Jump to content

Talk:Treaty of Watertown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Native American[edit]

I changed First Nations to Native American since the Natives in question were in America, not Canada, though the source is Canadian--it was just a bit jarring to read. 71.223.162.86 (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is jarring about "First Nations" exactly? You'll have to explain yourself a bit better. It is the appropriate term, and it is also the one used in Canada, which is where these Natives live. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. They lived in America at the time of the event described. B. It pertains to American history, not Canadian, no matter where the Mik'maq live now. Red Hugh O'Donnell is a figure of Irish history, not American, despite the huge Irish population in the US now. C. Nobody uses the term First Nations outside Canada; Americans and most other English speakers, however, use Native American. "Indian" would actually be the most likely to be understood by non-New World speakers, but that has its own problems.
I just Googled it (I know it's not a perfect test, but it provides a rough estimate). "First Nations" gets 5.15 million hits; "Native American" gets 47 million. Even assuming half of the latter hits refer to "people physically born in America," that's still three times as many for Native American. This wouldn't matter if anything about this article directly pertained to Canada, but it doesn't. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (That was me above, I just forgot to login).[reply]
Maybe you should read the article a little more carefully. A - They lived in Canada at the time of the event described. B. It pertains to Canadian history as well, and our main source is Canadian historian Dan Paul C. The term is used to describe the "Mi'kmaq First Nation" which is what they are called, not "Mi'kmaq Native Americans.
Some may be of the opinion that they are not nations, and were not first, or whatever, or are not entitled to sovereignty, but this argument ultimately derives from an obscure 1606 century English law decreed by James I, that said non-Christians were not allowed to own property anywhere on Earth and it could be lawfully seized from them in his name. Even though the Mi'kmaq converted beginning in 1611, and the French had no such law, the English tried to apply it retroactively, to begin seizing Mi'kmaq land without payment in 1748. Daniel Paul points out all of the obvious problems with this line of reasoning in his book which you should read, as well as the fact that the Mi'kmaq have never on any calendar date surrendered their right to be a sovereign nation, and their government still refers to itself as a "First Nation". btw The term "Indian" may originally come from a misnomer, but it is not incorrect, nor pejorative, and is also widely used by Natives in reference to themselves, so it's not that problematic, it's just that "Native" is more technically accurate and preferable in many situations. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they are "nations", whether or no they have independent countries; otherwise the concept of "Polish nationalism" prior to World War I would have been a contradiction in terms. Technically what Native nations have would be a form of suzerainty (is there a g in that word?), not sovereignty (they're not truly independent states), but I certainly don't doubt their right to a special status.
It does say, on closer reading, that the Mik'maq were in Nova Scotia...and then it doesn't mention it again; it's awfully easy to miss. Surely that fact, that the Americans made a treaty with a tribe in Canada during the Revolutionary War, ought to be expanded on--something about the role of the treaty in the broader conflict, its impact on future treatment of the Mik'maq by American and Canadian/British governments, etc. Nagakura shin8 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Treaty of Watertown. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 9 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rub3khAn48 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JDav39 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. So do I need to pick another article to work on for class. Thank you, Rub3khAn48 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Watertown&oldid=1206803079"