![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
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)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
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)
Fred Gandt ·
talk ·
contribs
15:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)