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 [[User_talk:Dalbury|(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" — 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)

Italics?

Why is the title in italics if Merriam-Webster already has the word registered? See here and here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Amuseclio, Georgelazenby, AndrewCumberland12, Virisss, Pmccawley, Julianaecohen, Donald Albury, The Eloquent Peasant, and Ahnoneemoos: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly removed it. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Did “feminine form” exist in Taíno language?

Or is it a hispanicized form 97.103.169.208 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Citations to Spores

While I have not found Spores's article "Mixteca Cacicas: Status, Wealth, and the Political Accommodation of Native Elite Women in Early Colonial Oaxaca" online, I will note that Ethnohisory has not put any issue from before 2000 online. Spores has also contributed a chapter with the same title to Indian women of early Mexico, edited by Susan Schroeder, Stephanie Wood, and Robert Haskett. Norman, Ok. : University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. We should assume good faith and accept the citation to Ethnohistory unless it can be shown that citation is wrong. - Donald Albury 22:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have access to recent issues of Ethnohistory and can confirm Spores did not publish in that venue. I highly suspect the citation is an A.I. hallucination--should be switched to the edited collection you note above (eds. Schroeder, Wood, and Haskett). ~2025-40816-12 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I have now found the 1990 issues of Ethnohistory in JSTOR, and see that there was no article by Spores in those issues. Given that the citation appears to be an A. I. hallucination, the added content is also suspect, and I will remove it. If someone has access to Indian Women of early Mexico (it is not in my local public library) and can confirm that the content is supported by Spores's article in that book, it can be restored with a proper citation. Donald Albury 17:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)