text:
Indian removal

The Indian removal was the United States government's policy of ethnic cleansing through the forced displacement of self-governing tribes of American Indians from their ancestral homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi Riverspecifically, to a designated Indian Territory (roughly, present-day Oklahoma), which many scholars have labeled a genocide. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, the key law which authorized the removal of Native tribes, was signed into law by United States president Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830. Although Jackson took a hard line on Indian removal, the law was primarily enforced during the Martin Van Buren administration. After the enactment of the Act, approximately 60,000 members of the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations (including thousands of their black slaves) were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands, with thousands dying during the Trail of Tears.

Indian removal, a popular policy among incoming settlers, was a consequence of actions which were first undertaken by the European colonists and later, it was a consequence of actions which were undertaken by the American settlers in the nation in the thirteen colonies and then, it was a consequence of actions which were also undertaken in the United States of America from the end of the revolution until the mid-20th century.

The origins of the policy date back to the administration of James Monroe, but it addressed conflicts which had occurred between the American settlers and Indigenous tribes since the 17th century and were escalating into the early 19th century (as settlers pushed westward in accordance with the cultural belief of manifest destiny). Historical views of Indian removal have been reevaluated since that time. Widespread contemporary acceptance of the policy, due in part to the popular embrace of the concept of manifest destiny, has given way to a more somber perspective. Historians have often described the removal of American Indians as paternalism, ethnic cleansing, or genocide.

Revolutionary background
American leaders in the Revolutionary and early US eras debated about whether Native Americans should be treated as individuals or as nations.

Declaration of Independence
In the indictment section of the Declaration of Independence, the Indigenous inhabitants of the United States are referred to as "merciless Indian Savages", reflecting a commonly held view at the time by the colonists in the United States.

Benjamin Franklin
In a draft "Proposed Articles of Confederation" presented to the Continental Congress on May 10, 1775, Benjamin Franklin called for a "perpetual Alliance" with the Indians in the nation about to be born, particularly with the six nations of the Iroquois Confederacy: "Article XI. A perpetual alliance offensive and defensive is to be entered into as soon as may be with the Six Nations; their Limits to be ascertained and secured to them; their Land not to be encroached on, nor any private or Colony Purchases made of them hereafter to be held good, nor any Contract for Lands to be made but between the Great Council of the Indians at Onondaga and the General Congress. The Boundaries and Lands of all the other Indians shall also be ascertained and secured to them in the same manner; and Persons appointed to reside among them in proper Districts, who shall take care to prevent Injustice in the Trade with them, and be enabled at our general Expense by occasional small Supplies, to relieve their personal Wants and Distresses.  And all Purchases from them shall be by the Congress for the General Advantage and Benefit of the United Colonies."

Early congressional acts
The Confederation Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (a precedent for U.S. territorial expansion would occur for years to come), calling for the protection of Native American "property, rights, and liberty"; the U.S. Constitution of 1787 (Article I, Section 8) made Congress responsible for regulating commerce with the Indian tribes. In 1790, the new U.S. Congress passed the Indian Nonintercourse Act (renewed and amended in 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834) to protect and codify the land rights of recognized tribes.

George Washington
President George Washington, in his 1790 address to the Seneca Nation which called the pre-Constitutional Indian land-sale difficulties "evils", said that the case was now altered and pledged to uphold Native American "just rights". In March and April 1792, Washington met with 50 tribal chiefs in Philadelphia—including the Iroquois—to discuss strengthening the friendship between them and the United States. Later that year, in his fourth annual message to Congress, Washington stressed the need to build peace, trust, and commerce with Native Americans: "I cannot dismiss the subject of Indian affairs without again recommending to your consideration the expediency of more adequate provision for giving energy to the laws throughout our interior frontier, and for restraining the commission of outrages upon the Indians; without which all pacific plans must prove nugatory. To enable, by competent rewards, the employment of qualified and trusty persons to reside among them, as agents, would also contribute to the preservation of peace and good neighbourhood. If, in addition to these expedients, an eligible plan could be devised for promoting civilization among the friendly tribes, and for carrying on trade with them, upon a scale equal to their wants, and under regulations calculated to protect them from imposition and extortion, its influence in cementing their interests with our's [sic] could not but be considerable." In his seventh annual message to Congress in 1795, Washington intimated that if the U.S. government wanted peace with the Indians it must behave peacefully; if the U.S. wanted raids by Indians to stop, raids by American "frontier inhabitants" must also stop.

Thomas Jefferson
In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson defended Native American culture and marvelled at how the tribes of Virginia "never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government" due to their "moral sense of right and wrong". He wrote to the Marquis de Chastellux later that year, "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman". Jefferson's desire, as interpreted by Francis Paul Prucha, was for Native Americans to intermix with European Americans and become one people. To achieve that end as president, Jefferson offered U.S. citizenship to some Indian nations and proposed offering them credit to facilitate trade.

On 27 February 1803, Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Henry Harrison:"In this way our settlements will gradually circumbscribe & approach the Indians, & they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the US. or remove beyond the Missisipi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves. But in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength & their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, & that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only."

Jeffersonian policy
As president, Thomas Jefferson developed a far-reaching Indian policy with two primary goals. He wanted to assure that the Native nations (not foreign nations) were tightly bound to the new United States, as he considered the security of the nation to be paramount. He also wanted to "civilize" them into adopting an agricultural, rather than a hunter-gatherer, lifestyle. These goals would be achieved through treaties and the development of trade.

Jefferson initially promoted an American policy which encouraged Native Americans to become assimilated, or "civilized". He made sustained efforts to win the friendship and cooperation of many Native American tribes as president, repeatedly articulating his desire for a united nation of whites and Indians as in his November 3, 1802, letter to Seneca spiritual leader Handsome Lake:"Go on then, brother, in the great reformation you have undertaken ... In all your enterprises for the good of your people, you may count with confidence on the aid and protection of the United States, and on the sincerity and zeal with which I am myself animated in the furthering of this humane work. You are our brethren of the same land; we wish your prosperity as brethren should do. Farewell."

When a delegation from the Cherokee Nation's Upper Towns lobbied Jefferson for the full and equal citizenship promised to Indians living in American territory by George Washington, his response indicated that he was willing to grant citizenship to those Indian nations who sought it. In his eighth annual message to Congress on November 8, 1808, he presented a vision of white and Indian unity: "With our Indian neighbors the public peace has been steadily maintained ... And, generally, from a conviction that we consider them as part of ourselves, and cherish with sincerity their rights and interests, the attachment of the Indian tribes is gaining strength daily... and will amply requite us for the justice and friendship practiced towards them ... [O]ne of the two great divisions of the Cherokee nation have now under consideration to solicit the citizenship of the United States, and to be identified with us in-laws and government, in such progressive manner as we shall think best."

As some of Jefferson's other writings illustrate, however, he was ambivalent about Indian assimilation and used the words "exterminate" and "extirpate" about tribes who resisted American expansion and were willing to fight for their lands. Jefferson intended to change Indian lifestyles from hunting and gathering to farming, largely through "the decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient". He expected the change to agriculture to make them dependent on white Americans for goods, and more likely to surrender their land or allow themselves to be moved west of the Mississippi River. In an 1803 letter to William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wrote: "Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation."

In that letter, Jefferson spoke about protecting the Indians from injustices perpetrated by settlers: "Our system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them, by everything just and liberal which we can do for them within ... reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people."

According to the treaty of February 27, 1819, the U.S. government would offer citizenship and 640 acre of land per family to Cherokees who lived east of the Mississippi. Native American land was sometimes purchased, by treaty or under duress. The idea of land exchange, that Native Americans would give up their land east of the Mississippi in exchange for a similar amount of territory west of the river, was first proposed by Jefferson in 1803 and first incorporated into treaties in 1817 (years after the Jefferson presidency). The Indian Removal Act of 1830 included this concept.

John C. Calhoun's plan
Under President James Monroe, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun devised the first plans for Indian removal. Monroe approved Calhoun's plans by late 1824 and, in a special message to the Senate on January 27, 1825, requested the creation of the Arkansaw and Indian Territories; the Indians east of the Mississippi would voluntarily exchange their lands for lands west of the river. The Senate accepted Monroe's request, and asked Calhoun to draft a bill which was killed in the House of Representatives by the Georgia delegation. President John Quincy Adams assumed the Calhoun–Monroe policy, and was determined to remove the Indians by non-forceful means; Georgia refused to consent to Adams' request, forcing the president to forge a treaty with the Cherokees granting Georgia the Cherokee lands. On July 26, 1827, the Cherokee Nation adopted a written constitution (modeled on that of the United States) which declared that they were an independent nation with jurisdiction over their own lands. Georgia contended that it would not countenance a sovereign state within its own territory, and asserted its authority over Cherokee territory. When Andrew Jackson became president as the candidate of the newly-organized Democratic Party, he agreed that the Indians should be forced to exchange their eastern lands for western lands (including relocation) and vigorously enforced Indian removal.

Opposition to removal from U.S. citizens
Although Indian removal was a popular policy, it was also opposed on legal and moral grounds; it also ran counter to the formal, customary diplomatic interaction between the federal government and the Native nations. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the widely-published letter "A Protest Against the Removal of the Cherokee Indians from the State of Georgia" in 1838, shortly before the Cherokee removal. Emerson criticizes the government and its removal policy, saying that the removal treaty was illegitimate; it was a "sham treaty", which the U.S. government should not uphold. He describes removal as "such a dereliction of all faith and virtues, such a denial of justice…in the dealing of a nation with its own allies and wards since the earth was made…a general expression of despondency, of disbelief, that any goodwill accrues from a remonstrance on an act of fraud and robbery, appeared in those men to whom we naturally turn for aid and counsel." Emerson concludes his letter by saying that it should not be a political issue, urging President Martin Van Buren to prevent the enforcement of Cherokee removal. Other individual settlers and settler social organizations throughout the United States also opposed removal.

Native American response to removal
Native groups reshaped their governments, made constitutions and legal codes, and sent delegates to Washington to negotiate policies and treaties to uphold their autonomy and ensure federally-promised protection from the encroachment of states. They thought that acclimating, as the U.S. wanted them to, would stem removal policy and create a better relationship with the federal government and surrounding states.

Native American nations had differing views about removal. Although most wanted to remain on their native lands and do anything possible to ensure that, others believed that removal to a nonwhite area was their only option to maintain their autonomy and culture. The U.S. used this division to forge removal treaties with (often) minority groups who became convinced that removal was the best option for their people. These treaties were often not acknowledged by most of a nation's people. When Congress ratified the removal treaty, the federal government could use military force to remove Native nations if they had not moved (or had begun moving) by the date stipulated in the treaty.

Indian Removal Act

When Andrew Jackson became president of the United States in 1829, his government took a hard line on Indian removal; Jackson abandoned his predecessors' policy of treating Indian tribes as separate nations, aggressively pursuing all Indians east of the Mississippi who claimed constitutional sovereignty and independence from state laws. They were to be removed to reservations in Indian Territory, west of the Mississippi (present-day Oklahoma), where they could exist without state interference. At Jackson's request, Congress began a debate on an Indian-removal bill. After fierce disagreement, the Senate passed the bill by a 28–19 vote; the House had narrowly passed it, 102–97. Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law on May 30, 1830.

That year, most of the Five Civilized Tribes—the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee—lived east of the Mississippi. The Indian Removal Act implemented federal-government policy towards its Indian populations, moving Native American tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. Although the act did not authorize the forced removal of indigenous tribes, it enabled the president to negotiate land-exchange treaties.

Choctaw
On September 27, 1830, the Choctaw signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and became the first Native American tribe to be removed. The agreement was one of the largest transfers of land between the U.S. government and Native Americans which was not the result of war. The Choctaw signed away their remaining traditional homelands, opening them up for European–American settlement in Mississippi Territory. When the tribe reached Little Rock, a chief called its trek a "trail of tears and death".

In 1831, French historian and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed an exhausted group of Choctaw men, women and children emerging from the forest during an exceptionally cold winter near Memphis, Tennessee, on their way to the Mississippi to be loaded onto a steamboat. He wrote, "In the whole scene there was an air of ruin and destruction, something which betrayed a final and irrevocable adieu; one couldn't watch without feeling one's heart wrung. The Indians were tranquil but sombre and taciturn. There was one who could speak English and of whom I asked why the Chactas were leaving their country. 'To be free,' he answered, could never get any other reason out of him. We ... watch the expulsion ... of one of the most celebrated and ancient American peoples."

Cherokee
While the Indian Removal Act made the move of the tribes voluntary, it was often abused by government officials. The best-known example is the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a small faction of twenty Cherokee tribal members (not the tribal leadership) on December 29, 1835. Most of the Cherokee later blamed the faction and the treaty for the tribe's forced relocation in 1838. An estimated 4,000 Cherokee died in the march, which is known as the Trail of Tears. Missionary organizer Jeremiah Evarts urged the Cherokee Nation to take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Marshall court heard the case in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), but declined to rule on its merits; the court declaring that the Native American tribes were not sovereign nations, and could not "maintain an action" in U.S. courts. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs.

The state of Georgia defied the Supreme Court ruling, and the desire of settlers and land speculators for Indian lands continued unabated; some whites claimed that Indians threatened peace and security. The Georgia legislature passed a law forbidding settlers from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state; this excluded missionaries who opposed Indian removal.

Seminole
The Seminole refused to leave their Florida lands in 1835, leading to the Second Seminole War. Osceola was a Seminole leader of the people's fight against removal. Based in the Everglades, Osceola and his band used surprise attacks to defeat the U.S. Army in a number of battles. In 1837, Osceola was duplicitously captured by order of U.S. General Thomas Jesup when Osceola came under a flag of truce to negotiate peace near Fort Peyton. Osceola died in prison of illness; the war resulted in over 1,500 U.S. deaths, and cost the government $20 million. Some Seminole traveled deeper into the Everglades, and others moved west. The removal continued, and a number of wars broke out over land.In 1823, the Seminole signed the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which reduced their 34 million to 4 millions acres.

Muskogee (Creek)
In the aftermath of the Treaties of Fort Jackson, and the Washington, the Muscogee were confined to a small strip of land in present-day east central Alabama. The Creek national council signed the Treaty of Cusseta in 1832, ceding their remaining lands east of the Mississippi to the U.S. and accepting relocation to the Indian Territory. Most Muscogee were removed to the territory during the Trail of Tears in 1834, although some remained behind. Although the Creek War of 1836 ended government attempts to convince the Creek population to leave voluntarily, Creeks who had not participated in the war were not forced west (as others were). The Creek population was placed into camps and told that they would be relocated soon. Many Creek leaders were surprised by the quick departure but could do little to challenge it. The 16,000 Creeks were organized into five detachments who were to be sent to Fort Gibson. The Creek leaders did their best to negotiate better conditions, and succeeded in obtaining wagons and medicine. To prepare for the relocation, Creeks began to deconstruct their spiritual lives; they burned piles of lightwood over their ancestors' graves to honor their memories, and polished the sacred plates which would travel at the front of each group. They also prepared financially, selling what they could not bring. Many were swindled by local merchants out of valuable possessions (including land), and the military had to intervene. The detachments began moving west in September 1836, facing harsh conditions. Despite their preparations, the detachments faced bad roads, worse weather, and a lack of drinkable water. When all five detachments reached their destination, they recorded their death toll. The first detachment, with 2,318 Creeks, had 78 deaths; the second had 3,095 Creeks, with 37 deaths. The third had 2,818 Creeks, and 12 deaths; the fourth, 2,330 Creeks and 36 deaths. The fifth detachment, with 2,087 Creeks, had 25 deaths. In 1837 outside of Baton Rouge, Louisiana over 300 Creeks being forcibly removed to Western prairies drowned in the Mississippi River.

"Friends and Brothers – By permission of the Great Spirit above, and the voice of the people, I have been made President of the United States, and now speak to you as your Father and friend, and request you to listen. Your warriors have known me long. You know I love my white and red children, and always speak with a straight, and not with a forked tongue; that I have always told you the truth ... Where you now are, you and my white children are too near to each other to live in harmony and peace. Your game is destroyed, and many of your people will not work and till the earth. Beyond the great River Mississippi, where a part of your nation has gone, your Father has provided a country large enough for all of you, and he advises you to remove to it. There your white brothers will not trouble you; they will have no claim to the land, and you can live upon it you and all your children, as long as the grass grows or the water runs, in peace and plenty. It will be yours forever. For the improvements in the country where you now live, and for all the stock which you cannot take with you, your Father will pay you a fair price ..."

Chickasaw
Unlike other tribes, who exchanged lands, the Chickasaw were to receive financial compensation of $3 million from the United States for their lands east of the Mississippi River. They reached an agreement to purchase of land from the previously-removed Choctaw in 1836 after a bitter five-year debate, paying the Chocktaw $530,000 for the westernmost Choctaw land. Most of the Chickasaw moved in 1837 and 1838. The $3 million owed to the Chickasaw by the U.S. went unpaid for nearly 30 years.

Aftermath
The Five Civilized Tribes were resettled in the new Indian Territory. The Cherokee occupied the northeast corner of the territory and a 70 mi strip of land in Kansas on its border with the territory. Some indigenous nations resisted the forced migration more strongly. The few who stayed behind eventually formed tribal groups, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee (based in North Carolina),  the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,  the Seminole Tribe of Florida,   and the Creeks in Alabama (including the Poarch Band).

North
Tribes in the Old Northwest were smaller and more fragmented than the Five Civilized Tribes, so the treaty and emigration process was more piecemeal. Following the Northwest Indian War, most of the modern state of Ohio was taken from native nations in the 1795 Treaty of Greenville. Tribes such as the already-displaced Lenape (Delaware tribe), Kickapoo and Shawnee, were removed from Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio during the 1820s. The Potawatomi were forced out of Wisconsin and Michigan in late 1838, and were resettled in Kansas Territory. Communities remaining in present-day Ohio were forced to move to Louisiana, which was then controlled by Spain.

Bands of Shawnee, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Sauk, and Meskwaki (Fox) signed treaties and relocated to the Indian Territory. In 1832, the Sauk leader Black Hawk led a band of Sauk and Fox back to their lands in Illinois; the U.S. Army and Illinois militia defeated Black Hawk and his warriors in the Black Hawk War, and the Sauk and Fox were relocated to present-day Iowa. The Miami were split, with many of the tribe resettled west of the Mississippi River during the 1840s.

In the Second Treaty of Buffalo Creek (1838), the Senecas transferred all their land in New York (except for one small reservation) in exchange for 200000 acre of land in Indian Territory. The federal government would be responsible for the removal of the Senecas who opted to go west, and the Ogden Land Company would acquire their New York lands. The lands were sold by government officials, however, and the proceeds were deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Maris Bryant Pierce, a "young chief" served as a lawyer representing four territories of the Seneca tribe, starting in 1838. The Senecas asserted that they had been defrauded, and sued for redress in the Court of Claims. The case was not resolved until 1898, when the United States awarded $1,998,714.46 (~$ in ) in compensation to "the New York Indians". The U.S. signed treaties with the Senecas and the Tonawanda Senecas in 1842 and 1857, respectively. Under the treaty of 1857, the Tonawandas renounced all claim to lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for the right to buy back the Tonawanda Reservation from the Ogden Land Company. Over a century later, the Senecas purchased a 9 acre plot (part of their original reservation) in downtown Buffalo to build the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino.

Changed perspective
Historical views of Indian removal have been reevaluated since that time. Widespread contemporary acceptance of the policy, due in part to the popular embrace of the concept of manifest destiny, has given way to a more somber perspective. Historians have often described the removal of Native Americans as paternalism, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Historian David Stannard has called it genocide.

Andrew Jackson's reputation
Andrew Jackson's Indian policy stirred a lot of public controversy before his enactment, but virtually none among historians and biographers of the 19th and early 20th century. However, his recent reputation has been negatively affected by his treatment of the Indians. Historians who admire Jackson's strong presidential leadership, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., would gloss over the Indian Removal in a footnote. In 1969, Francis Paul Prucha defended Jackson's Indian policy and wrote that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the hostile political environment of the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved them. Jackson was sharply attacked by political scientist Michael Rogin and historian Howard Zinn during the 1970s, primarily on this issue; Zinn called him an "exterminator of Indians". According to historians Paul R. Bartrop and Steven L. Jacobs, however, Jackson's policies do not meet the criteria for physical or cultural genocide. Historian Sean Wilentz describes the view of Jacksonian "infantilization" and "genocide" of the Indians, as a historical caricature, which "turns tragedy into melodrama, exaggerates parts at the expense of the whole, and sacrifices nuance for sharpness".

Further reading (most recent first)

 * Black, Jason Edward (2006). US Governmental and Native Voices in the Nineteenth Century: Rhetoric in the Removal and Allotment of American Indians. (PhD dissertation), College Park, MD: University of Maryland. See, for instance, the bibliography on pp. 571–615.
 * Ehle, John (1988). Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 038523953X.
 * Jahoda, Gloria (1975). The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removals 1813–1855. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0-03-014871-5.
 * Ehle, John (1988). Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 038523953X.
 * Jahoda, Gloria (1975). The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removals 1813–1855. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0-03-014871-5.
 * Jahoda, Gloria (1975). The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removals 1813–1855. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN 0-03-014871-5.

title: Indian removal


text:
Green Party (Ireland)

The Green Party (Comhaontas Glas) is a green political party that operates in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It holds a pro-European stance. It was founded as the Ecology Party of Ireland in 1981 by Dublin teacher Christopher Fettes. The party became the Green Alliance in 1983 and adopted its current English language name in 1987 while the Irish name was kept unchanged. The party leader is Roderic O'Gorman, the deputy leader is Senator Róisín Garvey and the cathaoirleach (chairperson) is Pauline O'Reilly. Green Party candidates have been elected to most levels of representation: local government (in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland), Dáil Éireann, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the European Parliament.

The Green Party first entered the Dáil in 1989. It has participated in the Irish government twice, from 2007 to 2011 as junior partner in a coalition with Fianna Fáil, and since June 2020 in a coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Following the first period in government, the party suffered a wipeout in the February 2011 election, losing all six of its TDs. In the February 2016 election, it returned to the Dáil with two seats. Following this, Grace O'Sullivan was elected to the Seanad on 26 April that year of 2016 and Joe O'Brien was elected to Dáil Éireann in the 2019 Dublin Fingal by-election. In the 2020 general election, the party had its best result ever, securing 12 TDs and becoming the fourth largest party in Ireland.

Early years and first rise
The Green Party began life as the Ecology Party in 1981, with Christopher Fettes serving as the party's first chairperson. The party's first public appearance was modest: the event announced that they would be contesting the November 1982 general election, and was attended by their seven election candidates, 20 party supporters, and one singular journalist. Fettes had opened the meeting by noting the party didn't expect to win any seats. Willy Clingan, the journalist present, recalled that "The Ecology Party introduced its seven election candidates at the nicest and most endearingly honest press conference of the whole campaign". The Ecology party took 0.2% of the vote that year.

Following a name change to the Green Alliance, it contested the 1984 European elections, with party founder Roger Garland winning 1.9% in the Dublin constituency. The following year, it won its first election when Marcus Counihan was elected to Killarney Urban District Council at the 1985 local elections, buoyed by winning 5,200 first preference votes as a European candidate in Dublin the previous year. The party nationally ran 34 candidates and won 0.6% of the vote.

The party continued to struggle until the 1989 general election when the Green Party (as it was now named) won its first seat in Dáil Éireann, when Roger Garland was elected in Dublin South. Garland lost his seat at the 1992 general election, while Trevor Sargent gained a seat in Dublin North. In the 1994 European election, Patricia McKenna topped the poll in the Dublin constituency and Nuala Ahern won a seat in Leinster. They retained their European Parliament seats in the 1999 European election, although the party lost five councillors in local elections held that year despite an increase in its vote. At the 1997 general election, the party gained a seat when John Gormley won a Dáil seat in Dublin South-East.

At the 2002 general election the party made a breakthrough, getting six Teachtaí Dála (TDs) elected to the Dáil with 4% of the national vote. However, in the 2004 European election, the party lost both of its European Parliament seats. In the 2004 local elections, it increased its number of councillors at county level from eight to 18 (out of 883) and at town council level from five to 14 (out of 744).

The party gained its first representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2007, the Green Party in Northern Ireland having become a regional branch of the party the previous year.

First term in government
The Green Party entered government for the first time after the 2007 general election, held on 24 May. Although its share of first-preference votes increased at the election, the party failed to increase the number of TDs returned. Mary White won a seat for the first time in Carlow–Kilkenny; however, Dan Boyle lost his seat in Cork South-Central. The party had approached the 2007 general election on an independent platform, not ruling any out coalition partners while expressing its preference for an alternative to the outgoing coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. Neither the outgoing government nor an alternative of Fine Gael, Labour and the Green Party had sufficient seats to form a majority. Fine Gael ruled out a coalition arrangement with Sinn Féin, opening the way for Green Party negotiations with Fianna Fáil.

Some saw the idea of going into coalition with Fianna Fáil as a "sell-out". Before the negotiations began, Ciarán Cuffe TD wrote on his blog that "a deal with Fianna Fáil would be a deal with the devil… and [the Green Party would be] decimated as a Party". After protracted negotiations, a draft programme for government was agreed to between the Greens and Fianna Fáil. Early Green demands included the introduction of legislation on corporate donations, a moratorium on using public land to build private hospitals, and altering the route of the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara; none of these demands appeared in the final government programme. On 13 June 2007, Green members at the Mansion House in Dublin voted 86% in favour (441 to 67; with 2 spoilt votes) of entering coalition with Fianna Fáil. The following day, the six Green Party TDs voted for the re-election of Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach. New party leader John Gormley was appointed as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Eamon Ryan was appointed as Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Trevor Sargent was appointed as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with responsibility for Food and Horticulture.

Before its entry into government, the Green Party had been a vocal supporter of the Shell to Sea movement, the campaign to reroute the M3 motorway away from Tara and (to a lesser extent) the campaign to end United States military use of Shannon Airport. After the party entered government there were no substantive changes in government policy on these issues, which meant that Eamon Ryan oversaw the Corrib gas project while he was in office. The Green Party had, at its last annual conference, made an inquiry into the irregularities surrounding the project (see Corrib gas controversy) a precondition of entering government but changed its stance during post-election negotiations with Fianna Fáil.

The 2008 budget did not include a carbon levy on fuels such as petrol, diesel and home heating oil, which the Green Party had sought before the election. A carbon levy was, however, introduced in the 2010 Budget. The 2008 budget did include a separate carbon budget announced by Gormley, which introduced new energy efficiency tax credit, a ban on incandescent bulbs from January 2009, a tax scheme incentivising commuters' purchases of bicycles and a new scale of vehicle registration tax based on carbon emissions.

At a special convention on whether to support the Treaty of Lisbon on 19 January 2008, the party voted 63.5% in favour of supporting the Treaty; this fell short of the party's two-thirds majority requirement for policy issues. As a result, the Green Party did not have an official campaign in the first Lisbon Treaty referendum, although individual members were involved on different sides. The referendum did not pass in 2008, and following the Irish government's negotiation with EU member states of additional legal guarantees and assurances, the Green Party held another special convention meeting in Dublin on 18 July 2009 to decide its position on the second Lisbon referendum. Precisely two-thirds of party members present voted to campaign for a 'Yes' in the referendum. This was the first time in the party's history that it had campaigned in favour of a European treaty.

The government's response to the post-2008 banking crisis significantly affected the party's support, and it suffered at the 2009 local elections, returning with only three County Council seats in total and losing its entire traditional Dublin base, with the exception of a Town Council seat in Balbriggan.

Déirdre de Búrca, one of two Green Senators nominated by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in 2007, resigned from the party and her seat in 2010, in part owing to the party's inability to secure her a job in the European Commission. On 23 February 2010, Trevor Sargent resigned as Minister of State for Food and Horticulture owing to allegations over contacting Gardaí about a criminal case involving a constituent, with Ciarán Cuffe being appointed as his replacement the following March. By 2010, opinion polls showed strong support for an immediate election with the Greens polling at just 2%.

The Green Party supported the passage of legislation for EC–ECB–IMF financial support for Ireland's bank bailout. On 19 January, the party derailed Taoiseach Brian Cowen's plans to reshuffle his cabinet when it refused to endorse Cowen's intended replacement ministers, forcing Cowen to redistribute the vacant portfolios among incumbent ministers. The Greens were angered at not having been consulted about this effort, and went as far as to threaten to pull out of the coalition unless Cowen set a firm date for an election due that spring. He ultimately set the date for 11 March.

On 23 January 2011, the Green Party met with Cowen following his resignation as leader of senior coalition partner Fianna Fáil the previous afternoon. The Green Party then announced it was breaking off the coalition and going into opposition with immediate effect. Ministers Gormley and Ryan resigned as cabinet ministers, and Cuffe and White resigned as Ministers of State. Green Party leader John Gormley said at a press conference announcing the withdrawal: "For a very long time we in the Green Party have stood back in the hope that Fianna Fáil could resolve persistent doubts about their party leadership. A definitive resolution of this has not yet been possible. And our patience has reached an end."

In almost four years in Government, from 2007 to 2011, the Green Party contributed to the passage of civil partnership for same-sex couples, the introduction of major planning reform, a major increase in renewable energy output, progressive budgets, and a nationwide scheme of home insulation retrofitting.

Fallout from 2011 General Election
The party suffered a wipeout at the 2011 general election, with all of its six TDs losing their seats, including those of former Ministers John Gormley and Eamon Ryan. Three of their six incumbent TDs lost their deposits. The party's share of the vote fell below 2%, meaning that they could not reclaim election expenses, and their lack of parliamentary representation led to the ending of state funding for the party. The party candidates in the 2011 election to the Seanad were Dan Boyle and Niall Ó Brolcháin; neither was elected, and as a result, for the first time since 1989 the Green Party had no representatives in the Oireachtas.

In the aftermath of the wipeout Eamon Ryan was elected as party leader on 27 May 2011, succeeding John Gormley, while Catherine Martin was later appointed the deputy leader of the party.

2016 to 2019 Electoral successes
At the 2016 general election Ryan and Martin gained two seats in the Dáil while Grace O'Sullivan picked up a seat in the Seanad. In doing so the Green party became the first Irish political party to lose all their seats in a general election but come back and win seats in a subsequent election. The Greens continued to pick up momentum in 2019, performing quite well in May during the concurrent 2019 local elections and 2019 European Parliament election while in November that same year the party saw Pippa Hackett capture a seat in the Seanad and Joe O'Brien bring home the party's first ever by-election win as a result of the 2019 Dublin Fingal by-election.

Return to government
At the 2020 general election, the party had its best result ever, winning 7.1% of the first-preference votes and returning 12 TDs, an increase of ten from the last election. It became the fourth-largest party in the Dáil and entered government in coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Ryan, Martin and Roderic O'Gorman were appointed as cabinet ministers, with four Green Ministers of State. Clare Bailey, the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, was amongst a number of Green members who stood against the coalition. She said it proposed the "most fiscally conservative arrangements in a generation" and that "the economic and finances behind this deal will really lead to some of the most vulnerable being hit the hardest", as well as it not doing enough on climate and social justice. She also said the deal "fails to deliver on our promise to tackle homelessness and provide better healthcare", "represents an unjust recovery" and "sets out an inadequate and vague pathway towards climate action". The party returned two senators at the 2020 Seanad election, with a further two senators nominated by the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin bringing the total party representation in the Oireachtas to 16. In July 2020, Eamon Ryan retained his leadership of the party with a narrow leadership election victory over Catherine Martin in the 2020 Green Party leadership election by 994 votes to 946, a margin of 48 votes.

Internal disputes
Despite the success at the general election, the party found itself dogged by infighting and resignations afterwards. Prominent member Saoirse McHugh, a candidate in the 2019 European elections, 2020 general election and the 2020 Seanad election, resigned from the party upon the Greens entering government with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, parties she believed would damage public enthusiasm for environmentalist policies by pairing them with "socially regressive" policies. Over the course of 2020, 4 councillors as well as both the leader of the Young Greens and the leader of the Queer Greens would also depart from the party, all citing either bullying within the party or dissatisfaction with the coalition and its policies as the cause. Amongst the resignations were councillors Lorna Bogue and Liam Sinclair, who subsequently formed a new left-wing green party called An Rabharta Glas – Green Left in June 2021.

Infighting continued in 2021 when the party Cathaoirleach Hazel Chu, then Lord Mayor of Dublin, launched a campaign to run for the 2021 Seanad by-elections with the support of six members of the Green Party Parliamentary Party, but without official backing from the party. Senators Pippa Hackett, Pauline O'Reilly and Róisín Garvey tabled a motion of no confidence in Chu as Cathaoirleach of the party. Deputy leader, Catherine Martin urged the senators to withdraw the motion and it was later replaced with a motion calling for Chu to temporarily step aside from the position as party chair for the duration of the election. This was passed by 11 votes to five at a meeting of the Parliamentary Party. The Executive Council of the party, however, decided not to follow the Parliamentary Party's decision and Chu remained in the position of Cathaoirleach until the end of her term in December 2021. Chu subsequently ran in the 2022 Seanad by-election and was commended by the party for "championing climate action and inclusion".

In May 2022, Green TDs Neasa Hourigan and Patrick Costello were suspended from the party for six months after they went against the party whip and voted for an opposition motion calling for the new National Maternity Hospital to be built on land wholly owned by the state. Hourigan was suspended again in March 2023, this time for 15 months, after she voted against the government on the issue of ending a ban on evictions.

Notable achievements
On 23 July 2021, one of the Greens' flagship policies, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021, was signed into law by the President. The bill creates a legally binding path to net zero emissions by 2050. Five-year carbon budgets produced by the Climate Change Advisory Council will dictate the path to carbon neutrality, with the aim of the first two budgets creating a 51% reduction by 2030. The five-year budgets will not be legally binding.

The party also secured significantly increased budgets for active and sustainable travel including greenways and cycle lanes, the LocalLink rural bus network, decreases in public transport fares, a new forestry programme, increased incentives for solar and for retrofit, and the recognition of the circular economy. Outside of the core climate and environmental policies the party also implemented a pilot scheme for a basic income for the arts sector and large cuts in childcare costs.

In June 2024, the European Union Environment Council approved the Nature Restoration Law which was described as "among the EU's biggest environmental policies". The role of Minister Eamon Ryan in convincing other ministers to support the law was considered to be pivotal to its success.

2024 onwards
The 2024 Local Elections saw the party lose almost half of its council seats across the country despite topping the poll in four local electoral areas in Dublin City. The 2024 European Parliament elections also saw Ciarán Cuffe and Grace O'Sullivan fail to retain their seats in the European Parliament, while in the Limerick mayoral election, the party's candidate, Brian Leddin, won 2.89% of the vote and was eliminated on the fifth count.

On 18 June 2024, Eamon Ryan announced he would be stepping down as party leader, but would remain in the role until the new leader is elected. Ryan also announced that he would not be seeking re-election as a TD for Dublin Bay South at the next general election. Later the same day Catherine Martin announced she would be standing down as deputy leader and would not be seeking the leadership role. On 19 June, Roderic O'Gorman and Senator Pippa Hackett both announced that they would be seeking nominations for the leadership position. On 8 July, O'Gorman was narrowly elected over Hackett with 51.89% of the vote. On 14 July, Senator Róisín Garvey narrowly defeated Neasa Hourigan with 51% of the vote to become deputy leader.

Ideology and policies
The Green Party has seven "founding principles", which are: • The impact of society on the environment should not be ecologically disruptive.

• All political, social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.

• As caretakers of the Earth, we have the responsibility to pass it on in a fit and healthy state.

• Society should be guided by self-reliance and co-operation at all levels.

• Conservation of resources is vital to a sustainable society.

• The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.

• The poverty of two-thirds of the world's family demands a redistribution of the world's resources. Broadly, these founding principles reflect the "four pillars" of green politics observed by the majority of Green Parties internationally: ecological wisdom, social justice, grassroots democracy, and nonviolence. They also reflect the six guiding principles of the Global Greens, which also includes a respect for diversity as a principle.

While strongly associated with environmentalist policies, the party also has policies covering all other key areas. These include protection of the Irish language, lowering the voting age in Ireland to 16, a directly elected Seanad, support for universal healthcare, and a constitutional amendment which guarantees that the water of Ireland will never be privatised. The party also advocates that terminally ill people should have the right to legally choose assisted dying, stating "provisions should apply only to those with a terminal illness which is likely to result in death within six months". It also states that "such a right would only apply where the person has a clear and settled intention to end their own life which is proved by making, and signing, a written declaration to that effect. Such a declaration must be countersigned by two qualified doctors".

Internal factions
As other like-minded green parties, it has eco-socialist/green left and more moderate factions. In parallel to other Green Parties in Europe, the 1980s and 1990s saw a division within the Irish Green Party between two factions; the "Realists" (nicknamed the "Realos") and the "Fundamentalists (nicknamed the "Fundies"). The 'Realists' advocated taking a pragmatic approach to politics, which would mean having to accept some compromises on policy in order to get party members elected and into government in order to enact change. The 'Fundamentalists' advocated more radical policies and rejected appeals for pragmatism, citing that the looming effects of Climate Change would leave no time for compromise. Following a national convention in 1998 which saw a realist majority of members defeat a minority of fundamentalist members on a number of votes, and the party subsequently enter government for the first time in 2007, the factionalism of the 'Realists vs the Fundamentalists' was seen to have wilted away with the 'Realists' becoming the ascendent faction. However, in some respects, the division only laid dormant.

Following the 2019 local elections and the 2020 general election, the party had more elected representatives than ever before as well as its highest ever membership. On 22 July 2020, several prominent members of the party formed the "Just Transition Greens", an affiliate group within the party with a green left/eco-socialist outlook, who have the objective of moving the party towards policies based on the concept of a "Just Transition". During the 2020 Green Party leadership election, a significant aspect of the candidacy of Catherine Martin was that it was suggested that Martin could better represent the views of these individuals within the party than the incumbent Eamon Ryan.

Organisation
The National Executive Committee is the organising committee of the party. It comprises the party leader Roderic O'Gorman, the deputy leader Róisín Garvey, the Cathaoirleach Pauline O'Reilly, the National Coordinator, the General Secretary (in a non-voting role), a Young Greens representative, the Treasurer and ten members elected annually at the party convention.

Cathaoirleach
Note: Although Christopher Fettes chaired the party initially, the position of Cathaoirleach was not created until 2002.

Leadership organisation
The party did not have a national leader until 2001. At a special "Leadership Convention" in Kilkenny on 6 October 2001, Trevor Sargent was elected the first official leader of the Green Party while Mary White was elected deputy leader. Sargent was re-elected to his position in 2003 and again in 2005. The party's constitution requires that a leadership election be held within six months of a general election.

Sargent resigned the leadership in the wake of the 2007 general election to the 30th Dáil. During the campaign, Sargent had promised that he would not lead the party into Government with Fianna Fáil. At the election the party retained six Dáil seats, making it the most likely partner for Fianna Fáil. Sargent and the party negotiated a coalition government; at the 12 June 2007 membership meeting to approve the agreement, he announced his resignation as leader.

In the subsequent leadership election, John Gormley became the new leader on 17 July 2007, defeating Patricia McKenna by 478 votes to 263. Mary White was subsequently re-elected as the deputy Leader. Gormley served as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government from July 2007 until the Green Party's decision to exit government in December 2010.

Following the election defeats of 2011, Gormley announced his intention not to seek another term as Green Party leader. Eamon Ryan was elected as the new party leader, over party colleagues Phil Kearney and Cllr Malcolm Noonan in a postal ballot election of party members in May 2011. Monaghan-based former councillor Catherine Martin defeated Down-based Dr John Barry and former Senator Mark Dearey to the post of deputy leader on 11 June 2011 during the party's annual convention. Roderic O'Gorman was elected party chairperson.

The Green Party lost all its Dáil seats in the 2011 general election. Party Chairman Dan Boyle and Déirdre de Búrca were nominated by the Taoiseach to Seanad Éireann after the formation of the Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats–Green Party government in 2007, and Niall Ó Brolcháin was elected in December 2009. De Búrca resigned in February 2010, and was replaced by Mark Dearey. Neither Boyle nor O'Brolchain was re-elected to Seanad Éireann in the Seanad election of 2011, leaving the Green Party without Oireachtas representation until the 2016 general election, in which it regained two Dáil seats.

Ryan's leadership was challenged by deputy leader Catherine Martin in 2020 after the 2020 government formation; he narrowly won a poll of party members, 994 votes (51.2%) to 946.

Irish and European politics
The Green Party is organised throughout the island of Ireland, with regional structures in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Green Party in Northern Ireland voted to become a regional partner of the Green Party in Ireland in 2005 at its annual convention, and again in a postal ballot in March 2006. Brian Wilson, formerly a councillor for the Alliance Party, won the Green Party's first seat in the Northern Ireland Assembly in the 2007 election. Steven Agnew held that seat in the 2011 election.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Green Party (Ireland)


text:
Talk:Indian removal

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

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ethnic cleansing
Why is it, that in this article it is carefully avoided to name the Indian Removal what it was, an ethnic cleansing.

If one needs an article that names it ethnic cleansing, here is one: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/indian-killer-andrew-jacksons-indian-removal-act-display-first-time/Jochum (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you missed the Changing perspective of policy section. It mentions ethnic cleansing, albeit briefly, saying that "paternalism", ethnic cleansing, and even genocide have been ascribed by historians past and present to the motivation behind the Removals."
 * The infobox is prominently entitled "Genocide of indigenous peoples" and has a link to the ethnic cleansing article. It's unnecessary to use the epithet "ethnic cleansing" for every instance of "Indian removal". Besides, the article is not about ethnic cleansing, it's about the Indian removals. Carlstak (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As the Indian Removal was ethnic cleansing, full filling the definition of ethnic cleansing as it is defined today, it should be at least mentioned once in the intro, everything else is hiding it behind nice other words. It would also not be wrong to talk about genocide in the intro. The changing perspective does not either define that the removal was ethnic cleansing or genocide, just that some historians talk about it.Jochum (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to do some bold editing, with reliable sources, of course, but don't be surprised if you encounter some resistance from people who think "ethnic cleansing" is too strong a descriptor for the Indian removals. I agree that they were intended to cleanse the territories that whites coveted of their native inhabitants. My great grandfather was a Cherokee who was marched on the Trail of Tears and escaped. The rednecks think Andrew Jackson was a great man. Our ignorant president in the US thinks Andrew Jackson, who died on June 8, 1845, was a great man and "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said that Andrew Jackson was a violent savage. Carlstak (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * not the place for you personal opinions - only the discussion of RS to improve articles 50.111.41.243 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Globalize
The U.S. is not the only country in which Indian removal was a policy. You can find the same in colonial Brazil and colonial Spanish America. deisenbe (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add sourced information to the article, adding a tag doesn't do much.  on camera  04:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Native-American (Misnomer: Indian)
Calling native-Americans as Indians is akin to saying the earth is flat and world revolves around earth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsharm (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 * However, the event in question is called the "Indian removal". The intro does properly refer to the affected people as Native Americans. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Some Native Americans call themselves Indians. Here are works by historian Donald Fixico, of Shawnee, Sac and Fox, Muscogee, and Seminole descent:
 * American Indians in a Modern World (2008); Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts and Sovereignty, 3 volumes, ed, (2007); Daily Life of Native Americans in the Twentieth Century (2006); The American Indian Mind in a Linear World: American Indian Studies and Traditional Knowledge (2003); The Urban Indian Experience in America (2000); The Invasion of Indian Country in the Twentieth Century: Tribal Natural Resources and American Capitalism (1998), 2nd ed., 2011; Rethinking American Indian History, ed. (1997); Urban Indians (1991); An Anthology of Western Great Lakes Indian History, ed. (1988); and Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945-1960 (1986). Call for Change: The Medicine Way of American Indian History, Ethos and Reality (June 2013) and Indian Resilience and Rebuilding: Indigenous Nations in the Modern American West (October 2013). Carlstak (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additions to the Creek section of the article
This article does a good job of outlining the basics of the Native American Diaspora but could use some more detail in the section on the Creek. I would like to add more detail to this section as there are many important events that happened after the initial diaspora. I want to mention things like the second Creek war where those that stayed behind rose up in opposition to settlers and the government. This uprising was not successful and resulted in a second diaspora situation. The uprising was used as justification for the government to step in more forcefully. The remaining creeks were placed in camps and slowly escorted west. I want to add all this information along with statistics regarding the number of people in each of the five detachments sent west as well as the number of deaths. I also want to add primary source descriptions of the conditions they faced. The source I will be the book ''Rivers of Sand: Creek Indian Emigration, Relocation, and Ethnic cleansing in the American South. ''Christopher D. Haveman holds a Ph.D. in History from Auburn University and specializes in the Creek Native American group. The source is peer-reviewed as it is from a university publisher. All together I plan to add 200 to 300 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes please let me know on this talk page or mine. Tristan089786 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * . Hello. You can do this here or at any other article on Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit. Just be sure to use and insert citations to reliable, secondary sources (preferred) for any outright statements made to the narrative.  It appears that your source mentioned above should qualify for that (include the isbn and page #s).  Feel free to edit to your hearts content.  Welcome to the project!  Questions?  Use this talk page and someone will answer you.  Also, there's The Teahouse for a usually quick response.  Regards,  GenQuest  "scribble" 23:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

General Question on Article Topic
What is the actual scope of this article? For non-historians like myself (i.e., the typical reader you are trying to reach) “Indian removal” is a fairly broad title, and my mind jumps to the many Indian removals across North America over 3 centuries. The article's focus, however, appears to be primarily on the forced migration of eastern Native Americans during the first half of the 19th century. If this is correct, it would help if this was reflected in the title, or at a minimum defined a little clearer in the first paragraph. Maybe something as simple as “For this article, Indian removal refers to the forced migration in the 19th century whereby Native Americans were forced by the United States government...”. Looking for feedback on this.Howbeit (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Initially I suggest reading Wikipedia policy/guideline on articles titles, article lead sections and if you feel it's appropriate consider moving (renaming) the page; being bold lies at the very core of Wikipedia.  15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These are a number of articles that cover the different ways the government forced Native Americans off their homelands, including the 12 listed at Dawes Act:
 * • Act for the Protection of the People of Indian Territory (Curtis Act), 1898

• Forced Fee Patenting Act (Burke Act), 1906

• Wheeler–Howard Act

• Nelson Act of 1889, Minnesota's version of the Dawes Act

• Americanization of Native Americans

• Aboriginal title in the United States

• Competency Commission

• Land run

• Diminishment

• Great Māhele

• Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations

• Checkerboarding (land)
 * Perhaps there should be an article that summarized all these articles so people can access them in a single go like you suggested.  oncamera   (talk page)  19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, especially since the focus seems to be a little muddied; not entirely clear if it's just the Southern US or other tribes as well. Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Creating a 'Genocide of indigenous peoples in the United States' article, or something similar, would greatly help in my opinion. There are a lot of articles that should be more clearly connected to each other and easily accessed. Personally I'd argue that the Native American Genocide category could use its own series template. TheFallenMoon (talk)

Genocide in the infobox
This shouldn't be in the infobox because most reliable historians don't call it genocide. Mention that it has been described as genocide is already in the lede. More text could be added describing the debate about whether or not its genocide in Changed Perspective section. Nettless (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 * If it's in lead, it should be in the infobox. No need to hide it away.  oncamera   (talk page)  20:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many reliable historians actually do call it a genocide. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the infobox if it's disputed. The lede says it has been described as genocide because scholars disagree on it. The source for genocide is Lewy who actually rejects this label. That source also doesn't explicitly reference anyone calling Indian removal genocide because it's about whole history of American colonialism and Native Americans, so a better source is probably needed. Putting it in the infobox is ignoring how most historians characterize it. I think it can be mentioned in the infobox if it's clear that it's disputed. Nettless (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Saying things like "most historians" agree with your position or the position you're arguing here sounds like weasel words. People can learn more about what historians say it in the section on the page but no need to censor information that you disagree with. oncamera   (talk page)  21:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

How many times are we going to go through this again...what has happened, has happened. Wikipedia is not the place to change whatever happened in history towards your favor. I second Oncamera's comments. Ekuftle (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Ekuftle, I don't quite understand your comment when you say "again...what has happened, has happened. Wikipedia is not the place to change whatever happened in history towards your favor". What is this supposed to mean? I'm not changing wikipedia into my favor. I added sources already on this page. It's a reliably sourced fact that the genocide label is disputed and this should be represented clearly in the lede as it is in the Changed Perspective section. Stating it's genocide in the infobox whithout clarifying its disputed is changing "whatever happened in history towards your favor." Oncamera said it shouldn't be censored which I didn't and hiding that its disputed in the infobox would be censoring. You also blanket reverted all my other sourced edits, including grammar improvements, which Oncamera never actually objected to. Oncamera didn't explicitly say they even objected to saying it was disputed in the infobox, which is a good compromise and fair summary of reliable sources. Nettless (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 * I have added "disputed" in the infobox since it's reliably sourced and otherwise the infobox contradicts the rest of the article. No one responded to my last comment from August nor did anyone specifically object to the addition of "disputed" to the infobox. Nettless (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 * nettless, This seems to be something you’re trying to call into dispute throughout Wikipedia. You’ve been corrected on other talk pages with very recent scholarly sources that DO call this genocide (Ex. here, see pages 8-11). However, you’re not adding those sources to these new pages, which seems strange to me if you want Wikipedia to reflect scholarly consensus. The other users here have told you that this has been discussed here before and consensus reached. Please Stop trying to call previous consensus into question across Wikipedia. Hobomok (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 * Also, the main point of evidence used here (an almost 20 year old op ed by Lewey from the History News Network) has some serious flaws regarding its evidence. The idea that “The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life” casts an air of inevitably to this colonial violence, which is not true. Perhaps most egregious, though, is the idea Lewey clings to that Native peoples weren’t farming, couldn’t farm, and wouldn’t begin to farm. This is false. See, for example: Jane Mt. Pleasant, “ The Paradox of Plows and Productivity: An Agronomic Comparison of Cereal Grain Production under Iroquois Hoe Culture and European Plow Culture in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries” (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3098/ah.2011.85.4.460) (or most of Mt. Pleasant's work), Samson Occom’s journals (https://www.dartmouth.edu/library/digital/collections/manuscripts/occom-samson/index.html), or Joseph Johnson’s journals right before removal became national policy (https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/a4f23350-27ee-0133-d451-58d385a7bbd0). Occom, Johnson, and the Haudenosaunee were all farming Nations, both before colonization, and during and after removal. These are only three examples from two groups (Haudenosaunee Confederation and Mohegan). Others abound, but I think the point is clear: To say these peoples were not and wouldn't be farmers gets a lot wrong about the subject of the article Lewey's writing.
 * My whole point being, the source used here gets much wrong, and it doesn’t hold up to the peer reviewed nature of other sources. Hobomok (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm calling it into dispute because it is. There was never previous consensus on talk page to add the label genocide in the first place. It was added without any discussion in April. It was reverted here: 1 by an editor saying they should seek consensus to add this as you ironically have stated to me but it was reverted back multiple times under the argument it was sourced which is also the same argument I made for adding the label "disputed". There wasn't any consensus against adding disputed in August either. One editor (oncamera) didn't explicitly object to the addition, while another comment is striked, because the editor is banned, and then my last comment was completely ignored. Furthermore when "disputed" was removed the last time, it was by that presently banned editor. That was some great consensus against my position. Don't falsely pretend there is some sort of scholarly consensus on this aswell. Your clearly inserting your opinion. What's this so called recent scholarly consensus? I didn't add Lewey to the infobox. I added the book by genocide scholars Paul R. Bartrop and Steven L. Jacobs from 2014 to dispute the characterization. Are they not part of this apparent recent scholarly consensus? Whereas Stannard's book from 1992 is? Jeffrey Ostler, one of your preferred sources who calls the Indian Removals genocide, also notes however that there isn't consensus stating in his book Surviving Genocide: "A recent development in the American genocide debate centers on the question of whether ethnic cleansing is a more apt term than genocide. In Ethnic Cleansing: The Crime That Should Haunt America (2014), Gary Anderson surveys the entirety of U.S. history including its colonial antecedents and argues that the crime of ethnic cleansing best characterizes this history. Anderson also insists that genocide does not apply to any of the history since “policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.” Ostler also states in the book specifically regarding the removals that "Historians have begun to characterize Indian removal as ethnic cleansing." Ostler notes that an emerging scholarly consensus actually leans towards characterization of it now as ethnic cleansing and not genocide as is his position. Nettless (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to discuss the history of diffs here. You came to the talk page and at least one other person has told you genocide belonged in the infobox as it was, because it was in the article. Now I'm disagreeing with you that disputed belongs in that infobox. As the other user said before, if it's in the article, it's in the infobox. If readers would like to know more, they can read the article. I'd assume your last comment was completely ignored because people have better things to do than engage in an argument on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing there's a consensus that centuries of colonial policy is genocide, although I'd say it's trending that way and most new work across multiple fields will argue that. What I'm saying here is that recent scholarship by Americanist historians (rather than Australian and Middle Eastern historians) uses the term genocide, especially in relation to multiple removals. I'm also arguing that the Lewey op-ed needs to go, because it's deeply flawed. You can selectively quote from Ostler's appendix as much as you want (wherein he outlines the history of the genocide debate so that he shows he is aware of it and able to make an argument in favor of using the term genocide), but removal is generally considered a genocidal act. As you point out where you quote Ostler further on |on another page, "Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal." Removals are considered a genocidal act. Bartrop and Jacobs discuss only Cherokee Removal, not the multiple removals that this page discusses and that Ostler argues convincingly are genocidal acts. The authors you cite as disagreeing argue that the whole of colonization of the Americas was not genocidal. Do we see the difference here? If you want to argue against the whole of U.S. and Canadian Indian policy as genocidal, seems like a strange way to spend your time, and the idea is antithetical to the way that [| settler colonialism works, but OK, that argument belongs somewhere else. If you want to argue that removal was not and is not generally considered a genocidal act, then you're wrong, and you're using the wrong articles to make your point. --[[User:Hobomok|Hobomok]] (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A note: Now I do understand why Nettless was obsessed with arguing about this section: they were a sockpuppet of a user who frequently has these arguments and pushes anti-Indigenous points.--Hobomok (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indian removal