![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
What is considered valid in anthropological assessment and physical studies continues to change. DNA provides new kinds of evidence. History is revised as new information is discovered through documents, archaeology, and new lines of research. As noted in the article, some studies or methods in which experts contended they had "proved" Indian descent of Lumbee are no longer considered valid in the academic community. Some of the federally recognized tribes, such as the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), representing 24 tribes, stated they did not believe the Lumbees had historically functioned as a tribe with tribal government. So there is more than one issue here. USET also stated they believed a fair solution was not Congressional recognition and circumvention of administrative process, but amending the 1956 Act so the Lumbee could go through the process at DOI.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.Jas392 ( talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.? Jas392 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I made some edits that I think we have consensus for. It now says the "Lumbee are a Native American tribe of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. Though the Lumbee today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans." Also, the line about census sources identifying them as "free persons of color" has a fact tag; this needs to be cited as it appears to be controversial (at least among editors at this page) what is meant by that designation.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, but there are other things that I need and want to work on. I can't spend this much time arguing about so many issues in this article, and as Jas392 pointed out, we have only just begun. I'm out of it for some time; do with it what you want. This is absurd.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the Lead says that FPOC indicates "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" without proper citation. Again, I don't disagree with the triracial bit but this assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal. For starters, the census in 1790 didn't have a category for Native American; the census bureau says "the six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions: Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential), free White males under 16 years, free White females, all other free persons (by sex and color), and slaves." See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1790.htm. So, how the current assertion was arrived is too tenuous to be in Lead.
Insight can be gathered from the Lumbee case of State v. William Chavers in 1857 where the court found that FPOC may be "for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood, or persons descended from Negro ancestors beyond the forth degree." On this, Campisi says that "for all intents and purposes, the free population of the state had three categories of race; white - being persons with no known Black or Indian ancestry; free Blacks - individuals with at least 1/16 Black ancestry; and FPOC - who either were of Indian ancestry or less than 1/16 Black." Note: less than 1/16, as in not equal parts. But don't just trust Campisi, Dr. Swanton of the Smithsonian Institution reported to Indian Affairs in 1933 that among FPOC "were to be included principally free Negroes and Indians...[and] would be more likely to contain the Indians." In Pierce's 1912 report to Indian Affairs, he says that "until 1835 they were allowed to vote, owned slaves, built churches and school houses, and lived very comfortably after the manner of their white neighbors. In the year 1835 the state of NC denied the right to vote to all FPOC which of course included the Croatans. Against this very unjust Act the Croatans rebelled continuously, and it was not until 1885 when justice was given them..." There's plenty more, but I'm trying to keep this short and just get to the point that the Lead's assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal.
According to the majority of sources on FPOC and its implications for Lumbee, the practical effect stressed has been that it excluded Lumbee ancestors from the white schools and they refused to send their children to Black schools for 50 years because of this classification until they got Indian schools, which made Lumbee ancestors of this period very uneducated (FYI education is a big deal for the Lumbee). McNickle wrote in 1936 about FPOC that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote about FPOC that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people."
So, (1) we need to get rid of the "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" part, because there is no cite and it carries a false implication that all parts are equal; and (2) if anything, the FPOC should be an accurate reflection of it's implications for the Lumbee as described above. Jas392 ( talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand what kind of cites you are asking for. There is no dispute in the literature that the Lumbee ancestors were nearly always recorded as FPC, mulatto, not Indian. All of the scholarly sources support this, and they are already in the article. I also don't understand why you think that Heinegg and DeMarce are off-topic. Their work demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees. My understanding is that you are proposing a statement that privileges the Indian component of tri-racial ancestry, based on antique, Jim Crow-era gov docs that are highly politicized. I have no objection to citing those documents in this article. However, the lede should not take sides on an issue that is contested in the scholarly literature. Verklempt ( talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your statements in regards to hold over from Jim Crow racism is rediculous and most certainly can't be documented. Can anybody say POV? Jas hit the nail right on the head here; you are making a NON-VERIFIABLE "ASSUMPTION" that free persons of color, other free, or mullato indisputably indicate African heritage when in fact the evidence indicates that it often did not. You can't do that; please show us specifically where it was written that the people were SPECIFICALLY and INDISPUTABLY beyond a shadow of a doubt recorded as being Black before 1885. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems there was a lively discussion two years ago under the "Disputed Article Tag" regarding Lumbee ancestors' lack of self-identification prior to 1885. I don't think this has any bearing on the current article, but I wanted to point out for future reference that:
McNickle wrote in 1936 that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people." Moreover, Henderson concurred with McLean's conclusion that ""whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..." I'll also draw your attention again to Vine Deloria's statement that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today."
But the point can more aptly be made by asking what instances existed prior to 1885 where the Lumbee ancestors could self-identify? Someone earlier mentioned the Catawba and the Cherokee as being able to self-identify during this time period, so I'm curious how it is that they self-identified. Jas392 ( talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the Lead says that more recently "the Lumbees have claimed to be an offshoot of the Tuscarora and Cheraw." While the Lumbee generally descend from many tribes including the Tuscis and Cheraw, the Tuscis are a separate faction of their own in Robeson and adjoining counties (there are plenty of cites for this if necessary... they have petitioned on their own since the 1980s), and it is more accurate to say that the Lumbee claim to be descendants of the Cheraw. In fact, Cheraw has been the general consensus among historians and anthropologists since at least Mooney and Swanton. Also see McNickel for the evolution of Lumbee origins (he credits Swanton and Mooney for the Cheraw theory and disagrees with the McPherson/McMillan camp about the Croatan bit). All in all, it's just inaccurate to say "more recently" that the Lums claim descent from the Tuscarora, at least without a proper cite. Jas392 ( talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's true that technically since the Lumbee organization/political body was established in 1953 that Cheraw would inevitably become the only "OFFICIAL" claim put forth by the leaders of this "POLITICAL" institution; I certainly agree here and i also agree that the Lumbee and Tuscarora officially are organized and structured as completely different political entities; and I agree that it is inaccurate to state that the Lumbee (who are politically their own entity with a SEPERATE enrollment than the Tuscaroras) have claimed Tuscarora ties because the Lumbee political body has NEVER gone on record with such a claim. I do have to disagree however that Cheraw has been the general consensus amongst historians. It's true that many sholars have jumped on this bandwagon in recent years but not a one of them has ever documented any connection to the Cheraw whatsoever. In fact Swanton (the first to propose any possible strong Cheraw connection) CLEARLY stated that his position was based SOLELY on the evidence available to him at the time and that it was merely a guess on his part. In all actuality he didn't even believe the Cheraw were the biggest constributers he clearly expressed that he fealt it was more than likely mostly Keyauwee. I'm not being spiteful here but this is historic fact. Given that Swanton cited not one source past Hamilton McMillan...I have no doubt that he would have held a completely different position if he would have been aware of the genealogical record, the 1840 article, and the statements of Lt. Birney, Townsend, Normant, Gorman, and/or McMillans off the record account in the Fayetteville Observer. The closest thing to a documentable Cheraw connection is the fact that there was a Thomas Grooms living near the locklears. It has been speculated that this could have been a Cheraw Indian who took the name of the White Thomas Grooms who bought a piece of their last remaining land on the PeeDee in 1739. That's where the trail ends my friend. there isn't a single incident of anyone in Robeson county ever identifying as Cheraw......it never happened.....and there isn't a single piece of concrete geneology indicating that anyone ever lived where the Cheraws lived.......Tuscarora is the only affiliation proclaimed in the historic record prior to state recognition (there are a total of 6 written verifiable accounts to prove this) with exception to one man who claimed to be Hatteras. Which leads to my next point in regards to Verklempts statement. I agree that POLITICALLY the Tuscarora emerged as an ORGANIZED entity only in the latter half of the 20th century; but you are wrong to infer that this is when they started claiming this. Obviously it was claimed prior to 1885 as evidenced by Townsend, Birney, Gorman, Normant, and even McMillan himself so you can't refute this because its been documented. it was also documented that Kermit Lowrie claimed to be Tuscarora in his application to Seltzer in the 1930s, and its documented in a local newspaper account that even DF Lowrie was known to be a Tuscarora himself in the 1950s. So this claim is DOCMENTABLY not new....In fact on paper it's the oldest tribal affiliation to be claimed by Robco indians that can be found and there are VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTED sources to PROVE it. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I for one don't understand why the Tuscarora groups are even concerned with the history of the Lumbee. They need to spend more time convincing the Tuscarora of New York that they are Tuscarora. No one discounts the existence of Tuscarora blood among the Lumbee. However, it is not the only Indian blood. Those that claim to be Tuscarora need to accept this. Yes, many ancestors of the Lumbee migrated from northeastern North Carolina. HOWEVER, please keep in mind that Indians were very mobile during the 18th century. They moved between Virginia and the Carolinas. Because they seem to be migrating south from northeastern NC during a certain period of time does not mean they are from that part of the state. They could have been from South Carolina and returning home. D.F. Lowry claimed to be Lumbee AND Tuscarora. Mary Norment in 1875 in her history of the Henry Berry Lowrie war writes that Lowry was of Tuscarora descent. D.F. Lowry and others, including present-day Tuscarora base their descent from the Tuscarora on this book. Kermit Lowry, like D.F. Lowry probably also read Norment's book. Tuscarora descent is based on the book and not oral traditions of the tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.221.116 ( talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Lead currently says, "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe." The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition. The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2] Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." I admittedly have certain biases on the subject, but I also have requirements about certain language when we're talking in Indian law. I agree with the overall accuracy of the paragraph as-is, but it's language drastically needs to be cleaned up.
(1) "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe."" For starters, the 1956 Act says nothing about a tribe. It does talk about Indian services, however. And every journal article, textbook, etc that speaks about the 1956 Act specifically all mentions the prohibitions of services, not some tenuous implication that federal government was in denial that they are a tribe. Please see the voluminous congressional record from 1887 to the present wherein the feds never deny that this is a tribe, yet withhold Indian services (we can get into why that is later). I propose: In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act which acknowledged the Native American origin of the Lumbee Tribe but prohibited application of federal Indian statutes to the tribe and further prohibited Indian services to the tribe as well.
I don't understand why it's necessary to say "claimed...origin." It seems we all agree here that there is at least some Native American origin, and the feds certainly don't deny it. As for the HR 4656 part, we can cite to that... it's distracting to the reader. And the latter part about Indian statutes and services comes verbatim from the 1956 Act, but I'm willing to shorten it to Indian services if you like.
(2) "The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition." This is actually funny... sorry, I'll explain. The 1956 Act is actually what keeps the Lumbee out of the tortuous OFA regulatory process, where they would be locked up for decades and millions of dollars. It's what keeps them in the legislative process and separates them as unique in that regard. So, it's not really a stumbling block to fed. rec. as much as it is a saving grace in the minds of Lumbee leaders. I move to strike this sentence completely, if not for inaccuracy but for POV.
(3) "The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2]" I'm okay with this statement but in order for it to make sense, it needs to reference the Solicitor's opinion of 1989 stating that the 1956 Act prohibits the federal relationship, which is why this statement is true.
(4) "Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." Okay. The article can discuss further in the body per our previous discussion here about who opposes and why they do.
I have not made changes yet, because I do agree with the overall accuracy of this paragraph, and I will wait for you timely response to the issues I raised here. Jas392 ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe this would be a good place to recount the history of the recognition effort, at least to list the years more accurately and highlight what they sought specifically each time. I am willing to supply much of the information on that and let you guys rid it of an inaccuracies or POV language you may find. And I would leave what's there substantively unchanged. Jas392 ( talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that this should be in a different section rather than under Federal petitioning. I think it should be under its own section header, in terms of the size of the header, not a sub under the other. It follows the 1956 Act in time, but doesn't have anything to do with the larger topic.-- Parkwells ( talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Native American? Ha! It's really sad how blacks always claim to be anything other than just black. You really can't blame them, however pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.220.217 ( talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out a way to clean up the body of this article in an even-handed way. I came across this description of Lumbee "Origins and Legends" from answers.com (they had it listed as the wikipedia article, but it seems like all they did was clean it up to make it even-handed and generally accurate; the only inaccuracy I found was where they say that the 1956 Act recognized the Lumbee as a tribe, which I can forgive because that's a technical Indian law nuance). Anyway, let me know what objections anyone has to changing the "Origins and Legends" section as this:
This is the original. Don't make changes here.
The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made in 1867 when, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter claiming descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History."
In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.
However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.
In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledge the Lumbee as a Native American people. In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators often categorized individuals themselves, thereby determining the race of a particular individual.
Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Taking historic racial classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value, Heinegg and DeMarce have theorized that ancestral Lumbees were the descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans in Virginia, who then migrated south into North Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.[5]
In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6]
The first paragraph of the "Origins and Legends" section needs to also cite the Congressional testimony of Judge Giles Leitch, wherein he describes the Robeson County population in general and the Lumbee ancestors in particular. His testimony begins on p. 283 of the reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=eRQSHcOwU5YC&pg=PA283&dq=giles+leitch
If I do not get a response in a reasonable time from the other editors, I'll take that as consensus and add it myself. David F Lowry ( talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There need to be alot more sources for this section. I have a source that clearly states the Lumbee tribe being on the Union side only. I will add it later, but it stating them on the Confederacy must be cited as well. Mcelite ( talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
NO THE LUMBER RIVER WAS ORIGINALLY CALLED THE LUMBEE RIVER AND WHEN THE EUROPEANS CAME THEY CALLED IT THE DROWNING CREEK WHICH WAS LATER NAMED THE LUMBEE RIVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.50.10.46 ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Much new material has been introduced without the editors' using inline citations, which are preferred by Wikipedia. In addition, there is material without any sources, which can be removed if valid third-party reliable sources are not provided. Some editors seem to be relying heavily on dated (1930s and earlier research) that has been superseded by more recent scholarly work. This gives undue weight to earlier accounts of Lumbee origins which did not make adequate use of historical documentation.-- Parkwells ( talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The section notes there are/were five recognized tribes in North Carolina, and one of them is Smilings. These are indicators this is based on dated text, as the state recognizes more tribes in 2009, and none goes by the name of Smilings.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In the quest to match citations with references and limit superfluous media listings, I'm moving the list of "Further Reading" here. If any of these are particularly significant or cited in the article, please feel free to restore those publications to the article. Cheers, - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Neither Hawks nor Lawson are llisted among the references or further readings, although they are cited in this section (incompletely).-- Parkwells ( talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the reference information for Hawks, Lawson, Oxendine, Milling and Rights. I couldn't find reference information for DeMarce or Heinegg. Holloman and Pierce have been cited but these could refer to several different publications.- Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
There is an abbundance of information available on both of these nations respective histories. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a little more about what the historic record indicates happened to each of them. In other words: are there enough unnaccounted for individuals from either one to have been able to have made a significant contribution?
Bobby Hurt (
talk)
21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to restore this article to the name Lumbee because there absolutely no discussion of a name change. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The legends section keeps growing, but without sources. Unsourced assertions have been deleted from other sections. The article is getting very circular as people keep restating the same info in different areas. Parkwells ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were African Americans free iin colonial Virginia. A few may have had other than northern European ancestry for the European portion, but most were northern European and African, as documented by Paul Heinegg and cited in the article. People want to believe the exotic myths rather than the interesting reality of colonial Virginia. Please don't keep adding such unsourced mythology as above. No one is saying the Tuscarora, Powhatan or Cherokee came from European or Turkic immigrants - their origin as Native American indigenous peoples is documented via archeology, linguistics and genetics. Parkwells ( talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were referenced as Mullato not as Free African Americans (I've read Heineggs work and it is fact that this and the term "free person of color" are in use 90% of the time). There is also a law dating back to 1705 (see Dr. Jack D. Forbes' published work) passed in Virginia defining a Mullato as "an Indian, the child of an Indian, the grandchild of an Indian, the child therof OR of a Negro." So Heinegg didn't substantiate a thing in regards to exact racial makeup of the families in question. The individuals he traced to Virginia (about 1/3 he substantiated) "could" have been a number of things in a racial sense. There is no objection to the presentation of his arguments. It is your own personal interpretations of them that are inappropriate (POV). He proposes a theory; just as others (which you have removed) have proposed theories. As I stated below; neutrality is lacking in your recent edits to this page. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone much more familiar with Lumbee history fact check the recent unsourced edits by User:Poprobeson, User:SittingDeer, User:Cherokeeblood, and User:MntBuffalo, who appear to all be the same user. Obviously this person has a POV against Lumbees. I removed a completely POV opinion from the article and issued a warning against adding unsourced information. Not sure if all the edits should be reverted or if there is some merit to some of them. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Sourced material related to historical research, rather than myths of origin, have been removed. The article needs to be reconstructed, as it is incomplete and inaccurate. Parkwells ( talk) 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no justification for deleting content related to Paul Heinegg's major work on free people of color in the Upper South. He did extensive, award-winning research in a great variety of colonial and early federal records to trace numerous families found in the frontier areas. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Add cited content if you wish. But there is no justification for removing other cited content in the process. Paul Heinegg should be mentioned; but so should things like the published statements of Hamilton McMillan (which you removed). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The fact that they were written and cited is all that matters here. Neutrality is lacking in your latest edits. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Per the article on the Tuscarora people and their sources, some bands have organized in Robeson County under various names including Tuscarora in the title. After splits in the 1960s, in 2010 they created a united, interim government called the Tuscarora Nation One Fire Council at Robeson County. They keep separate membership from the Lumbee, and have not achieved state recognition as a tribe. Given their independence, it seems inappropriate to label so much of the historic material here as "Lumbee/Tuscarora" ancestors, as one editor had added. This article is about the Lumbee; another article is about the Tuscarora. Yes, both people point to descent from the Tuscarora as part of their claim to Native American identity, but this article should not confuse the issue further. Parkwells ( talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is undue weight being given to early legends of Lumbee origin, and discussing them as if this article were the place to distinguish among them - this is Original Research. Editors are supposed to rely on valid, third-party sources for assessments. Much contemporary documentation by recognized researchers has disposed of the Lost Colony legend.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn`t be so sure about that..go to the website [ http://www.lost-colony.com ] read the articles and make your own conclusions..I will most likely rewrite the Roanoke Colony article eventually..I don`t have time to do it now..all I can tell you is there has been a lot of new research done vie ECU and I don`t understand why it`s taking so long for the information to get out but I guess people are unable to accept anything new..I have no idea where the Lumbees came from but there is one thing I`m pretty sure of and that`s the colonist did not starve to death on Roanoke Island..as much seafood that's available out there no one`s that stupid.-- Lonepilgrim007 ( talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
One published source that may deserve some mention on this topic is Robert C. Lawrence's 1939 book; "The State of Robeson"
On page 112 Lawrence states in part:
"....the colonists were not only to go to Croatan, but FIFTY MILES UNTO THE MAINLAND. This would locate them between Pamlico and Neuse Rivers, and there in 1660 Rev. Morgan Jones found among the Tuscarora a tribe known as "Doegs," light of complexion and who could understand the Welsh speech--proving beyond a peradventure some earlier association with the whites...............French emigrants as early as 1690 settled between the Pamlico and Neuse rivers, and here the first settlers found a native race to whom they gave the name "Malange," meaning "Mixed." At the earliest coming of the white settlers into what is now Robeson county, there was found along the waters of the lumber a tribe of Indians SPEAKING ENGLISH,owning slaves,and practicing many of the arts of civilization, who call themselves "Malungeans." I doubt not these were descendants of the mixed race above reffered to, who had moved from Neuse and Pamlico to other hunting grounds in the valley of the Lumber....."
An equally important piece of published material that I don't see present in the main Lumbee page is an article printed on February 12, 1885 in the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper. The article read in part:
“ …They say that their traditions say that the people we call the Croatan Indians (though they do not recognize that name as that of a tribe, but only a village, and that they were Tuscaroras), were always friendly to the whites; and finding them destitute and despairing of ever receiving aid from England, persuaded them to leave the Island, and go to the mainland.…They gradually drifted away from their original seats, and at length settled in Robeson, about the center of the county.”
I agree that the published material available doesn't even come close to substantiating this "Lost Colony" theory as it is portrayed in the main article but I do feel that enough evidence exists as not to rule it out entirely; thus making it worthy of mention.
Bobby Hurt (
talk)
00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A lot of uncited editorializing and just generally clunky writing now mars this article. I propose a major rewrite. Pokey5945 ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your good faith edits on Lumbee because they were not constructive. If you want to see content moved to another section, then you should just go ahead and move it instead of deleting it. If you find that some claims are not supported by references, you should tag those statements so that other editors can perhaps provide the references. This content should not be deleted either. Only content that clearly and unequivocally fails WP:NPOV should be deleted, and then it is best practice to bring it up on the talk page before deleting. Feel free to reply here as I will be watching this page and will reply as needed. I am also watching Lumbee if you would prefer to discuss this on the talk page there. — Bill W. ( Talk) ( Contrib) — 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Content on archeology has been added, so a new sub-header, Archeology, has been added. In this section, I have reduced the arguments embedded in the first paragraph to stick to facts, make it more neutral in tone, and to attribute Knick's conclusion or theory to him by name, as his conclusions are not necessarily supported by other scholars. He proposes that archeological evidence of diverse cultural interaction somehow supports that diverse groups made up a historical Lumbee tribe, according to what is here. (Have to try to read the original source.) Parkwells ( talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is my proposal:
Archeological evidence shows that Native American cultures have long occupied present-day Robeson County. Artifacts have been collected from
Paleo-Indian times through early, middle, and late
Archaic, early, middle, and late Woodland times, and into the historic period; in short, Indian peoples have long occupied the land which is now considered Robeson County.
[1]
page needed According to Stanley Knick, the evidence of diverse cultural influences in prehistory of the region is a characteristic of the region, and repeated among Indians of diverse cultural influences during the historical period after European colonization.
[1]
Parkwells (
talk)
18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
References
Are the Lumbee people related to the Melungeons? The descriptions are very similar. And, should there be a See Also reference to Melungeon? Risssa ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The HBL section is riddled with florid mythology and factual errors. I propose a major rewrite of the HBL section. Pokey5945 ( talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is anachronistic, inaccurate and largely undocumented. "Lumbees" as such did not exist at that time. Some Lumbee ancestors did serve in the Confederate army. Pokey5945 ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose the origins theories section be moved up to the beginning. I see no reason for it to be so near the end. Pokey5945 ( talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been mulling over what to do with this article for some time now. The article is very bloated with tons of unsourced material, crumby sources, highly contested "facts", and probably contains lots of misinformation. My proposal would be to begin removing all blocks of information lacking solid citation and trimming this article down to sourced material only. Even if we cut out some "correct" information, the current state of the article completely overwhelms anything useful with worthless uncited information. Jcmcc450 ( talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I deleted a paragraph which made assertions about killings and even murder without even a shred of evidence nor one source, reliable or not! ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
From the article: "The Roanoke colony disappeared during a difficult winter, but reportedly left the word "Croatoan" cut into a tree. This account is considered legend and not supported by any mainstream historians. The scholarly consensus is that the colonists died of starvation on the island."
I can't imagine where this came from. I have read five or six books on the Roanoke Colony none of which dispute the story about "Croatoan" and "Cro" being carved on the post and the tree. Also, the colonists packed up their belongings, including the materials they used to build their houses, and took them somewhere -- hardly the behavior of people dying of starvation. (Perhaps the author has confused Roanoke with Jamestown?). Furthermore, had the colonists died on Roanoke, evidence of their graves would still be there and no one has ever found anything like that. Risssa ( talk) 23:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This statement is not correct..no one knows what happened to the Roanoke colony and all the primary sources reference Croatoan Whether they refer to the people or the place is the question..there is no way they could have starved..anyone could live off the land there at the time..seafood was abundant. 75.130.204.174 ( talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lumbee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Mulatto Descent" section [2] is missing a bunch of spaces following periods and commas, so it needs to have them added. I apologize for not being more specific, but the entire section needs to be proofed and have the aforementioned spaces added. In summary; the missing spaces should be very apparent to whomever processes this request. 73.188.226.109 ( talk) 20:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article it says the Lumbee have abandoned claim of Cheraw descent. I have no idea where that came from, the tribe says all the time they are Cheraw. Even their official website says they're descended from Cheraw. I'm half Lumbee and I hear this from other Lumbee a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.234.171 ( talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lumbee. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/state_national/a_steadfast_fewWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we talk about how wealthy lumbee people are. Especially juxtaposing against most welfarized native Americans -- Ninja247 ( talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.28 ( talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors have made major changes to the Lede which are in poor English, first of all, unsourced, incorrect and POV. They are not appropriate replacements for what was there. The article needs to be edited substantially. Parkwells ( talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What`s a Lede?
There seems to be a lot of "quotes" around "words" like "facts" and "Western". It is really stupid. Either the statements need to back up by a referenced source or they shouldn't be included. Putting "quotes" around "words" serves "no purpose".19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 75.145.77.17 ( talk)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).i live in baltimore city there are many people in my are who say they are lumbee indian but and plaese done;t take this wrong they look like vey light skinned black people they talk like black people and they well they have a bad very bad crime rate at least on my street they call black people the n word and the black people say you are just as black as me, they really look like
very light skinned black people are they just "passing' ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.97.130.201 (
talk)
00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed the link Lumbe because it directs to the village in eastern Nepal and discussed another village in Angola in Africa. I have serious doubts on the two villages are related to the history and presence of Lumbees, whom are a mixed-race population of American Indians, African-Americans and white Europeans. It may have to do with numerous theories on the origins of Lumbees, Tuscaroras, Powhatans and even the Cherokees came from early settlement of the region from indentured servants and stranded seafarers of inter-racial origins (i.e. Latin Americans, Moors or North Africans, Turks or Turkic peoples, South Asians, East Asians and Malays) in the 17th and 18th century American colonies. There are speculation mythology of Lumbees are descendants of the lost colonies (Raleigh Colony) and the terms "Croatan" for the Croatan Indians in the area might descended from Croats sailors originally in the Balkans from what was then Ottoman Turkey (now the nation of Croatia along with former Yugoslavia) employed by Spanish, Italian, French and British seafaring companies employed in fishing boats way back in the 16th century on the Atlantic coasts of North America, included Basques and the Portuguese or Galizans, might already settled down with Amerindians in the Outer Banks and Sea Islands. 71.102.26.168 ( talk) 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not add information to the article about what DNA gesting has revealed about the Lumbee people's genetic heritage? 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 02:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Are you talking about the Lumbee DNA project? All I've seen is the Y-line tested (that is, no mtDNA), and from what I understand, since it was only of people that claimed Lumbee heritage, not members of the tribe. That said, I don't know the proper protocol for why we should include it or not. Best just to hold off, I think. Adam ( talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://0-muse.jhu.edu.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/journals/native_south/v003/3.locklear.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to article: the etymology of the word "Lumbee." 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 20:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are these allowed to be published?
They certainly include detail that seems plausible, but have not cited any sources. Could be 100% made up for all we know, but I'm sure thousands of people have read the article and assumed this is all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.184.207 ( talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The White House just announced support for the Lumbee Recognition Act of the 116th Congress. Since that means they're likely to receive federal recognition should I put it in the article yet or wait until it passes? AngryZinogre ( talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: The Washington Post article I cited notes that Lowery is a Lumbee. Thus, when I modified Doug Weller's edit, you will see that I still left mention that Lowery was a Lumbee, but removed the emory bio cite, since it is unnecessary and doesn't support any of the other information in the paragraph. If splicing was simply an "stylistic issue", then there would be no such things as proper inline citations and all of the refs would be dumped at the end of every paragraph on every article, thus making verification harder. I see no evidence that Doug disagreed with my edit (since I left in the material part of his addition, that Lowery is a Lumbee, did you notice?), so your claim that two editors oppose my work is spurious. You apparently did not understand my edit summaries or my edits.- Indy beetle ( talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
What is considered valid in anthropological assessment and physical studies continues to change. DNA provides new kinds of evidence. History is revised as new information is discovered through documents, archaeology, and new lines of research. As noted in the article, some studies or methods in which experts contended they had "proved" Indian descent of Lumbee are no longer considered valid in the academic community. Some of the federally recognized tribes, such as the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET), representing 24 tribes, stated they did not believe the Lumbees had historically functioned as a tribe with tribal government. So there is more than one issue here. USET also stated they believed a fair solution was not Congressional recognition and circumvention of administrative process, but amending the 1956 Act so the Lumbee could go through the process at DOI.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.Jas392 ( talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If the article states that opposing tribes think the Lumbee should go through the OFA process, the article must also state that Lumbee leaders think they should not.? Jas392 ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I made some edits that I think we have consensus for. It now says the "Lumbee are a Native American tribe of North Carolina, though their origins are disputed. Though the Lumbee today identify ethnically as Indians, according to documentary sources they are in origin a mixture of Native Americans, European Americans, and African Americans." Also, the line about census sources identifying them as "free persons of color" has a fact tag; this needs to be cited as it appears to be controversial (at least among editors at this page) what is meant by that designation.-- Cúchullain t/ c 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, but there are other things that I need and want to work on. I can't spend this much time arguing about so many issues in this article, and as Jas392 pointed out, we have only just begun. I'm out of it for some time; do with it what you want. This is absurd.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently the Lead says that FPOC indicates "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" without proper citation. Again, I don't disagree with the triracial bit but this assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal. For starters, the census in 1790 didn't have a category for Native American; the census bureau says "the six inquiries in 1790 called for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household of the following descriptions: Free White males of 16 years and upward (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential), free White males under 16 years, free White females, all other free persons (by sex and color), and slaves." See http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1790.htm. So, how the current assertion was arrived is too tenuous to be in Lead.
Insight can be gathered from the Lumbee case of State v. William Chavers in 1857 where the court found that FPOC may be "for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood, or persons descended from Negro ancestors beyond the forth degree." On this, Campisi says that "for all intents and purposes, the free population of the state had three categories of race; white - being persons with no known Black or Indian ancestry; free Blacks - individuals with at least 1/16 Black ancestry; and FPOC - who either were of Indian ancestry or less than 1/16 Black." Note: less than 1/16, as in not equal parts. But don't just trust Campisi, Dr. Swanton of the Smithsonian Institution reported to Indian Affairs in 1933 that among FPOC "were to be included principally free Negroes and Indians...[and] would be more likely to contain the Indians." In Pierce's 1912 report to Indian Affairs, he says that "until 1835 they were allowed to vote, owned slaves, built churches and school houses, and lived very comfortably after the manner of their white neighbors. In the year 1835 the state of NC denied the right to vote to all FPOC which of course included the Croatans. Against this very unjust Act the Croatans rebelled continuously, and it was not until 1885 when justice was given them..." There's plenty more, but I'm trying to keep this short and just get to the point that the Lead's assertion unfairly makes all parts seem equal.
According to the majority of sources on FPOC and its implications for Lumbee, the practical effect stressed has been that it excluded Lumbee ancestors from the white schools and they refused to send their children to Black schools for 50 years because of this classification until they got Indian schools, which made Lumbee ancestors of this period very uneducated (FYI education is a big deal for the Lumbee). McNickle wrote in 1936 about FPOC that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote about FPOC that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people."
So, (1) we need to get rid of the "uncertain ethnic origin but probably an admixture of African, European and Native American blood" part, because there is no cite and it carries a false implication that all parts are equal; and (2) if anything, the FPOC should be an accurate reflection of it's implications for the Lumbee as described above. Jas392 ( talk) 02:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand what kind of cites you are asking for. There is no dispute in the literature that the Lumbee ancestors were nearly always recorded as FPC, mulatto, not Indian. All of the scholarly sources support this, and they are already in the article. I also don't understand why you think that Heinegg and DeMarce are off-topic. Their work demonstrates that there is very little Indian ancestry among the Lumbees. My understanding is that you are proposing a statement that privileges the Indian component of tri-racial ancestry, based on antique, Jim Crow-era gov docs that are highly politicized. I have no objection to citing those documents in this article. However, the lede should not take sides on an issue that is contested in the scholarly literature. Verklempt ( talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Your statements in regards to hold over from Jim Crow racism is rediculous and most certainly can't be documented. Can anybody say POV? Jas hit the nail right on the head here; you are making a NON-VERIFIABLE "ASSUMPTION" that free persons of color, other free, or mullato indisputably indicate African heritage when in fact the evidence indicates that it often did not. You can't do that; please show us specifically where it was written that the people were SPECIFICALLY and INDISPUTABLY beyond a shadow of a doubt recorded as being Black before 1885. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems there was a lively discussion two years ago under the "Disputed Article Tag" regarding Lumbee ancestors' lack of self-identification prior to 1885. I don't think this has any bearing on the current article, but I wanted to point out for future reference that:
McNickle wrote in 1936 that from 1835 to 1885 "the State seems to have been determined to group her Indians with the Negro population. It insisted on their attending Negro schools and churches and being subject to all the discrimination which it had set up against the Negro race. It speaks strongly of the racial identity which these Indians have never lost cognizance of that they refused to associate with the Negroes in church and in school. For years they went untaught until, in 1885, due largely to the efforts of McMillan, they succeeded in getting separate schools established..." Similarly, in 1915 McPherson wrote that "during this period they were not permitted to attend the schools for whites; there were practically no educational facilities open to the Indians at this time... Between 1868 and 1885 efforts were made to compel the Indians to attend the negro schools, but they persistently refused to do this, preferring to grow up in ignorance rather than attend the colored schools. It would be more accurate to say that parents would not permit their children to attend negro schools, preferring rather that they should grow up in total ignorance. The children raised to manhood and womanhood during this period are the most densely ignorant of any of these people." Moreover, Henderson concurred with McLean's conclusion that ""whatever the origin of the Indians of this community was, it is certain that from the first settlement they have been separated from the other inhabitants of that region and are of Indian descent, with Indian characteristics, with complexion, features, and hair of the Indian race..." I'll also draw your attention again to Vine Deloria's statement that "formal tribal government is a creation of the BIA and not an Indian characteristic. A traditional Indian community more closely resembles what we find in Robeson County among the Lumbee, large extended families who exert social and political control over family members, and who see their family as part of an extended people. This method of government, incidentally, is the only valid and viable way to control human behavior apart from a massive prison system such as we have in the US today."
But the point can more aptly be made by asking what instances existed prior to 1885 where the Lumbee ancestors could self-identify? Someone earlier mentioned the Catawba and the Cherokee as being able to self-identify during this time period, so I'm curious how it is that they self-identified. Jas392 ( talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the Lead says that more recently "the Lumbees have claimed to be an offshoot of the Tuscarora and Cheraw." While the Lumbee generally descend from many tribes including the Tuscis and Cheraw, the Tuscis are a separate faction of their own in Robeson and adjoining counties (there are plenty of cites for this if necessary... they have petitioned on their own since the 1980s), and it is more accurate to say that the Lumbee claim to be descendants of the Cheraw. In fact, Cheraw has been the general consensus among historians and anthropologists since at least Mooney and Swanton. Also see McNickel for the evolution of Lumbee origins (he credits Swanton and Mooney for the Cheraw theory and disagrees with the McPherson/McMillan camp about the Croatan bit). All in all, it's just inaccurate to say "more recently" that the Lums claim descent from the Tuscarora, at least without a proper cite. Jas392 ( talk) 15:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It's true that technically since the Lumbee organization/political body was established in 1953 that Cheraw would inevitably become the only "OFFICIAL" claim put forth by the leaders of this "POLITICAL" institution; I certainly agree here and i also agree that the Lumbee and Tuscarora officially are organized and structured as completely different political entities; and I agree that it is inaccurate to state that the Lumbee (who are politically their own entity with a SEPERATE enrollment than the Tuscaroras) have claimed Tuscarora ties because the Lumbee political body has NEVER gone on record with such a claim. I do have to disagree however that Cheraw has been the general consensus amongst historians. It's true that many sholars have jumped on this bandwagon in recent years but not a one of them has ever documented any connection to the Cheraw whatsoever. In fact Swanton (the first to propose any possible strong Cheraw connection) CLEARLY stated that his position was based SOLELY on the evidence available to him at the time and that it was merely a guess on his part. In all actuality he didn't even believe the Cheraw were the biggest constributers he clearly expressed that he fealt it was more than likely mostly Keyauwee. I'm not being spiteful here but this is historic fact. Given that Swanton cited not one source past Hamilton McMillan...I have no doubt that he would have held a completely different position if he would have been aware of the genealogical record, the 1840 article, and the statements of Lt. Birney, Townsend, Normant, Gorman, and/or McMillans off the record account in the Fayetteville Observer. The closest thing to a documentable Cheraw connection is the fact that there was a Thomas Grooms living near the locklears. It has been speculated that this could have been a Cheraw Indian who took the name of the White Thomas Grooms who bought a piece of their last remaining land on the PeeDee in 1739. That's where the trail ends my friend. there isn't a single incident of anyone in Robeson county ever identifying as Cheraw......it never happened.....and there isn't a single piece of concrete geneology indicating that anyone ever lived where the Cheraws lived.......Tuscarora is the only affiliation proclaimed in the historic record prior to state recognition (there are a total of 6 written verifiable accounts to prove this) with exception to one man who claimed to be Hatteras. Which leads to my next point in regards to Verklempts statement. I agree that POLITICALLY the Tuscarora emerged as an ORGANIZED entity only in the latter half of the 20th century; but you are wrong to infer that this is when they started claiming this. Obviously it was claimed prior to 1885 as evidenced by Townsend, Birney, Gorman, Normant, and even McMillan himself so you can't refute this because its been documented. it was also documented that Kermit Lowrie claimed to be Tuscarora in his application to Seltzer in the 1930s, and its documented in a local newspaper account that even DF Lowrie was known to be a Tuscarora himself in the 1950s. So this claim is DOCMENTABLY not new....In fact on paper it's the oldest tribal affiliation to be claimed by Robco indians that can be found and there are VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTED sources to PROVE it. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 07:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I for one don't understand why the Tuscarora groups are even concerned with the history of the Lumbee. They need to spend more time convincing the Tuscarora of New York that they are Tuscarora. No one discounts the existence of Tuscarora blood among the Lumbee. However, it is not the only Indian blood. Those that claim to be Tuscarora need to accept this. Yes, many ancestors of the Lumbee migrated from northeastern North Carolina. HOWEVER, please keep in mind that Indians were very mobile during the 18th century. They moved between Virginia and the Carolinas. Because they seem to be migrating south from northeastern NC during a certain period of time does not mean they are from that part of the state. They could have been from South Carolina and returning home. D.F. Lowry claimed to be Lumbee AND Tuscarora. Mary Norment in 1875 in her history of the Henry Berry Lowrie war writes that Lowry was of Tuscarora descent. D.F. Lowry and others, including present-day Tuscarora base their descent from the Tuscarora on this book. Kermit Lowry, like D.F. Lowry probably also read Norment's book. Tuscarora descent is based on the book and not oral traditions of the tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.221.116 ( talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Lead currently says, "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe." The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition. The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2] Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." I admittedly have certain biases on the subject, but I also have requirements about certain language when we're talking in Indian law. I agree with the overall accuracy of the paragraph as-is, but it's language drastically needs to be cleaned up.
(1) "In 1956, the United States Congress passed House Resolution 4656, known as the Lumbee Act, which acknowledged the claimed Native American origin of the Lumbees but withheld recognition of the group as a "tribe."" For starters, the 1956 Act says nothing about a tribe. It does talk about Indian services, however. And every journal article, textbook, etc that speaks about the 1956 Act specifically all mentions the prohibitions of services, not some tenuous implication that federal government was in denial that they are a tribe. Please see the voluminous congressional record from 1887 to the present wherein the feds never deny that this is a tribe, yet withhold Indian services (we can get into why that is later). I propose: In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act which acknowledged the Native American origin of the Lumbee Tribe but prohibited application of federal Indian statutes to the tribe and further prohibited Indian services to the tribe as well.
I don't understand why it's necessary to say "claimed...origin." It seems we all agree here that there is at least some Native American origin, and the feds certainly don't deny it. As for the HR 4656 part, we can cite to that... it's distracting to the reader. And the latter part about Indian statutes and services comes verbatim from the 1956 Act, but I'm willing to shorten it to Indian services if you like.
(2) "The Lumbee Act is a major stumbling block to desired federal recognition." This is actually funny... sorry, I'll explain. The 1956 Act is actually what keeps the Lumbee out of the tortuous OFA regulatory process, where they would be locked up for decades and millions of dollars. It's what keeps them in the legislative process and separates them as unique in that regard. So, it's not really a stumbling block to fed. rec. as much as it is a saving grace in the minds of Lumbee leaders. I move to strike this sentence completely, if not for inaccuracy but for POV.
(3) "The Lumbees are not eligible to apply for federal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.[1][2]" I'm okay with this statement but in order for it to make sense, it needs to reference the Solicitor's opinion of 1989 stating that the 1956 Act prohibits the federal relationship, which is why this statement is true.
(4) "Recognition is opposed by several recognized tribes." Okay. The article can discuss further in the body per our previous discussion here about who opposes and why they do.
I have not made changes yet, because I do agree with the overall accuracy of this paragraph, and I will wait for you timely response to the issues I raised here. Jas392 ( talk) 16:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
maybe this would be a good place to recount the history of the recognition effort, at least to list the years more accurately and highlight what they sought specifically each time. I am willing to supply much of the information on that and let you guys rid it of an inaccuracies or POV language you may find. And I would leave what's there substantively unchanged. Jas392 ( talk) 15:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree that this should be in a different section rather than under Federal petitioning. I think it should be under its own section header, in terms of the size of the header, not a sub under the other. It follows the 1956 Act in time, but doesn't have anything to do with the larger topic.-- Parkwells ( talk) 21:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Native American? Ha! It's really sad how blacks always claim to be anything other than just black. You really can't blame them, however pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.220.217 ( talk) 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to figure out a way to clean up the body of this article in an even-handed way. I came across this description of Lumbee "Origins and Legends" from answers.com (they had it listed as the wikipedia article, but it seems like all they did was clean it up to make it even-handed and generally accurate; the only inaccuracy I found was where they say that the 1956 Act recognized the Lumbee as a tribe, which I can forgive because that's a technical Indian law nuance). Anyway, let me know what objections anyone has to changing the "Origins and Legends" section as this:
This is the original. Don't make changes here.
The first recorded reference as to the origins of the present-day Lumbee population was made in a petition by 36 white Robeson County residents in 1840, in which they described ancestors of the Lumbee as being a "free colored" population that migrated originally from the districts round-about the Roanoke and Neuse Rivers (Sider's "Living Indian Histories" page 173). The first attempt at assigning any specific tribal designation to them was made in 1867 when, under investigation by Lieutenant Birney of the Freedmen's Bureau for the murder of several Lumbee ancestors, pastors Coble and McKinnon wrote a letter claiming descent of the Lowry gang from Tuscarora: "They are said to be descended from the Tuscarora Indians. They have always claimed to be Indian & disdained the idea that they are in any way connected with the African race." [2] In 1872 George Alfred Townsend published "The Swamp Outlaws" in reference to the famed Lowrie Gang. Townsend described Henry Berry Lowrie, the leader of the gang, as being of mixed Tuscarora, mulatto, and white blood: "The color of his skin is of a whitish yellow sort, with an admixture of copper- such a skin as, for the nature of its components, is in color indescribable, there being no negro blood in it except that of a far remote generation of mulatto, and the Indian still apparent." Townsend also stated in reference to Pop Oxendine that "Like the rest, he had the Tuscarora Indian blood in him...If I should describe the man by the words nearest my idea I should call him a negro-Indian gypsy."[3] Townsend's statements would be reiterated three years later in both the Memoirs of General Jno C. Gorman and in Mary Normant's "The Lowrie History."
In 1885, Hamilton McMillan theorized that the Lumbees were the descendants of England's "Lost Colony" who intermarried with the Hatteras, an Algonquian people.[4] A number of other authors subsequently repeated McMillan's speculation as fact.
However, no extant evidence exists for "Lost Colony" origins. Of the many characteristically Lumbee names, few are shared with members of England's failed colony. While some modern day Lumbees continue to subscribe to this theory, the vast majority of Lumbees discredit the notion of "Lost Colony" origins.
In Robeson County, Lumbee ancestors were only officially classified as Indian after Reconstruction in 1885. Prior to 1885, Lumbee ancestors were usually described as colored, free colored, other free, mullato, mustie, mustees, or mixt blood in surviving records. Despite the lack of direct genealogical proof, various Department of Interior representatives such as Charles F. Pierce (1912), O.M. McPherson (1914), Fred Baker (1935), and D'Arcy McNickle (1936); various Smithsonian Institute ethnologists such John Reed Swanton (1930s), Dr. William Sturtevant (1960s), and Dr. Samuel Stanley (1960s); in conjunction with Anthropologists such as Gerald Sider and Karen Blu; all acknowledge the Lumbee as a Native American people. In the first federal census of 1790, the ancestors of the Lumbee were enumerated as Free Persons of Color. The U.S. Census did not have an "American Indian" category for non-tribal Indians until 1870. Instead, it recorded tribal censuses separately from the federal census. Because the Lumbee ancestors were not formally organized as an Indian tribe until 1885, they were enumerated in the federal census, usually as "mulatto." Up until the 1960 census, census enumerators often categorized individuals themselves, thereby determining the race of a particular individual.
Genealogists Paul Heinegg and Dr. Virginia E. DeMarce have, using an array of primary source documents, been able to trace the migration of some primary Lumbee ancestral families from the Tidewater region in Virginia into Northeastern North Carolina and then down into present-day Robeson County, North Carolina. Taking historic racial classifications placed on these ancestral families at face value, Heinegg and DeMarce have theorized that ancestral Lumbees were the descendants of mixed-race unions of Europeans in Virginia, who then migrated south into North Carolina along common routes of colonial expansion.[5]
In 1972, Dr. William Pollitzer published a study of gene frequencies in the Lumbee population. He concluded that the Lumbees have about 47 percent African ancestry, 40 percent white, and 13 percent Indian.[6]
The first paragraph of the "Origins and Legends" section needs to also cite the Congressional testimony of Judge Giles Leitch, wherein he describes the Robeson County population in general and the Lumbee ancestors in particular. His testimony begins on p. 283 of the reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=eRQSHcOwU5YC&pg=PA283&dq=giles+leitch
If I do not get a response in a reasonable time from the other editors, I'll take that as consensus and add it myself. David F Lowry ( talk) 16:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There need to be alot more sources for this section. I have a source that clearly states the Lumbee tribe being on the Union side only. I will add it later, but it stating them on the Confederacy must be cited as well. Mcelite ( talk) 07:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
NO THE LUMBER RIVER WAS ORIGINALLY CALLED THE LUMBEE RIVER AND WHEN THE EUROPEANS CAME THEY CALLED IT THE DROWNING CREEK WHICH WAS LATER NAMED THE LUMBEE RIVER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.50.10.46 ( talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Much new material has been introduced without the editors' using inline citations, which are preferred by Wikipedia. In addition, there is material without any sources, which can be removed if valid third-party reliable sources are not provided. Some editors seem to be relying heavily on dated (1930s and earlier research) that has been superseded by more recent scholarly work. This gives undue weight to earlier accounts of Lumbee origins which did not make adequate use of historical documentation.-- Parkwells ( talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The section notes there are/were five recognized tribes in North Carolina, and one of them is Smilings. These are indicators this is based on dated text, as the state recognizes more tribes in 2009, and none goes by the name of Smilings.-- Parkwells ( talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In the quest to match citations with references and limit superfluous media listings, I'm moving the list of "Further Reading" here. If any of these are particularly significant or cited in the article, please feel free to restore those publications to the article. Cheers, - Uyvsdi ( talk) 18:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Neither Hawks nor Lawson are llisted among the references or further readings, although they are cited in this section (incompletely).-- Parkwells ( talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I found the reference information for Hawks, Lawson, Oxendine, Milling and Rights. I couldn't find reference information for DeMarce or Heinegg. Holloman and Pierce have been cited but these could refer to several different publications.- Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi
There is an abbundance of information available on both of these nations respective histories. Perhaps it would be helpful to clarify a little more about what the historic record indicates happened to each of them. In other words: are there enough unnaccounted for individuals from either one to have been able to have made a significant contribution?
Bobby Hurt (
talk)
21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to restore this article to the name Lumbee because there absolutely no discussion of a name change. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
The legends section keeps growing, but without sources. Unsourced assertions have been deleted from other sections. The article is getting very circular as people keep restating the same info in different areas. Parkwells ( talk) 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were African Americans free iin colonial Virginia. A few may have had other than northern European ancestry for the European portion, but most were northern European and African, as documented by Paul Heinegg and cited in the article. People want to believe the exotic myths rather than the interesting reality of colonial Virginia. Please don't keep adding such unsourced mythology as above. No one is saying the Tuscarora, Powhatan or Cherokee came from European or Turkic immigrants - their origin as Native American indigenous peoples is documented via archeology, linguistics and genetics. Parkwells ( talk) 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There is academic work that substantiates that most Lumbee ancestors were referenced as Mullato not as Free African Americans (I've read Heineggs work and it is fact that this and the term "free person of color" are in use 90% of the time). There is also a law dating back to 1705 (see Dr. Jack D. Forbes' published work) passed in Virginia defining a Mullato as "an Indian, the child of an Indian, the grandchild of an Indian, the child therof OR of a Negro." So Heinegg didn't substantiate a thing in regards to exact racial makeup of the families in question. The individuals he traced to Virginia (about 1/3 he substantiated) "could" have been a number of things in a racial sense. There is no objection to the presentation of his arguments. It is your own personal interpretations of them that are inappropriate (POV). He proposes a theory; just as others (which you have removed) have proposed theories. As I stated below; neutrality is lacking in your recent edits to this page. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 03:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone much more familiar with Lumbee history fact check the recent unsourced edits by User:Poprobeson, User:SittingDeer, User:Cherokeeblood, and User:MntBuffalo, who appear to all be the same user. Obviously this person has a POV against Lumbees. I removed a completely POV opinion from the article and issued a warning against adding unsourced information. Not sure if all the edits should be reverted or if there is some merit to some of them. - Uyvsdi ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Sourced material related to historical research, rather than myths of origin, have been removed. The article needs to be reconstructed, as it is incomplete and inaccurate. Parkwells ( talk) 05:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no justification for deleting content related to Paul Heinegg's major work on free people of color in the Upper South. He did extensive, award-winning research in a great variety of colonial and early federal records to trace numerous families found in the frontier areas. Parkwells ( talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Add cited content if you wish. But there is no justification for removing other cited content in the process. Paul Heinegg should be mentioned; but so should things like the published statements of Hamilton McMillan (which you removed). Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. The fact that they were written and cited is all that matters here. Neutrality is lacking in your latest edits. Bobby Hurt ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Per the article on the Tuscarora people and their sources, some bands have organized in Robeson County under various names including Tuscarora in the title. After splits in the 1960s, in 2010 they created a united, interim government called the Tuscarora Nation One Fire Council at Robeson County. They keep separate membership from the Lumbee, and have not achieved state recognition as a tribe. Given their independence, it seems inappropriate to label so much of the historic material here as "Lumbee/Tuscarora" ancestors, as one editor had added. This article is about the Lumbee; another article is about the Tuscarora. Yes, both people point to descent from the Tuscarora as part of their claim to Native American identity, but this article should not confuse the issue further. Parkwells ( talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There is undue weight being given to early legends of Lumbee origin, and discussing them as if this article were the place to distinguish among them - this is Original Research. Editors are supposed to rely on valid, third-party sources for assessments. Much contemporary documentation by recognized researchers has disposed of the Lost Colony legend.-- Parkwells ( talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn`t be so sure about that..go to the website [ http://www.lost-colony.com ] read the articles and make your own conclusions..I will most likely rewrite the Roanoke Colony article eventually..I don`t have time to do it now..all I can tell you is there has been a lot of new research done vie ECU and I don`t understand why it`s taking so long for the information to get out but I guess people are unable to accept anything new..I have no idea where the Lumbees came from but there is one thing I`m pretty sure of and that`s the colonist did not starve to death on Roanoke Island..as much seafood that's available out there no one`s that stupid.-- Lonepilgrim007 ( talk) 14:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
One published source that may deserve some mention on this topic is Robert C. Lawrence's 1939 book; "The State of Robeson"
On page 112 Lawrence states in part:
"....the colonists were not only to go to Croatan, but FIFTY MILES UNTO THE MAINLAND. This would locate them between Pamlico and Neuse Rivers, and there in 1660 Rev. Morgan Jones found among the Tuscarora a tribe known as "Doegs," light of complexion and who could understand the Welsh speech--proving beyond a peradventure some earlier association with the whites...............French emigrants as early as 1690 settled between the Pamlico and Neuse rivers, and here the first settlers found a native race to whom they gave the name "Malange," meaning "Mixed." At the earliest coming of the white settlers into what is now Robeson county, there was found along the waters of the lumber a tribe of Indians SPEAKING ENGLISH,owning slaves,and practicing many of the arts of civilization, who call themselves "Malungeans." I doubt not these were descendants of the mixed race above reffered to, who had moved from Neuse and Pamlico to other hunting grounds in the valley of the Lumber....."
An equally important piece of published material that I don't see present in the main Lumbee page is an article printed on February 12, 1885 in the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper. The article read in part:
“ …They say that their traditions say that the people we call the Croatan Indians (though they do not recognize that name as that of a tribe, but only a village, and that they were Tuscaroras), were always friendly to the whites; and finding them destitute and despairing of ever receiving aid from England, persuaded them to leave the Island, and go to the mainland.…They gradually drifted away from their original seats, and at length settled in Robeson, about the center of the county.”
I agree that the published material available doesn't even come close to substantiating this "Lost Colony" theory as it is portrayed in the main article but I do feel that enough evidence exists as not to rule it out entirely; thus making it worthy of mention.
Bobby Hurt (
talk)
00:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
A lot of uncited editorializing and just generally clunky writing now mars this article. I propose a major rewrite. Pokey5945 ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I reverted your good faith edits on Lumbee because they were not constructive. If you want to see content moved to another section, then you should just go ahead and move it instead of deleting it. If you find that some claims are not supported by references, you should tag those statements so that other editors can perhaps provide the references. This content should not be deleted either. Only content that clearly and unequivocally fails WP:NPOV should be deleted, and then it is best practice to bring it up on the talk page before deleting. Feel free to reply here as I will be watching this page and will reply as needed. I am also watching Lumbee if you would prefer to discuss this on the talk page there. — Bill W. ( Talk) ( Contrib) — 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Content on archeology has been added, so a new sub-header, Archeology, has been added. In this section, I have reduced the arguments embedded in the first paragraph to stick to facts, make it more neutral in tone, and to attribute Knick's conclusion or theory to him by name, as his conclusions are not necessarily supported by other scholars. He proposes that archeological evidence of diverse cultural interaction somehow supports that diverse groups made up a historical Lumbee tribe, according to what is here. (Have to try to read the original source.) Parkwells ( talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is my proposal:
Archeological evidence shows that Native American cultures have long occupied present-day Robeson County. Artifacts have been collected from
Paleo-Indian times through early, middle, and late
Archaic, early, middle, and late Woodland times, and into the historic period; in short, Indian peoples have long occupied the land which is now considered Robeson County.
[1]
page needed According to Stanley Knick, the evidence of diverse cultural influences in prehistory of the region is a characteristic of the region, and repeated among Indians of diverse cultural influences during the historical period after European colonization.
[1]
Parkwells (
talk)
18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
References
Are the Lumbee people related to the Melungeons? The descriptions are very similar. And, should there be a See Also reference to Melungeon? Risssa ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The HBL section is riddled with florid mythology and factual errors. I propose a major rewrite of the HBL section. Pokey5945 ( talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This is anachronistic, inaccurate and largely undocumented. "Lumbees" as such did not exist at that time. Some Lumbee ancestors did serve in the Confederate army. Pokey5945 ( talk) 16:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose the origins theories section be moved up to the beginning. I see no reason for it to be so near the end. Pokey5945 ( talk) 16:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been mulling over what to do with this article for some time now. The article is very bloated with tons of unsourced material, crumby sources, highly contested "facts", and probably contains lots of misinformation. My proposal would be to begin removing all blocks of information lacking solid citation and trimming this article down to sourced material only. Even if we cut out some "correct" information, the current state of the article completely overwhelms anything useful with worthless uncited information. Jcmcc450 ( talk) 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I deleted a paragraph which made assertions about killings and even murder without even a shred of evidence nor one source, reliable or not! ( EnochBethany ( talk) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
From the article: "The Roanoke colony disappeared during a difficult winter, but reportedly left the word "Croatoan" cut into a tree. This account is considered legend and not supported by any mainstream historians. The scholarly consensus is that the colonists died of starvation on the island."
I can't imagine where this came from. I have read five or six books on the Roanoke Colony none of which dispute the story about "Croatoan" and "Cro" being carved on the post and the tree. Also, the colonists packed up their belongings, including the materials they used to build their houses, and took them somewhere -- hardly the behavior of people dying of starvation. (Perhaps the author has confused Roanoke with Jamestown?). Furthermore, had the colonists died on Roanoke, evidence of their graves would still be there and no one has ever found anything like that. Risssa ( talk) 23:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This statement is not correct..no one knows what happened to the Roanoke colony and all the primary sources reference Croatoan Whether they refer to the people or the place is the question..there is no way they could have starved..anyone could live off the land there at the time..seafood was abundant. 75.130.204.174 ( talk) 03:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lumbee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Mulatto Descent" section [2] is missing a bunch of spaces following periods and commas, so it needs to have them added. I apologize for not being more specific, but the entire section needs to be proofed and have the aforementioned spaces added. In summary; the missing spaces should be very apparent to whomever processes this request. 73.188.226.109 ( talk) 20:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article it says the Lumbee have abandoned claim of Cheraw descent. I have no idea where that came from, the tribe says all the time they are Cheraw. Even their official website says they're descended from Cheraw. I'm half Lumbee and I hear this from other Lumbee a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.234.171 ( talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lumbee. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/state_national/a_steadfast_fewWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we talk about how wealthy lumbee people are. Especially juxtaposing against most welfarized native Americans -- Ninja247 ( talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.68.28 ( talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Editors have made major changes to the Lede which are in poor English, first of all, unsourced, incorrect and POV. They are not appropriate replacements for what was there. The article needs to be edited substantially. Parkwells ( talk) 05:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
What`s a Lede?
There seems to be a lot of "quotes" around "words" like "facts" and "Western". It is really stupid. Either the statements need to back up by a referenced source or they shouldn't be included. Putting "quotes" around "words" serves "no purpose".19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 75.145.77.17 ( talk)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).i live in baltimore city there are many people in my are who say they are lumbee indian but and plaese done;t take this wrong they look like vey light skinned black people they talk like black people and they well they have a bad very bad crime rate at least on my street they call black people the n word and the black people say you are just as black as me, they really look like
very light skinned black people are they just "passing' ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.97.130.201 (
talk)
00:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed the link Lumbe because it directs to the village in eastern Nepal and discussed another village in Angola in Africa. I have serious doubts on the two villages are related to the history and presence of Lumbees, whom are a mixed-race population of American Indians, African-Americans and white Europeans. It may have to do with numerous theories on the origins of Lumbees, Tuscaroras, Powhatans and even the Cherokees came from early settlement of the region from indentured servants and stranded seafarers of inter-racial origins (i.e. Latin Americans, Moors or North Africans, Turks or Turkic peoples, South Asians, East Asians and Malays) in the 17th and 18th century American colonies. There are speculation mythology of Lumbees are descendants of the lost colonies (Raleigh Colony) and the terms "Croatan" for the Croatan Indians in the area might descended from Croats sailors originally in the Balkans from what was then Ottoman Turkey (now the nation of Croatia along with former Yugoslavia) employed by Spanish, Italian, French and British seafaring companies employed in fishing boats way back in the 16th century on the Atlantic coasts of North America, included Basques and the Portuguese or Galizans, might already settled down with Amerindians in the Outer Banks and Sea Islands. 71.102.26.168 ( talk) 23:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not add information to the article about what DNA gesting has revealed about the Lumbee people's genetic heritage? 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 02:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Are you talking about the Lumbee DNA project? All I've seen is the Y-line tested (that is, no mtDNA), and from what I understand, since it was only of people that claimed Lumbee heritage, not members of the tribe. That said, I don't know the proper protocol for why we should include it or not. Best just to hold off, I think. Adam ( talk) 17:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://0-muse.jhu.edu.uncclc.coast.uncwil.edu/journals/native_south/v003/3.locklear.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Lumbee. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
To add to article: the etymology of the word "Lumbee." 173.88.241.33 ( talk) 20:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are these allowed to be published?
They certainly include detail that seems plausible, but have not cited any sources. Could be 100% made up for all we know, but I'm sure thousands of people have read the article and assumed this is all true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.184.207 ( talk) 18:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The White House just announced support for the Lumbee Recognition Act of the 116th Congress. Since that means they're likely to receive federal recognition should I put it in the article yet or wait until it passes? AngryZinogre ( talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@ Sundayclose: The Washington Post article I cited notes that Lowery is a Lumbee. Thus, when I modified Doug Weller's edit, you will see that I still left mention that Lowery was a Lumbee, but removed the emory bio cite, since it is unnecessary and doesn't support any of the other information in the paragraph. If splicing was simply an "stylistic issue", then there would be no such things as proper inline citations and all of the refs would be dumped at the end of every paragraph on every article, thus making verification harder. I see no evidence that Doug disagreed with my edit (since I left in the material part of his addition, that Lowery is a Lumbee, did you notice?), so your claim that two editors oppose my work is spurious. You apparently did not understand my edit summaries or my edits.- Indy beetle ( talk) 17:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)