Talk:Yamasee

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catalek (article contribs). Peer reviewers: 15blades.

Catalek:

I have changed the lead section by adding more to the description. I specifically added how the Yamasee migrated to the Carolinas and how they are well-known for their war.

I added a Location Section so that people can easily see where the Yamasee lived. I also added a Slavery section because the Yamasee engaged in slave raids which greatly impacted the Yamasee war.

I basically split up the history section into many subsections so that it is easier to see their accomplishments and history. One of the most important changes I made was to add the Yamasee 'prince' section. This shows how the Yamasee did religious relations and engaged with the British.

I have used many different scholarly articles to lead my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalek (talk • contribs) 22:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes, especially to the lead

I noticed User:Nativehistorian850 made some changes recently, some of which seem strange to me. Seeing that these are the first edits this user has made on Wikipedia, I thought I'd just post here on the talk page about it before making any changes. Some of the changes I'm fine with. Like changing "language" in the infobox from "Yamasee" to "Hitchiti". I don't know much about that topic, but the page's "Language" section seems to more or less agree, I think. Another infobox change of note is "population" being changed from "extinct as a tribe" to "333". I know some Yamasee merged into other tribes, but I didn't know there was still an actual Yamasee tribe today. A source reference for this would be nice. Another infobox change was "religion" being changed from "traditional tribal religion" to "traditional tribal beliefs Religion caused war"--which I don't understand. Yamasee traditional tribal beliefs were that religion causes war? That seems a confusing change.

But the main thing is the changes to the lead. Before these changes the lead was:

"The Yamasee were a multiethnic confederation of Native Americans<ref name=g13/> that lived in the coastal region of present-day northern coastal Georgia near the Savannah River and later in northeastern Florida."

Now it is:

"The Yamasee were described by congressional archives during a hearings before the Industrial commission page 824, as a African descended confederation of Native Americans<ref name=g13/> that came over before the land bridge & lived in several regions of North and South east America. After several wars,a Treaty was formed that created the State of Georgia near the Savannah River and later in northeastern Florida."

I find this new text fairly confusing and frankly hard to believe. I checked out the "congressional archive" source referenced. It didn't seem very convincing or authoritative to me. The only mention of the Yamasee is in the "testimony of Mr. Harry Hammond", a guy who apparently grew cotton in South Carolina around the time of this "Industrial commission" of 1901 (I'm still unclear on what the commission was investigating, but it clearly wasn't the Yamasee). Hammond's comments about the Yamasee come up in a rather offhand way and don't seem particularly relevant to the rest of his testimony, which is on other topics. He does say some things about the Yamasee (link to the page: [1])--that they were, according to a book "on the human race", negroes who had come to America before Columbus. He supports this by saying they were "darker" than other Indians and had different hair. He also says, "another corroborative proof is that the Spaniards found that 1 negro was equal to 10 Indians for work, and they therefore imported these Indian negroes and carried them to the West Indies to experiment with". This last bit seems very strange to me. From what I've read the Yamasee had been allies with the Spanish and those who didn't merge with other tribes fled to Spanish Florida after the Yamasee War, seeking refuge. After Florida was no longer safe for them, due to English invasions, the Spanish "evacuated" the handful of surviving Florida Yamasee, less than 100 or so, to Havana, Cuba. I don't think it had anything to do with the old yarn about "1 negro being equal to 10 Indians for work". Finally, these things Hammond said (and I've mentioned just about all he said about the Yamasee) he attributes to "the mayor of Beaufort" who "wrote a book". He does not give either the mayor's name or the name of his book. He apparently says the mayor is "one of the most distinguished ethnologists in the world".

In short, it seems to me this source is of questionable validity. It is second-hand information at best, and from an unknown source. It also directly contradicts many respected scholarly works about the Yamasee, such as, to name just one, William L. Ramsey (2008). The Yamasee War: a study of culture, economy, and conflict in the colonial South. U of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-3972-2.. Ok, to name two, The Yamasee in South Carolina (University of Alabama Press). I don't want to be rude to a new editor, but I'd like to change the lead back to what it was. The congressional testimony could be a link under "Further reading" perhaps. If we could identify who Mr. Hammond was referring to, and what book, then we could get a better sense of the reliability of Mr. Hammond's statements. Does that make sense? Pfly (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Looked to me like some POV pushing by someone who is not well acquainted with history. I reverted all of the edits. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. -- Donald Albury 09:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• The editor posted to my talk page linking to the Congressional Record. Unfortunately, the Congressional Record is not a reliable source for ethnography, as any member of Congress can insert anything they want into the record. -- Donald Albury 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost sure this is related to this Nuwaubian Nation considering the context of these edits [2] by Nativehistorian850. I would be extremely wary of ANY information this editor tried to introduce into this article. Heiro 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. I would have reverted myself but didn't want to WP:BITE. And wow, I knew there was some odd black movement associated with the word Yamasee--though apparently more often spelt Yammassee, as in http://www.yamasseenation.org/ --and I vaguely recall thinking the movement was somehow associated with Yemassee, South Carolina --but I hadn't seen that Nuwaubian Nation page. ...wow. That's rather out there. The Yamasee part seems like a very strange form of passing, sort of, as Native Americans. Makes me curious, slightly, what exactly this 1901 congressional testimony mention of the black pre-Columbian Yamasee was about. The source seems sound--it really is, I think, a record of some congressional commission--though obviously the statements made in it are not reliable. Still, apparently some guy was talking about it before 1901. Our Nuwaubian Nation makes it sound like a much more recent thing. Perhaps it has roots going back to the 19th century...? I dunno...curious, but not enough to research it myself! Pfly (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty astounded by them when I first ran across them as well. Read some of this if interested, the whole Yamasee thing with their leaders attempts to escape from prosecution for various offenses(multiple racketeering, child molestation, transportation of minors for unlawful sex and tax evasion charges[3], Dwight York#Arrest and conviction of child molestation, Dwight York#Imprisonment and claims of diplomatic immunity) by claiming they were a sovereign nation, lol.

In his own words:

"Your Honor, with all due respects to your government, your nation, and your court, we the indigenous people of this land have our own rights, accepted sovereign, our own governments. We are a sovereign people, Yamassee, Native American Creeks, Seminole, Washitaw Mound Builders. And all I’m asking is that the Court recognize that I am an indigenous person. Your court does not have jurisdiction over me. I should be transferred to the Moors Cherokee Council Court in which I will get a trial by juries of my peers. I cannot get a fair trial, Your Honor, if I’m being tried by the settlers or the confederates. I have to be tried by Native Americans as a Native American. That's my inalienable rights, and it’s on record."

I'm not sure what the 1901 congressional stuff means, but tend to agree with Donald Albury that it is not reliable for ethnography and I also think it would put undue weight on the material to include it in the article. And as I stated above, I would remain very leery of any additions the Nativehistorian850 wanted to include in this article.Heiro 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Congressional Record needs careful examination in using it as a reliable source. I would say in general that it is a reliable source for the wording of committee reports, bills/acts and treaties, and maybe for voting. It is also a reliable source for what a member wanted on record about what he or she said. It is not a reliable source for what was actually said on the floor of either house. It is also not a reliable source for any statements of 'fact'. Members of Congress can edit, remove and/or add to the reports of their speeches before the CR is published. They can also insert reports and other documents for a particular date even if they were not present that day. There is no editorial control or fact checking on what a member of Congress says on the floor or inserts into the CR. What a member of Congress said about a subject may be notable enough to include in Wikipedia as a report of what that member said, but that does not mean that we can cite the statement itself as factual. -- Donald Albury 01:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Claims of synthesis

User:Acroterion recently removed a portion of the ethnic identity section. Unless opposed, I'm going to restore it promptly. It was published both by the South Carolina government and the US Census Bureau, and is not original research or synthesis. I'm wondering if you misread it for my own words when virtually none of it is.WillieP100 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Basing this kind of statement "the Yamasee are described as "one of a small number of isolated tribes, found widely scattered throughout North and South America. Supposed to have been immigrants from Africa prior to the European discovery of America." on a book published in 1894 is not a good idea. There has been plenty of scientific investigation of the peopling of the Americas in the last 130 years that disproves unscientific opining from the 18th century, even if it was published by the US Census. I'd gain consensus here before restoring any of thatHeiro 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Acroterion User:Heironymous Rowe None of it is my statement, it's all a direct quote from the source. It may not sound like it is, but it is. 1894 was in the hey-day of Indian research, since the tribes were actually tribal and in many cases living in their homelands at that time. Recent research largely draws on that old material, and most of the tribes are either extinct or in many cases, particularly in the East, their members are heavily mixed, Westernized, and often have tenuous genetic and cultural relations to their forebears, and little useful material to add to the discourse. As for 'unscientific opining,' the claims were published by an authority, and what hard evidence do you have that the claims are false? The tribe is supposedly extinct, so any scientific (e.g. genetic) studies would be a non-starter since there is no reference population.WillieP100 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You are speculating in WIkipedia's voice, apparently stating your own analysis of statistical data and old sources. You can't do that. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

How is quoting directly from a publication that is speaking explicitly about the tribe in question 'speculating'? Again, which part of any of what I added are you claiming is my own analysis?WillieP100 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, much of what was published then about native Americans, particlarly about the origins of various tribes, is no longer supported by scholars. I am opposed to restoring the passage in question to the article. - Donald Albury 01:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

So if we have a neglected, multi-thousand-year-old field like this, some scrub can come in and undo centuries of knowledge because he 'doesn't support it'? We're dealing with subjects that don't exist 'as tribe' anymore, so much of the material is going to be old. What are your examples (name and link to article/book) of scholars who disagree with the specific passage in question? I'll wait.WillieP100 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We give precedence to modern views on ethnology by scholarly sources. Thousands of years of tradition are rarely accurate or based on anything but legend. The burden is on you as the proposer of the change to provide evidence that current views in ethnology support your assertion. This isn't the Wikipedia of 1894. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What are your examples (name and link to article/book) of scholars who disagree with the specific passage in question? I'll wait. What if there is no modern scholarship on the question? Then I'm sure it will fall back to that date. One and only one modern scholar I've seen describes the confederation in ethnic terms, as 'multi-ethnic,' which doesn't conflict with my citations, and in fact confirms them in a way; the term was likely selected to avoid controversy.WillieP100 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)