Talk:Beothuk

Is extinct the right word to use?

Is extinct the right word to use when a nation or ethnic group dies out? I've only seen extinct used about animal species.--Sonjaaa 13:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think extinct is the right word to use, at least for an ethnic group. I can't think of any other word that could be used. --Lairor 03:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Santu's song

Date of Santu's song changed from 1929 to 1910 on the grounds of Beothuk language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.5.5 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 12 January (UTC)2005

Extinction again

I was taught in grade 9 history/social studies that great numbers of the Beothuk were basically rounded up and mass murdered by european settlers, and this was largely how they became extinct.... can't remember any specific texts, but I find it interesting that there's no mention of that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.91.171 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This page contains quite few small erros, and should probably be rewritten. In response the the above person, that is completely wrong. The Beothuk basically moved inland and starved to death as Europeans drove them from the coast. Which I learned from a 3000 level Newfoundland History course offered at MUN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.96.40 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard that some of the Beothuks were reported to have red hair and other Norse characteristics, from contact with the norse during Leif Erickson's time. Anyone else heard this theory? Ernestleonard 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

MUN being Memorial University of *Newfoundland*, wouldn't it raise some questions for the university to completely deny that the Beothuk were eradicated by European settlers in Newfoundland? CKSCIII 00:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) .....................................

Note on "extinction", "Norse characteristics" and modern descendants.

Unfortunately, the link to the Beothuk song no longer works. I contacted the CBC about it but they said they could not release it due to copyright problems. I wrote a letter to the email address I got for the Professor who spoke about it on the program but never got any reply. Can anyone else help out here? It would be wonderful to be able to listen to it again.

As to the Beothuks becoming "extinct" - the situation is rather like that of the Tasmanian Aboriginals in Australia. There are, of course, no "full-blood" people left, and the culture has disappeared - however, there are descendants of the Beothuks (and my family claim to be among them). We are making arrangements at the moment to have DNA studies done and I will report here if and when we get some results. In the meantime you might like to check the link I have just made to an article (downloadable in pdf form) which refers to some fascinating DNA research done at McMaster University on DNA taken from Beothuk skulls.

Finally, as to the question about whether some of the Beothuk had Norse characteristics - I have never heard anything like this and imagine it is probably just a story based on the fact that there was a brief Norse settlement at Anse aux Meadows. As far as I know, the Norse sagas indicate that relations with the "Skraelings" were not friendly (can someone who really knows help out here please?) and so it is unlikely there would have been enough mixing (if any) to make such a major contribution to the gene pool. I would suspect that, if there were any Beothuk with red hair, etc., it would more likely have come from early English, French or Basque fishermen. The drawings of the Beothuk women taken to St. John's show them with straight black hair and features that look mainly Amerinidian. Also, photos of my ancestors, who family tradition insist were part Beothuk, show pronounced typical Amerindian looks. John Hill 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In a visit to the new large museum in St. John's in June, 2006 I read that it is unlikely that the Beothuk existed in Newfoundland at the time of the Norse settlements at L'anse aux meadows. The thinking is that the Beothuk came to Newfoundland after the arrival and departure of the Norse. The museum text stated that the "skraelings" which the norse came in contact with were probably in Labrador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.29.6.116 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 August 2007

This is excellent news to hear that there are still Beothuk descendants left! That there were no people left was always a very, very sad thought. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote

I removed the following quote from the body of the article. The sentiment is admirable and apt, but I think our purpose here is to document, not mourn (not overtly, anyway). Regards, Rodney Boyd 14:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"The beauty and genius of a work of art my be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again." William Beebe, The Bird, 1906

[Untitled]

I think they did an excellent job on this!! I did other research and it was almost right on!! GOOD JOB!:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.39.110 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 September 2006

"The Labrador" Link

"The Labrador" Link is now bad. They only keep the past three months issues available online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.116.223.190 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

History and Culture

In the last sentence of the first paragraph, should "previous" be "subsequent"? I hesitate to change it, as it might reverse the contributor's intended meaning. DavidOaks 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Should I put that "Nancy April was believed to have been the last beothuk"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.202.195 (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DNA Testing

Until the DNA testing is done, I think the part about people having possible genetic ties to the Beothuk should be removed. It is only speculation at this point and might only be the result of shoddy research or rumour. Anyone could make such claims. Would they all get mentioned here? But, if testing proves otherwise, it should of course be added.

Jmutford 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)John

DNA Testing and oral histories

In reply to John's comments above - I would point out that the section about present-day descendants of the Beothuk is clearly introduced as "oral history" and "family history," so there is no chance that the stories can be mistaken for well-recorded historical "facts."

DNA testing is now being done on a female descendant of Susannah Manuel (Anstey) - who is directly descended through the female line - but it may prove inconclusive as so little is known about Beothuk DNA to compare it with. Only a couple of specimens from two skulls have so far been tested (see the link to the pdf article on these tests).

However, the stories are not solely based on "rumour" or "shoddy research," but on strong and persistent family traditions (maintained over the years in spite of prejudice against people of "Indian" descent). Furthermore, copies of a (rather unclear) photo of Susannah Manuel (Anstey), and a much clearer one of her daughter, Mary Pond (née Anstey, 1858-1895) are in my possession. The photo of Mary Pond, especially, clearly shows facial features indicating native American descent. While this certainly does not "prove" anything on its own (and could possibly be explained away as a result of Mi'kmaq or Inuit inheritance), it does add some credence to the strong family traditions of Beothuk descent.

So, my feeling is that, as the family traditions are clearly marked as "oral history" and, as so very little is known about the Beothuk and their ultimate fate, the stories should remain because of their inherent interest. They may also help spur further interest and, hopefully, discoveries. Also, I believe that, when there is a lack of firmly established historical facts and written records, there is a valid place for family histories, legendary accounts, and the like in the Wikipedia - so long as they are clearly marked as such. Many other articles in the Wikipedia refer to legendary and mythological material, and it is commonly accepted by scholars that such material often contains valid historical information.

If and when the results of the recent DNA tests become available (and depending on the permission of the person having the tests done) they may well be published. If so, they will be reported on here. John Hill 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"extinct"

I agree with Sanjaaa that the use of the term 'extinct' is highly problematic, its modern usage is only appropriate in the context of non-human species. What happened to the Beothuk people was genocide and clearly fits the definitions stipulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948/1951). A more accurate reflection of land-theft, racist policies, and a chronology of Settler massacres of Beothuk communities needs to be added to this entry. Using "extinction" and minimizing the direct agency of European settlers in stealing Beothuk lands, massacring whole communities, and enslaving the people (most notably women) is highly problematic practice tantamount to genocide denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petokraka78 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 July 2007

Removal of Speculation

I removed the speculative part about the Beothuks having a bloodline that may or may not still exist today. Again, I maintain that it should only be added if proven, but not until that point- not even as "oral history." History, as is my understanding of the term, should be as close to fact as possible and does not include rumours. Reading John Hill's Wikipedia User Profile, I see the sentence "I am of English and French background with a dash of Beothuk" as if this is already an accepted fact. Romantic as an idea as that is, it isn't proven. I find the motivations of people making such claims too suspect and even offensive. I do not agree that mythological and legendary material has a place in this particular article, as John Hill implies above. They were a very real people. Jmutford 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)John

Speculation? Seeking others' opinions

Dear John: I am not trying to argue with you but the "oral histories" I referred to are not based solely on speculation - there is some evidence. Unfortunately, there is no complete "proof." But then, what and how is anything completely "proven"? After all, there are many articles in the Wikipedia with statements such as: "so-and-so had a French (or a Jewish or a German or an American) father". Now, how can this possibly be "proven" without actual DNA testing? Yet we generally accept church records and family traditions on such matters.

There is a very strong and persistent family tradition that we are part Beothuk (and my mother, myself and brother and sister have all been to Twillingate, Lewisporte and other places in northern Newfoundland, where we checked with a number of our relatives who all confirmed this story). Also, we have copies of photos of Susannah Manuel (Anstey), 1832-1911, who is supposed to have been half Beothuk, and her daughter Mary Pond (Anstey) 1858-1895, which show strong "Native American facial features". I can provide scans of these if anyone wishes - though the one of Mary Pond (Anstey) is much clearer than that of her mother.

Now, of course, someone might say that the facial features could have been due to mixing with Mi'kmaq or other native peoples, but this seems most unlikely to have happened so early in the region near the mouth of the Exploits River - and the family stories are quite clear about later mixing with the Mi'kmaq in some (but not all) branches of the family. All sources agree that Susannah Manuel (who was born in Lewisporte in 1832) definitely had a Beothuk mother.

This seems very possible indeed, as Shanawdithit (who died in 1829 and is often billed as the "last of the Beothuk") reported that a number of men and women (some 12 or 13 in all) from her tribe managed to escape when she was captured. Ingeborg Marshall in her excellent book, A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk, pp. 224-225, reports a number of sightings and incidents involving Beothuk in this region after 1829 - from 1834 to at least 1845, and there is a report that Beothuks "had lived in the watershed area of Bay St. George in the 1840s and 1850s and were said to have intermarried with the whites."

My mother and sister have paid to have DNA studies done and, while all the results are not back yet, it is unlikely they will "prove" much definitely either way - as there is only some DNA garnered from two stolen Beothuk skulls to compare it with - not enough for a proper sampling. Hopefully, though, they may give some supportive evidence. When and if any evidence is forthcoming from these studies I will certainly post it on this page.

While it is usual for material in the Wikipedia to require some well-referenced source for information such as this - it is my belief that, because so very little is known about the Beothuk people, whatever crumbs of information have survived are precious and should be recorded. The fact that a number oral stories and photos are the only "evidence" we have at the moment should, I believe, be of enough interest for a short entry with, of course, appropriate qualifications.

I would be very grateful to hear what other people think on this subject or if they have anything to add to these stories. Please reply on this page or, if you wish, contact me directly at: wynhill@bigpond.com Many thanks, John Hill 06:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is interesting for a family to trace descent, that does not alter the fact that the ethnic Beothuk group, with its culture and language, no longer exists as a whole - that is the meaning of saying the group is "extinct". I don't think one family's descent has a place in the article. People do carry all kinds of ancestry. For instance, a while ago in England, they found that many contemporary males in Cheshire, England had Y-DNA linked to the 6,000-year-old "Cheshire Man", showing relative stability of population in the area. If a university undertook such a local study in Newfoundland, for instance, found persisting Beothuk genes, and published their results, such material would be valid for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Parkwells (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Song

Ah, that song, I used to actually have that recording too from the CBC, but at some point I must have lost it. It's nowhere to be found on my hard-drive now. If anyone out there does still have it, it would be good to hear it. User:Benstox 3:56, 14 August 2008.

Oh, yes, I would love to hear it again too! I wrote to the CBC about it once but they were very unhelpful. Can anyone else out there find it again, please? John Hill (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also had trouble trying to get this from the CBC. They didn't cite copyright however, but essentially told me they had lost it by claiming the file was no longer to be found on their network. Further, I also received no response from the professor via email. Looks like this language is still lost for the purposes of the general public. User:TheTyrant —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

Murdered

Thanks again to another wandering Italian. Giovani Caboto and his imported Mikmak's, proceed to murder and starve the native population for the good of the foriegn country payings his wages. Think Columbus was bad. There are No more beothuks' left. 76.71.17.88 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perheps there are, at least some kind of ancestors. See here: Researchers turn over new Leif in Canadian Viking mystery --88.149.99.14 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and italics

How exactly are Demasduit, Shanawdithit, and Nonosbawsut not the names of the people in question? The article is inconsistent on the formatting, and MOS:Ety says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to (see Words as words)." There are a few instances where the wrds could perhaps fall on the mention side of use-mention (if anything, Mary March looks like it could be that), but for the other instances, if they really aren't names then that should be mentioned in the article and the formatting made consistent. Ergative rlt (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I hadn't seen how muddled up that was. All the italics from their proper names are now gone (I think), only the names given to them by the English are italicized, as these were not their proper names and moreover, this is noted as such in most sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of discrete

The phrase "discrete ethnic group" is used in the last sentence of the lead. Is this some ethnographer's use of discrete that I'm not aware of, or should this read perhaps "distinct"? The Interior (Talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm a boob, I was thinking of "discreet". However, "distinct" might be better, I'm probably not the only one who doesn't know about "discrete". The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Discrete is the fit word. discreet has another meaning altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Red Indians"

Does the claim that red ochre led to the term "red Indians" need a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.71.171 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2013

Linguistic classification

Marshall does not claim that "most modern linguists and historians" support the Algonquian hypothesis, her actual words are that there is a "tendency" to support Alogonquian. Also, note that Marshall's work is a general overview from 1996, while Mithun and Campbell are both specialist works on the history and classification of North American languages, postdate Marshall, and list Beothuk outside of Algic/Alogonquian.

Mithun additionally does not hedge by saying "definite purely linguistic based judgements", and anyway linguistic judgements are the only sort that are valid for linguistic classification.

The claim that "certain linguistic sources regarded it as a language isolate, linked to assumptions about the isolation of the Beothuk from the rest of North America" is supported by Holly only with regards to a single source: Gatschet, writing in the 19th century, with the possibility of other, unnamed early researchers doing the same. These notions aren't involved in the modern debates about the classification of the Beothuk language, and Holly doesn't claim they are. Furthermore, the "all fail to support the isolation argument" is about claims of geographical/cultural isolation, not status as a linguistic isolate, as the surrounding context make clear. Using supposed isolation (per Gatschet) to imply a status of isolate is clearly wrong, but at the same time status as an isolate does not imply cultural/geographic isolation, nor do cultural/geograhic connections imply linguistic relatedness: these are distinct concerns, which Holly makes clear later in the article. Holly in fact never states whether Beothuk is an isolate or not, instead focusing on how claims about the Beothuk language have been used as fodder for those engaging in an ethnographic othering of the Beothuk - a process not limited to those favoring status as an isolate, as several authors mentioned as being responsible for such othering are explicitly treating the Beothuk as an Algoquian group. Ergative rlt (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chipewyan people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cayuga people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Beothuk people → Beothuk – target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on Feb 2 2011, citing the naming convention he'd just authored; original article created as "Beothuks" on June 15 2003 by Adam Bishop Move was contrary to WP:UNDAB Skookum1 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• • target is redirect to current title, redirect created by Kwami on Feb 2 2011, citing the naming convention he'd just authored; original article created as "Beothuks" on June 15 2003 by Adam Bishop
• Oppose until the issue is addressed properly. These should be discussed at a centralized location.

There was a discussion once on whether the ethnicity should have precedence for the name, and it was decided it shouldn't. That could be revisited. But it really should be one discussion on the principle, not thousands of separate discussions at every ethnicity in the world over whether it should be at "X", "Xs", or "X people". — kwami (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. An identified people should be the primary topic of a term absent something remarkable standing in the way. bd2412 T 02:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per the policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). The section Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision also applies given that Beothuk redirects here. There is no need to redo any guideline as it already supports the un-disabiguated title. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it doesn't. The guideline says the articles should be at Beothuk people and Beothuk language, with 'Beothuk' a dab page. The only reason it redirects here is that Skookum threw a shit-fit when I started following the guideline. Now, I don't much care either way, but we shouldn't have one guideline for Canadian peoples and languages, and a contrary one for the US, or one for America and another for Europe. If Skookum wants to change the guideline, he should have the decency to start a discussion on the guideline talk page about changing it, so we have the same criteria for everyone. — kwami (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I've started a new section at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#What the guidelines say to address the mistaken belief as to what the guidelines say. The guide is fine as is and indeed covers all people throughout the world. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Nations European DNA

The following paragraph from this Wikipedia page is a non-sequitur:

"In 2007 DNA testing was conducted on material from the teeth of Demasduit and her husband Nonosabasut, two Beothuk individuals who had died in the 1820s. The results suggest the Beothuk were linked to the same ancestral people as the Mi'kmaq, either through mixing of the populations or through a common ancestor. It also demonstrated they were solely of First Nation indigenous ancestry, unlike some earlier studies that suggested European admixture."

All First Nations peoples had European ancestry before European colonization. Their DNA is derived from Upper Paleolithic Europeans. This was discovered in 2013 from the sequencing of a genome from a skeleton in Mal'ta, Siberia who is genetically similar to modern day European people and Native Americans:

DNA analysis shows Native Americans had European roots:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38061/title/European-Roots-for-Native-Americans-/

http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213

Additionally many Scandinavians show "Native American" 'admixture', just as Native Americans had European signatures in their genes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151606.htm

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/06/amerindian-like-admixture-in-northern.html

So the insinuation that Beothuk were "First Nations aboriginals" with no European admixture is a nonsensical statement. First Nations aboriginals had European heritage before they stepped foot on this continent. The source given for this erroneous statement predates the definitive evidence linked above. I am going to delete the statement and its source in one week and make sure that a new one reflects the reality of Native American origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EF4E:4300:105A:D7C9:FF60:DBFE (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct as outlined at Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas#mtDNA. It looks like it originate through gene flow from the Upper Palaeolithic period from a common ancestor...not that a more modern European population is the source. Here is the original find October 29, 2013 that states they are "west Eurasian [genetic] signatures". This only really solved the problem of when the admixture happened during ancient population over European colonization. This is what the section is saying....no interbreeding between the populations...so whats the problem? -- Moxy (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the DNA IS the same as modern Europeans. The Mal'ta genome is closest to modern Europeans, so much so that some populations in Europe (Scandinavians, for example) show up on DNA tests as having Native American admixture. The Upper Paleolithic people are the ancestors of both Europeans and Native Americans. They were European and Caucasoid and the same as todays Europeans. First Nations aboriginals had White European heritage before they even got to this continent. This fact apparently causes some people serious discomfort --- none of whom are Native Americans themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EF4E:4300:C9CC:4678:4FB0:C08A (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement is saying that its not recent ....as was proposed in the past. There is noting wrong with stating this fact. Its not they are of European decent its that they have a common ancestor. Perhaps best to read over Daniel Lee Kleinman; Kelly Moore (2014). Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. Routledge. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-136-23716-4.  -- Moxy (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Moxy: Perhaps you ought to re-read the source. Native Americans have dual origins, consisting of Upper Paleolithic European and ancient north Eurasian ancestry. Any claim that they do not have European heritage is false. Europeans today are genetically identical to the European component in Native Americans. They are part European.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/11/genome-of-kostenki-14-upper-paleolithic.html

The new paper shows that K14 was definitely European (or more correctly West Eurasian or Caucasoid), as it was more similar to modern Europeans than to East Asians or other non-West Eurasian populations. Thus, the morphological description of the sample as "Australoid" by some early anthropologists did not reflect its ancestral makeup. Also, this proves that Caucasoids existed 37,000 years ago, which most physical anthropologists would believe, but it is nice to have direct confirmation. This pushes the lower bound from 24,000 years ago (because MA-1 was West Eurasian according to the results of Raghavan et al.). It will be nice to push the lower bound further to the past as there are much older bones (and plenty of teeth) from earlier Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

I dont know how to explain this any better...its not modern thats what the article is saying ...its saying the same thing you are. The European DNA traits is from the founding population of peoples to the Americas....thus its not new....is what the article is saying. I a have tried to word this better for you in the article, -- Moxy (talk)