User:Dinkytown/Sandbox



User:Dinkytown/Sandbox1

I'm working on this sand box below...
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_39626_caskets.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/39626.stm&h=180&w=150&sz=20&hl=en&start=1&usg=__768iy-faNEauAcmbRA918na5F94=&tbnid=ET_ExzC3fsOajM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMons%2BSomby%2Bskull%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DG



x x x x

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seilende_nordlandsb%C3%A5ter.JPG

Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Userbox

Image:Seilende nordlandsbåter.JPG|43px



Working on Article
Sami during the Black Death

In 1351 when the Black Death came to Norway, the country suffered in disproportionate numbers compared to the rest of Europe. In has been estimated that northern Norway suffered up to a 90% death rate compared to the rest of the Norwegain population. The reason for this high death rate has been suggested that the closed, cramped confines of northern Scandinavian housing and the movement of the fleas in flour barrels during the period. Since cerials could not be grown in northern Norway, the fleas that carried the desiese were transported in flour barrels.

However during this time, the Sami lived predominately from reindeer, may have suffered little from the desiese compared to the Norwagians. From the Norwegian governments point of view, Face with the loss of tax revinues from these vacant farmsteds, the Norwegain government invited the Sami to settle on the abandoned farms in an effort to get these farms back on the tax roles. It is from this point onward that the differing economic niche between the Sea Sami and the interior Reindeer Sami became firmly established.

other
from the

François Bernier

Wikipedia:ARCHIVE

Les « zoos humains » se trouvent ainsi au confluent d’un racisme populaire et de l’objectivation scientifique de la hiérarchie raciale, tous deux portés par l’expansion coloniale.

The “human zoos” are thus with the confluence of a popular racism and scientific objectivation of the racial hierarchy, both carried by the colonial expansion.

examination of the scientific racism and racial classification movement that was considered an accepted fact by Scandinavian scientists from the early 1800s until very recently. This included the plundering of Sami graves for their skeletons and the forced sterilization of the Sami and other peoples in Scandinavia who were viewed as competing with the "noble races", as part of a larger eugenics program.

social darwinism


 * The Sami were probably not the first group to inhabit their ancestral lands of Northern Scandinavia, other peoples were there long before. However, these peoples are all gone, and the Sami are undoubtedly the oldest group present in large parts of Northern Scandinavia, notably all of Finnmark and Troms, the Finnish province of Lapin Lääni, the inland of Nortern Sweden down to Jämtland and long stretches of the Norwegian provinces of Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag and Sør-Trøndelag. One talks of indigenous peoples only if there is another dominant group that has come in later and taken over most of the land, otherwise the discussion is of no interest. Like whether the Icelandic are the indigenous people of Iceland or not. They have their island all to themselves.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.84.133 (talk) 20 March 2006


 * Since the Saami was not the first group, they should not be referred to as "indigenous". The argument that "those people are all gone" is not correct. The popolation groups that were the first to settle northern scandinavia are the same groups that became Swedes and Norwiegans of today. The Saami are not the oldest group present i Northern Sweden and Norway at least. In these areas, they were preceded by the ancestors of Swedes/Norwiegans by 1 000 years acording to sourceslike Niskanen (2002). Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute here – what source do we have that the Sami were not the first indigenous group to arrive in Scandinavia? What was the name of the previous group of people who were there? To the best of my knowledge, those people do not have a name – or they do not exist… The Sami have existed before the Norwegians and Swedes as they were late comers to Scandinavia. There is ample evidence that shows that the Sami were pushed further north over the centuries by the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns, and that they (Sami) are/were very isolated from the rest of other European cultures/peoples. The indigenous statement should stay as describes their status in Scandinavia. Dinkytown (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Per 80.212.84.133 above, being the absolute first people to inhabit a region is not a prerequisite to claim or identity as an indigenous people - please review the content of that article for confirmation. That the Sami have claimed (and have acheived some recognition) as an indigenous people is confirmed by many observations and submissions made to international bodies such as the UN's WGIP, and is reflected in aspects of their legal status in the Scandanavian countries in which they reside.--cjllw | TALK  01:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct. According to most definitions, it is actually a requirement to be the decendants of the first people that inhabit a region. This is so according to the definition by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), for example. The ILO definition is an exception that is used by Saami activists to justify the highly misleading claim of being an "indigenous" group. The term indigenous is highly misleading and should be removed from the page. Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t what you mean by ”according to most definitions…” I would like to see some sources that claim that statement. There are many nationalists within Scandinavia that would like to discredit Sami indigenousness as this would be ammunition against Sami land claim rights. Here is an excerpt from the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), page eight, that you cited : Who are indigenous peoples? The international community has not adopted a definition of indigenous peoples and the prevailing view today is that no formal universal definition is necessary for the recognition and protection of their rights… What follows is a brief overview of some of the existing attempts to outline the characteristics of indigenous peoples: • The ILO’s Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) applies to: o Tribal peoples whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations. (Sami fall into this category: Dinkytown’s statement) o Peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country… at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries. (Sami fall into this category: Dinkytown’s statement) o The Convention also states that self-identification (italic mine) as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply. (Sami consider themselves indigenous: Dinkytown’s statement)

The UN indeed does address and recognize the Sami as indiginious, so your statement is false.


 * You are wrong about the supposed "forced sterilization" by the Swedish government. A subsequent inquiry, be independent historians and very extensive, found that the sterlization programme had no ethnic dimension at all, and that it was almost entirely voluntary, only 9 % could resonably be called forced. And I have never heard of "extermination of Saami by the Nazi's". Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that the statement of forced sterilization may be out of line for the present, but when I wrote that statement on this talk page, the Sami article paragraph that dealt with Sami genetics was pretty repulsive. There was a source that I found that described that ‘some’ Sami were coerced, however this has not been supported by other sources. The statement of forced sterilization is not in the main article.

That “9%” is/can be very misleading, there are many statements to the fact that coercion was often used for this sterilization program. Would coercion be considered force? Then you are wrong – if not, then maybe…

The foundation of the Nazi eugenics program was based on (among others) a book by Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding, called Life Unworthy of Life (maybe that’s a hint…) in 1920. In that book they describe a category of people called ‘social turmoil’. Jews, Communists, criminals, prostitutes – and Sami, were all included in this group and should be considered for elimination as they have ‘no social value’. For the most part, the Sami were not targeted as a group until the end of the war, mostly because of the isolation, difficulty in confining them, and distance from the labor camp system in the rest of Europe. However, towards the end of the war, there were/are many stories about the elimination of the Sami in Nazi controlled areas of Norway, though the Sami never suffered to the same extent as the Jews, Roma, and other groups.


 * The links you provide are not reliable sources. You are completely mixing up your teminology. The years and figures you quote are all wrong and wildly exaggrated. Forced sterilizations were far, far fewer than that: only 9 % of the total. Additionaly, 65 % of these people were already declared legally insane. And forced sterilization only took place for a far shorter period. An extensive research inquiry in Sweden by independent historians found no evidence of any ethnic motives behind the Swedish sterilization programme, this specifically includes the Saami. There is absolutely no evidence of forced sterilization programmes in Sweden targeted against the Saami. Any mention of that should be removed. Khoios (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SAAMIS WERE FORCIBLY STERILIZED, THOUGH THE SWEDES MAY NOT HAVE KEPT THEIR COPIES OF DOCUMENTATION THE GERMANS DID. JOSEPH MENGELE REFERENCES THE SWEDISH RACE BIOLOGY INSTITUTE ALL THE TIME. IT WAS PRETTY MUCH HIS ONLY SOURCE MATERIAL. THAT AND THE EUGENICS CLEARING HOUSE IN NEW YORK. THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT CERTAIN PEOPLES ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE ALL SIGNS OF SAAMIS FROM THE PLANET. CHECK OUT THE GERMANS PLANS FOR 'A MUSEUM OF EXTINCT PEOPLES'.

“Legally insane”? Is your definition of “insane” to include acute depression? Because that was a diagnosis for this coercive sterilization program. And only “9%” were forced into this – I’m so relieved…. The Sami were only one of several groups that were targeted, but yes, I will admit it wasn’t like the Nazi T4 program. However the Nazi’s did study the Swedish sterilization programs before them implemented theirs.

Sami

 * Amazing... You admit that you have not read the above discussion about this issue, yet you write as if you have an informed opinion... You criticize a source, yet you admit that you have never seen it... - and yet you have a long history of not bringing *any* sources to a debate. That speaks for itself...
 * Regarding the source, if you are Sami, as you claim as your first language, you would have at least heard of one the directors name of the flick - Niillas Somby, who quite literally lost two limbs and an eye, spent many months in prison and years in exile, fighting against the Norwegian governments policies against the Sami - policies that has since been changed because of his (and others) actions. You should do yourself a favor and get a copy of the film and then judge for yourself.  Then you would know what I am talking about. Dinkytown (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the history and recent developments in sad "the Skeleton" history. I am not interested in discussing, nor defending, whether I know how to use references. However, it should be obvious that writing a section about the History of scientific research carried out on the Sami based on something you have seen in one TV-documentary is not a good idea. Especially a movie about that topic is unlikely to present a NPOV of the history and what the Sami people think about genetics. It is also a bad idea to place this in a section discussing recent results from genetics research. Finally, making generalizations and attributing these to the Sami, and any other group, about something seen on TV is never a good idea. So the subsection should be removed. Labongo (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing how to use references is what Wikipedia is about. Bringing sources and examining them in a critique fashion is the basis of the Socratic method of debate.  The source is not a "TV" documentry as it was not produced by a TV program or company.  Even if it as, it is the message that matters - it was documenting an historical event.  That subsection brings in a balenced and cited POV.  The Communist Manifesto and Mien Kampf are not NPOV either, but both sources are a proper source in their proper context.  Using Skeletons as a source satisfies the balanced part of the genetic/phenotype research paragraph, and demonstrates the historical importance of the event - an event that has been over looked during this Sami Gene Tripping.


 * The Sami genetic article was pretty horrible back | then: Placed at the top of the page (most important issue of the Sami, right?), describing them in almost lab rat context - that is why there need to have an opposing Sami POV on the subject - and Skeletons was an attempt to do just that.


 * There is already a detailed scientific description of Sami Genetics on Wiki. This is the Sami People page.


 * Niillas Somby (interviewed in the film) is controversial, but within mainstream and not an extremist. His actions have changed Norwegian law and history in at least two ways:  1) his involvement in the Sami hunger strikes in 1979, led to changes in the construction of the Alta Dam. and; 2) he put pressure on the Norwegian government and scientific community to return the skulls of his ancestors to a proper burial - which they did.


 * The paragraph should stand for the above reasons.


 * If you would like to bring sources that describes "How genetic research on the Sami benefited the Sami" I would look forward to seeing it.

Tags that I use often - These are not communications to me
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Dinkytown (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

1957
http://www.arsn.ca/arsn2.htm

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 is an International Labour Organization Convention.

It was established in 1989, with the preamble stating: "Noting the international standards contained in the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention and Recommendation, 1957, and"

"Recalling the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the many international instruments on the prevention of discrimination, and..." 

Modifications
This Convention revised Convention C107 Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957

Ratifications


The Black Death
Up until the introduction of the Black Death of 1349 in northern Norway, the Sami and Norwegians lived very separate economic niches. The Sami, living in the interiors of the mainland of Scandinavia and on the Lofoten and Vesterålen Islands, hunted reindeer or fished for their own livelihood. The Norwegians, living on the outer fjords were connected to the greater European trade routes, did marginal farming in the Nordland, Troms, and Finnmark counties, and fished for trade in the south. The two groups co-existed using two different food resources.

This social economic balance greatly changed with the introduction of the Black Death in December, 1349 in northern Norway. The Norwegians, closely connected to the greater European trade routes where the plague traveled through, were decimated at a far higher rate than in the south. Of all the states in the region, Norway suffered the most from this plague. 60-76% of the north Norwegian farms were abandoned following the plague, while land-rents - another possible measure of the population numbers, dropped down to the level between 28-9%. Although the population of northern Norway is sparse compared to southern Europe, the spread of the disease was just as rapid. The method of movement of the plague-infested flea (Venopsylla cheopsis) was through wooden barrels holding wheat, rye, or wool from the south, where the fleas could live - even reproduce, for several months at a time. The Sami, having a non-wheat or rye diet, living on the interior islands and mainland on reindeer meat, wearing animal skins and furs, and were not as strongly connected to the European trade routes, faired far better from the plague than the Norwegians.

The Sami and the North Norwegian fishing industry
The fishing along the north Norwegian coast, especially in the Lofoten and Vesterallen islands, are quite productive with a variety of fish, and during medieval times it was a major source of income for both the fisherman and the Norwegian monarchy. With such massive population drops, the tax revenues from this industry were greatly diminished. Because of the huge economic profits that could had from the fisheries of the Norwegian northern coasts, the local authorities offered incentives to the Sami - faced with their own population pressures - to settle on the newly vacant farms. This started the economic division between the ‘Sea Sami’ (sjosamene) who fished extensively off the coast, and the ‘Mountain Sami’ (fjellsamene, innlandssamene) who continued to hunt, and later heard reindeer. Even as late as the early 1700s, there were many Sami who were still settling on these farms left abandoned from the 1350s. After many years of continuous migration, these 'Sea Sami' became far more numerous than the original reindeer mountain Sami, who today only make up ten percent of the total Sami population.


 * Two major points here:
 * 1) There is no omission here, WP:LAYOUT is very specific as described here:
 * As explained...the lead section may contain optional elements presented in the following order: disambiguation links (dablinks), maintenance tags, infoboxes, images, navigational boxes (navigational templates), introductory text, and table of contents, moving to the heading of the first section.


 * Further, as described here:
 * "Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article, and therefore should be put before any text..."


 * 2) You are repeating the original infobox in the articles, case in point are examples here, here, and here. Your template additions were creative and a good attempt, but they are in conflict with the layout of Wikipedia. Lets just end this, reverse the edits, and call it a learning experience.  Take care.  Dinkytown (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)