Talk:Battle at St. Croix

genocide commentary
Removed from article and posted on discussion page:

(CAUTION TO READER: Such "search-and-destroy" missions were common, they were often perpetuated by bounties put on Wabanaki groups as a means of killing them off. We must remember settlers were getting paid good money to do this when they were in poor circumstances, we must put the blame in the right place - the Colonial governments that initiated the bounties and paid the settlers. See UN Genocide Convention. Although this does constitute genocide, as it's goal was to kill off the group "in whole...", Genocide is not restricted to just physically killing, but also the killing of a group "in part..." which can include sterilzation, education, linguicide, etc...)

Response: What is often missing from this disucssion is that fact that the Wabanaki were paid by the French for the British scalps. The scalping of non-combatants (i.e., families) was conducted by both parties.--Hantsheroes (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Response: Scalping Wabanaki and other indigenous people was enacted through colonial policy, set down in writing. Scalping may not have been restricted to indigenous groups alone, but by arguing that "Indians did it too" does not cancel the act out. The fact of the matter is Indians were scalped (on a very large scale) and Europeans were as well. Likewise, I am sure this was a popular means in the past before NA colonization; such as between the British and certain Gaelic groups, etc... it was not correct then either. However, scalping, whoever it is done to, constitutes genocide, especially when it is legislated. What further backs up the notion that this constitutes genocide is that it goes beyond mere intention to actual acted upon legislation. Indigenous groups have a specific claim that capitalist empires wanted to eliminate. Since the claim could not be rid of, created by the very people (Europeans) who imposed and in some cases created the notion of private ownership through capitalism, then the people must be rid of, and this was done on many occasions with various techniques (which have met many of the five different stipulations of genocide) over a 500 year period – it was part of a larger program, known as the "Indian problem" alluded to by government on many occassions. I am wary of arguments such as the one you brought up, since it acts as a distraction technique. I am not interested in distracting from the argument. The argument is, and remains, that activities such as scalping, do not just constitute genocide but meet such criteria on the first listed condition. I agree that if scalping between British and French groups took place, this was also incorrect and would fulfill criteria for genocide, however, if you are interested in arguing that scalping native peoples was not genocide, then the proper rhetorical defense is not that the French did it to the British. That is like two people arguing when one states “the sky is obviously blue”, and the other responds “no way, bananas are definitely yellow”. Not only is it a distraction, out of context, and does nothing to disprove genocide, but it does not make the act OK. What is unique to the indigenous situation is it was a legislated and public policy which was acted upon, this is separate from putting blame on individual character such as those that did the actual scalping with a knife, but rather the colonial regime that enacted and funded the policy - that is either the French against the British (perhaps also alternatively) and the British against the Wabanaki (but not restricted to them). In both circumstances the Wabanaki and the British are victims, but the British and French colonial governments were the initiators, policy makers and funders of the crime. We must acknowledge the conditions that allow certain activities to take place. Likewise, please provide proper referencing for such statments that the French paid for British scalps. -Mario P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your response other than what you infer is the motivation for mine. I am making the point that natives resisted the british in the context of acadia through frontier warfare. I, of course, am not making any claims that it then makes what the british was doing ok. Nor am I suggesting that the natives had equal power or were having the same effect. I am interested in the details of the native resistance to bring into focus their power and agency and that stood up for what they believed in rather than implying that they were simply passive victims in the face of british aggression.Hantsheroes (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

bias
Removed from article and put on discussion page:

(CAUTION TO READER: This is a one sided account of the battle which glorifies the rangers and criminalizes the Mikmaq. The writer has described the battle as an isolated incident, lacking any contextual backing.)

Response: Please expand the article with proper referencing.--Hantsheroes (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response: I find it interesting that you call this section "bias". My analysis suggests that the wikipedia article (a source that people use for common knowledge) should include both sides of a conflict. This could not have been written from the point of the view of the actual British troops who experienced this battle centuries ago, since wikipedia did not exist then. Likewise it was not written from one source alone - although it is written as if it was. The point is, it does not include a Mikmaq point of view on the battle. The "battle of st. croix" is supposed to be a historical account which is typically accepted as being holistic, however this is not holistic since it only gives the British account. For example, how many Mikmaq casualties were there? If this is unknown than the article should indicate it as such. Since the article is absent of any alternate account to the British (native or not). Then the article itself is biased, it promotes an "us" (British) vs "them" (Mi'kmaq) attitude. This battle was part of the colonial advancement and should be understood as such by including the larger historical context. You accused me above of "missing something from that discussion", yet the article which is obviously "missing something" from the larger discussion, you ignore? The point of challenging the middle section of the article is that it is lacking balance. Perhaps the title should be changed to "British Account of the Battle", that would be correct, to label it as "The Battle" is misleading.

As with many of the battles with natives, the only written accounts are british. So there will be bias and often the number of natives killed is unknown. If there are multiple accounts of theses battles, which I am unaware of, they should be added to the article. The proper place for an account of sources is in a footnote rather than a heading. It would be great if you could offer more detail re: the historical context. Hantsheroes (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with just mentioning it is a British account in a footnote rather than a heading is the the current heading "The Battle" suggests that it is THE account of the battle, rather than indicating that it is a perspective of it. I am very much aware that naive accounts are often absent, but we still have a responsibility as acting historians to recognize a bias, and this account, by default, of only including the british one, is. As such, I believe it belongs in the heading. How can it be politically incorrect to suggest it is a British account in the heading when that is the truth? It would be a lie not to include it and mislead people into believing that is the accepted understanding of the story, regardless whether there is a Mi'kmaq account or not. I do not believe that history should passively mention that it is just a British account, since that is what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The way I've handled similar situations (where accounts of something reflect only a single primary source, or are only broadly sourced to one "side") is to simply state what the primary sources are. If a reliable source states that those are the only known sources, that should also be stated.  This does not have to be in the heading -- one or two sentences at the start of the description should be sufficient to convey the point.  (I will also point out that accounts written by one side are not necessarily biased -- I've seen accounts of 18th century battles in Europe written by one side that were remarkable in their neutrality.  I'm not in a position to comment on whether the accounts of this action fall into that category.)
 * I disagree with the anonymous poster that the article presents the native participants objectively as criminals. Their casus belli is well established in the article: the British violated established treaties.  The British response (including the setting of scalp bounties) was a practice that already had a history of use in frontier warfare.
 * One obvious question for Hantsheroes: just because the Mi'kmaq did not themselves write accounts of the events, their French comrades (like La Corne and Le Loutre) may have received reports of the action and communicated them in writing. In the absence of primary written materials, these would be a proxy for "the other side" of the story.  My brief search for materials didn't turn anything up. (The article does seem to be missing at least one probably important item: the movement of La Corne and a Mi'kmaq party under Le Loutre's influence to the Beaubassin area in the preceding winter. link)  Magic ♪piano 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle at St. Croix. 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/20130514082831/http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html to http://www.northeastarch.com/vieux_logis.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)