|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Hodgepodge of Mohican and Mohegan history
- 2 Mahican vs Mohican Vs. Mohegan
- 3 move to Mahican
- 4 Article move deadline extended
- 5 First line of history section
- 6 Are the mohican people extinct?
- 7 Framing in the History Section
- 8 Map totally inaccurate
Hodgepodge of Mohican and Mohegan history
Yeah, this page is totally wrong. I am Mohican (same as Mahican, Mahikan, Muheconnuck), which is an Algonguin speaking tribe now residing in Wisconsin, originally from the Hudson river valley, with stops in Stockbridge, MA, upstate NY and others along the way. The Mohegans (and Pequots) are Iroquoian speaking tribes [no they're not, they're Algonquian speaking as well] and not very closely related, if I recall my history correctly. Accurate information about the Mohicans can be found at www.mohican.com. I'm brand-new in the wiki community, but if anyone wants me to jump in on this page, I'd be happy to. Jumpingfish 01:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone who actually knows German might want to give this a once-over; I'm 20 years outside of my last class.
The article as it stands now confuses the Mahican and the Mohican. I'll add it to my to do list, but it will be a while before I get back. In the meantime, of course, feel free to edit it. I'll be grateful for the help. Lou I 17:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Mahican vs Mohican Vs. Mohegan
I'm pretty sure that the Mohican and Mohegan are not the same tribe. According to every map I've looked at on the matter (four in the past week alone) the Mohegan (in Connecticut) and the Mohican (in Upstate New York) are listed as seperate nations. In one of these maps the Mahican were also listed as a seperate nation in Vermont (as mentoned above).
While it is concievably true that the Mohegan are descendents of the Mohican via the Pequot as you claim (I'm not an expert on the subject history), according to the Pequot museum the Mohegan and Pequot were seperate tribes at the time of European contact, and indeed spoke entirely different languages (according to the National Geographic map "North American Indian Cultures").
With a seperate language, three degrees of separation in the case of the Mohegan (albeit only one in the case of the Pequot), and centuries of seperation between them, counting them as all various factions of the Mohican seems to me to be akin to counting the French and Cajuns as Italians because of the common Roman ancestery on the part of the French and Italians and the Descent of the Cajuns from the French.
--Quintucket 01:10, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, the article has a serious problem confusing the Mahican groups with Mohegan groups. These are different linguistic and cultural groups. This article, at present, just adds to the confusion.
- Serious research should be undertaken to improve the article. Source materials probably should not come from the internet as it is extremely unreliable with respect to accuracy, especially concerning information about the indigeous peoples of the Americas. (However, one good thing about the internet is that sometimes Native America communties have websites that detail their own views concerning their culture and history which sometimes disagree with the views of Euro-American anthropologists and historians.) I recommend starting with the excellent multi-volume work (as yet unfinished) below:
- Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978-present). Handbook of North American Indians. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
- The northeast volume ("from Virginia to St. Lawrence River, Great Lakes, Ohio Valley, Illinois") has been published:
- Trigger, Bruce G. (Ed.). (1978). Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 15). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
- - Ish ishwar 06:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
name confusion info from OED
quote from Oxford English Dictionary's entry on Mohican:
- [Blend of English forms of the self-designations of two Algonquian Indian peoples (see sense A. 1a).
- The self-designation of the Mahikans appears to have been Muhhekunneyuk (prob. < a place name Muhheakunnuk denoting the tidal section of the Hudson River: the translation ‘wolf’ in quot. 1907 is prob. mistaken) or Muhheakunneuw, and to have been transmitted via Munsee mà·hí·kan;
- that of the Mohegans appears to have been a form apprehended as *Moyahegan (cf. Moya[u]hegunnewog people of Mohegan).
- Cf. early 17th-cent. Dutch forms Mahikan (1625), Mahikander (1642), Maikan (c1626), Manikan (c1633) and post-classical Latin plural forms Manhikani (1633), Mahikanenses (1635).
- The form Mohican in modern use is chiefly after J. Fenimore Cooper's usage (see sense A. 1b): on his choice of this spelling see quots. 1823, 1826 at sense A. 1a. In his 1994 edition of Cooper's novel, J. McWilliams identifies Cooper's Mohicans on historical grounds as the Mohegans, although Cooper does not mention the Mahicans as a separate people (cf. quot. 1826 at sense A. 1a). In the 1820s Cooper probably had some personal contact with a Mohegan offshoot of the Stockbridge Indians (see note at sense A. 1a).
- Renderings of the Mahikan self-designation (e.g. Moheakunnuk, Mo-hee-con-neugh, Muhheakunnuk, Muh-he-con-nuk, Muhhekaneew), also occur in English contexts.]
- (A. 1a)
- A member of either of two Algonquian peoples who formerly lived along the lower Connecticut River and on the upper reaches of the Hudson.
- One of these peoples (now usually called Mahican or Mohican) formerly occupied parts of eastern New York, western Massachusetts, and north-western Connecticut; the other (now usually called Mohegan or Mohican) occupied parts of eastern or south-eastern Connecticut. In historical usage, as in more recent non-specialist use, there is no clear distinction evident in forms used to denote the two peoples, and it is clear that in a number of cases the existence of two distinct peoples was not apprehended: it is impossible today to divide the early evidence decisively as denoting either one people or the other. There appears to be very little evidence before the 20th cent. for the names of the two tribes being used contrastively (but note quot. 1797).
- The Mahicans and Mohegans both suffered severe reductions in numbers and power following the arrival of the Dutch and British in the 17th cent., and by the 18th cent. were scattered from their original territories. In the 1730s a community of Mahicans, together with remnants of the Mohegan people, settled in the Christian mission village of Stockbridge, Massachusetts. In the 19th cent. this group (known as the Stockbridge Indians) joined with a group of Munsee (MUNSEE n.) and settled on reservation land in Shawano Co., Wisconsin. The people of this reservation now identify themselves as the Mohican Nation, Stockbridge-Munsee band.
- Members of today's Mohican Nation (see note at sense 1a) dispute Cooper's representation of the Mohicans as having died out as an identifiable people.
Peace. - Ish ishwar 06:22, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
spellings from OED
alternate forms of Mahican: Mahiggin, Mahican, Mahicanni, Mahiccan, Mahikan, Mahicon
alternate forms of Mohegan: Mawhiggin, Moheag, Moheegin, Mohege, Mohegen, Mohiganie, Mohiggener, Mohiggin, Mohigoner, Mohegin, Mohigon, Mohigan, Mohegan, Moheagon, Moheeg, Moheegan, Moheg, Moheagan, Mohingan
alternate forms of Mohican (??): Moheek, Moheken, Mohicand, Mahickander, Mawhickon, Moheckon, Mohekin, Mohickan, Mohickander, Mohickon, Mohecan, Mohiccon, Moheecan
other forms (??): Manheken, Manhigan, Monahegan, Monahigganick, Monahiggon, Monahiganeuk, Monheag, Monheagan, Monhegen, Monhegin, Monhigg, Monhiggin, Monohegen, Munhegan, Munhicke, Monhegan, Manhingan
- Ish ishwar 06:31, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
move to Mahican
Mohican is used to refer to 2 different groups:
This page is very wrong currently, but this is a separate issue from the move (I believe).
See above for more details.
Thanks - Ish ishwar 07:05, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
Support for disambig at Mohican
What Ethnologue says
Ethnologue isn't helping much in this matter. It lists only one relevant Algonquian language: Mohegan-Montauk-Narragansett, whose dialects are Pequot-Mohegan, Narragansett, Montauk (Shinnecock-Poosepatuck), and Stockbridge. The only relevant Iroquoian language it lists (someone above said one of the two was Iroquoian) is Mohawk, also known as Kanien'kehaka. The word "Mahican" doesn't appear in the Ethnologue. --Angr 22:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ethnologue is generally not a good source for North American language classifications. I am not sure what they are using as their source (maybe Driver from the 1960s?). Ethnologue is to be applauded for its comprehesiveness, but as for its accuracy in all languages it is not good enough. (Compare, for example, Ethnologue's Penutian grouping & my skimpy rewrite of Penutian.)
- A lot more is known about these languages now.
- The best and most up-to-date works are
- Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509427-1.
- Goddard, Ives. (1996). Languages. Handbook of North American Indians (W. C. Sturtevant, Ed.) (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 0-1604-8774-9.
- Goddard, Ives. (1999). Native languages and language families of North America (rev. and enlarged ed. with additions and corrections). [Map]. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press (Smithsonian Institute). (Updated version of the map in Goddard 1996). ISBN 0-8032-9271-6.
- Mithun, Marianne. (1999). The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23228-7 (hbk); ISBN 0-521-29875-X.
- An another good book that is a bit older but still has a lot of good stuff (popularly called "the black book"):
- Campbell, Lyle; & Mithun, Marianne (Eds.). (1979). The languages of native America: Historical and comparative assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press.
- I have based the classification of the Algic languages on Mithun (1999) since she is herself an Algonquian specialist. [no she's not, she's an Iroquois specialist]
- Mithun (1999) and Campbell (1997) do not mention "Mohican" (maybe due to rampant confusion?). Of course, they do mention both "Mohegan" and "Mahican" since they are different languages. [linguists don't usually use the spelling 'Mohican']
- I actually havent looked at Campbell & Mithun (1979) or Goddard (1996), yet. So, stay tuned... Peace. - Ish ishwar 23:16, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
- Okay, but do Mithun and Campbell list both Mohegan and Mahican as Algonquian languages? Or is one Algonquian and the other Iroquoian? --Angr 06:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, both are considered Algonquian by Mithun and Campbell. (I think the person above is just guessing?). - Ish ishwar 04:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
- Additionally, the Mahican language is mentioned in Ives Goddard's"Comparative Algonquian" in Campbell & Mithun (1979), but Mohican or Mohegan is not. - Ish ishwar 07:14, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
What Mithun says
- "A group of dialects termed Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk was spoken in eastern Connecticut (Mohegan, Pequot) and across the Sound on the eastern end of Long Island (Montauk). A 27-page manuscript by James Noyes, recorded in Stonington in 1690, is in the Beinecke library at Yale. In 1762, Stiles recorded recorded a vocabulary at Groton, published in Cowan 1973b. Nearly a century and a half later, additional Mohegan material was recorded from Fidelia Fielding (1827-1908), the last known speaker. Included are over 400 words and texts (Prince & Speck 1903a,b, 1904, Speck 1904), and a diary she kept from 1902-1905 with facing page translation by Speck (1928b). Cowan 1937b compares the Stiles material with that in Prince & Speck. Montauk is known from a vocabulary recorded by Gardiner in 1798, printed in a number of works, including Wood 1824: 28, Latham 1846: 32-4, Bayles 1874: 63-4." (Mithun 1999: 330)
- "The Mahican inhabited an area from Lake Champlain south along the Hudson River to Dutchess County, in present eastern New York, western Massachusetts, and northwestern Connecticut. Their language is known primarily from two missions established in the 18th century, one by Baptist at Stockbridge in the Berkshires, the other by Moravians at Shecomeco in Dutchess County. Both communities were linguistically heterogeneous, and both were forced to move a number of times. Mahican was last spoken in the 1930s in Wisconsin. Stockbridge Mahican is represented by translations of liturgical materials (Sergeant 1822), words and grammatical notes by Jonathan Edwards (1788), a wordlist in Jenks 1804, and a text (Prince 1905). Mahican material from the Moravian archives in Herrnhut, Germany, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and in the Houghton Library at Harvard, appears in Masthay 1980 and 1991. Masthay 1980 contains hymns, a brief sermon, a letter, Biblical narrative, and word list, with decipherment and translation of the 18th century German into English. Masthay 1991 is a reworking of Schmick's dictionary from the mid 18th century, with historical phonology of the language by Pentland." (Mithun 1999: 331)
- Ish ishwar 07:35, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, that clears it up. Mohegan should stay where it is and be about the people in eastern CT and eastern LI. Mohican should redirect to Mahican and should be about the people in and around the Hudson Valley. Somewhere it should be pointed out that the tribe referred to in The Last of the Mohicans is the same as the tribe referred to here as Mahican, even though the character Uncas was named after (and based on?) a real-life Mohegan Uncas. And of course the entire current text must be rewritten as it clearly refers to the CT/LI Mohegans. But the external links at the bottom of the page are right; the Mahican are the same as the Stockbridge Indians, and now live with the Munsee in Wisconsin . --Angr 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What Handbook of Native American Indians says
If further evidence is needed (or in case it interests other readers), I cite Goddard (1978), Salwen (1978), Conkey et al. (1978), & Brasser (1978) all from Trigger (1978), and also Goddard (1996). In my quick glance over all of these works, I do not find any reference to the term Mohican — I only find the terms Mahican and Mohegan. These two terms refer to two different groups as stated above in Mithun (1999), Campbell (1997), Campbell et al. (1979), and Goddard (1979).
Here is further discussion from Goddard (1978: 72):
- "MOHEGAN-PEQUOT The dialects of Connecticut east of the Connecticut River are generally classed together as Mohegan-Pequot. Athough this seems to be a valid grouping, the number and distinctness of the various local forms of speech are uncertain. That the problem is more complicated than simply differentiating a putative "Mohegan" dialect from a putative "Pequot" is shown, for example, by the differences between the Pequot of Stonington and that of Groton (Noyes 1690; Stiles 1973). It has been suggested that some of the remmant eighteenth-century Indians called Pequots may have actually spoken Niantic (Trumbull 1873:134); but nothing definite is known about the speech of either the Western or Eastern Niantic, not even whether or they were linguistically closer to each other than to the other groups nearby. It is possible that a vocabulary from the eighteenth-century Narragansetts (Stiles 1973a), which is very similar to Pequot, may actually represent the speech of the Eastern Niantic component of that group.
- "EASTERN LONG ISLAND LANGUAGES At the end of the eighteenth century the Unquachog, Shinnecock, and Montauk had forms of speech that were different enough for Thomas Jefferson to be able to write that 'the three tribes can barely understand each other' (Jefferson 1791). This statement appears confirmed by the many points of difference between the recorded vocabulary of Unquachog (Jefferson 1791) and Montauk (Gardiner 1798), but the materials on Sinnecock are too sparse to permit any precise statements about its dialectal affiliations (Gatschet 1889:390; Harrington 1903:39). Although diverse among themselves, the Long Island languages seem to have been rather close to those on the opposite shore of Long Island Sound. It may be that Unquachog should be considered a dialect of the western Connecticut language represented by Naugatuck and Quiripi and that Montauk should be grouped as a third dialect of Mohegan-Pequot.
- "MAHICAN Mahican was the language of the Indians of that name on the upper Hudson, and judging by a few personal names (NYCD 13:119, 379, 545) it may have been spoken by the Catskills as well. In the eighteenth century, Mahican was spoken in the mission villages of Stockbridge, on the upper Housatonic, and Shecomeco, in northeastern Dutchess County, New York; but its aboriginal extent to the east and south is not known exactly. There is a fair amount of variation in the different recordings of Mahican, but no systematic study has been done to determine if this reflects major dialect differenences. The language went west with the migrating Mahicans, and partial speakers were living among the Wisconsin Stockbridges as late as the 1930s."
Here are 2 short quotes from Salwen (1978) concerning the Mohegans:
- "TERRITORY The Pequot first appear in the documentary record in 1614 as the 'Pequatoos...enemies of the Wapanoos,' whom the Dutch encountered on 'the River of Siccanamos after the name of the Sagimos' (the Mystic?). The 'Morhicans' lived just to the west between the Frisian (Thames?) River and the Fresh (Connecticut) River (Stokes 1915-1928, 2:C, pl. 23; De Laet 1909:42-43). Other early seventeenth-century documents make it clear that Uncas, the Mohegan sachem, was subordinate to Sassacus, the chief sachem of the Pequot. In the early 1630s Sassacus 'held dominion...over the part of Long Island, over the Mohegans, over the sagamores of Quinapeake [New Haven], yea over all the people that dwelt upon Connecticut River, and over some of the most southernly inhabitants of the Nipmuck country, about Quinabaag' (Gookin 1972:7). The Montauk 'confederacy' of Long Island, which included the Shinnecock and Corchaug, was very close to, if not identical with, the Mohegan-Pequot in language ('Eastern Algonquian Languages,' this vol.) and aboriginal material culture (L. E. Williams 1972). While the Narragansett later claimed control over them, these groups paid tribute to the Pequot before the Pequot were defeated in 1637 (De Rasieres 1909:103; Gardiner 1859:22). Swanton (1952:29-32) lists many villages of the Pequot, Mohegan, and Montauk.
- "HISTORY Despite frequent assertions that the Mohegan-Pequot were a Hudson valley group that had recently invaded eastern Connecticut (De Forest 1851:59-60; Swanson 1952:32), there is good linguistic and archeological evidence that suggests a long period of in situ development (Salwen 1969)." (Salwen 1978: 172)
- "Pequot (ˈpēˌkwät) and Mohegan (ˌmōˈhēgən): These names first appear as Pequats and Morhicans on Block's map of 1614 (Stokes 1915-1928, 2:C, pl. 23) and as Pequatoos and Morhicans in De Laet's 1625 volume (1909:42-43). Variant spellings by seventeenth-century writers include, for the first, Pyquans (De Rasieres 1909:103), Pequins and Pekoath (Winthrop 1908, 1:61, 76), and Pequants (Wood 1865:62), and for the second, Monhigg (Bradford 1908:338) and Monahegan (Winthrop 1908, 1:271). The Narragansett plural forms were Pequttôg and Monahiganeuck (Williams 1936:188, 1963, 6:84)." (Salwen 1978: 175)
Here is Brasser (1978) concerning the Mahicans:
- "The Mahican (ˈmäˌhēkən or ˌmuˈhēkən) spoke an Eastern Algonquian language, which was probably most closely related to Wappinger and other Munsee dialects and to the Algonquian languages of New England. Linguistic data originating from Stockbridge, Massachusetts, betray the heterogeneous makeup of the local 'Mahican' population, which had incorporated many remnant groups from New England.
- "The homeland of the Mahican Indians extended from Lake Chaplain southward into the western part of Dutchess County, New York, and from the valley of the Schoharie Creek in the west to south-central Vermont in the east (fig. 1). With increasing unity among the Iroquois tribes in the sixteenth century, relations with the Mohawk appeared to have become markedly hostile, making it impossible for the Mahican to use their domains west of the Hudson River for purposes other than hunting. On the other hand, the Mohawk did not dare to establish villages east of Schohaire Creek.
- "Mahican country is part of the coastal uplands through which several rivers have cut north-south valleys. Of these, the valley of the Hudson River forms a lowland passage from Lake Champlain and the Saint Lawrence to the Atlantic coast. North of the Hudson River highlands the valley is rimmed on the west by the glaciated Alleghey plateau, and on the east by the rugged area of the Taconic and Green mountains...." (Brasser 1978: 198)
- "According to the origin traditions of the tribe and the testimonies of its prominent leaders, the tribe's name was derived from Muhheakunnuk, which was the name of a locality. It referred to the tidal water of the Hudson River, which indeed is subject to ebb and flow as far upriver as Albany. Similar words in the related Munsee language corroborate these native testimonies. From this name were derived the terms Muhheakunneuw and Muhhekunneyuk, referring respectively 'a Mahican Indian' and 'the Mahican Indians' (Kokhkewenaunaut, 1763, in H. A. Wright 1905:184; MHSC ser. 1, 9:99-102; Aupaumut, ca. 1791, in E. F. Jones 1854:15, in Skinner 1925:102).
- "Adriaen Block in 1614 and later colonial authorities usually referred to the tribe as Mahicans, Mahikanders, Mahikens, and similar names. It is possible that these names resulted from the early Dutch use of Delaware or Munsee Indian interpreters, who pronounced the tribe's names as mà·hí·kan, mà·hí·kani·w, Mahi´kanαk (Ives Goddard, personal communication 1973; Speck and Moses 1945:14). Related terms were used by the Shawnee: Mhíkana, Nhíkana, Hikanagi (Gatschet 1877). The Algonquins decided to call the Mahican 'wolves' because of the resemblance of the Alquoquin word for wolf to the Mahican's own tribal name. Following the practice of their Alquoquin allies, the early French too referred to the Mahican as 'wolves', either in French—Loups—or in Algonquin—Maingan, Mahingan (Champlain 1922-1936, 5:208, 214) Related to the Algonquin term is Montagnais Mahiganiouetch (mistakenly written Nahiganiouetch, in JR 18:260). By 1662 the name Loups began to lose is specificity and was used by the French to refer to several tribes in New England and New York State (Mooney and Thomas 1907b:786, 788). The Algonquin folk etymology gave rise to the common conception that the Mahican referred to themselves as 'wolves'.
- "The Mahican tribe is not to be confused with the Mohegan of coastal Connecticut. These tribes were not related to each other, and their tribal names have been subject to the same mistake in translation. Starting in the early 1660s, English colonial authorities used the name River Indians for the Mahican and other Algonquian-speaking Indians residing on the Hudson river (NYCD 13:229)." (Brasser 1978: 211)
Article move deadline extended
The deadline for this requested move has been extended. Please present a clear vote for the proposed move as it is currently not obvious what peoples opinions currently are. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ishwar response:
- I initiated the move and I still support this.
- I have referenced 11 different scholarly works that do not refer to Mahicans as Mohican nor refer to Mohegans as Mohicans.
- My recommendation is (1) move this Mohican article to Mahican, and (2) turn this Mohican page into a disambiguation page.
- I seem to have convinced user: Angr to agree with the move.
- No one else has cared to comment, and no one has referenced any work that would led us to consider this move to be disfavorable. Peace. - ishwar (SPEAK) 01:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
- The only thing I would disagree with is making Mohican a disambig page. I've seen lots of times when Mohican is used to mean Mahican, but I've never seen a time when Mohican is used to mean Mohegan, except possibly in Cooper, who thought the two were the same tribe. I think Mohican should just redirect to Mahican, where it should be mentioned that the Mahicans of the Hudson Valley must not be confused with the Mohegans of eastern Connecticut. And, I reiterate, the text of the current article must be moved to Mohegan, and brand new text about the Mahicans written. But the external links are right. --Angr 05:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Not that I'm indecisive or anything, but it sure looks like the modern Mahicans prefer the spelling Mohican. That seems to be the only spelling used on websites directly relating to the modern Mohican Nation. --Angr 13:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh right. I had forgotten the British call mohawks "mohicans". Okay, then yeah, the disambig is a good idea. --Angr 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Everyone seemed to think Mohican should redirect here up to the point Mohican haircuts were mentioned. That is a bit of a trivial reason for not redirecting here and causes confusion. A better scheme would be to have Mohican redirect here and have a "for other uses see . . ." dab at the top of this page. Anyone object to this? SpinningSpark 12:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
First line of history section
The first line of their history section goes right into contact with Europeans. The Mahican had a long history prior, which is not mentioned, and in accordance with a attaining a more global perspective, should certainly be included. Josh a z 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole history section needs to be reworked. The whole section focuses on their contact with the Europeans and their conversion to Christianity; it smacks of having been written by a missionary. Moreover, one cannot go east into Mass. and Conn. to the Hudson River. The Hudson River is in New York State, and therefore west of where they ended up, not east. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Are the mohican people extinct?
Because i often hear things from simpsons that says that they died out or something?
Dumoren 10:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia Spanish Edition this group never existed and was an invention of an American writer I don't want to discuss this, I just wonder how can be such contradictions?
About 30% of the whole Wikipedia project has validity, and unfortunately lots of people is using it to justify their ignorance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Our article has quality references which are rather more reliable than The Simpsons, Spanish Wikipedia or a statistic you appear to have made up yourself. SpinningSpark 12:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Framing in the History Section
The paragraph on the Moravian church has some big problems.
First, the adjective describing Christianity as "civilizing."
Second, the description of Indians as "theirs." what??!
3. How could they possibly have been defending the Amerinds against white exploitation? According to the previous sentences, they weren't themselves necessarily exploiting the tribe, but they were definitely oppressing their culture.
Map totally inaccurate
the map ostensibly showing the Mohican Homeland is totally wrong. which is not a surprise if you click through to learn more about the image. "This is a map of the Hudson River Watershed."
i cannot figure out how to edit the text under the image to clarify that it shows the watershed, not the mohican homeland. if someone else could do that it would be a great service to the people who read this page!!!
- The image caption in the infobox is edited by changing the value of the parameter "image_caption=" in the infobox (4th line down). What would be more useful however, is to make a new map showing the correct information. Do you have these details, and what is the source? SpinningSpark 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)