Talk:Black Seminoles

Black Seminoles is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 5, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
September 9, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
August 21, 2009	Featured article review	Demoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2005. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Black Seminoles* are descendants of free African Americans and fugitive slaves traditionally allied with Seminole Indians in Florida and Oklahoma?*
Current status: Former featured article

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Oklahoma Mid‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

African diaspora Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Move was made and thanks for copyedits[edit]

Thanks to utschurch or whomever was kind enough to move / rename the page. This is done and the request below can be ignored. And I appreciate the en-dash and em-dash copy edits from Wayward. I did not know the proper way to format those. Austinbirdman 14:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article[edit]

I'm considering seriously submitting this as a featured article, pending the peer review. The way I see it, this is already of that quality. Though I'd like to hear opinions from people more experienced with actual peer reviewing. --Kitch 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. It would be great if you did nominate it, though naturally my opinion is biased! Austinbirdman 13:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Were all the items in the reference list consulted to write this (relatively short) article? A list of references is not the same thing as a comprehensive bibliography on a subject, so the list should obly contain those items consulted to write the article.--nixie 06:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author, I can assure you they were all consulted. I wrote the piece working from a much lengthier manuscript I've been working on. The footnotes boil down the key sources for the passages covered. In a few cases, I cited more than one reference for the same point, but I a) kept this to a minimum and b) only did this when it would benefit someone who wanted to follow up by checking the references themselves. Thus, if there are multiple references -- for instance, references to a primary source like the American State Papers and a secondary source like John Mahon's history of the Second Seminole War -- it is because both the primary and secondary source contain uniquely valuable information. In general, there are several references for each paragraph because the summary being offered here is uniquely of my own authorship, combining information from all of those sources. I also made sure the references included the 4-5 key contemporary sources for new students to the subject. If anyone can offer a clean, user-friendly way to highlight these, I'd like to try it. Austinbirdman 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Another simpler way to answer the question is that all of the items listed alphabetically under the References are cited in the end notes. "References" lists these works with complete bibliographic info, whereas the end notes give just the last name title page #. Austinbirdman 17:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. If you wanted to keep track of sources, for your own reference and for other contributors, without getting the article bogged down with hundreds of notes, you could have a visible note for the most used and invisible notes for the rest. To make things only visible in edit mode you can use . Great article. --nixie 06:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

This is the best article I have seen since I have been here. Can someone do the same with Race of Jesus and the William Lynch Speech? V/ M
02:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"masssacre"[edit]

well, what of the massacre of 400 people during the rebellion, claimed in Image:Massacre-whites-fla.jpg? Obviously, the image is propaganda, but the article text doesn't even mention an allegation that hundreds were slain during the 'destruction of 21 sugar plantations' in 1835. 130.60.142.65 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "masssacre"[edit]

The "massacre" described in the caption of the lithograph was not a single event, but rather a reference to an estimate of casualties during the broad period. There are no month-by-month estimates of total army casualties during the Second Seminole War, and none at all of civilian or militia casualties. The estimate of 400 was likely a bit of an exagerration. However, consider that 105 soldiers were killed in one event (the bloodiest), Dade's Massacre, at the opening of the war in December 1835. Scores more died in battle, from wounds and from disease over the ensuing months in Florida; there were also isolated reports of attacks on individuals, familes killed during raids on plantations, and plantation family members (and slaves) killed defending their plantations.

So the illustration was a bit of propaganda, and yet it was rooted in actual historical events. You can learn more about it and see elements up close at this key images page on the Web site "Rebellion: John Horse and the Black Seminoles."

The thoroughly researched historical account of the Second Seminole War at the Rebellion site, and the essay on the site estimating the numbers of the slave rebellion, suggest 400 casualties may be off the mark but not wildly for the overall number of white casualties in Florida during the first part of the conflict. More than 1500 U.S. soldiers were listed as casualties across the entire SSW, from 1835-1842, but Dec. 1835 - May 1836 was one of if not the most intense period of the war. And the 1500 number only includes federal soldiers, not militia or civilians. --Austinbirdman 22:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

What a pity that this article made it to Featured Article status without so much as a link to the language of the Black Seminoles, Afro-Seminole Creole. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Language Comment[edit]

Did you see the third paragraph in the section on Culture? The article from its inception has contained references to Afro-Seminole, Gullah, and the Sea Islanders, and there are links in that paragraph to these topics. That is the reason I removed the reference to language from the header, where it was a bit out of place. Following your terminology of "Afro-Seminole Creole," however, the article now uses that phrase instead of just "Afro-Seminole." --Austinbirdman 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how did the ...[edit]

freed slaves and Indians go the Florida, as described in the lead, and "from the Seminoles?" Someone who knows this stuff please fix. Sfahey 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why this article exists is to provide a page with the word "Black" scattered across it. GhostofSuperslum 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway people[edit]

New International Encyclopedia states that SEMINOLE is derived from Simanoli, "separatist," "runaway." The Indians and the Negroes were fleeing from the settlers. GhostofSuperslum 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially recognized[edit]

"They became recognized as a distinct tribe about the beginning of the Revolution."[1] Official recognition may have occurred during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. GhostofSuperslum 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand section of different Black Seminole groups? Translate this site into German?[edit]

Hi everybody! I agree, this is a wonderful website!

I was wondering if somebody could expand on the different Black Seminole groups. I know that right now it focuses on the Texas/Mexican Black Seminoles, probably because of John Horse's life. But it would be great if the other groups could also be covered in some more depth, e.g. the Black Seminoles in the Bahamas (currently one sentence), those that stayed in Florida (I could not find any information on them on the web anywhere) and those that stayed in Oklahoma (e.g. mention of the treaty that gave them equal tribal membership, Dawes commission and the like) Maybe there could be a subheading for each group, short history of that particular group, culture, life today... What do you think?

Austinbirdman, I just looked at the German version of the Black Seminoles and it is just a stub. If I have time one day, would it be possible for me to take the English version as the basis for the German article?

Reference in film[edit]

The film Lone Star contains a long discourse on the Black Seminoles. I think it's notable. What say you all? --Davecampbell 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indians??[edit]

in the introduction is written: They joined with Indians inhabiting Florida at the same period. I guess was meant Native Americans. I'm going to correct it, if someone disagree can always do a revert. --Dia^ 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Seminole Tribe"[edit]

"Together, the two groups formed the Seminole tribe, a multi-ethnic and bi-racial alliance. " This statement seems to contradict the later definitions within this article and the entire definition within the article, "Seminole".

The question is, "Did the Seminole Tribe pre-exist the influx of Africans into the Florida territory?" It is my understanding that they did (and the "Seminole" article seems to agree), but my understanding is not based on an incontrovertible source. Could an expert please comment? 24.160.241.39 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took this part of a statement out due to the racist undertone. "...as there are Seminoles, and there are Black Seminoles." The implication is clear, and uses a seperate-but-equal kind of wording. It also fails to sensibly explain why the Black Seminoles are not members of the Seminole nation of Florida. --71.238.121.147 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The academic consensus now is that the two communities were culturally distinct, although they adopted some things in common, and acted as allies. Article needs updating.Parkwells (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has a short overview: Kevin Mulroy, "Seminole Maroons", Handbook of North American Indians, ed. William Sturtevant, Vol. 14, Smithsonian Institution, 2004. They had different marriage patterns, religion and other differences.Parkwells (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African-Seminole Relations[edit]

In the African-Seminole Relations section of this page, it claims, falsely, that the so-called "Black Seminoles" were commonly admitted as members of the tribe and commonly intermarried with the Seminole. But this is 100% UNTRUE. Now, I have tried to change this, I have cited references, and somebody keeps removing my reference and undoing my edit, reverting it back to the false version which claims the so-called "Black Seminoles" were considered members of the tribe and accepted into the Seminole community. This is UNTRUE. The wikipedia should not be used to spread lies, lies which are not even referenced. This is the truth, and I do provide a reliable reference....

In terms of spirituality, the ethnic groups remained distinct. Indians followed the nativistic principles of their Great Spirit, and blacks inclined toward a syncretic form of Christianity inherited from the plantations. In general, the blacks never wholly adopted Seminole culture and beliefs, nor were they accepted into Native American society. The Indians did not consider their black allies to be "Seminoles." [9] http://johnhorse.com/trail/01/a/14.htm

As you can see, it is a fact that the Seminole Indians did not consider the Blacks to be Seminole, although these people are now commonly referred to as Black Seminole. It is also a fact that the so-called Black Seminoles did not intermarry with the Seminole, and lived completely separate from the Seminole, in separate villages, often quite a good distance apart, several miles even. So I hope that this time my edit and reference are not undone and removed again, for no apparant or legitimate reason, and replaced with untrue and unreferenced information. Thank you, bye.75.100.231.178 (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.231.178 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable websites[edit]

The Websites ColorQWorld and Rebellion: John Horse and the Black Seminoles (http://johnhorse.com/trail/01/a/14.htm) may not satisfy Wikipedia criteria as Reliable Sources for this article. The latter notes that it includes "original research" as well as contemporary academic sources, but there is no indication of peer review for the original research, and regular readers may not be able to distinguish it from research for which there is consensus. The ColorQWorld site appears to be unaffiliated with a Reliable Source. Some of the data in sources it cites have been superseded by more current research.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prominent black seminoles[edit]

i think a list with prominent black seminoles personalities would be good Informationskampagne (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Not sure what this link is to, as it does not work.^ http://slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_indians_slavery.htm Parkwells (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Black Seminoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black Seminoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815193156/http://lookingforangola.org/Interview_Canter_Brown_Jr.asp?mnu=sub3 to http://www.lookingforangola.org/Interview_Canter_Brown_Jr.asp?mnu=sub3
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indianz.com/News/show.asp?ID=law%2F1292001-2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://64.38.12.138/News/show.asp?ID=law02%2F04302002-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Black Seminoles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]