Jump to content

Talk:Trail of Tears/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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:

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trail_of_Tears/Archive_3&oldid=1232392122"