Jump to content

Talk:Kalinago genocide

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

Pro-European Bias

[edit]

This article is written purely from the perspective of European conquerors—indeed from the POV of one particular European—which serves the purpose of justifying their brutality. Caribbean history is bursting at the seams with tales that lionize the colonizers and/or demonize the native people. While the bias is mentioned as an afterthought, the majority of the article is very slanted. Needs more sources, and a more neutral tone. Nofux (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide?/ Rename

[edit]

This wasn't a genocide, 2000 warriors were defeated in battle against British and French forces, sure it was a massacre but massacre does not always mean genocide. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2024

[edit]

Kalinago genocideKalinago genocide of 1626 – The current title fails WP:PRECISION. Multiple RS assert that the Kalinago were subjected to a much wider campaign of genocide throughout the 1600s and all across the Caribbean. See inter alia Honychurch's article The Kalinago Fight for Oüaladli and Oüahómoni, as well as Buser's "Colonial Injustices and the Law of State Responsibility" (in article). TRCRF22 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 08:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not opposed to such a move, may I suggest instead re-working the article to cover the Kalinago genocide more broadly, and have the current focused content collated into a subsection on Saint Kitts. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the broader genocide of the Kalinago definitely needs to be covered somewhere. I just feel that this slaughter is notable enough by itself to deserve a page, similar to how events such as the Slutsk affair or the Ba Chúc massacre are covered. TRCRF22 (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my search for sources some weeks ago, I had the impression that while it was covered, there wasn't a great amount of sources, so thought it may be better as a subsection in an article covering a broader topic. But I do not hold any strong opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]