Talk:Tuscarora people

Untitled

This should be moved to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tuscarora_tribe.

Trbie is a typo.--Elizabeth of North Carolina 03:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: History Section

There were 2 expeditions against the Tuscarora during the war. The Moore expedition and the Barnwell expedition. In the status quo article only Barnwell is mentioned. The history provided is blending information from both expeditions and attributing them only to Barnwell.Bobby Hurt (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also.....more clarification is needed on the rolls that Blount and Hancock respectively played before the war. Both had a lot of influence before the war among different towns but in truth they were merely village chiefs who did not lead anyone other than their own respective towns. They were merely influential among other villages.Bobby Hurt (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Lumbee claims

Officially the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, as a political entity, has never went on record claiming any significant descent from the Tuscarora. Unless it can be "verifiably" cited where the "Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina" has made such a claim; any statements of this nature should be removed from the article. The Indians in Robeson County who do claim direct descent from the Tuscarora are not enrolled with the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and are officially on Tuscarora enrollments. They are seperate entities, with seperate rolls and enrollment criterion.

Allthough some overlap may exist biologically between the two; there is a clear political/structural/idealogical/cultural difference between them. And it is most definately innappropriate to bind one to the official position of the other werease they operate completely independant from one another in the stance's that they each take. Bobby Hurt (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the Tuscarora in New York have taken the position that those who remained in NC no longer have tribal status. I will not remove this part (although I may clarify it more); but if there are no reasonable objections (I will wait a day or so) I will proceed to remove the part addressing the "recent Lumbee claims to Tuscarora" from the article.Bobby Hurt (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: subsequent history

The article is very short,and needs alot of additions about the Tuscarora in the north, and the south, but I am going to talk about the latter.

First of all, the 1803 treaty was never ratified by Jefferson, so the treaty is null and void. Here is evidence of this first statement: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1803affirmancefromUS.html

Next, contrary to popular belief, there are still many Tuscarora living within North Carolina today. The U.S. government does not recognize a "tribe" still within N.C. yet, but they have acknowledged individual Tuscaroras within the last 100 years. http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/ottletter.html In the mid to late 19th century, there were several books, published articles, and personal writings pertaining to the Tuscarora blood of the people centered around Robeson County, which can be found at these links: http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1872harpersweekly.html, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/1885observer.html, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/lowriehistory.html, http://www.skarorehkatenuakanation.org/gormanwritings.html

In 1992, Dr. Peter Wood, professor of History at Duke, wrote a report to supplement the Hatteras Tuscarora Tribe's BIA petition, which was filed in 1980. In Dr. Wood's closing, he says;

"...It is the impression of this historian that the claim is a strong one, if presented properly. There is sound evidence that some of the Tuscarora Indians who remained in North Carolina after the Tuscarora War eventually migrated to Robeson County before 1800. They had every reason to play down their Tuscarora identity, given the hostile atmosphere, yet evidence of these connections still managed to survive. After the Civil War in the era of Henry Berry Lowrie, Robeson’s most famous Native American, it was well known in the area that his ancestors had been Tuscaroras. Some of his descendants were among those who were designated as Indians during a survey of the county in the l930s. Over the past century, generations of Tuscarora descendants have been active in the county’s complex local political life, usually representing the more rural and poorer portion of the Indian community, who have sought to maintained some distance from white and black culture in the area and some control over their own affairs. The re—emergence of this Tuscarora identity in the early l970s was seen by many as manufactured pose, when in fact the roots were extremely deep. But they had been hidden by generations of speculation about how all the Indians of Robeson County might best be lumped together under one title. The Congressional recognition of Lumbees in 1956 should not limit or constrain the Tuscarora claim. Nor should the absence of a continuous tribal structure of governance, for, as explained in the introduction, these persons are not seeking recognition as an independent and enduring historical tribe, but rather as a remnant of an existing and recognized tribe that was forced to move out of the southeastern region. In this sense, the Hatteras Tuscaroras are best seen as comparable to the Eastern Cherokees or the Mississippi Choctaws, that is, descendants of people who managed to remain near their ancestral homelands when major upheavals forced most of their kin to migrate elsewhere."

For more on this issue, take a look at this wikipedia page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Lumbee --Roskerah 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Roskerah, I believe that much of your information here should be included in the main article. Lizmichael (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Wood's report would be a valid-third party source, better than anecdotal evidence. Title, publisher and page numbers would be useful. The issue is not about historical anecdotes about whether individuals have native ancestry, but whether there was cultural continuity as a tribe. Perspectives on that have changed, and differ between the federally recognized tribe in NY and the people in NC.--Parkwells (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Battle" of Lewiston

Hello Til Eulenspiegel, before we attempt to make a firm determination regarding what the "uncomfortable facts" actually are in this instance; I propose we leave it to other editors to make a final determination on the relative early 21st century historiographical niceties of whether not descriptors like "drunk, bloodlusting allies" are actually the 'way forward' in terms of selecting interpretatively neutral phrases in this context. At the moment; my chief concern is locating a reliable reference which substantiates what's being contended here, regardless of whether or not I personally consider the words being chosen in the present version of the article as being rather "ham-handed" in approach. As an experienced editor; you are no doubt aware that by re-adding this particular material, according to our existing policies, the onus is currently on you to substantiate its precence through the provision of a reliable reference. So far, I have not been able to do so; in fact, there appears to be at least one mainstream fairly widely cited [1] reliable source that appears to decidedly take issue with what's being claimed. My source is "The Iroquois in the War of 1812" by Carl Benn (University of Toronto Press; 1998, pgs. 148-150 ISBN:0802081452); available on Google Books [2]. As a side point, it's interesting to take note that Benn identifies December 20, 1813; not December 19 as claimed in the article, as the date of the Lewiston engagement (pg.149).

On pg. 149 Benn states: " [..] At about sunrise 20 December the [Tuscarora] warriors who had remained at the reservation heard shooting at Lewiston, a short distance to the west, and they rushed to the scene where they found British and American forces in action. After some sharp fighting, the Americans evacuated Lewiston and deployed the Tuscaroras to cover their retreat eastward through the reservation before heading south toward Buffalo. British forces soon afterwards looted and burned Lewiston's abandoned homes and shops, and many of the [British allied] warriors and soldiers got drunk on the liquor they found." Take note here that Benn ascribes "drunken behaviour" and the engagement in "looting" activities to both British soldiers and their Native allies; an important distinction in my mind considering what's presently being claimed in the article; where both activities are apparently ascribed to native actors alone; purportedly 'out of the control' of British authorities. Further; at the top of pg. 150, Benn maintains that American Brigadier General George McClure in a speech later that week at Buffalo, actively engaged in what Benn alleges are false and provocative accusations of the commission of atrocities (specifically "massacred women and children in cold blood") directed at both British troops and their allied Native forces; presumably in an attempt to stir allegiances amongst McClure's own allied Native troops. Again, take note that contrary to what the article presently claims, charges of wanton behaviour are levelled at both British and Native forces in this context. In the second paragraph of page 150 Benn specifically addresses these accusations when he asserts that "American charges to the contrary"; "[...] there were no widespread incidents of assaults or murders of civilians"; "[...] [a]lthough a handful of civilians died tragically during the various actions associated with [British General] Drummond's invasion. Four men, for example were killed at Lewiston by some western warriors who got drunk with some [British] regulars and then engaged in a fit of brawling and looting that also left two of the tribesmen dead and two soldiers in the British force wounded.[...]" In my opinion; all of this reinforces my initial contention that the unreferenced sentence "[t]he British officers could not restrain their drunk, bloodlusting allies from killing and mutilating civilians and looting the town", is at least a patently misleading simplification of what at least one accepted authority on the subject maintains in his research. I will be adding a citation request template to that sentence to permit you a reasonable opportunity to defend its appropriate inclusion in the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there... To answer your first question, I would be more than happy to "leave it to other editors to make a final determination", especially if it can be determined what the facts are. I had better confess that I have not done any real research in this regard as of yet; I was merely reverting on behalf of the other editor, who I had assumed had done his homework and added sources -- so it would probably be better if he could defend his own research. It sounds like some "drunkenness and looting" can certainly be substantiated from what you found so far; but perhaps it should still be mentioned, only with toned-down language, and ascribing it to the Brits themselves, as per your source. So if it turns out that the first editor's version of it indeed cannot be substantiated, please accept my apologies. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Deconstructthis, and Eulenspeigel, for your assiduous concern for documented accuracy. I have supplied a footnote in place of the "citation needed" about the drunkeness. It is entirely possible, I would say plausible, that some British officers were drinking themselves and got caught up in the drunken frenzy, and would be happy to include that if I had a source. But everything I have seen suggests the British officers were the very model of deportment and tried to restrain the natives, and that the atrocities happened inside houses, or in the woods, when their backs were turned. Of course, that is because the natives did not write the diaries and letters on which we must rely: the officers did. I fear that piling footnote upon footnote might start to get a little pedantic for a Wikipedia entry. FrederickFolger (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Realizing belatedly that it may not have been the word drunk, but the word bloodlust that raised hackles, I could tack on another footnote substantiating that too but a blood spattered reference might unbalance the article which is after all about the Tuscarora. Simonson's book is helpfully detailed not only in giving the actual names of the Tuscarora who defended Lewiston, p 139, but also a table of various differing sources of how many civilians were killed there (pp 140-141). One source says many were thrown into burning houses so the exact number cannot be known. The book offers some rather gruesome details. Footnote 13 speaks of the infant killed by dashing his brains out against the corner of a house; Simonson also notes an eight year old boy gutted and scalped while still alive (I add my own footnote that scalping was originally a European innovation); the corpse of a minister whose fingers were split, tomahawked down to the wrist as apparently he raised his hands either in prayer or to ask mercy. Finally, I used the word "allies" since it is not at all clear how many were British allied Indians and how many were American Loyalists disguised as Indians, and I would not want to say they were all Mohawks. FrederickFolger (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

UNDUE WEIGHT - Despite the fact that primary sources attest to outrages, I think the sentence about the British being unable to restrain their allies is beside the point (and I agree that "bloodlust" is over the top for an encyclopedia article) in the article that is essentially about the Tuscarora. War is hell, and both/any sides over the years committed outrages, as did many Americans in other circumstances. Detailing this particular one by Mohawks, Loyalists and/or British, when the point of the paragraph is about the Tuscarora defending the settlers, seems to me to be beside the point. Every article on every battle does not provide all the details of atrocities; why should this one? It seems Undue Weight to insist on it here.Parkwells (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection (and thanks to Parkwells for his view) I agree. Standing back from that paragraph I see the problem was not lack of citation. The problem is no matter how well documented, the statement skews the paragraph. So, agreeing with Parkwells and Deconstructthis, I'll simply delete it. The paragraph works fine in fact better, without it. In answer to Eulenspeigel's correct assertion that we must face even unpleasant truths, the answer is yes--but not necessarily here. This page is about Tuscaroras. The Battle of Lewiston should move to its own separate article, where all the British officers, soldiers, and their allies can stagger across the page leaving a trail of blood and gore and burnt out buildings--and take with them the historians' debate about who was drunk, and how many dead infants it takes to make a massacre.FrederickFolger (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

Looking at the overall article, it seems to me that there may be two objectives in tension with each other: tracing the migrations of the Tuscarora, and stating their history as a linear story. I hope wiser heads than mine can figure out either how to follow a single chronological timeline, or to separate out the history of each of the geographically distinct bands. Bouncing from history, to geography, and back to history that happened earlier, and then on to a migration that happened later, creates a kind of undisciplined article.FrederickFolger (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding citations for the primary historical accounts in North Carolina

I wrote the original article...somewhere along the way the citation for a lot of the original content has gone missing. Most of the information and uncited quotes came from the 'Historical Sketches of North Carolina from 1584-1851' by John Hill Wheeler. It is available online through Google books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.120.55 (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• The move discussion is completed. Comments can be resumed below. Pnoble805 (talk)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• The move discussion is completed. Comments can be resumed below. Pnoble805 (talk)

Act of North Carolina General Assembly - 1803

I came across the 25 January 1803 Weekly Raleigh Register, which published an act of the NC General Assembly regarding the status of 1748 and 1756 Tuscarora nation treaties regarding lands in Bertie County, NC. The contents could add quite a bit to this article. Pnoble805 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tuscarora people. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100630065716/http://www.ais.arizona.edu/people/patrick-keith to http://www.ais.arizona.edu/people/patrick-keith

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Overview Section

The last sentence of the second paragraph is misleading. The colonists encountered the Tuscarora people, not the other way around. The sentence makes it sound like it was the colonists land and not the Tuscarora people's. To give proper credit as to who's land it was at the time, one must include the fact that it will later become North Carolina and Virginia.Bh597 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Overview Section

In the fourth paragraph of the overview section, one must include the fact that they are federally recognized as nations. Being recognized as a tribe is one thing, but to show how the Tuscarora people are a nation is to not diminish who they are. Bh597 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)