Battle of Chustenahlah

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. African diaspora High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who wrote this article? I believe IP address 84.65.13.26. "Traditional red-skinned Indians"???? Native Americans do not possess red skin. Color ranges from olive to dark brown. There is no such thing as "red" skin, and red is not traditional. Melanin is melanin in skin color. I am changing this article to delete the racist garbage. The article is poorly written/edited by someone with an agenda; it was full of broad claims and innaccurate statements. It appears to have been edited by someone bent in introducing a racial agenda to an encyclopedia, to teach a lesson on political correctness. Really, writing that Africa is a Roman Latin word and not the correct word for Africa because the Romans were outsiders or white is absurd on a page about Black Indians. Judging by the contributions to articles you write 84.65.13.26, you do have quite an afrocentric racial agenda. Your edits did not create a neutral article meant to inform. It has been edited. Any changes will bring a neutral point of view check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.91.124 (talk • contribs)

I have introduced a new subpart, "Relations between Native Americans and Africans", to try to expand this article, which is way too short for such an interesting and well-documented topic. Several references exist to support this section, and will be added in the coming days, feel free to add some if you wish, and to add and edit this section.

I'm not a frequent editor, so I wanted to toss this out there instead of just making the changes myself, so perhaps someone with more experise can see what the best way to work this in is. The point to fix is that this article completely ignores the relevant topic about the Native American Slave Trade that flourished from 1500 to about 1750. The African slave trade was ramped up as the Native Americans were depopulated and the free tribes had been depopulated. As such, from 1600 ish to 1800, slaves in America included many Native American slaves and many African slaves, so of course they interbred as the Africans were captured and added over time. Thus, one would expected a lot of overlap in their backgrounds. This topic has generally been overlooked in many history books, perhaps because there isn't a giant Civil War and minority group around much today to make it clear. There are many sources on this history, one overview is at:

http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/controversies/a/The-Untold-History-Of-American-Indian-Slavery.htm

I am African American and writing this section with the understanding that "Black Indian" is a subject primarily of interest within the African American community; I am very open to a dialogue challenging and discussing such understanding if you so feel the need. Overall I just want this article vastly expanded and improved.--Msr69er 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is interesting, about the fusion of two cultures. Are there similar articles that can be referenced such as descendants who overlap between ancestries other than African, such as various European cultures/countries/religions, and other stuff? Or for people of non-native ancestry adopting native worship practises? Tyciol 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been tagged with an WikiProject Ethnic groups tag to improve the quality of this article. Mappychris 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Mappychris[reply]

I had never heard of black Indians until after Wikipedia was invented. Indians used to be called "Redskins." GhostofSuperslum 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should do more research on Native Americans I'd say. I know a black Diné Indian actually. This is definitely a real phenomenon. Just look at all the external links. And the term redskin was more in reference to body paint used by some Native groups than to the actual color of their skin. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that "body paint" is the reason why Indians were called "Redskins," you'll believe that the Brooklyn Bridge is on sale for 20 dollars. GhostofSuperslum 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is? $20? That's pretty cheap. Where can I bid on that? I've also heard something about blood, but paint used by various N. Eastern groups is what we learned in our Native Peoples of N. America class. It was probably a bit of both in terms of coming up with the name. Or are you thinking of something completely different? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many Native American populations, when they tan, acquire a markedly reddish hue to their skin -- in much the same way some African and African American populations do. I believe that is the origin of the term. deeceevoice 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merger is a good idea. It will make this article better. futurebird 16:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree per Futurebird. on camera 13:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier tonight, an IP editor disagreed with the number 90%, but went about disputing it in exactly the wrong way, by blanking the page repeatedly. However, I did notice that 90% just seemed high, so I did some digging, and as a result have changed the number.

The number was given as 40% until earlier this evening, when it was changed by User:Zbp23, apparently with support from User:Relir. In theory, this number was supported by references: [1] [2]

However, neither number, as far as I can tell, is supported by those references. I cannot find any assertion of Native American ancestry in African Americans in the first reference, and the second reference is a broken link.

I did find a reference on the same site as the first reference (and which I included in my edit), [3], which seems to indicate a much smaller percentage, of 3.3-5.1%.

Now, I understand that the average percentage of Native American ancestry in each person is not the same as the percentage of people with any trace of Native American ancestry, so I'll admit the number might be slightly different. If someone can provide a legitimate link to a higher number, more power to you. Indeed, if someone thinks it better to not include a percentage at all until a better source is found, I wouldn't disagree. --barneca (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence until a legit number, backed by references, is found. --barneca (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material on assertions about the high percentage of Native American ancestry among African Americans has been superseded by the FACTS of genetic research in the late 20th and 21st century - for the short version, see African American Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s article on The Root.com (in External Links) about the Oct. 2009 report on European ancestry of Michelle Obama. Also, this material was covered at greater length in his two recent TV series on genetic/genealogical ancestry of 19 prominent African Americans, and published in book form. While some African Americans may have some small percentage of Native American ancestry, most don't. Gates points out that many more African Americans have a significant percentage of European ancestry, and that this can produce the "straight hair", "high cheekbones" and other features people like to point to as Native American (so can the diverse heritage of African peoples.)--Parkwells (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created an ethnic group infobox for the article. It is rather basic, but I felt that this article could use some improvement. The people in the infobox have sources indicating that they have Native American ancestry in their respective articles. Mappychris (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)mappychris[reply]

Ok can any one find any information on her because there seems to be alot of dead ends. I have nothing against her at all I would just feel alot more comfortable with her heritage being referecned instead her just being acknowledged.Mcelite (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

I was wondering if people like Oscar Pettiford, more American Indian than black by the sounds of it[4][5], would fit on the end list? Or is it just for people who are primarily of African ancestry?--T. Anthony (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works as long as they have both African American and Native American heritage. If they also have some other heritage as well then that is ok it just doesn't need to be mentioned.Mcelite (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

This article should be deleted. Or create white/native americans, chinese/native americans, irish/native americans articles as well ... This article is of little value.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.118.156 (talk • contribs)

It is a valid article, however the problem with it remains that the definition of 'black indian' does not remain constant throughout. It is not just anyone with a mixed Black/Native ancestry. However, one cannot say that a 'Black Indian' is a black person with or without native ancestry who lives/lived with close ties to the native community, their culture and ways of life ... and then go on to give examples of anyone contemporary (or historical for that matter, but those examples seem to be spot on) who is a 'Black Indian' if their biography on this actual site mentions nothing of such close ties or ways of life. Cyrus40540057 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to breach WP:SYNTH at best and represents it seems to me original research. For example the first reference provided [6] does not give the term Black Indian though does cover ethnic and racial terminology. (I have concern also that these references do not support the assertions they are tagged against but that is another issue and I have tagged accordingly) At the very least I wish to see a reliable source cited that uses the term. --Matilda ^talk 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the term Black Indian, Afro-Native American or African-Native American are tossed around. Where would be a good place to find more reliable sources is the question. I'm going to try the web of knowledge and see if i can find anything that will help. Even though African-Native American admixture is not uncommon it may be hard to find more reliable sources on it. I've tried some books but they're self published so I couldn't use them.Mcelite (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Have a look at Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States and the sources used in that article. The US census Bureau should have some data if it is a significant group. --Matilda ^talk 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is off-point, but I'm curious about your contention about the bloodlines of "most" Haitians. Although, undeniably, some have Arawak heritage, it would seem to me that most would not, given the fact that the Arawak population was fairly decimated after a time. I figure that "most" Haitians' bloodlines are fairly undiluted and that more might have European blood than Arawak blood -- but I'd be interested in reading further information on the subject, if you'd care to provide sources. deeceevoice (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can see them people more of European descent than of the Arawak tribe but so retardedly hard to tell because people back then were pressed not to talk about their full heritage same as most people we call African Americans would actually fall into more bloodlines than African American. I hate to say it but some of our American ancestors really complicated things.Mcelite (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 US census indicates that 182,494 people were coded to 110: Black or African American; American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) [7] It isn't clear to me if this is the group covered by this article as the definition is not sourced back to demographic tabulations and the referencing is currently inadequate. From List of Race or Ethnic Groups 110 is the code where 2 or more races are indicated and the 2 races in this case are Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native. From [8] The two or more races category includes all respondents who reported two or more races, such as "White and Asian" and "White and Asian and Black or African American". Note code 110 is one 336 possible population groups --Matilda ^talk 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to find another more recent source or something. That count is extremely low considering how long interracial relations and marriage have been going on between the two groups. That is just too low of a count considering that most recent studies show that 58%-70% of the African American pop. has native ancestry. This is going to take work.Mcelite (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

Note the census uses self-description - ie this is how people answered the question and this captures those who responded both races. What is your source for 58%-70% of the African American pop. has native ancestry ?--Matilda ^talk 21:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't produce such sources earlier when this question was discussed at Talk:Native Americans in the United States. Rmhermen (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in a journal going over genetic studies. It will take me time to find it again because it has been a while since I've looked at. Bascilly before I became an editor. It's going to be hard

• for one people are relunctant to discuss their full heritage
• the government's way of taking census was biased (if you looked more African American then that's what you were they could care less about what you told them.)
• some people don't like the full truth to come out because they don't like it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcelite (talk • contribs)

Obviously the census is not perfect but if you wish to claim it is inaccurate you will need to come up with some sources to verify this bias. I believe it is the most reliable source available but happy for it to be qualified with reference to reputable reliable sources. --Matilda ^talk 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Matilda, I recall reading in the New Amsterdam News back in the late '70s/early '80s the number of African-Americans with Native American ancestry was somewhere around the mid to upper 80th percentile. I don't recall how that information was arrived at -- probably from polling data, rather than DNA studies. Even allowing for some distortion, however, from my own anecdotal experience, I believe that number to be essentially accurate -- if, of course, one is using the term "African-American" as it originally was intended, to refer to that population formerly known as "American Negroes," whose ancestors survived the Middle Passage and with ancestral roots in the antebellum (Civil War) U.S. deeceevoice (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem also comes from faulty genetic testing. I had that discussion with a professor of mine in which genetists were taking DNA samples and not telling people everything. The AIM of Native Americans and Europeans are incredibly similar so they're telling people they don't have Native descent when they do. Unfortunately, the family oral stories seem to be much more accurate than the genetic testing being done. Berkley clearly went against the tests because they are so unaccurate and giving people the wrong info. It's really hard to get reliable sources but OMG there are so many blogs it's crazy. Soon I'm going to slightly add more to that census either stating that's how many are registered or something along those lines because that number is so off.Mcelite (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the article, especially the last sentence, is POV. Fclass (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a black Oklahoman with Indian heritage, and a vast knowledge of Indian people and what they think about blacks(I work security at a Casino for the Chickasaw Nation), it disturbs me that some of us black people try so hard to claim a group of people who want nothing to do with us. I say to hell with claiming Indian or African or White Ancestry, and let us just be proud of the fact that we're a new Race. We have to be proud of what we are! Africans don't claim us, Indians don't claim us, whites don't claim us. We're on our own, and the sooner we realize that and start loving what we truly are the better off we'll be as a people!--Oklahomanegro (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the term is Native Americans, Indians are from India, second, don't you know that native americans aren't only from the U.S., they are also indigenous peoples of the Americas. Third, what is indian hair, you make it seem as if people not of native american heritage have nappy hair. I myself, am black, have nappy, long hair and my parents are Afro- Latin American (from Haiti) which is a country in the Americas, that was inhabited by indigenous Arwark, Taino natives (which would make myself Black Native American). I also noted that you only list people of U.S. native american heritage. Who taught you this? I think this page MUST be written by someone who knows better of the Black Native American culture.Cakechild (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC) CakechildCakechild (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not exclusive to only people who are of Native American descent from North America. It's the fact that:

• There must be citation in order to have it not removed there are plenty of celebrities have Native American heritage but because finding a source that is usable is hard to find not that many are listed. i.e. LisaRaye McCoy, T-Boz, Shar Jackson, and just recently we finally found a source for Meagan Good we could use.
• Indian hair is a term used mainly by African Americans to describe a person who either has hair that is Native American or a mixture of African-Native American or even a mixture of European-Native American mix. Hence their hair grows to their neck or longer, it has a soft texture, it's wavy or straight or a mixture of it.
• if you have names of people who are African-Native American and are not American list them but make sure it's cited.

Most people who truly pay attention to history know that most Haitians are a mixture of the Arwark tribe and African slaves that were brought there. If you have any questions just ask.Mcelite (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mcelite, are you positive you know what I'm talking about? Why would I ask people about my own culture?, and what does that has to do with what I'm saying? If you see on the list of notable black-indians, it notes that Beyonce, Meagan Good and others are Cherokee, which are all North American tribes. But this problem has been resolved, since the list has been revised.Cakechild (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)CakechildCakechild (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several assertions in this article, even some that have been referenced, have been challenged, it would be a service if a professional scholar and/or others with advanced knowledge in this area would review and edit this article accordingly.--Msr69er (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are 2 websites that is written by an expert. I just haven't had the time to add everything. I've only had the time to add a few here and there. I'm trying man it's time consuming but eventually (soon) I can start citing majority of what needs citation.Mcelite (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about them??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.223.22 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different race of people. This article is about people whom are of both African American and Native American descent. You are thinking of Indians not Native Americans.Mcelite (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just skimmed the article intro, and it strikes me as absurd/ridiculously inaccurate. Excuse me for speaking plainly, but where on earth is the source for such a mind-numbingly dumb/inane assertion? "Black Indians" doesn't refer to Black folks with Native American ancestry, generally; it refers to Blacks -- with or without Native American progenitors -- who adopted Native American cultural traditions and who lived as/with Native Americans. Only three generations from a full-blood Native American ancestor, and with Native American ancestry on maternal and paternal sides of my family (Cado and Cherokee), I'm certainly more a "Black Indian" than Oprah, and my family and I have never been referred to as such! deeceevoice (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this article for a while now, and I have to say, it appears to entirely constitute original research. "Black Indian", as a term, doesn't appear to cover the topic of this article, nor is it necessarily a notable subject. I've been considering nominating this article for deletion, for a whole bunch of reasons. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth can you nominate this article for deletion?? That's American history that's like deleting African American or White American. I've been doing other things so I haven't exactly had the time to just keep adding things that are sourced. I have 3 different sources that are good. However, it seems like I'm the only editor doing something it's been really hard. Not to mention finding things that will mention a person's full heritage and the article being considered reliable i.e. Aaliyah. Every fan on the planet knows that she was of both African American and Native American descent however, I can't find anything in articles online and searching for written books is just plan hard. We were lucky to find something for Rosa Parks not many people know that she was mixed and not just an African American woman. (Unsigned post by User: Mcelite.)

You would be in error if you nominated the article for deletion. It is, indeed, a notable topic. That's not the problem. This article -- at least the bit I've read of it -- just sux. deeceevoice (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contributing to and following this article off and on for the better part of two years. It is not perfect, but has come a LONG way from when I first found it. The subject of "Black Indian" is not without controversy even among African-Americans (even judging from the comments herein), but no matter where one personally stands on this issue, it is without question an integral part of the African-American experience and as such deserves and merits an article separate and complete (or perhaps merging with other Wikipedia articles such as "Black Seminoles" which essentially talk about the same thing).

There are numerous scholarly as well as popular references to this topic completely sufficient to back up most of the claims asserted, and I think the huge and growing, thousands-strong Wikipedia community, not just one or two lay people such as myself, needs to step up and expend a little more effort to bring this article, which I say again is vastly improved over the article I found two years ago, to an even more acceptable point.

If you don't agree with an assertion, take the initiative, do your own research and see if you can improve the assertion with a verifiable statement. A couple of hours in the local library or even online on a weekend afternoon (spent by about 7-10 people) could do wonders for this article. Wikipedia is only as good a resource as ALL the people who edit it and the commitment they bring to it.--Msr69er (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This Saturday I have two resources that will be of very great help that I will add to certain parts to get rid of some of this citation needed parts.Mcelite (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All i know is that all of those celebrities that yall ahev up here as black indians is TOTALLY FALSE! OPRAH and TINA TURNER BOTH did DNA ANALYSIS ON A NATIONAL TELEVISED PROGRAM AND IT PROVED THAT OPRAH HAD NO NATIVE AMERICAN ANCESTRY and that Tina TURNER had less than 2%. The majority of Tina's ancestry was African and European descent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.8.137 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are incorrect with your statement about Oprah. She herself has talked about her Native American heritage, and even though recently the tests Tina Turner has taken show she has low percentage of Native descent the genetic tests are not accurate telling the difference between European and Native American genomes specifically the AIMs which is what genetists have been relying on. However, have been reluctant to tell people that are being tested. The tests may only go as far back as your great grandparents and not tell their full ancestry. So in other words there have been cases in which they have told people they have no Native American descent but they do confusing them traits with European. This has happened to a very close friend of mine a few years ago when she went to get tested.Mcelite (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated earlier, being Black and having Native American heritage is a far cry from being a "Black Indian." The two are NOT synonymous -- which is the way this article is written. It's absolutely bogus/incorrect/completely wrong-headed. Such a jump/presumption hasn't been substantiated by any of the sources I've seen -- and it can't be, because that's simply not the commonly understood meaning of the phrase, not traditionally, and not today. Oprah's not a "Black Indian"; she's a Black woman with Native American/"Indian" ancestry. User: deeceevoice 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Indians more commonly called African-Native Americans now are people who are of both AFrican American and Native American descent. It does not only apply to people who are of both ethnicities and have stayed with the tribe they are descended of. Oprah does meet that qualification and so do many others. They are they same thing most people who are of the African-Native American mix have very little or no culture basis due to multiple reasons, but by classification they are still belong to this specific group of people.Mcelite (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, Mcelite, then kindly provide a citation where I've requested it in the article. As an African-American of Cado and Cherokee descent -- and whose father technically qualified for free college under the U.S. government's definition of being a Native American -- I'm unaware of such usage. Kindly enlighten me. They are "Black Indians" by whose (authoritative) classification? If you cannot provide such citation, then I'm afriad the entire premise of the article must be reworked to the definition as I've enunciated it. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William Katz and geneaologist Angela Y. Walton-Raji are two people who talk about people whom are African-Native American or Black Indian which ever you prefer being in the tribe culturally or having no ties. The government will give you a hard if you half Native American to claim native blood. That is the only race where people will question your bloodline. It's sad but true. I'll add more stuff later today or tomarrow I'm in school now so time is limited for me.Mcelite (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Katz's work Black Indians it when it was first published more than 20 years ago. Indeed, it's in my personal library. Admittedly, it's been a very long time since I've taken it off the shelf, so my memory may be faulty. But I don't recall him calling any and every African-American with Native American bloodlines a "Black Indian." So, your citations will be welcome. My inqury has nothing to do with questioning bloodlines; it's about making a distinction between African-Americans with Native American ancestry and "Black Indians." The two terms are not synonymous. People like my family are no more "Black Indians" by virtue of our Native American heritage than we are "Black Irish" because of our Irish heritage. User: deeceevoice 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article premise/lead is bogus

I did a little clutter control around the crib and turned up Katz's Black Indians. My 20+ year memory was correct. Even the most perfunctory reading of this book -- like, simply reviewing the table of contents -- bears out my earlier contention. The premise of this article is bogus and needs to be completely reworked. "Black Indian" and "persons of African and Native American descent" are not synonymous terms. And going on Katz's use of the term "Black Indian" and the subject matter treated in his work, there's no way any rational, marginally intelligent person could in good faith come to any other conclusion. Also, a visit to Angela Y. Walton-Raji's website which you site focuses on similar material: Black Indians in the context of Blacks who were embedded in Native-American communities -- not people like Beyonce, or Oprah Winfrey. Please, try sticking to the facts, rather than crafting some fiction that suits your particular world-view/terminology. User:Mcelite, if you'd like to contribute something to Wikipedia on the extent of Native American admixture among African-Americans, that's fine -- but do so in the appropriate article. "Black Indians" is the wrong venue for such information, except, perhaps, in passing and should in no way be the primary subject of the article info box. Save this space for information treating true Black Indians. I'm removing the box and reworking the lead. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I've been extremely over worked lately with school. I agree with changing the name of African-Native American to Black Indian only because it's more popular. Even though African-Native American is an upgraded terminology that is starting to become more used it's still no were near the usage of Black Indian. I'm going to add more information on the genealogical section later hopefully before Christmas. If you are able to find anymore information that can help that would be great. However, currently my time is very limited to minor errors and such. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even paying attention? There was considerably more wrong with the info box than the title. I've deleted it -- again -- per my remarks here. Please do not reinsert it until you've at least attempted to address my concerns. It's been several weeks now, and I've still read nothing that would justify calling people like James Earl Jones, Beyonce and Oprah Winfrey "Black Indians." Take your time. I understand studies come first. deeceevoice (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons I deleted the info box, I deleted the section on "Notable Black Indians." I didn't read the entire list, but so many of the names are problematic, I simply removed the entire thing until this is sorted out. Acceptable names? Bill Pickett, Beckworth, Edmonia Lewis come immediately to mind. deeceevoice (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the info box is to clearly show people whom are of African American and Native American descent clearly. I see no problem with using those specific people as representation. Even though few may hold cultural ties due cultural changes and assimilation over time being Black Indian is still their heritage. The section on Notable Black Indians is to acknowledge those whom are of African American and Native American descent. Too improve the article and expand knowledge on the subject. By that means all of those that were listed are notable and also to expand the knowledge of someone who reads the article. How many people know Rosa Parks is part Native American? How many people have a clue whom Olivia Ward Bush is? (That article still needs alot of improvement itself). However, my time is really limited right now tests, projects, finals all coming at me at the same time. I'm restoring the ethnic box solely because the people I chose represents a variety and not people that all look the same or do the exact same thing. It's extremely hard getting the full heritage on people who are of African American descent. I've worked really hard expanding this article so far. Still going to improve the genetic section to increase the knowledge on certain issues. Ok I'll probably be able to get back on in about 7 or 8 hours I'm really stressed out right now. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or is it that you just don't get the distinction between African-Americans with Native American heritage and "Black Indians"? Clearly, the term "Black Indians" -- even in the two works you've cited -- has not been used to mean any and everyone Black with Native American ancestry. Furthermore, the box would seem to indicate that people who are "Black Indians" are only those Black folks with native ancestry -- which runs counter to the commonly accepted definition of the term. Your definition of "Black Indian" is not supported by anything you've presented so far. And that's the problem with the info box. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. If you persist in including persons who are merely African-American, but who possess no ties at all to indigenous peoples/indigenous culture and who do not self-identify as "Black Indians" (and not just Black folks who acknowledge Native American ancestry), then I'll simply have to take the matter outside this discussion. This has gotten ridiculous. User: deeceevoice November 30

I support deeceevoice's concerns about the premise of this article. "Black Indians" are not anyone with any Native American heritage, but people who were or are embedded in Native American culture, such as the Cherokee Freedmen and Black Seminoles. I'm not quite sure who is supposed to be included in the designation, as the article goes far and wide. I even would take issue with using James Beckwourth as an example - yes, he lived with the Crow for years and apparently became a chief, but he did not grow up with them. He married one or more of their women, but so did European fur traders. Beckwourth entered Crow culture as an adult, after he worked as a fur trader and mountain man. Since other trappers adopted some Indian ways, were they then to be considered Anglo-Indian? Beckwourth did not have any obvious Native American ancestry; he was born into slavery in Fredericksburg, VA, and had more than 50% European heritage, as his mother was mulatto and his father was European/Irish.--Parkwells (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Deeceevoice: if you're still around at all, you were right. It wasn't in Katz. I've changed the sentence. See recent talk and edits. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about those with both Native Indian and Black heritages within the US. The reality is there are many more of people with such mixed heritage outside the US but within the Americas, hence the title change. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any time at the moment to devote to this, but I've made a few changes. I rewrote the lead to reflect the more common understanding of the term "Black Indian," with the secondary (and, in my mind, far more dubious) definition following. If one Googles "Black Indian," it yields many more hits -- and in the context of Black folks with clear cultural ties to Native Americans -- than does "African-Native American," which, by my count, at least, yielded only TWO hits. Hardly noteworthy at all, really. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't even use the term here.

And that brings me to the matter of the box. The box focuses on the lesser definition of the term - the one that yields only TWO hits. It's inappropriate. If there's to be a box of "Black Indians" -- which is the title of this article (not "African-Native Americans" -- which is, frankly, a neologism of sorts) -- then the box ought to reflect many more people who are Black Indians in the commonly understood sense of the term, rather than who meet the standards of the ersatz term, which encompasses so broad a populace as to be virtually meaningless. (I mean practically everybody, they momma and the family dog's got Native American ancestry.) IMO, the box should be scrapped completely or drastically revamped.

Also, the changing of the article title bugs me. I understand and agree with Squeakbox's intent, but it doesn't work for me. "American" can mean "of the Americas." Presumably, the aim is to identify them specifically as Black Indians in the U.S. Furthermore, lots of Black folks (African-Americans) don't consider themselves "Americans" -- myself included -- and take umbrage at being called one. (I truly detest the term.) So, my suggestion is that the title have a parenthetical reference to geographical location, such as Black Indians (in the U.S.). That works for me and, I think, is far more accurate -- which, after all, was the whole point in changing the article title in the first place.

Finally, the description of the phenotypes made me cringe. It's just off/wrong on so many levels. But I haven't time to deal with it. Beyond that, I haven't read any further. I don't want get into something, find that it's a mess (maybe it's not, but so far what I've read isn't terribly encouraging) -- and then have no time to fix it. It'll just annoy the hell out of me. deeceevoice (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...First of all how can you say that most African AMericans don't like the term American?? Do you havea source to back that up? An article or something?? Second that's very true that many physical features found in people whom are mixed with Native American and African American have been confused with being African traits. When those traits are not found in any of the African ethnic groups i.e. high cheek bones. Where is all this anger coming from??Mcelite (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anger? What anger? Words on a page. Nothing more. And about the words I've written, I didn't say "most." The salient point is anyone living in North, Central and South America is an "American." So, the more accurate qualifier for this article should be "in the U.S.," rather than a title that reads "American Black Indians." Furthermore, there are indigenous, unmixed Black folks with high cheekbones and other features traditionally attributed to other ethnic groups. The San, for example, have epicanthic eye folds -- and I, myself, know African-Americans with no known family history of Native American bloodlines who have epicanthic eye folds. But that's not really the point, either. I simply stated that the wording regarding phenotypes could be improved. It's somewhat clumsy. deeceevoice (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I've just removed the info box per my earlier comments. The article is about "Black Indians" -- not so-called "African-Native Americans." deeceevoice (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term African-Native Americans is an updated term of black indians. No different then African American being an upgrade from Afro-American or black just as Native American is an upgrade from Indian. High cheeks specifically is a physical trait that is not in any African tribe especially on the west coast of Africa which is where American slaves were taken from. High cheek bones is a physical characteristic that is exclusive to Asians, Pacific Islanders, and North and South American Native Americans. That's without a doubt just like blue eyes is a recessive trait that exclusively comes from European bloodlines you can't be full blooded African American and have blue or even green eyes.Mcelite (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have failed to address my earlier points. "African-Native American" is a neologism. It's not in common use. Googling it reveals TWO -- count 'em -- TWO entries; whereas, "Black Indian" yields many. It makes no sense to have an article titled "Black Indians" and then a box labeled something else. And it makes no sense for that "something else" to actually be focused on something other than the commonly understood meaning of the term. The box features not "Black Indians" as the term is commonly used, but on Blacks with Native American ancestry. And, again, as I stated before -- and as is substantiated by Googling the subject -- the two are not synonymous. Unless and until you present information to the contrary -- as attractive as it is -- the box as it is currently titled and constituted has no place in this article.

I took issue with the impreciseness (and incorrectness, in the case of epicanthic eye folds) and tone of the language regarding phenotypes, not the matter, generally. IMHO, it needs work. And as far as cheekbones? This is the phenotype I had in mind. Is this not a Black man?

Further, it would be helpful if you would address the matter of retitling the article to, IMHO, the far more appropriate "Black Indians (in the U.S.)." deeceevoice (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ridiculously high number. There certainly are many who possess some degree of Native ancestry (whether large or small) but it is much, much lower than 90%. That number however seems much more accurate for the percentage with European ancestors (genetic studies have shown the vast majority of African Americans to have some European ancestry and the reported numbers of those with Native ancestry to be highly exaggerated. The figures found in these studies are also supported by the actual intermarriage rates between Africans and Europeans/Natives throughout the history of the United States of America). ElijahTM (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most African American have European descent as well. However, that research of 90% is through putting documentations together such as:how many slaves have escaped or are freed (occured way before white abolitionists), not all Native American and African American marriages were recorded Native Americans didn't feel everything needed to be written down like Europeans as far that they felt that couple was married with no regard of what Europeans felt. Documents and oral traditions are about the best that can be done right now. Genetic tests are not the most reliable for numerous reasons. i.e. AIMs of Europeans is remarkably simiilar to Native American AIMs and an assumption that African American are only descended from the 5 civilzed tribes also occurs. So it's not far fetched that most African Americans are of Native American descent but that's the best experts can say right now. It's very difficult also do to white Americans not being to thrilled with the mixture of the two races.Mcelite (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I haven't read the article in its entirety. But, Elijah, I must say that I recall reading an article in the New Amsterdam News, I believe, that stated that the number of African-Americans with Native American ancestry was in the upper 80th percentile. So, the 90 percent figure doesn't seem too far-fetched. However, because this is an encyclopedia, whatever figure(s) presented must be documented. If they're not, then others -- understandably -- may find them suspect. This seems to be a general problem with the article, at least insofar as what little I've read: e.g., the acceptance of the term "African-Native American" as deserving of more prominent mention than "Black American" and the assumption that every African American with Native American ancestry qualifies as a "Black Indian" as the term historically and commonly is used/understood. The writing needs to be more precise. deeceevoice (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for the late reply. I've had tests and still have tests until Saturday. lol Well I am considering to go ahead and change the info box back to Black Indians even though it's behind the times. It is more commonly known than African-Native Americans. Hmmm or I'll just have to do some digging to provide a source to trump Black Indians as the most common term no different than when Black American was changed to African AMerican.Mcelite (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material on assertions about the high percentage of Native American ancestry among African Americans has been superseded by the FACTS of genetic research in the late 20th and 21st century - for the short version, see African American Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s article on The Root.com (in External Links) about the Oct. 2009 report on European ancestry of Michelle Obama. He dismisses talk about high percentage of Native American ancestry as a romanticizing of the US past. Also, this material on genetics and percentages in the population was covered at greater length in his two recent TV series on genetic/genealogical ancestry of 19 prominent African Americans, and published in book form. Summary: While some African Americans may have Native American ancestry, most don't. Gates points out that many more African Americans have a significant percentage of European ancestry, and that this can produce the "straight hair", "high cheekbones" and other features people like to point to as "Native American" (so can the diverse heritage of African peoples without any European additions.)--Parkwells (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Native American slave ownership":

Native Americans of mixed white blood stood at the top, "pure" Native Americans next, and people mixed with of African descent were at the bottom.

Something seems to be missing between "with" and "of", but I am not sure what.

Even among Native peoples themselves, some of these physical features have been confused with being Sub-Saharan African due to the negative influence of the one-drop rule.

This sentence needs clarification. What exactly has been confused with what exactly?

I would fix the sentences myself if I could, but the intended meaning is not quite clear to me. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With confusion of physical characteristics you're talking about a few traits like high cheek bones, light brown/ tan complexion and others. I'm not sure how it is confusing with the mixture sentence.Mcelite (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is meant is that Native American traits have been confused with Sub-Saharan African traits? Do I understand correctly now? Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is his photo here because he lived with the Crow and acted as a chief with them? he was of European and African descent - since one source said his mother was a mulatto slave and his father was Irish, he was more than 50% European. He did not have Native American ancestry, nor did he grow up in a Native American culture. He adopted some practices later as a mountain man and lived with Indians, but so did other fur traders.--Parkwells (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Parkwells. I'm going to try to handle that for now by removing his picture for now since he didn't have any native blood. I've honestly have had much time to add more and edit certain things in the article I've been over worked lately. However, I should be able to get things together on Sunday. I'm just trying to make sure I'm able to get things together. Also keep in mind that not all black indians were African Americans that adopted Native culture plenty of them intermarried with whatever tribe they were taken into. Not everystory is the same. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's true - I think Black Indian mostly means those who were descendants or intermarried with people from tribes. Lots of stories for sure.--Parkwells (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• the term is zambo - jimmy hendrix was a zambo!a zambo not is a "black indian"; all indians are mongoloids and not negroids!mongoloid + negroid = zambo/cafuzo!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.193.206 (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so are the Olmec of 'negroid' or 'mongoloid'descent? or are these terms really antiquated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.105.66 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article did not accurately portray the relationships between blacks and indians in florida. Please recall Florida did not become a state until 1832 -- just 30 years shy of emancipation. The "Seminole Wars" are, in some places, recognized as a Slave Revolt. An historical event, called the Massacre of the Whites By the Indians and the Blacks, recounts a revolt outside of Jacksonville that resulted in the deaths of 200+ white settlers.(although I'm sure americans would not tolerate a 're-enactment' of that--so much for 'heritage'). The article seems to emphasize a subservient, non-equal relationship between the two groups. It is almost non-sense because I assure you a man did not 'escape' for "freedom" in order to become a slave? Moreover, the independent African nation-state of Angola (in the vicinity of Bradenton,Florida) conducted trade with the Indigenous populations in Cuba and throughout peninsular Florida. After General Braden sacked Angola, on the order of Andrew Jackson, some of their descendants were able to escape to the Bahamas and retain the "Seminole" identity to this day. It should also be noted that we may be redefining terms through time. The words "Seminole" and "marroon" have a common origin, "Cinnamaroon" (I think portugese) for runaway. We currently describe Seminoles as the 'indian remnant' and marroons as escaped blacks. However for example in Jamaica and Suriname, they were called by the original term "Cinnamaroons". My point being we may be drawing distinctions where there likely was not one in the past. The word 'Seminole' and the Seminole wars may refer to both the blacks AND the indians collectively. But really the article should include discussion of 'Angola' -- its much more significant than a really bad prison in La. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.105.66 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone has wholesale changed Indian or American Indian to Native American, including places where it makes no sense.

• "Native American Wars"- the quote is "Indian Wars"
• "it has always been the policy of this government to create an aversion in them Native Americans to Negroes." (1758)
• "Those who remained among the European-American communities were frequently listed as mulatto, a term applied to Native American-white, Native American-African, and African-white mixed-race people, as well as tri-racial people."

There are a lot more areas than just the quotes. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit that made the cahnge.[9] Book titles, URLs, article titles, etc. This cannot be undone, and it is a mess. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to keep a close eye on the issue. I understand people wanting to be politically correct but we can't change "historical quotes". I temporarily had limited internet access so I'll be able to be more active now.Mcelite (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native American is only marginally politically correct; see Native American name controversy. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up as much as possible: fix the quotes, book and article titles, and URLS. I also tried to clean up other issues, but this entire article needs major copy editing. For instance, for consistency, should "Freedmen" be capitalized or lowercase? Either way, it should be the same throughout. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_people_of_African-American_and_Native_American_admixture#Requested_move. Thanks. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time or resources to do this myself, but this article would benefit from the inclusion of some information about the "paper genocide" performed by Walter Plecker in the 20th century, by which the vast majority of people with Indian ancestry in the state of Virginia were classified as "colored". Plecker's work and the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 grouped all Virginia Indians and African-Americans together, and Plecker went out of his way to eradicate any records that made a distinction. There's a good summary of his work and its effects here. Similar laws were in place in other states, but in no state were they enforced as ruthlessly as they were in Virginia, thanks to Plecker. The result is that it is extremely difficult for people with Virginia Indian ancestry, whether they identify as Indian, African-American or white, to prove that ancestry via official records. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted or moved to mixed people in the US or similar. It keeps hopping from "African" to "African American". Terrible! 109.147.103.215 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Indians may have historically lived in the south but have been removed. There's the Poarch Creeks in Alabama, and Lumbee in North Carolina (although many Lumbee don't identify as Black Indians). The Mississippi Choctaw don't have many Black Indians in their tribe. Virginia isn't the South. Oklahoma Seminole have large Black Indian populations, but Florida Seminole not so much. Are there citations for Black Indians living the Southern United States today? Thanks, Yuchitown (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Hi everyone, I think by this weekend I'll be able to create a few more sections I just haven't had the time. That way the colonial period will be broken up some more to include more relevant information. The article on Native American slaves has the information I just need to transfer it, and organize it. The update is long over due.Mcelite (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking to make sure everyone is okay with me adding Kyrie Irving to the section. He's not enrolled with the Sioux Nation, but his mother was Sioux, and has been welcomed by the Standing Rocking Sioux. I was also going to suggest Mabel Fairbanks for historical her mother was Seminole but like Kyrie we have no reliable source stating that she was an enrolled member of the Seminole tribe.Mcelite (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's a descendant and Standing Rock honours him as a "relative",[11] not a member. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the lede focus on the fact that these are Native people with a significant amount of African-American heritage? As "Black" modifies "Indian", shouldn't they be Indian primarily, with the African heritage secondary or equal, in terms of culture? I'm not trying to be difficult or weird here, but I don't think the current lede really lines up with the definition we've been using in our discussions as we've been doing the sorting.

As in: We've been talking about who is and isn't enrolled, and that's not what the lede currently says. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current lede:

Black Indians are those people of mixed African American and Native American heritage who have strong ties to and identify as Native Americans.[3]

Whereas I feel we're working more under the assumption of

Black Indians are Native American people who also have significant African American heritage.

- CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read this entire talk page. The weird POV push to turn this into a BQ thing happened ten years ago, with the same user, and it looks like the source used is being misrepresented. This is a problem. When we fix this, we need to make it abundantly clear this is not about BQ. This is about participation in community. So perhaps

Black Indians are Native American people, defined as Native American due to living in Native American communities and being culturally Native American, who also have significant African American heritage.

or something like that. The importance being that the stress is on community, not self-i.d. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcelite: we've been over this. Cite the exact source and quotation you're referring to instead of just reverting. The Gates' special, which is what is currently cited, specifically focused on people whose blood myths turned out to be false. Deleting all the past discussion from your talk page doesn't mean it didn't happen. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing anything special this is the source we're using [12]. Or is it linking weird?? It's source #65.Mcelite (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The video isn't playing, and neither her name nor that text is in the text on the page. So I'm going with the overriding conclusion of the documentary. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had to open it in Internet Explorer...Mcelite (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article has been subject to so much disruption - including gradual insertion of commentary, OR and opinion in front of sources without adding new sourcing - even if well-meaning, we really need to make sure the sources can be verified. If I can't get it to play, I have to assume others may have issues, as well. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the video isn't browser, it's flash. Lots of people don't run flash for security reasons. We already have the specials, articles and other sites about Gates and his work abundantly cited and linked. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm replying late things are unfortunately busy on my end as of now. Okay so flash is the problem. Should we omit the sentence since it doesn't reflect the sources I think it's fine what you edited, but I could try to find the source on another legitimate website. I can check youtube and see if the video is there though I know youtube is not preferred b/c videos can be manipulated. Either way the sentence needs to reflect the sources a bit more though what's there now is better.Mcelite (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found a transcript in an NPR source. There are also a bunch of odd typos and other mistakes in the section that I don't recall being there before. I'm going to take a pass at it now and see if I can fix this stuff. Gates' special should also be linked; I'm not sure why it's not. Addressing all of this now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started by a now-blocked sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added a new section that I feel is well sourced. It may be controversial which we can note, but it's not a NPOV issue, it's history.WillieP100 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] User:CorbieVreccan claims there is controversy and concern from other editors, yet I see nothing here. This solicitation for discussion was posted before he/she reverted the edits.WillieP100 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I saw mentions of WP:SYNTH in the edit history. Also, you've been adding unsourced commentary to this, and other, articles. That's what's known on Wikipedia as WP:OR, or in other cases, WP:SYNTH. But you seem to have indicated that you know that. And you've been warned on other articles for this. You also have a pattern of posting once on talk then going on editing sprees, then when editors ask you to engage on talk, you don't, yet claim you are engaging/collaborating, because you made a prior statement in isolation before proceeding to do whatever you wanted to the article. Do you see how these are not the same actions? You have also been alerted that running multiple accounts is prohibited under the WP:SOCK policy. You did not respond to that on you talk page, either. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] User:CorbieVreccan what unsourced commentary are you referring to? What the hell are you talking about where I haven't engaged in talk while making edits? Can you point to a single example of that? To the contrary, I have solicited discussion in talk PRIOR to being reverted, and gotten crickets, 'in isolation' -- if no one responds what I am supposed to do about that? What is happening is editors are reverting, oftentimes with the typical 'take it to talk,' then not actually going to talk to discuss it with me. WillieP100 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] You also put unsourced opinion in the African Americans article. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] You still haven't answered any questions I asked on my talk page in response to your off-base warnings/accusations. What examples can you give for your claims in the second and third comments above? The African American material by user JWilliams835 is pretty much the same as that of here -- what claims there are unsourced?WillieP100 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does wikipedia classify people of African Indian descent? This article is confusing. The article should be renamed to African Native Americans and a new article called African Indian Americans. The terms "black" as is "white, colored, brown, etc." are not official terms of ethnicity. Terms like African American, European American, Indian American, Native Americans are official terms. Gengeros (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? In America, and many other parts of the English-speaking world "Black" is both a racial and cultural identity. No one calls themselves or these communities "African Native American." People of this mixed heritage call themselves Black Natives if that's what they are, or Natives who also have some Black ancestry, or Black folks who also have some Indigenous heritage. While some do prefer to self-id as African-American, as long as it's said without hate or intention to harm by someone of ill-intent, "Black" is not a perjorative. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Afro-Indigenous, but that would include people beyond the United States. There definitely isn't a good consensus for terminology for Native Americans with African ancestry yet, and probably won't be for several years, although the subject is gaining more scholarly interest. Yuchitown (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]