Talk:Trail of Tears

Death counts

For Cherokee this claims a scholarly consensus of 4,000 deaths. I can't find anything to support the low range of 2,000 previously listed in the article. Larataguera (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Since LutonDi's edit regarding Seminole death counts was reverted, there is some question about this number. Perhaps it should be given as 700-3000? I recall briefly researching it when that edit was originally made and concluding that historians were very uncertain about this number. I don't think there is any sourcing for a number in this article? Correct me if I'm wrong! Larataguera (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with changing the count as you propose here. In my mind, the entire treatment of genocide on this page should be revisited considering the major role LutonDi played in blocking the addition of genocide and the major contributions they made to the page in its current form. —Hobomok (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Contributions by LutonDi

LutonDi has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Stumink. Their contributions to this page are few too many for me to disentangle as an uninvolved user, but I want to notify any watchers that those contributions to the main text can be removed, and their participation in consensus-building discussions carries no weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The discussion around genocide and how it is presented on this page needs to be revisited considering the major role LutonDi played in blocking such discussion and its eventual representation. Given LutonDi and the other related socks’ bad faith efforts across Wikipedia relative to colonial violence, I might also ask those who sided with LutonDi to reflect on their own biases.—Hobomok (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that consensus process was compromised by an editor who is known to systematically understate the impacts of colonialism through bad-faith editing and sockpuppetry. It's hard to know how it would have turned out had this not been the case. I suspect there would have been something in the infobox, for instance. I did voice concerns at the end of that discussion about false balance, because I felt that older and tertiary sources were placed against more recent secondary sources that better reflect current scholarly consensus, and it was treated as if the sources were of the same caliber. There were other issues as well.

That said, I am more interested in some other articles right now, so while I would support that reevaluation Hobomok I don't feel prepared to craft proposals right now. You might have to come out of retirement if you feel strongly that the article has issues in its current form. (Or, of course some other editor could suggest changes) Larataguera (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this notice about LutonDi. I would think one of the first things to check is if any of their socks contributed to talk or to the article directly. thanks for posting the report, @Larataguera. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I welcome additional discussion on the subject, however, Wikipedia is not the place for activism. With regard to bias, and with all due respect to Hobomok, we all are biased and, for my part, it has been formed through my experiences. We probably share more alike than you think. However, that bias is checked at the door where I remove my activist hat and put on my editor hat. I accept the bias of Wikipedia itself in order to be an editor here. If I can not then I have two options, I can try to gain consensus to change policy or go write a media blog decrying how biased and mean Wikipedia is. Since I doubt anything would change if I did write a blog and seeing as I don't believe Wikipedia is inherently bad or mean, even if biased, then it seems I can either accept the bias and work within it until a majority of verifiable sources catch up or try to change policy which, in my opinion, would just be exchanging one bias for another. I do appreciate Vanamonde for notifying us. Sockpuppetry has blocked too many consensus gathering discussions and damaged far more of the encyclopedia than even vandalism. --ARoseWolf 16:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Working to eliminate bias upholds WP's pillars. While it's true that some bias is inherent to the sources, and we must accept that for now, the encyclopedia in its present form presents 'bias squared': a biased reading of biased sources. I think 'squared bias' is present in this article, although it's better than it used to be. We don't have to change policy to present a balanced reading of existing sources. Indeed, that is the policy at present. Larataguera (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All true but Hobomok wasn't directing his statement at the sources. He directed it at fellow editors claiming their personal bias is the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with him. I maintain that the majority of positions shared here are simply an interpretation of current policy and are balanced. While we agreed that something needed to change the very ones proposing that change provided nothing when it came to exactly what needed to be said and instead bemoaned the process. My hope is that we can finally have a proper discussion and proposals rather than just complaining that it's all wrong. I agree with Netherzone that Hobomok has made great observations and their suggestions are worth exploring and I share in the hope they stick around and we can finally form a consensus around creating a more balanced article. --ARoseWolf 20:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to clarify that I was not speaking about you when I stated there were some biases at play in previous discussions, ARoseWolf. I know that our biases align quite a bit from our previous interactions on Wiki.

As far as bemoaning process and not contributing, to be frank, I was, and still am, burnt out on contributing to Wikipedia. Especially having tangled with other socks of LutonDi’s on multiple pages (see Nettless here, for example, on a page I have contributed to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Population_history_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas).

Of course my biases influence my thinking, of course people are free to disagree with me, and of course I can and will continue to be wrong about many things regardless of others’ biases. I simply wanted to point out that LutonDi and their other socks frequently argued in bad faith and misrepresented sources (See Nettless again here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_removal). So, those editors who may have taken LutonDi’s side without question may want to approach another discussion with a fresh mind in light of how that user has operated over multiple sock accounts.—Hobomok (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your statement, Hobomok. I didn't believe that you were specifically speaking about me. I brought myself up to show that I am biased but I can set aside my bias to attempt collaboration to affect change, albeit slow and methodical. I never expect to get everything I want in an article. Instead I listen to others and try to find compromises within the structure of policy to bring about changes that we may both agree with even as we may disagree about others. I want to have genuine discussion about this topic and for our consensus to be solid no matter what. It is regrettable that a sockpuppet interfered with that discussion. I am so sorry that you were burned you out and and remain so. I can empathize with your position quite well. I hope you are able to find enough peace to be able to contribute heavily to this discussion as we move forward. I want to hear your ideas. --ARoseWolf 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of moving forward, I think this statement from above is worthy of discussion: are the older and tertiary sources of the same caliber as the recent secondary sources that better reflect current scholarly consensus? Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no current scholarly consensus. We went through this on other articles like Andrew Jackson. While current academia is more in favor of terms like "genocide" or "genocidal acts", there is a new term being floated in "cultural genocide" which I happen to lean more towards, today than in the past it still ranks behind other terms like "ethnic cleansing" in usage in scholarship. Amazing research went into the RfC on Talk:Andrew Jackson and subsequent discussion and we ended up with little to no consensus through the RfC. It was only after persistent discussion, after the fact, that we were able to hammer out changes that didn't meet every aspect that every person wanted but met some of each of them. It's a better article for it but doesn't even approach what is being requested here. I'm not sure we will be able to find a definitive current consensus on exact terminology. That may change and I welcome that change as scholarship looks at all aspects of the continued impact this action has had on those cultures. And then you you go on to the next topic. What is current scholarship? How is "current" defined? Where is the demarcation between current and old scholarship? --ARoseWolf 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both.

Re: Netherzone's question: Some of the sources quoted and used in the genocide section are strange and certainly not of the same caliber as university presses (Yale/Beacon) and peer reviewed articles (especially Wolfe's article in Genocide Research). For example:

1. There's the campus news summary of a lecture at Stony Brook University. The lecture isn't peer-reviewed, doesn't appear in a book, and comes from a campus news source. It does not hold the same weight as other sources.
2. Daniel Blake Smith's American Betrayal is also suspect. Smith's Google books bio says he is a former professor of history and now a screenwriter. I cannot find any previous affiliation with the University of Kentucky aside from Smith's own materials, the book was published with Henry Holt and Company, a popular press, and the book is not cited in other works on Cherokee history during the Removal period. Smith is not an expert as far as I can tell, nor is his book on the same level as the others cited.
3. The edited collection by Justin D. Murphy (cannot find any information about said editor) is published by ABC CLIO, which publishes reference sources for educational libraries. Essentially, the book is an encyclopedia, and Murphy's conjectures do not meet merit of other sources. For reasons similar to removing Smith, Murphy should also go.
4. Finally, the are also issues with the Cole source from 1993, as it's dated. Beyond that, quoting Remini in Cole is problematic for many reasons: First, the quote shouldn't come from Cole's literature review. It should come from the original source. Second, given the way that Remini excuses the violence and reasoning given for Jackson's Indian policy throughout his work has been the subject of much debate at Andrew Jackson's page, and most of Remini's thoughts on Indian Policy have been removed for that reason. Remini shouldn't continue to be cited here if he's not cited at Jackson. Third, using Cole's 1993 literature review for a "state of discussion" is a major issue, because the book was written in 1993. It does not capture the current state of scholarly discussion around genocide and Removal broadly, nor the Trail of Tears specifically.

That leaves Wilentz and Clayton Anderson as the two sources to draw from for contemporary argument that the Trail of Tears did not constitute genocide. Clayton Anderson should most definitely be included, as the book is from a reputable press, Clayton Anderson is an expert, and he's one of the only remaining voices on the opposite side of the genocide debate. It does not matter if I or anyone else disagree with him--he's a reputable expert and his book is published by a reputable academic press. The numbered sources above, though, seem to be haphazardly compiled in order to create some sense of a debate, even though the authors and publications do not meet the same level of rigor as the other sources in this section.

As far as discussion of terminology and inclusion: If a book is not written by an expert (Smith) or comes from a suspect press, especially when the authors' credentials cannot be verified (Murphy), especially compared to the other authors and presses on the page, then they do not belong. This is why Clayton Anderson should undoubtedly be included.

As far as dated scholarship: Cole wrote his book 30 years ago. If it still held weight or someone was building on his ideas, scholars on either side would still be engaging with him today. Neither side of the debate (Ostler/Gilio-Whitaker/etc. or Clayton Anderson) engages with or citing Cole's book. On the other hand, for example, Ostler and Clayton Anderson regularly engage with one another's ideas and words. There are plenty of books of that era and far before 1993 on similar subjects that are still cited and their ideas engaged with. For example, Henry Nash Smith's Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth from 1950, Richard Slotkin's Regeneration through Violence from 1973, or Robert Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian from 1978 are all books that continue to be discussed, studied, cited, and their ideas engaged with by people like Ostler, Clayton Anderson, and Gilio-Whitaker. These books are dated, but their ideas hold weight. Cole's book is outdated and the ideas within don't hold weight any longer.--Hobomok (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to state that Remini is still cited at Jackson. It's true that a lot of Remini has been removed but that's because the entire section was almost all Remini with a few others sprinkled in. Part of our agreement through discussion was to bring in other perspectives to more balance the section. We also had to decide what to cut out of the article because of its size. There were actually two sections on Indian policy in Jackson's article. It was reduced to one with one paragraph basically presenting both "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" as debated terminology discussed in the Legacy section. Remini's work is probably still quoted as much with regard to the Indian Removal Act and its devastation on Native cultures as anyone else, if not more. "Genocide", though included in the article, was not added to the lead though we did manage to get "ethnic cleansing" added. The only terminology included prior to that was "forced removal". --ARoseWolf 15:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There are so many articles and books on this topic that anything we cite should be a relatively recent tier 1 source. If there is truly no consensus among scholars it should be possible to set the highest standards for sourcing and find roughly equal numbers of sources supporting both POVs. I think that older sources and lower-tier sources supporting either position in the genocide debate should be removed. If that leaves one side underrepresented, then better sources should be found. Larataguera (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:TIER1 is an essay, not a policy. AFAIK, there is no policy in wikipedia limiting our sources to only university presses, although they're of course ideal. Nevertheless, I want to add some links regarding Justin D. Murphy and Daniel Blake Smith since Hobomok had trouble confirming their credentials. Murphy's assertion actually goes back to 2014, in a book edited by Paul R. Bartrop and Steven L. Jacobs, two respected historians & genocide scholars. Smith's book has received overall favorable reviews and is cited in several books/articles regarding Removal. Also, regarding the Cole source, I don't see any issues with it. Cole is a subject matter regarding Jackson and his book is cited only to present his and Remini's opinions. It's not used in wikivoice. However, I can cite the original Remini source if needed. Lastly, I'm neutral on the campus news summary so I'll replace it with another source. Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

An essay, in this case on what sources should be used, can guide what’s added to a page. In this case, sources should be high-level, and the Murphy and Blake Smith book are still suspect compared to other sources like Ostler and Clayton Anderson. Murphy’s book as quoted is an encyclopedia published by a marginal educational press. Do we know how Blake Smith’s book is quoted in other books? Do we have specific citations that show these other books treat it glowingly or agree with it? You’ve linked a Kirkus review, which is hardly substantial, and a review from a journal which brings up serious issues with Blake Smith’s historical inclusion in its penultimate section. That section of an academic book review is usually where major issues are raised and the reviewer tells you what they really think about the book. The reviewer points out Blake Smith did not include any treatment of the three Cherokee Women’s petitions (three MAJOR TEXTS of that period). In a book about removal is a MAJOR issue. It’s not the positive review you think it is. Finally, if you want to cite Remini then remove Cole and cite Remini, but we should have a discussion about Remini’s inclusion on this subject. He was not an expert on removal or the Trail of Tears. His overuse on Jackson’s page, stemming from him writing popular histories and biographies of Jackson, which this project overwhelmingly relies on, has led to him being used throughout treatment of this period on Wikipedia.

Finally, let me ask this: You’ve doubled down on your arguments from previous discussions on this page. Those arguments were formed and the page’s current writing done in partnership with a user known for being racist on pages about Native history and black history in the United States over multiple accounts over the course of years. Wouldn’t it make sense to think for a bit about what it means to keep defending positions that person fought for?—Hobomok (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This could be seen as an attack on another user and I encourage Hobomok to find another way to get their point across like focusing on the merits of edits themselves without their perception of the personal positions of other individuals in this discussion. The final comments above do nothing to advance towards gathering a consensus through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not "suspect" at all. They're written by two historians who are affiliated with two respected universities. Regarding the journal review of Smith's book, despite the minor criticisms, it is overall positive. It concludes: Overall though, An American Betrayal is an engaging and persuasive reevaluation of the removal debate within the Cherokee Nation that anyone interested in this history will enjoy. The "major" and "serious" issues, as you call them, don't seem to be treated by the reviewer as such. You also said that Remini "was not an expert on removal or the Trail of Tears" (whatever that means), but in my opinion this is not important. Are Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Dina Gilio-Whitaker and Wilma Mankiller "expert[s] on removal or the Trail of Tears"? The answer is no. Should we remove their opinions? Again, I'd say no. Remini is still regarded as the foremost authority on Andrew Jackson and, considering that the Trail of Tears is heavily linked to Jackson, his opinion matters and is definitely relevant. The same applies to Cole who, although isn't as monumental as Remini, his work remains important. And to comment on this edit summary, the "professor of national security affairs" is also the Thomas & Mabel Guy Professor of American History and Government at Ashland University and former Co-Chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Finally, I'm not interested in the whole LutonDi debacle or what that person "fought for". Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the recent sockpuppet names (2019-2023) in the SPI report against the contributors in Talk Archive 2, and did not find a direct match; but that did not include the many IPs LutonDi used. I also plan to check those names against article contributions. My time is limited for the next few days, but will continue to work on that. I also want to say hello to Hobomok and hope they stay around, I thought you had many good observations and suggestions in the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just popping in to make a few observations. First off I have some concerns about some of the sources. The article currently contains sources that are outdated, biased (in the forward to The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removal 1813-1855, Jahoda is forthcoming about this and Jacksonland: President Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab by Inskeep is not only biased but not something I would personally have in my library with regard to quality) and relies heavily on Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The Cherokee section is much longer than that of the other Nations however there is no mention of the Old Settlers who moved to Indian Territory prior to December 1835. Under Landmarks and commemorations there is no mention of the annual commemorative Choctaw Trail of Tears Walk. The article is lack in so many ways and heavy in others. The lack of balance is frustrating. Indigenous girl (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, that's not an attack on another user, Hobomok is justified in feeling frustrated by the Sockpuppetry and how it, in part, shaped the article and the talk discussion. Please do not attempt to diminish their character. They have brought excellent, peer-reviewed, vetted sources to the table, and have made praiseworthy, cogent arguments against several of the out-dated sources. Indigenous girl, I agree that there should be balance of coverage of various Nations including the Choctaw; and am aligned with your analysis of sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy heck, I just skimmed through the archives. I do believe this is the first time I have been rendered speechless on the 'pedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may make sense to unpack the archive and place it back here. If there are no objections, I'd like to do that. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I for one would find it very helpful. Things seem confusing as they stand now with nothing to go on. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the content from Archive 2 above, since it was prematurely archived. The discussion does not yet seem to be resolved, and the sockpuppet contributions should be taken into account as to their credibility and neutrality. BTW, If someone knows how to turn off auto-archiving, I am requesting that you please do so (not sure who it was that set up the archive that way.) Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone, of course, I'm just as frustrated with the Sockpuppetry but I'm not telling other editors they need to rethink their position simply because they happen to share some points of view. The only and I repeat, the only reason to do that is to undercut and diminish the position of fellow editors. Ironically the very thing you are accusing me of which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm wanting both sides to knock it off. Hobomok has presented very compelling arguments and they should be addressed and discussed for their merit. There is no need for the other, frustrated or not. I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed. And to make it very clear, my position has not been and is not swayed by the sock or anything they said. Their edits should be removed unless another editor wishes to take responsibility for them, period. --ARoseWolf 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I went through this article history in regards to LutonDi and found that every edit he made was almost immediately removed, with the exception of one (cited) statement that low-balled the death toll, an edit itself reverted since then. He has had virtually NO EFFECT on the article content as it now stands. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - LutonDi was adamant that the word, "genocide" should not be used in the infobox. However several editors disagreed with that and felt it had a place there. If I have not counted incorrectly, that would be:

• SUPPORT including the word genocide in the infobox: Shearonik, Hobomok, Larataguera, Netherzone, Indigenous girl
• OPPOSE including the word genocide in the infobox: LutonDi (blocked sock);
• CONDITIONAL: Antiok 1pie: I would oppose simply adding the word "Genocide" in the infobox, but I don't think that I would oppose the addition of "Genocide (disputed)", or something like that.; ARoseWolf: I am in favor of adding genocide to the infobox but more specifically, cultural genocide. If there is no consensus for cultural genocide then I recommend genocide without the disputed tag unless we are willing to add disputed to all terms listed.
• NEUTRAL: Firefangledfeathers

Question -GenQuest and ARoseWolf, Antiok 1pie, and anyone else I forgot to mention, do you care to weigh in on this matter?

Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the term is disputed. As such, I would oppose simply adding the word "Genocide" in the infobox, but I don't think that I would oppose the addition of "Genocide (disputed)", or something like that. Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They are all disputed terms in one form or another. It wasn't just a forced displacement of people. It wasn't just ethnic cleansing of the territory. The questions are now being asked and explored by scholarship as to whether it was cultural genocide or not. I believe there is enough evidence, as presented, to show that the Removal of these Nations was another step in the degradation of Indigenous Cultures in North America. The cultures across the world have historically been tied to the very land they were stewards over. The landmarks are interwoven into their traditional stories and beliefs. It was no different in North America. By removing the people from their ancestral homeland you further erode and degrade their culture and in a lot of cases genocide it altogether. The people lose that connection. After Native Nations were removed to reservations the next step was the assimilation of those that remained. In steps the boarding schools. I am in favor of adding genocide to the infobox but more specifically, cultural genocide. If there is no consensus for cultural genocide then I recommend genocide without the disputed tag unless we are willing to add disputed to all terms listed. --ARoseWolf 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on genocide in the infobox. While we have some editor attention on it, I'd love to see the citations for "ethnic cleansing" removed, or at least repeated and summarized somewhere in the body of the article. I'd also like to sincerely thank the editors that worked to add more mention of the genocide debate in the lead and body of the article. Comparing to the Jan. 2022 version, this is spectacular progress. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

I ask that we stop edit warring on the article and leave it as it currently is until we can form a consensus around what the article should say, especially concerning points of contention that are under discussion. This is a genuine plea for restraint and a call to civility among us. For content not currently under discussion where there may be contentious positions I ask that they be discussed here first. The edit warring on the article can have a chilling affect on editing of other non-contentious content within the article and definitely adds to any potential tension that may exist between what should ultimately be collaborative colleagues. This is not about who is right and who is wrong. This is about our continued effort to improve the article through discussion rather than shouting each other down through edit summaries. --ARoseWolf 16:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Lets collaborate. What are the specific points of contention? I'd like to contribute some changes but I don't want it to be considered an act of incivility. Are we expected to discuss any and all changes? I'm really not sure what is going on. I am absolutely not trying to make assumptions or accusations, this is an observation - it's feeling particularly ownie here and I really hope I am reading thing wrong which is why I would like some clarification. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, Indigenous girl, I didn't see this comment the first time I came here today. My call for discussion first comes from policy, in which we are encouraged to engage with editors when a topic presents itself as contentious. That is not to say that we shouldn't be bold but at the time I wrote that comment there was active warring involved on the article itself without any discussion taking place. I believe my comment should be taken within that context and not in a general sense. I do not consider bold edits to be inherently uncivil. However, after several reverts either way and with no specific discussion about those edits taking place on the talk page, I do feel it can become uncivil. I believe it was approaching if not already evident the direction it was going. So I made a plea. That does not denote ownership in any way nor should it be construed as that. It is simply a fellow editor calling for restraint and care to given. We are all a part of this community. If you have bold edits you would like to make to the article then make them, by all means. If an editor disagrees then they can revert and make a call for discussion. If it has not been made clear then let me make it clear now, the edit itself was not uncivil. The shouting back and forth in edit summaries over reversions, I felt, was uncivil or approaching it. --ARoseWolf 19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I do not see/read any shouting back and forth in edit summaries over reversions or anything whatsoever that is uncivil. What I see are well crafted summaries and a thoughtful question. Is the shouting that you object to happening off-wiki or on another article perhaps?

I agree that the choice of words added by Antiok 1pie, "embrace" and "hyperbole" were unfortunate choices that do not come across as neutral. Here's why: these words don't seem well suited for the subject matter, embrace connotes warmth and affection which is kind of weird in the context of genocide, whereas hyperbole connotes exaggeration bordering on b.s. - Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I used the exact wording that the source uses. "embrace" can also mean "accept willingly" (e.g. "embrace an idea"). Nevertheless, I don't mind using alternatives. Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Antiok. In addition to "accept willingly" the word "embrace" also means "to take or clasp in the arms, hug, receive gladly or eagerly, to avail oneself to (an opportunity), so I think it send a mixed message at best, and at worst, an affirmation.

Re: the word "hyperbole", the same dictionary you linked to states the definition as being "obvious and intentional exaggeration, and an extravagant statement of figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. In other words, bordering on b.s. - What is your take on hyperbole? Netherzone (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone, by shouting I didn't mean literal shouting. If we simply keep reverting each other on an article it devolves into a "shouting" match in which we just keep firing back at each other in edit summaries. That's not how it was intended to be, thus why edit warring can be even a single revert and why we are encouraged to discuss contentious edits on the talk page once we are reverted the first time. That very thing happened six times on the article starting on the 13th and going to the 15th, the day I called for those involved to discuss rather than continue reverting each other. During that time there was no attempt on the talk page to discuss that particular issue by either side. All my comment was meant to do is cause both sides to pause the reverting fest and discuss the issues, nothing more. But it seems certain ones want to make it into something more than it was, a plea. No threats, no ownership, just a plea from a fellow editor. This could be construed to imply something nefarious and that was not my intention. I have struck it. --ARoseWolf 15:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC) --edited 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf I did not see the entire genocide debacle when I made my post so I was not aware of that so called collaborative effort.

Raising the use of the term of cultural genocide being used makes absolutely no sense as the majority of tribal members that were removed had already been assimilated to a certain extent. The Old Settlers, who eventually became UKB, they had and have the highest number of speakers, they are the ones who retained the language. They were also the People who retained an extensive amount of traditional knowledge. And they left, well before everyone else, by choice - no force, no coercion, no forced detention in camps etc. It is accepted in Indian Country that the TOT was an act of straight up genocide. It is also accepted by respected scholars. I fully support the use of the word genocide in the infobox. I will not agree to cultural genocide because that simply isn't true. The congressional hearings on the topic are rather enlightening as are the removal orders to the military which were very much not followed, the military being under the direction of the president. Regarding the Creek, their removal was an absolute act of retaliation by Jackson and what ensued is unequivocally an act of genocide. The Seminole situation, well, Jackson started out as a general burning down Seminole towns when Florida was not even a US territory and really bothered the Spanish. After the Treaty of Moultrie Creek was violated, General Jesup and his men decided the best course of action was to obliterate Seminole homes and belongings necessary to support life in order to starve the Seminole as well as other horrible acts which had him violating the rules of war. It seems clear to me if we were to go point by point, the TOT could and should be considered an act of genocide according to Lemkin's definition. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous girl, "simply isn't true"??!! Yet it is Lemkin himself who proposed and defined "cultural genocide" as a term. Other ethnologist have proposed to use the term ethnocide as a substitute. In fact the original text of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples considered cultural genocide but it was later reduced to just genocide. To then claim that what I personally believe is a complete baseless falsehood as if I am perpetuating some fringe idea is insulting and a very poor assumption of bad faith on your part. I am not alone in my pov with regards to this act or the countless thousands of others committed against Indigenous Peoples in the US and around the world. However, as I stated, I'm not opposed to genocide being included in the infobox and will bow to consensus on the subject. To you it may be clear in the case of the Seminole but it is not as clear as you propose in the case of all of the combined people affected by this action. And that is why there are those who consider other terms. The fact is that, to some, this act of genocide had both cultural and physical elements to it and you nor I can use such certainties and absolutes to speak for everyone as you did above. --ARoseWolf 14:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf If a peoples are assimilated how is the term cultural genocide applicable? Where did I insinuate that you are perpetuating a fringe idea? Please be specific. Cultural genocide absolutely exists, I am not doubting that, however in this case, community members made the choice to assimilate. With regard to the Seminole, Jackson absolutely burned out Semonole towns. General Jessup made the decision to violate rules of war and place the Seminole in a position where what was vital and necessary to support life was no longer available to them. The retaliatory action by Jackson toward the Creek cannot be ignored.

With regard to UNDRIP, the 2009 annual report gives insight as to why the wording was changed. Indigenous girl (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cultural genocide applies because not everyone elected to be assimilated of free will. Every society has those who attempt to follow traditional values within varying degrees. When those traditional beliefs are so engrained into the very fabric of the land you live on and then you are ripped from that land then the culture suffers. I am not denying the very physical side of genocide but equally refuse to deny the affect on culture. This is why calling it genocide doesn't bother me. I could even get behind structural genocide. Not every member was divorced completely from traditional cultural beliefs and, even if they were, these were their cultural homelands meaning the place where their culture has thrived. As Gilio-Whitaker points out, it destroyed Native relations with the land, one another and non-human beings which placed their culture, life and history in peril. The level of assimilation does not matter and I believe we are talking around semantics here as we principally agree even if we disagree about its application and level of affect. By stating that my position makes no sense in such absolute terms and that it simply isn't true you are presenting a position that my pov is fringe from that of the scholarly and academic pov which is, in itself not wholly accurate. Cultural genocide is but an aspect of structural genocide which I believe constitutes the overall actions taken against Native Americans during the colonial/imperial period up to and including the Eugenics programs of the 50's, 60's and 70's in the US. Those affects continue to be felt today. So I can absolutely see where actions taken within that framework would be more of a physical genocide and there is no doubt that the actions taken against the Creeks and Seminole would fall under that. In fact almost any genocidal act has to be physical where people resist. So we are not far off from each other but I disagree that we can dismiss the cultural affect by making a blanket statement about some "volunteer" assimilation. --ARoseWolf 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Connection to land is incredibly important, I agree. We have to remember that Cherokee for example, at this point, were practicing private property ownership. They were buying, selling and ceding land. I'm not saying that no one had traditional and cultural ties to the land at this point however those traditional and cultural ties were not what they used to be. Commodifying the sacred makes it no longer sacred, it's a means of commerce.

Because we strongly support different positions within the academy it does not make either of our positions fringe. I'm not sure why you are assuming that. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a very strange debate. @ARoseWolf: I don't see anyone calling the reality of Cultural Genocide "fringe". I think you are misunderstanding what is happening here.

The Trail of Tears was a Death March. Genocide. When people are genocided, their culture is genocided as well, but mislabeling the deaths of people as only a cultural genocide is disappearing their deaths. Why is this even a debate? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This "debate" started over my attempts to quell an edit war that was occurring. It began with the insinuation that I would label any edit made to the article as incivility because I labeled the back and forth in edit summaries rather than legitimate discussion on the talk page as incivility. It then went in the direction of finding a reason to challenge my position that it was an edit war and escalated from there into questioning my pov rather than any attempt to understand where I was coming from. It's like you both have failed to read the entirety of what I stated and made wholesale assumptions about my position. At the time of my statement about cultural genocide there was no consensus about the infobox and the point of any consensus finding discussion is to actually attempt to find commonality and expand from there. But that's neither here no there at this point. I appreciate not being pinged back to this discussion as it is on my watchlist and from there I will choose to respond or not accordingly. I've said enough and don't feel as though anything further said is going to change how either of you view my position anyway so we can leave this to consensus and move on. --ARoseWolf 19:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You are assuming a whole lot here, based on a brief reply. This is not about you. I really have no idea why you are making it personal. I think you need to WP:CHILL and WP:AGF. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you personally, it has to do with the topic at hand. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps because I was personally tagged in the statement that even bringing up the topic of cultural genocide, not in this section mind you, made absolutely no sense and was simply not true. Maybe that had something to do with it feeling personal. If that wasn't your intention then I accept that. --ARoseWolf 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I tagged you because I was responding to your comment. Tagging you in no way means I feel you believe in or support fringe anything. Wholesale genocide however is wholesale genocide. Dead is dead. Putting a Peoples in a situation where they do not have what is necessary to support life is beyond culture. You have every right to support a different school of though. Criticizing a position of the academy is not criticizing you. The fact that you disagree with me is fine, I don't take it personally. It's fine. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "genocide" in infobox

I am moving this here for clarity (as it may have gotten lost above), and hopefully bring us closer to consensus.

Our neighborhood sock puppet, LutonDi was adamant that the word, "genocide" should not be used in the infobox. However several editors disagreed with that and felt it had a place there. Here are recent stats:

SUPPORT including the word genocide in the infobox:

• Shearonik
• Hobomok
• Larataguera
• Netherzone
• Indigenous girl
• CorbieVreccan
• Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} [Adding myself in Support here, in case this issue is challenged at a later date. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 13:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)]

OPPOSE including the word genocide in the infobox:

• LutonDi (blocked sock)[so does not count -cv]

CONDITIONAL:

• Antiok 1pie: I would oppose simply adding the word "Genocide" in the infobox, but I don't think that I would oppose the addition of "Genocide (disputed)", or something like that.
• ARoseWolf: I am in favor of adding genocide to the infobox but more specifically, cultural genocide. If there is no consensus for cultural genocide then I recommend genocide without the disputed tag unless we are willing to add disputed to all terms listed.
• Cultural genocide is a compromise term I could live with. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

GenQuest, you do realize that people did not only lose their culture, but their lives? I'm not sure if you saw CorbieVreccan's comment in the section above; I'm copying it here for ease of readability since it's buried in the discussion on "edit warring": The Trail of Tears was a Death March. Genocide. When people are genocided, their culture is genocided as well, but mislabeling the deaths of people as only a cultural genocide is disappearing their deaths. Why is this even a debate? Netherzone (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

NEUTRAL:

• Firefangledfeathers

If anyone else would like weigh in on this matter, please do so. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

We can wait a bit if you want, but I think the consensus is clear. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @GenQuest. Netherzone (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Not sure if the ReplyLink tool ping worked, so trying a different way GenQuest. Apologies in advance if you were double pinged. Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @CorbieVreccan that the consensus is clear enough for a decision to be made. Discussion can be revisited at some point if there is enough evidence presented which show something different. --ARoseWolf 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting

It's interesting that nowhere in this article does it mention that Andrew Jackson was a Democrat. 2601:C8:C000:3CE0:93A:BAAA:69AA:4C3F (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

During the era in which the democrats were the right-wingers? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023

Change line “Trail of Tears was an ethnic cleansing and forced displacement” to “Trail of Tears was a forced displacement “. Remove words “ethnic cleansing”. In accurate historical context, Trail of Tears is not an ethnic cleansing. More than 60,000 people were forcibly moved and over 1,000 died from starvation. 2600:100B:B023:6579:F4D7:500D:D680:309F (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm also confused by your last point - forced displacement of an ethnic group is by its very definition ethnic cleansing. Tollens (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Other event with this name

I have heard Germans use the term "trail of tears" to refer to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:6DFA:8BC8:9F2C:8F40 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Osa401 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Osa401 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

I would like the word "small" to be changed in this sentence, over 4,000 people is not a small number, especially not to the actual people or their descendants.

"A small (change small to sizable) number of non-Indians who lived with the nations, including over 4,000 slaves and others of African descent such as spouses or Freedmen,[16]"

Best, Stephanie J. Stephanie615tn (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Question: I suggest changing your request to remove the word small altogether because different people would consider the number to be larger than other people would. Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed "small" from the wording. It is important to note that this adjective was likely relative to the entire displacement. Even still, it seems contentious. Replacing this with another adjective should be consensed.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the edit but, when put in context of the overall numbers, 4,000 is a relatively small number (about 6% of those affected). As far as the impact on those individuals and their descendants, sure. But a big number in that case is one. --ARoseWolf 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus wording

Hey @ARoseWolf:.

It's in the citation: "Scholars generally agree that the Trail of Tears was not genocide but instead ethnic cleansing: “rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”". Historian Paul Kelton, who is a professor of history and a member of the executive board of the Indigenous Studies Program at the University of Kansas, has stated the same. It's certainly a viewpoint that has been expressed but not a majority one.

Daniel Walker Howe, in his award winning book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, states the same. KlayCax (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was merely to include genocide in the lead; indications of majority/minority viewpoints are commonly shown in infoboxes. KlayCax (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You use these weasel words like majority/minority and commonly without evidence to support it in numbers. Each article is a standalone article so consensus for what belongs in this article may not be consensus in another. The only exceptions are related to specific policy/guidelines.--ARoseWolf 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a weasel word or without evidence.

It's directly sourced from Stony Brook University's news agency, Daniel Walker Howe, Paul Kelton, Glenn Jochum, and Jeffrey Ostler, all of which label "ethnic cleansing" as the predominant viewpoint.

The "majority" is clearly in relation to historians of American-Indian relations, pre-Civil War history, and colonialism. KlayCax (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

They can state whatever they want but that doesn't make it verified. You are more than welcome to specifically say those sources say it is a minority viewpoint but we shouldn't be saying that in Wikivoice without a consensus of editors agreeing with your viewpoint. --ARoseWolf 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A Pulitzer Prize–winning book that is widely regarded as the "the best work ever written" on the pre-Civil War era is not a verifiable source? Historian Paul Kelton, who is a professor of history and a member of the executive board of the Indigenous Studies Program at the University of Kansas, isn't either? Or Jeffrey Ostler (a revisionist historian who partially disagrees with the notion but also states as such)? There's a dozen+ sources that state this.

This isn't just an off-the-cuff comment from one individual person; it's "giants" in American-Indian historiography. Reliable sources are clear here. KlayCax (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Ostler's position. When describing his recent book "Surviving Genocide" Ostler, referred to the land that the University of Oregon, where he is a professor of history, was stolen land and “Wherever we live in America, I believe any of us is well served to learn the history of the land’s original inhabitants, and to acknowledge the extremes of violence in our own history by calling it what is was: genocide.”

These events meet the UN's requirement to be classified as genocidal acts. There is intent. From past presidents, to justices, to legislators, at various points in history, leaders in the government of the US have expressed a purpose to exterminate the whole of Native peoples. They stole land that was sacred to Native's and denied them basic resources that human beings need to live, thereby robbing them of life. By the time of the Removal a large percentage of Native American's were already assimilated (genocide in and of itself) but were forced on death marches for thousands of miles anyway to barely habitable or un-habitable land. Forced removal is also a criteria for the UN when defining what a genocide is.

Lemkin, the author of that definition, believed and stated that these events and others were included when he was settling on the exact description. I have never once said genocide is the majority opinion among scholars. I would like to see an in-depth study of academia's position but we don't have one. But presenting genocide as a fringe minority viewpoint is intellectually dishonest at best and wholly denialism at worst. --ARoseWolf 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting Ostler's position. I was summarizing Ostler's writings on the present academic viewpoint. Not his personal viewpoints. He uses a much broader definition of the term than many scholars/historians. (As explained below.)

But presenting genocide as a fringe minority viewpoint is intellectually dishonest at best and wholly denialism at worst. The edit never stated it was a fringe viewpoint. The edit stated it was a minority one. Nor is anyone saying that it's not a crime against humanity. That's aptly sourced from the forementioned sources. The majority of scholars on genocide and colonialism separate "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" as often intertwined but also generally separate events. (You're correct that a minority of historians see ethnic cleansing this way. However, no one is arguing for genocide to be removed.) The evidence is overwhelming for the first; for genocide question, most use definitions that exclude this being categorized as such.

Stating that the events represented crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing is entirely within mainstream historiography. KlayCax (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see no need to specifically state it as a minority viewpoint which needlessly diminishes a growing support in academia that these events in part and sum total equal to structural genocide. Changing from "some" to "minority" will have an affect on how the article frames these events. We aren't talking one or two historians here. I do not think the evidence supports calling all of interaction between colonial/US and Native Americans genocide so I fall into a category much like Ostler summarizes, a definitive "yes"? No. But neither can anyone deny it happened.

It was US policy to exterminate those who resisted the forced removal and they were denied the resources to live. That is the very original definition of the word. I believe what is present with the updates you presented, btw thank you for those updates, with exception of the very specific "minority" wording is a better compromise and an improvement on the article from before. We aren't to form our reader's opinions for them when their is no clear consensus among sources and there is not.

If, however, that is not something you are willing to accept I encourage opening a RFC here to allow for wider community discussion. I vehemently oppose trying to form consensus for this article by having discussion on another article talk page. --ARoseWolf 18:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have to diminish the perspective. If a WP: RS states so: we can simply state that it is a growing viewpoint while still being a minority viewpoint. RFC's are a last resort so trying to avoid one if possible.

I want to note that I do think that certain events in American history meet the definition of genocide. Just not the Trial of Tears.

For instance, Peter Hardeman Burnett, first Governor of California, saying:

That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct must be expected

Is indisputably (even under narrow conceptions of the term) genocidal in character. Labeling events in American history such as the Trail of Tears as such is significantly more complicated. Figures such as John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren, among other figures of the time, often express paternalist conceptions of Indian sovereignty, and repeatedly encourage forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing, but outside of perhaps California governor Peter Hardeman Burnett, few express the idea to: "exterminate the whole of Native peoples" in a manner that Yehuda Bauer would describe as "Holocaust". (See here for his definition of "Holocaust".)

I think Bauer's definition of "Holocaust" probably a good criteria for "genocide" to be mentioned in Wikivoice. Things such as the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide are indisputably genocide. But once you start getting into the weeds of whether ethnic cleansing, forced assimilation, and the like meet the definition, it becomes substantially more complicated, and most scholars generally categorize these events under different terms.

They are, however, indisputably events that led to "catastrophic effects" and "mass slaughters" on native populations, as Ostler points out. A lot of this dispute is a debate around definitions rather than effects.

btw thank you for those updates Thank you! :) I just finished What Hath God Wrought during my free time outside of residency. So I've been contributing to related, pre-Civil War articles. KlayCax (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading "Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas" (source available via Wikipedia Library). This allows one to see that Lemkin's model for genocide studies was imperialism in Oceania, Africa and the Americas (particularly Spanish America) rather than the Holocaust. Note though that much of the discussion about the use of the term "genocide" in Native American studies is dated given that the article is almost twenty years old and the discussion has moved on. As for the misrepresentation of Howe (2007) above, we can only regret the fact that Howe never discussed the terminological debate (ethnic cleansing versus genocide) in his book (contrary to KlayCax's explicit claim: "Daniel Walker Howe, in his award winning book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, states the same.") -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of these things were addressed on the United States article's talk page. (With TFD addressing the Lemkin reference. I don't want to repeat what he spoke about the matter there.)

It's certainly not a mischaracterization to state that Daniel Walker Howe referred to the Trail of Tears as "ethnic cleansing" rather than genocide. (Along with a majority of American historians, genocide scholars, and anthropologists.) While not a universal view, most see ethnic cleansing and genocide as often interconnected but also separate processes, with it being very possible for one to occur without the other.

Historian Paul Kelton is a reliable source on the matter. I don't see why his statement on the current consensus shouldn't be referenced in the article. KlayCax (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on April 5, 2024

I request that the first sentence be edited for clarity. It currently reads: "...and the additional thousands of Native Americans within that were ethnically cleansed by the United States government." It's unclear what "within" refers to. Is this within the US? Within that same time period? Is the word even necessary? Rosmarinus1810 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Archiving issues for this talk page

Dimadick JJMC89 Sorry for the multiple pings - you all have either edited this article or posted on the talk or I think you're swell & experienced. I can't figure out how to fix the Archiving & the Archives because as I've discovered it's kind of a mess.
Here's a timeline:

• auto-archiving worked great until January 2023 when an anon deleted the algo code.
• There was a big ongoing discussion on this talk page about usage of the term genocide etc. A now-blocked user was editing the article itself etc.
• On March 19, 2023 a huge archived thread was copied from Archive2 and pasted to this page but the archived content was also left in place at Archive 2.
• On March 19, 2023, as requested here on the talk page auto-archiving was turned off.
• The Nobots code was removed April 13, 2023 but the talkheader info was - and still is - hidden.
  

So. I'd like to reinstate the algo code etc since this talk page hasn't archived since 2023 but since all that content was reinstated & subsequently then apparently replied to?...not sure what is best. Would appreciate some advice/clarity on how best to proceed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really know how the algo code works, or if there is some specific rule about archiving. Dimadick (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I can put in the code for auto-archiving myself but the problem is that content was copied & pasted over here but the original content was also left at Archive 2. So some posts are in two places at once... Ah well, maybe I'll BRD and if I mess it up even more someone else will have to try to fix all this. - Shearonink (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Threads are now in their proper places, here or in Archive 2. No duplication. Cheers - Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)