User talk:Kevin1776/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Delaware Indians

I have a special interest in the Delaware Indians that Washington addressed in 1779.

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

from: George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

My understanding: These Delaware Indians were already Christian pacifists, thus they were among the few NOT fighting against the colonists & for the British (who by Treaty of 1763 had prohibited colonists from settling in Indian Territories). The Indians were in trouble with other tribes & were (or would soon be)negotiating terms favorable to their resettlement (homes & church) further West. They ended up mistakenly massacred by Pennsylvania militia. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/tribes/delaware.shtml --JimWae 04:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

You've got it somewhat correct, though it's a more bit convoluted, because the Delawares were at the time highly fragmented over Christianity and the American Revolutionary War.

The Delawares that Washington spoke to were allies of the United States, having recently signed a treaty to that effect [1]. There were troubles arising from the treaty, which is why the Indians were visiting Washington & Congress. Some Delawares (notably Captain Pipe) had already repudiated the treaty and were siding with the British.

Some of the 14 Indians present were Christians; few were probably genuinely pacifists. The several hundred Christian Indian pacifists in the Delaware Moravian settlements, about 100 of whom would later be murdered in the Gnadenhutten massacre, were among the constituents of these chiefs, but not all of the neutral (or pro-American) Delawares were Christian converts. But some of these chiefs were very close with the Moravians (some might say controlled by the Moravians), and had family among the converts.

These Delawares would have been familiar with the language Washington was using (quoted above), which was not proselytizing, but rather typical diplomatic language used with the Delawares, who had long been receptive to Christianity. Indian diplomatic language, which Washington was familiar with, was formal and ritualized, and should not be considered literal. With these words, Washington was actually brushing off the delegation, referring the matter to Congress.

The principal chief that Washington was addressing was Gelelemend (known to the whites as John Killbuck Jr.). Gelelemend was essentially a Christian, a close friend of the Moravians, but not a pacifist. He later fought alongside the Americans against pro-British Delawares. Repudiated by his people, he later joined the Moravians, long after the Gnadenhutten massacre.

The "second chief" present was Welepachtschiechen ("Captain Johnny"). He was a Christian murdered at Gnadenhutten.

Another chief present was Tetepachsit, who I believe was a friend to the Moravians, maybe a Christian himself. In 1806, he was accused of witchcraft by the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa and burned to death.[2]

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need more info. --Kevin Myers 07:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indian Removal, Native American Massacres, etc

Thanks for your work on articles on American Indians. You have really improved them. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- and Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays! Check local listings for holidays in your area ;-) --Kevin Myers 01:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Good job!

I've much appreciated the work you've been doing on Population history of American indigenous peoples. I haven't had the time to do the research for this and am extremely glad that someone who is conversant with the subject is giving the article a good grounding. Zora 03:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I've enjoyed doing research for the article -- I now know more about the subject than I ever thought I would, that's for sure. --Kevin Myers 03:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of New Echota article

I appreciate the compliment, Kevin -- I liked the article also. I'm afraid I only did as thorough a job as was accomplished because I had delivered a lecture to my high school class on the Trail of Tears a few weeks ago, and still had most of the notes I'd prepared. Still, though I am unlikely to be as knowledgable in other areas, I'd love to have a list of unwritten articles that I can work on. If you feel like dropping me suggestions (or pointing me to a list of red links on a page somewhere) I'd be very happy. Thanks again for the kind words: keep up the good work, yourself! Jwrosenzweig 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rock on

Great job expanding Tecumseh's War. jengod 00:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and keep on rockin' yourself! --Kevin Myers 01:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

1812

Thanks Kevin for your update! Very interesting. Any idea where the bounders that John Quincy Adams was complaining about get these (presumably American) slaves that they liberated? --Daedelus 18:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- Alexander Cochrane issued appeals to American slaves to runaway and join the British cause, and many did so, and served as marines and such for the Royal Navy. This was essentially the same tactic used by the British in the American Revolutionary War, particularly in Virginia by Lord Dunmore. In the earlier conflict it was less ideology and more military necessity, I think. This time, with the Royal Navy emerging as the "world police" against the slave trade on the high seas, humanitarian ideology was now more of a factor. In both wars, American slave owners protested loudly, of course.

This topic should be covered in the War of 1812 article, and I hope you continue working on it! --Kevin Myers 19:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin: Great additions to the War of 1812 article! I've added a note on the talk page about condensing the article somewhat. That seems to me to be a good next step in the cleanup process. What do you think? Sunray 16:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with your outline. The article American Revolutionary War was condensed by describing important battles in only one or two sentences. Even the ultimate Battle of Yorktown gets only two sentences, I believe. Readers who want more can click on the battle to get more details. The same approach should be taken with the War of 1812. --Kevin Myers 23:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Indian War

Hey Kevin, I've answered your questions at Talk:Northwest Indian War. Sorry for the four-month delay, but I'm afraid I haven't kept the Wabash Confederacy on my watch list. Bravo on your fine work; I couldn't agree more, American Indian history is dreadfully neglected. Don't hesitate to leave messages for me on my talk page. QuartierLatin1968 16:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Smallpox and Amherst

Thanks for the Native Population link on the Smallpox/ Amherst article -- but people still keep putting the dispute box up. Maybe the topic is in everyone's intro history class or something. Perhaps we should think about a separate article on it after all. Title: Amherst and Biological Warfare? Amherst and Smallpox Infection? Also, I've been working on articles on the Prehistoric Southwest and added some prehistoric info (identical originally) to Navajo and Apache. As an Indiophile -- perhaps you could look them over. Comments welcome. WBardwin 01:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on revising Pontiac's Rebellion, and hope to expand the coverage there about the smallpox blanket incident. There's certainly enough room in that article to cover the incident in detail. I wonder if having a separate article about the incident will be of use? Maybe it will. Maybe having "Amherst", "smallpox", and "blankets" in the title of an article will help bring it near the top on google searches. There certainly is a plethora of inaccurate or incomplete or misleading web articles about the incident; maybe we can create the definitive web article (which of course will then attract vandals like flies; such is Wikipedia). We need a good title, which is the hard part. Amherst and smallpox blankets? Amherst and smallpox? Smallpox blankets? (which could include the Churchill/Mandan allegations. --Kevin Myers 06:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) (BTW, I don't know enough about Southwest Indians to be of much use in that area.)

Pontiac's Rebellion looks very good! I put the reference I found -- with those quotes -- on the talk page. The suspect Parkman book is probably the source. It would be wonderful to find some microfilm of the primary documents themselves. Will watch that page and help if I can. WBardwin 10:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\

Wiki...Project?

Hi Kevin. You sure seem devoted to Native American history! I think that's very cool. Have you ever thought of starting a WikiProject on it? It might be a good idea, if you could find more people who share the interest. --ROY YOЯ 6 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Thanks! I've thought about it, but because interest in the topic seems very low on Wikipedia, and since offbeat projects and collaborations seem not to gather much momentum, I've decided not to start one yet. Maybe sometime! --Kevin Myers July 6, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Fur trade article

Hi, I had some comments on the fur trade article we've both edited. As "American Indian" redirects to "Native American", and because both of those terms can imply a United States of America-centric focus, wouldn't it be best to choose a different term that clearly encompasses all of the indigenous peoples of North America involved in the fur trade? Additionally, is the term "European-Americans" the best term to use, if that article only addresses people of European descent in the United States? Lastly, I think a more effective term than "native" can be used in the article. The Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has published naming guidelines ^[3] in which they describe the term "native" as being "increasingly seen as outdated (particularly when used as a noun) and is starting to lose currency." ^[4]. I recognize that Canadian guidelines may not be ideally suited for an article about the indigenous peoples of a whole continent, but it does have relevance. Kurieeto 02:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's tough to find the right language, that's for sure.

"Native American" is certainly applicable only in the U.S. and not Canada, so I try to avoid that term in articles that should apply to all of North America. Same goes the other way for "First Nations," of course. But I don't know that "American Indian" is limited to the United States. In my experience, white people are apt to assume that because they feel that "American Indian" is passé, native peoples must feel the same way. But I've seen no evidence that American Indians in Canada or the U.S. object to the term American Indian. I'm perfectly open to evidence that shows otherwise, but I haven't seen it. Until then, I'll write with the assumption that "American Indian" is the best term for general North American use.

Government and academic guidelines about "correct" terminology do not impress me much, because such recommendations and innovations seem to be faddish reflections of how affluent whites feel about the terms. As far I as know, the terms "Native American" and "First Nations" were created by academia and government, apparently without first consulting the people themselves. Governments and do-gooders apparently still feel that it's their right to choose a name for the original inhabitants of North America. If true, then not much has changed since the days of Columbus in that regard.

So the same goes for "native" versus "Aboriginals". "Aboriginals" seems to me to be redolent of white do-gooder condescension. Certainly, if I see evidence that American Indians in North America like to be called "Aboriginals", then it's not my place to object.

Finally, as a history buff, "American Indian" is preferable because it is historically correct. That was the non-pejorative term in use for centuries, and in writing history articles it would be Orwellian for us to try to rewrite the past by projecting modern terms like "Native American" and "First Nations" backward in time. Besides, if Tecumseh and Joseph Brant called themselves Indians, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we should not do the same.

--Kevin Myers 13:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC), white guy

Hi Kevin, thanks for your comments, you bring up some good points. I've decided to focus my current efforts on creating a discussion regarding the current naming of the Native Americans article. We agree that the term "Native American" is applicable only in the United States, but currently that article serves as the primary focus of both Category:Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Category:Native American, two categories with distinctly differring scopes. With this in mind I've made some proposals at Talk:Native Americans#Indigenous peoples of the Americas. You might be interested in the discussion. Kurieeto 23:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

American Indians vs Native American

As a member of the Comanche tribal roll, I can tell you without a doubt that the term "Native American" is offensive to us. It is yet another way that white men try to erase our history. I know that some do this from ignorance, but some do it out of pure racism! I like to be called a "Native American" as much as a black person likes to be called a Negro, or if you wanted to call them ex-slave Americans. It's wrong!

Please see the following: a 1996 survey revealed that more American Indians in the United States still preferred American Indian to Native American. .

and the following:

Some American Indians have misgivings about the term Native American. Russell Means, a famous American Indian activist, opposes the term Native American because he believes it was imposed by the government without the consent of American Indians. [17] Furthermore, some American Indians question the term Native American because, they argue, it serves to ease the conscience of "white America" with regard to past injustices done to American Indians by effectively eliminating "Indians" from the present. [18] Still others (both Indians and non-Indians) argue that Native American is problematic because "native of" literally means "born in," so any person born in America is "native" to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GOP904 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea why you wrote the above on my talk page, but rest assured I know about these issues, since most of the material you quote above was actually written by me. --Kevin

history articles on wikipedia?

Hello Kevin, I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

Numbers of blacks fighting-- Loyalist v. Patriot

Hi, Kevin. Issue has been taken with the statement "At least 5,000 black soldiers fought as Patroits; about 1,000 fought with the British as Loyalists" in the American Revolution article, and it looks like you were the source (Nov. 19 2004). Gary Nash, in the Unknown American Revolution has "tens of thousands" of slaves escaping to British lines in response to Dunmore's proclamation, but fails to provide a figure for the number who were put under arms. I've seen your work on numbers in the War of 1812 article-- any chance you want to revise the 5000/1000 figures?

TIA, Mwanner | Talk 20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Howdy. I've actually already responded to this issue on the talk page here. Citing a web page as a historical source is something I try to avoid, so if we can find a more scholarly source with black troop numbers, I'm all for it. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 15:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. For the nonce, I think I'll stick to adding something about the tens of thousands, and tiptoe around the "under arms" issue. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Alexander McGillivray image

Hi Kevin, thanks for the info on Image:Alexander McGillivray 1790.jpg. I'm assuming your source has it right, so I have removed the image. It certainly came from a shaky source [5], though the caption ("Sketch made by John Trumbull (1756-1843) in 1790"), made it seem that they knew something about the image. Looking around just now I came across a version of the image [6] that contains what appears to be the original caption, which reads "Hopothle Mico - or the Talasee[?] King of the Creeks -- J. T. - New York 1790" (this is in context at [7]). What was McGillivray's (supposed) indian name? -- Mwanner | Talk 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

By his supposed Indian name, I mean the one given at the aforementioned "shaky source" (Hoboi-Hilr-Miko), which I call "supposed" because it came from that suspect page. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer Review

So far, so good. Praise, and some good suggestions on minor issues Wikipedia:Peer review/Pontiac's Rebellion/archive1. I will dig out my textbooks and help over the weekend if I can. But I suspect you can answer their questions off the top of your head. Featured article, here we come! You did a great job. WBardwin 23:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for your work. I'll make some edits to address the issues. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Cherokee War

Well rats, have you already read the Oliphant book? I picked up a copy at Fort Loudoun this weekend but I haven't finished it yet. Gazpacho 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't read it. The article is all yours! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome job

The Work of Art Award.

I hereby bestow upon Kevin Myers this Work of Art Award, for his miraculous work on the jumbled POV lightning rod History of United States imperialism. Mr. Myers took the initiative and made History of United States imperialism into a magnificent work of encyclopedic art, Template:AmericanEmpire. Congratulations and thank you. Travb 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna award you something similar but I like Travb's award better. So just count me in on saying you deserve that award, absolutely, completely. You said "I just want to create a stable format for us to write about it in a NPOV way." That says it all. Bravo. Congrats. Hats off to you. WAS 4.250 00:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! --Kevin

A Thank You

I haven't thanked you for recently inscribing my deathless apercu concerning popular history on a marble slab and setting it at the head of Talk:Presentism (literary and historical analysis). I was hugely amused and genuinely flattered. Obviously you have a well-tuned ear. --Wetman 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It was my honor. --Kevin

It's Your Misfortune

In your edits to "It's Your Misfortune and None of My Own" (history book) you say "Unlike traditional histories of the American West, White's book is a history of a region, rather than the story of the expanding frontier". Do you have any traditional histories in mind? White's book is not so very different from many others, including Hawgood's 1967 book America's Western Frontiers (book). BookCover 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

White's book is part of the "New Western History" movement, which is about regional (rather than national) history. But I see here that one reviewer calls it a "synthesis" of the New Western History, which means of course there are other such history books before his. I'll link that page and revise accordingly. --Kevin

I agree. White may well be a 1990s New Western History advocate, but his distinction is not in writing a regional history of the West. There have been many before him. Hawgood's award winning history was published in 1967. West's (West, Howard Robert (ed.). This is the West. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1957), a winner of the Western Writers of America's Spur Award in non-fiction, was published in 1957. Nor is White's distinction in rejecting Turner's frontier thesis as the definition of the West. The theory, over the last hundred years or so, has been rejected, revived, mocked, praised, and discarded too many times to count. BookCover 05:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --Kevin

Dear Kevin

Dear Kevin, I've ended up in your Talk page after doing some research on the way our information on Indigenous peoples of North America and Native Americans in the United States is currently categorized, as well as your creation some time ago of the NorthAm-native-stub Template. Since I'm currently working on a draft for a Native Americans in the US Wikiproject, I am also designing both a stub template specifically directed to these groups, and I couldn't help but to observe that yours adds them to Category:Indigenous peoples of North America stubs, as said template is directed both to Native Americans in the United States and First Nations. I must tell you, I also intended to create a Subcategory dedicated solely for US Native American-related stubs, so my question is: would you object if we create separate stub templates and Subcats for both this topic and First Nations? Most important, would you be willing to help me a little bit in the recategorizing task, should you agree? And even more important, considering your expertise in the matter, I'd be extremely happy and honored if you actually decided to take part in the project.
These ideas are in fact central to the development of my project, so I'm concerned about your reply; but I didn't want to go and simply toss aside your previous work without your input and ideas. You'd be doing me a big favor, if you agree. I eagerly wait your reply. Cheers, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 15:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, good luck on your WikiProject! It's about time someone got that one started! Although I've always got a million things on my list to do, I'll be happy to help as much as I can.

Generally, in the era I mostly write about, American Indians did not exist as two different groups (First Nations and Native Americans). These categories only have meaning after about 1815. In such a category system, for example, Wyandots who lived on the west bank of the Detroit River in 1800 would be "Native Americans", while their kindred on the other side of the river would be "First Nations". Since I mostly work on pre-1815 topics, I try to avoid separating the people into the modern categories. Those categories are appropriate for modern people and topics, of course, but it gets tricky when dealing with people living along the present U.S.-Canadian border before that border was actually drawn.

However, the sub-category stub templates you suggest should be fine, since I suppose most stub articles are not ambiguous, and could easily be fit into "Native American" and "First Nation" stub categories instead. Articles that might fit into both categories could have both stub templates, or an overall "North American" stub template. However you want to do it is fine with me -- since you're starting the project, feel free to redesign the templates to suit your needs. Best of luck, Kevin.

Thank you so much for your reply and your kind words, dear Kevin. In fact, reading your thoughts on the matter, I've realized you are absolutely right; indeed, far from going through the hassle of separating templates and categories, it would be more beneficial and coherent to expand the project to cover all North American Indians. The close relation that you point out suggests it would be a better scope regarding the coordination of related matters; and would avoid the problem that you explain when dealing with historical subjects previous to the political subdivision of the area. From a purely technical aspect, this would also eliminate the need to recategore all existing contents and creating new stub templates, as we could simply continue to use the existing ones, under the coordination of the project. Therefore, I'm renaming it to Wikipedia: Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America; again, I would be very happy to hear your thoughts about this.

Again, thank you very, very much, Kevin. I'll let you know as soon as I get the project going, so you join up if you wish and do as much as your million other things on your to do list allow you ;) Kisses, Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

An invitation!

Hello, Kevin Myers! By browsing through your contributions, I've observed your interest in articles related to Indigenous peoples of North America, their Culture and/or History. I'm happy to announce you the creation of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Native American and First Nations resources on Wikipedia and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. I hope to see you there! Regards, Phædriel ♥ tell me

The Kevin Myers?

Hi there, I have to admit I did quite a bit of stalking to confirm that you are not the Kevin Myers I am familiar with. He is quite an opinionated (and divisive) journalist in Ireland who writes regularly for The Irish Times. I still thought it may have been that he had become massively interested in American history, but something about the writing doesn't convince me. Or am I wrong? Oh, and just "for the record", I think archives are essential to every talk page - otherwise (barring diffs, which can be difficult to find two months on), it can be a frustrating task to keep track of the vast network of interactions you build up - you never know when you'll need to find them again... Cormaggio ^@ 10:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wondered if anyone would ever wonder if I was that guy. I'm not. The Kevin Myers is an opinionated Irish bastard. I'm an opinionated American bastard. --Kevin

Ah, so you knew him - one reason for writing was to let you know of his existence, in case someone threw you later on by assuming you were he. Cheers. Another Irish bastard 23:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, this is a perfect case for a name change. In my wildest dreams I couldn't have imagined such a scenario. You poor lad.El Gringo 04:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Continental Army

I notice that (before I made any changes) many entries in the Continental Army categories are for State militia. I suppose that the purpose of the Continental Army categories could be changed to include Militia. Or create parallel categories for militia matching the Continental categories. Thanks. Hmains 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, probably a category called Category:American militiamen in the American Revolution would do the trick.

This is good. This is why I hesitated: What do we do about all the many officers who have a bio that shows they were originally in the militia and then incorporated into the Continental Army. Place them in both categories? Or place them only in the 'higher' Contentintal Army category? What is the more likely to be maintained correctly over the years? Thanks Hmains 18:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I suppose the second option is better: if they served in both, the Continental Army category is more important. Probably there will eventually be sub-categories of militiamen by state, and they'll show up in those too. --Kevin

Excuse my dropping in, but I see a further complication. The lines seem to be blurred. Bernard Romans received commissions from three different states. In one case he was commissioned by New York upon being recommended to the state by the Continental Congress. He currently is in the Continental Army category. I have not seen any source that he received a commission in the Continental Army, but the Continental Congress exercised oversight over his service for New York. Have fun sorting that out. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted these comments on the talk page:

Category talk:American militiamen in the American Revolution. Your comments please. Thanks. Hmains 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston

Thanks for starting this template. I'm glad it exists, but I have a few issues with starting the campaign with the Powder Alarm. Would you mind talking about this on its talk page? Flying Jazz 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War

I actually changed the name because my assumption was that the template would be placed on each of the theater articles, in order to allow sideways navigation between them (similar to sideways navigation between battles with the other campaignboxes), in which case it might not be clear what "Campaigns and theaters" refers to. I'll leave it up to you how you want to deal with that, though. —Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to the War of 1812

I've created Opposition to the War of 1812. You seem to know more about the subject than I - most of my references I got from your post to the Wikiproject:Anti-war talk page. Would you mind looking it over, rating it, suggesting or making changes, when you have time? Kalkin 19:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Chief Pontiac

So you are calling the National Park Service non-scholarly? How to explain the [ http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/Circa1804/Heritage/NativeAmericans/NativeAmericanInfluence.htm link] I provided? To quote: "In retaliation for the murder of Pontiac, the midwest tribes descended upon the Illiniwek in force. After a number of battles, many of the surviving Illini moved west of the Mississippi. The Kaskaskia, however, under the leadership of chief Jean-Baptiste Ducoign, returned to their village site on the river that now bears their name." Rmhermen 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This review of your source worries me: "First published in 1947, Pontiac and the Indian Uprising is a product of his time; it is both informative and reflective of the attitudes that existed fifty years ago about Native Americans."[8] Certainly the idea did not end in the 1940s as it continued to be used by Allan Eckert's "historical narrative" Gateway to Empire in 1982 and currently by the NPS. I would be interested to know what Gregory Evans Dowd's War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, and the British Empire from 2002 has to say on this. Rmhermen 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both the National Park Service and Allan Eckert are non-scholarly sources. Eckert somewhat famously so - his books are generally considered fiction by academic historians, since Eckert tends to favor the colorful tall tale whenever contemporary historical documents are lacking. That NPS site is government history, what some call "heritage" rather than "history", which is usually quite slow in letting go of tales no longer considered accurate by historians. I'm surprised that they still reprint this particular old legend as fact, but Eckert's novel has probably helped perpetuate the myth.

That linked review of Peckham's book is accurate, since Peckham called Indians "savages" and had little interest their culture or point-of-view. (In other words, he was typical of academic historians of his day.) His scholarship, however, is still generally considered sound. Gregory Evans Dowd says of the Pontiac-revenge myth: "That terrifying retaliation made it from legend into fact in Francis Parkman's history, but as Howard Peckham demonstrated, it never happened" (p. 260).

Hope that helps, and thanks for paying attention! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oconostota

Thanks, I checked sources and have unmerged the articles. I'll review the succession boxes as well. Gazpacho 07:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

scalping

At one point you were sure that the date 1960s is correct. It's been changed back to 1690s again; did you miss that or did you discover an error in your source? --Espoo 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, as I haven't been watching that article lately. 1960s is correct. I must have worded it poorly for people to want to change it like that. I'll reword it. --Kevin

Question about Trail of Tears article

Hi, I am Chris (User:Cculber007) and I am original creator of New Echota, Georgia Land Lottery and others. I wonder if this article has mentioned about land lottery which I don't see while I tried to link. I think land lottery should be applied in this article as result of what happening to Cherokees' properties after they left. I live 2 miles away from New Echota and I live in Calhoun, Georgia but I am 1/3 Creek Indian. Let me know if I need to add or what? I am still working on Creek information for land lottery also. Tnanks User:Cculber007 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I added a link to Georgia Land Lottery in the Trail of Tears article. --Kevin

Stephen Trigg

Looks like I've stumbled onto an editor whose area of interest falls within the timeframe of this article! I currently have a peer review going on this article and would love the feedback of someone who's knowledgeable about this time period... And even though I gave the impression of a thin skin earlier, I actually do take constructive criticism well... Thanks! plange 04:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Third Servile War

Thanks for your grammatical tweak/improvement of the article Third Servile War :) If you have any comments/opinions about the article that might be relevant to its current peer review, or A-class review, I would very much appreciate if you would add them. Thank you :) - Vedexent 09:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Native American wars

I've made a proposal to slightly restructure this category to eliminate some of the stranger US/non-US/pre-US confusion that seems to be occuring with it, and was hoping that you might be able to offer some comments, as you're no doubt far more familiar with the actual conflicts than I am. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pt. Pleasaant monument pix

Kevin:

I just wanted to tell you that I will be uploading a cropped version of Pt. Pleasant monument photo you uploaded under GFDL. The cropped version will be used as a clickable button on some upcoming revisions to List of West Virginia state parks. You can see the draft version at User:WVhybrid/My_own_sandbox for the next few days. I will make sure are cited for the orginial version. Thanks for posting the photo. WVhybrid 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words

I did not realize that there was a need for this article. I remember doing some historical research and coming across a person who had two unusual encounters. One of them is still obscure and is hidden only in clues and oblique references. The other was a court record in which this person described being "capitvated" at "Lockrees Defeat". So, I looked into it and found it to be an interesting piece of history.

How did you know I wrote it? I just did it last night. --Blue Tie 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed your addition about Lochry to the Joseph Brant article. I've been meaning to write Lochry's Defeat for some time, but then again I have a long list of things I've been meaning to write for some time. It's rare that anyone writes about the American Revolution in the West, and so I tend to notice when it happens! —Kevin 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Anishinaabe

Hi, thanks for the help on Charles de Langlade. We're compiling a list of articles related to the Anishinaabe (Ojibwa, Ottawa, Potawatomi, Oji-Cree, Nipissing, Mississauga, Algonquin) at User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe. I know you have a lot of Great Lakes history red links and military history knowledge. It'd be great if you could help us out. (Leo1410 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Crawford expedition

Magnificent! Out of curiosity: were you writing the text offline prior to posting it, or did you actually put it together so quickly?

It's somewhat amusing, incidentally, to note how many of the entries to Danny's contest are military history topics, and the degree to which those articles have been expanded. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wrote it offline over the last two weeks, pretty much, starting not long after I entered the contest. But I had read most of the books already, so that was a big head start. ;-)

Damn. That's all, just, day-yaaam. Incredible job. Any hope I had of winning the contest has now been put to rest. You could say that hope was stripped, scalded, scalped, and burned at the stake. Great article. ; ) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Kevin

And the winner is

For your amazing work on the Crawford expedition, I hereby bestow upon you the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award. Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the contest. You did an amazing job with the Crawford expedition, and I am pleased to announce that you are the winner. Please contact me privately with your contact information so that I can make sure you receive your $100 Amazon gift certificate. Danny 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is a surprise and an honor. Thank you very much for sponsoring the contest. The gift certificate will be very much appreciated! As always, I'll buy more history books, and information from those books will soon show up in Wikipedia articles. Truly the perfect prize for a Wikipedian! --Kevin

Congratulations! It's truly an outstanding article. (Incidentally, are you planning to take it to FAC at some point?) Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Congratulations on your work as well. Yes, now that the contest is over, I'll put the article through the FAC process. --Kevin

Congrats on your solid win in Danny's contest! You earned it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's very kind of you. --Kevin

Indeed. I just read through the article for the first time, and it is impressive. Congratulations, and keep up the great work. --Robth^Talk 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations on your honorable mention as well! --Kevin

I'm amazed, you did such an excellent job. Yanksox 01:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Kevin

Daniel Boone

Kevin, I'm willing to contest your deletion should you do it again. The relation is speculative to you, yet Nathan states to Draper that his father frequently highlighted the relation. Daniel Boone himself spoke of Daniel Morgan as a relative. Given the importance of Daniel Morgan in American history, I see no reasonable explanation as to why it does not belong in the article. Every single fact known to us can be made "trivia", Kevin, such is the nature of information.{Mind meal 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)}

Why the rv of my Daniel Boone edits on 10-28. Do you really think Portrait is spelled Portait? I cited my source for the Morgan House,it is not trivia it is History. Please explain.Tstrobaugh 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing "Portait" to "Portrait" breaks the link to the image, because the image title was misspelled by the uploader. You would have realized that if you looked at the results your "correction" produced. Since the image title is not displayed in the article, the misspelling doesn't matter. Your Morgan genealogy link was to a self-published website, which does not meet WP:RS. And as for "trivia vs. history", the two aren't mutually exclusive. --Kevin

Crispus Attucks

Hi -- I am the person who recently made a major revision of the Crispus Attucks article which, I was grateful to notice, you made a positive comment about. I was hoping you will add the article to your watch list and help me keep in eye on it. There are three different users who are vandalizing the page with increasing frequency. Thanks. House of Scandal 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC) -- (John, Boston, Massachusetts)

Congratulations on Lochry's Defeat

I have taken a break from wikipedia. Just too much going on in my life right now and I am way behind on "real life" stuff. But I noticed your Lochry's Defeat Article and I wanted to say "Well Done!". --Blue Tie 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It was your article on Archibald Lochry which got me started, so thanks for that as well. --Kevin