam Dale and that Claiborne published twenty years later which illustrate the ways in which material was juggled. Samuel Dale may have been at Tuckabatchie-the point was disputed between Pickett and Woodward-but his supposed memoirs are unworthy of confidence." (288) Sugden, John. "Early Pan-Indianism; Tecumseh’s Tour of the Indian Country, 1811-1812." American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 4 (1986): 273–304. doi:10.2307/1183838.

Similarly, historian H.S. Halbert writing in the late 1800s:

In this article the writer desires to call attention to some inaccuracies in Colonel J. F. H. Claiborne's History of Mississippi, on page 487, in regard to Tecumseh's visit to the Choctaws. These inaccuracies have unfortunately misled the authors of our Mississippi school histories, and I wish here to present the subject in its true light and so correct these inaccuracies for the benefit of all students of Mississippi history. As a beginning, I will state that in 1877 I sent to Colonel Claiborne, then engaged in writing his history, some notes which I had written in regard to Tecumseh's visit to the Choctaws in 1811. These notes gave some account of the last council between Tecumseh and the Choctaws, which was held on Blewett's plantation, in Noxubee County. Subsequent research, several years after, showed that I was in error on some points. Still, if Colonel Claiborne had made use of my notes just as they were, the matter would not have been so bad. I regret, however, to say that Colonel Claiborne took much liberty with my narrative and added thereto some fictitious embellishments. To take a liberal view of the matter, the Colonel, no doubt, considered these embellishments as harmless and as adding somewhat to the interest of the narrative. After the manner of some historians of antiquity, the Colonel had acquired the habit of putting fine speeches into the mouths of his Indian heroes. For the benefit of the students of Mississippi history, I will here state, in all truth and good conscience, that the speech which he has put into the mouth of Pushmataha is nothing more nor less than pure and unadulterated fiction. Pushmataha never made that speech. Even the uncritical school boy might ask the questions: "Who was the reporter in the Indian camp that took down that speech?" "Who translated the speech from Choctaw into English?" The Truth is, Colonel Claiborne simply composed that speech and interpolated it into[102] my meager narrative. The Colonel, too, seems to have been utterly oblivious or regardless of the fact, that, in all Indian inter-tribal councils, where more than one language is spoken, all the business is transacted through the cold medium of interpreters. Under such circumstances there can be no wonderful displays of impassioned oratory. Pushmataha spoke only Choctaw, Tecumseh only Shawnee. A speech delivered by Tecumseh in his native tongue could not have been understood by the Choctaws. Hence, all the arguments and statements on both sides had to pass through the mouth of the interpreter; in this case the interpreter, Seekaboo. Such inter-tribunal councils are strictly business conferences. Many years ago it was my fortune to be present at two inter-tribal councils among the wild tribes, where several languages were spoken, and no displays of oratory were attempted—for in such a case the speaker's tribesmen alone could have understood him—but everything was conducted in practical, businesslike manner, the interpreters kept constantly busy translating the statements of the speakers. — "Some Inaccuracies in Claiborne’s History in Regard to Tecumseh" Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society Archived here.

So the quote is likely a fabrication. Moreover, the alleged text is a primary source that is doing more work here than should be allowed under WP:PRIMARY. There are enough scholarly secondary sources (including Sugden) about Tecumseh's 1811 visit, so we should defer to them on what he was doing there.--Carwil (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite Carwil's accurate and well-reasoned above arguments, user Display name 99 has restored his quotation twice. Although I do not believe the quotation should be left in the article, I have meantime just done as follows:

1. I have expanded the disclaimer, also following Display name 99's suggestion in his latest summary edit;

2. I have restored the quotation of another of Tecumseh's speeches that had previously been removed in order to make the article lighter and more conformable to an encyclopedic entry.

I hope someone will be so kind as to copyedit my poor English.--Jeanambr (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tecumseh. 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/20120730141333/http://www.hdsb.ca/Schools/Pages/TecumsehPublicSchool.aspx to http://www.hdsb.ca/Schools/Pages/TecumsehPublicSchool.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Americans"

Hello:

In the article, you repeatedly say "Americans" where I believe you mean the U.S. government forces. He was the true American.

Perhaps, you could revise this.

Thanks.

That's a good point, Salsa Diva. I have changed a couple of instances to "United States", you may like to lend a hand with the editing. Moonraker (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not showing the True Copper-Color People

The pictures shown in these Photos are very incorrect. These people You Show Are Caucasians In These Photos. Not in any way Our Complexion in those times, days and years. In Which they Should Show The Aborigines: The True and Only Truth! Our Copper Colored people. As These Colonizers changed all Our Tribal Names Later years, and Called Our People Black! The Aborigines Are Our Ancestors of This LAND! The Land is Also, Our Ancestors in which was Taken from Our Tribal Ancestors. Latiniad31 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Use of Tennnessee

This article seems to have a lot of well researched sources. However, I noticed the article states "After a brief return to the Ohio Country in 1791, Tecumseh and his band of Shawnee warriors rejoined his brother in the Cumberland River area in Tennessee, where Chiksika was killed while leading a raid in September 1792." However, in 1792, Tennessee did not yet exist. J3nn!f3rros3 (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)