There are two similar About/Subject type Credits in the database: Native Americans, and Native Americans in the United States.

I am wondering if we need both of these or just consolidate everything to Native Americans instead?

I assuming when people use the term Native Americans it refers to all of North America (including Canada). Though don't see the need for Native Americans in the United States.

AFIAK other parts of the American continent don't use the term to describe their indigenous people.

I agree with your comment. I know that a number of tribes had territories that included parts of modern day USA and Canada, so the credit Native Americans in the United States is probably meaningless.

Yes, I agree too. We should consolidate everything to Native Americans.

Some sources use the term "Native American" for the indigenous peoples of Central and Southern American countries as well. The Oxford Dictionary definition is "A member of any of the indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America."

There are also plenty of books that are about Native Americans in a specific area (be it the US, Canada, Mexico or elsewhere), so maybe it's not so bad to keep them both?

I'm not averse to having more categories if the books warrant it, I wasn't aware that 'Native American' could also constitute Central and South America.

A more standardised subject field would be better eg.

Native Americans
Native Americans: USA
Native Americans: Canada
Native Americans: North America

I don't have a problem with that as the titles are conceivably easier to find and more comprehensive.

I like that. It's the same format that we have for World War II, which seems to work out very well.

Yeah, I have nothing against that formatting either.

I have altered Native Americans in the United States to Native Americans: USA.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.