Talk:Cacique

Untitled
George Serrano, also known as El Cacique of Tribal House, gets only a couple of hits on Google, other than from Wikipedia, so I removed the entry for him. - Dalbury &#91;&#91;User_talk:Dalbury&#124;(talk)]] 03:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina
I changed the spelling to "cazique" for this entry to match that at. I removed a second entry refering to colonial usage in South Carolina that used the spelling "cassique". If that was a unique uasge separate from "cazique" on the "Fundamental Constitutions", it needs to be documented. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  18:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Dispute" section
I removed this section:
 * Some historians, such as Charles C. Mann in his book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005), have objected to the use of the term instead of "king" to refer to the Native American monarchs, even if it is widely employed for the leaders of the so-called Barbarians in European history – such as king of the Huns, the Franks, the Goths, and so on. They have also been referred to as chieftans in English.

This sentence probably contains a few too many negations. It's certainly nonsense as it stands; the king of the Huns has never (as far as I know) been referred to as a cazique. Maybe Mann really preferred the use of the term "cazique" instead of "king" &mdash; but in that case, what do the Huns have to do with it? Anyway, this needs a reference (page number, bibliographic info) even if it's worth mentioning in the first place. --Quuxplusone (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the book open in front of me. On p.391 Mann objects to the usage of "chiefdoms" or "tribes" instead of "kingdoms" when referring to societies of the Americas, in contrast to historical European societies which are routinely given the privilege of that title. He uses it as an example of the way historians minimise the importance or legitimacy of Native American societies by ignoring the ways in which they were similar to Old World societies. He goes on to compare it with the way that discourse on Greco-Roman civilization uses terms like "barbarian chiefs" and "Germanic tribes", these being more like disparaging value judgements than accurate explanations of societal structures. However the page has no mention of this specific title "cacique" that I can see. It is possible he mentions it elsewhere in the book. --81.158.148.32 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Column format
Why does the entry on Thomas Smith under White Caciques continue into the next column, while similar entries in the section above wrap? I can see no difference in the column format markup. --Klausok (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)