Talk:Cusabo

Proposed merge

Almost nothing is known or recorded about any "Etiwan tribe." The majority of mentions in published books are about the Etiwan River and companies named for the river. The term "Eitwan" is being used by contemporary groups, which may explain the article's creation. Yuchitown (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

Colonists such as Francis Le Jau clearly named the Ittiwan as a distinct people group living near his parish in Goose Creek, South Carolina and even went to far as to describe their customs and name individual members of the tribe. Le Jau's letters are a primary source dating from 1706-1717. Whether or not any of their descendants are alive today the fact remains that primary sources name them as a people group that existed in the early 18th century. Postermon1(talk)

I just went back through Le Jau's letters and it is pretty explicitly stated that the Ittiwan were a distinct group. This is from a letter dated Feburary 1, 1710: "Our Indian Neighbbours call their Nation Ittiwan: when any of them dies they anoint him all over with Oyl, either of Bear or Ikkerry nuts for they have no other, thats' a constant practice and the Women's employment." that letter can be found on page 68 of the collection of his letters that was published by the University of California in 1956 Postermon1(talk)

So you are saying there is exactly one source for that article? Yuchitown (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

It should be noted that everything we know about the Waxhaw people is based on the reports of 3 Europeans (Juan Pardo, John Lederer, and John Lawson) and no one is challenging that page. If the standard is three primary sources then we have that. I just looked and found 2 more references from missionaries Brian Hunt and Francis Varnod from 1724. Hunt reported seeing 12 families of Ittiwan in his parish while Varnod reported a "few" Ittiwan passing through his parish but they came and went so much that he could not ascertain their numbers. Those references can be found in the Journal of Southern History published November of 1939. Also the contemporary historian William Ramsey mentions the "Itewan" in his book "The Yamasee War" which leaves us with (so far) three primary sources and the fact that modern historians don't seem to question the tribes existence. Postermon1(talk)

The other day I went through the book "South Carolina Indians, Indian Traders and Other Ethnic Connections" by Theresa Hicks and Wes Taukchiray and there is a good page and a half to two pages in there about the Ittiwan. It includes the Ittiwan's request for land in 1724, the names of the colonists charged with finding that land, and the land that they were eventually granted in 1728. It also includes information on the Ittiwans intermarrying with the Santee and their possession of Congaree slaves. It even gives the name of their chief as King Robin. There is certainly enough information available to warrant their inclusion in wikipedia. Postermon1(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Total population:"extinct"

The people that edit this article to read "extinct" under total population continue to participate in the genocide of my people (18 USC 1091 (3)). This false statement should not and will not go unanswered.

Much of American history has been written to hide the Truth. History favors the victor, and so it is the colonial narrative (that of our usurpers) that prevails no matter how false and misleading it is.

The Cusabo are not and never have been "extinct". We have been indoctrinated into believing we are black/colored/negro/african american due to the intentional miseducation of our youth, and death threats against our communities. To actually know "history" is to know the stories that don't get told and are not written down. It is high past time the Cusabo speak for themselves without colonial intervention.

I will leave the erroneous edit, the falsehood, the dehumanizing/denationalizing claim of extinction, to remain for now. I will come back after having gathered what should be sufficient "evidence" for the people trying desperately to keep us out of this American tale. When I do I expect not only for this page to be permanently corrected, but also for the administrators of Wikipedia to issue a public apology for allowing this lie to continue even after having been made aware of the truth. CusaboEmpress (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a couple of things. Firstly, Wikipedia can only go on what reliable sources say (see WP:RS). So if you can find reliable sources that support the change you wish to make, there should be no problem. But we can not accept "I know, I am one" as a source, not for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not an appropriate platform to correct any past misrepresentation by others (see WP:RGW). So if mainstream academia has it wrong, you'd have to get that changed first before Wikipedia can echo the change. Secondly, administrators here are not responsible for the content of Wikipedia articles - we expressly have no power whatsoever to rule on what an article should contain. The content of an article is solely the responsibility of the volunteers who develop it, and those who take part in talk page discussions to decide on that content. So you will be getting no apology from administrators. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added two sources for the Cusabo being extinct. Before doing that, I looked at the article's history. The initial mention said that the Cusabo were extinct as a tribe. Before this, the article said the language was extinct. Note that 'extinct as a tribe' wasn't visible in the article. This was changed to 'extinct', and still wasn't visible. The infobox parameter poptime was deprecated, and was replaced in the article's infobox by population with this edit. This resulted in the infobox now clearly reading 'total population extinct'.

A research guide from the National Archives of the US government links to native-languages.org, which says

The Cusabo Indians were a small tribe of South Carolina, allies of the Creek Indians. Few records remain of their language, and though some have theorized that it may have been a Muskogean language like Creek, there is no good evidence of this. The Cusabos no longer exist as a distinct tribe. They merged into the neighboring Creek tribe after a devastating smallpox epidemic. Most Cusabo descendants live among the Creeks today, although some probably retreated into Florida along with members of other southern tribes and ended up joining the Seminole Nation.

This is the most moderate view I found. The citations I added to the article from more traditional sources don't include the qualifier 'as a tribe'. I looked at a variety of references, and I didn't find anything that clearly contradicted them. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Extinct

Published histories of Cusabo tribes fade after the early 18th century—300 years ago. Certainly there can be living Cusabo descendants today—most likely among the Muscogee and Catawba people today. However, that doesn't mean the Cusabo tribes aren't extinct as tribes. For more on what a tribe actually is, read Tribe (Native American). The editor Dtreu99 has repeatedly deleted cited information. Yuchitown (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown

Also User:Da199 and User:CusaboEmpress, two other WP:SPAs. Yuchitown (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

"21st century" section

Should this section be deleted altogether? The history section already mentions that some Cusabo merged into the Catawba and Muscogee. Sometimes is helpful to mention that organizations today self-identify as descending from a historical tribe (and if sources discussing the descent that originated independently from the organization itself existed, those could be added). The state-recognized tribe Wassamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians claims descent from numerous tribes (Cusabo isn't even listed on their wiki article). The "Guaymari Kiawah Tribe" doesn't have any published sources (closest would be Bizapedia).

Usually listing groups that self-identify as descendants can be a compromise, but instead, in this article, this section is a source of long-term edit warring from User:Dtreu99 and User:Da199 deleting the statement that: "The Guaymari Kiawah is not a state-recognized tribe or a federally recognized tribe."

Curious to hear from any NPOV editors. Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Moving the paragraph here since the Varnertown state-recognized tribe claims to descend from Etiwan, which as listed above, is a separate group, and the unrecognized group is completely unnotable by Wiki standards. Yuchitown (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Today, there are groups, outside of the Muscogee, Seminole, and Catawba peoples, who claim descent from Cusabo peoples. These include the Guaymari Kiawah and the Varnertown Indians. South Carolina recognizes the Wassamasaw Tribe of Varnertown Indians as a state-recognized tribe; however, this organization does not have federal recognition as a Native American tribe. The Guaymari Kiawah is not a state-recognized tribe or a federally recognized tribe.

With the fact the organizations own website makes a claim to descend from Etiwan and not Cusabo. With the other unrecognized group not being notable I think this entire section should be removed. There is no there there. --ARoseWolf 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Valid points! Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

References