Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
View comments (edit)
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities.If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] French Guiana/Guyana

In English, the name of the South American overseas department of France is French Guiana. That is by far the most common term found on Google, and it is also the usage here at Wikipedia. In French, the name is Guyane française, but Guyane and Guyana aren't the same and the article here is in English anyway. Perhaps you are thinking of the former British Guiana, which did change its name to Guyana when it achieved independence. Rbraunwa 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with First Nations, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Aboriginal Land Claims68.148.165.213 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC) and Indigenous peoples of the Americas

These distinctions are only political, maybe it might be required to make the distinctions in the merged article, but definitely not by separating these & each of these articles. And if there are any articles along these lines please merge them.

It seems to me that the articles were separated [if they were once a single article] because the how First Nations were treated differently in US & in Canada. If that was the reason the article was broken up, then the article title is off. I should be The Treatment Of First Nations In Canada, & The Treatment of First Nations In US.

Also, First Nations Land Claims [it should also be renamed as] is a fundamental part of the history & politcal landscape of the First Nations; it just makes sense that it should merged with the article.withdrawn68.148.165.213 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

68.148.165.213 15:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose: This article is long enough as it is without needing to add significant sub articles back into it. In addition, First Nations is one type of Aboriginal people in Canada, so those two articles alone should be kept separate. But that has already been discussed. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmsiever (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006.
First Nations is the name of the genetic similarity of these people, just like Orientals or Caucaucausins ['Europeans']. In the case your saying, that they are a people group, this is what the Canadian Government called them, but their wrong. Yes, unfortunatly, governments can be wrong.
In the case of article length, irregardless.
68.148.165.213 16:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article, Indigenous peoples of the Americas is about peoples from all of the Americas, not just Canada or the U.S. And as per Kmsiever above, the two Canada-specific collective articles First Nations and Aboriginal peoples in Canada have their own good reasons to exist as separate articles as well. Merging these (in any combination) is not warranted. BTW neither of the collective labels First Nations or Aboriginal peoples in Canada imply (or seek to imply) the individual peoples associated with either of these terms should not be referred to by their own specific designations as well.--cjllw | TALK 02:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Natives from the United States article links to the Race (United States Census) article, but a general article on indigeous Americans would not link there. There must be an article for all five 2000-2010 US Census races, so there should be no merger.--Dark Tichondrias 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As mentioned by CJLL Wright, this entry on Indigenous peoples of the Americas concerns peoples from all of the Americas, not just Canada or the U.S.. With all due respect to Dark Tichondrias, there is no scientific validity to "races"--there is only one race of human beings! Bdean1963 09:50, 18 July 2006
I never said there existed races with "scientific validity". I said the five counted by the US government deserve their own articles. Your straw man of my argument is a logical fallacy.--Dark Tichondrias 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Your statement on 17 July that “There must be an article for all five 2000-2010 US Census races” is interesting in terms of the ideological construction of race, yet it seems to imply an essentialist stance and as such reifies one of modernity’s greatest scourges: “scientific racism.” The US Census unfortunately is mired in a long history of biological determinism, eugenics, and the contentious politics of identity, and thus is not helpful in undermining the lived experience of de jure, let alone de facto racism.--Bdean1963 08:37, 20 July

[edit] Mexico

The quote

"While Mexicans are universally proud of their indigenous heritage"

Is incredibly generalizing and presuming. Not every Mexican has been consulted on how they feel about their indigenous heritage if they do indeed have any and therefore there is no way of knowing how they feel "universally". Furthermore, I have spoken to many Mexicans who deny or try to minimalize their native ancestry. While it could possibly be true that many Mexicans are proud of their ancestry there is no way of knowing with certainty therefore I do not think this should be included. --Jbluex 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope and Structure

My comments here take the form of a school teacher critiquing an essay or book report. I apologize for that. I don't mean to be patronizing. I can't help it. As an under-graduate, I majored in secondary education (history). Sometimes one simply cannot escape ones training. I do love this topic, and I really hope to help improve this article. This is my critique:

  • The scope and structure of this article is well-defined in the lead paragraph, but then the body of the article fails to deliver. The scope of the article claims to be all the people living in North and South American before the arrival of Columbus. This is a wonderfully broad scope. I love it. It's just the sort of starting point so many researchers (like myself) need. The lead section also does a good job describing one thing that these vast groups of people have in common: their origins. Then it refers to the different social structures that the various indigenous peoples developed.
  • Instead, I think it should refer to the other things that all these people had in common: (1) their level of technology (I read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel last year, the whole thing is utterly fascinating) and (2) their decimation at colonization.
  • The body of the article gets a little bit lost in the beginning by naming the first section history instead of origins. The indigenous peoples of the Americas do not share a common history. Every attempt to tell their histories should be done in separate articles. The body of the article does do a good job of describing the dominant origin theory for these people: migration across the Bering Strait. I had no idea that there was evidence of several migrations. That's fascinating. I think the minority theories regarding origin are interesting enough to warrant a reference (links to other articles), but ridiculous enough not to warrant a summary.
  • The section on colonization does not seem to be a summary of another article; although, I did find an article on the European colonization of the Americas. Surprisingly, it focuses more on the colonists than on the indigineous people. Anyway, this section should be referred to in the lead paragraph, and beefed up considerably. Currently, it refers to slavery, horses, and disease. I think it should probably start with disease. Disease desimated 80% of the population of a vast geographical area! It's one of the worst things ever to happen in the history of the world. A more extensive discussion of slavery would also be intersting, but horses had a limited impact, and really pale in comparison to disease and slavery. Horse made a big difference for the Apache, but not so much for the Quechua.
  • I think the section on the 21st centrury should briefly discuss the phenomenon of segregation. It seems to me that the one thing that all the indegious peoples have in common from the Rocky Mountains to the Andes is that they continue to live apart, in segregated communities as opposed to the African minorities who are much more integrated.
  • The section on statistics is completely boring. Recommend illiminating it entirely. It fails to highlight the similarites among these vast peoples and instead underlines differneces in their roles in modern nations. For example, almost no one in the Domincan Republic is indigenous while almost everyone in El Salvador is at least partly indigenous.
  • The whole second half of the article titled: history and status by country is a complete betrayal of the title and it should be stricten in its entirety. People interested in a nation by nation summary can serch the category listings to find what they need.
  • This is a long critique. To summarize:
    • The strngth of this article is in drawing attention to the similarities among all these peoples.
    • The similaries should be mentioned to in the lead paragraph and then each gets its own section in the body of the article.
    • The similarities are:
      • The indigenous peoples of the Americas have a similar origen (Bering Strait)
      • The indigenous peoples of the Ameicas developed similar levels of technology
      • The indigenous peoples of the Americas were very nearly annihilated by diseases brought by European colonizers
      • The indigenous peoples of the Americas in the 21st century continue to live apart from their the descendants of the European colonizers.

Thank you for your attention. I am interested in your comments.

I disagree with several of your points. First European colonization of the Americas is an article about Europeans whjo started colonies in the Americas, not an article about Native Americans. Also and more important this article needs to discuss the major differences between Native groups as much as it needs to discuss their similarities. To not discuss the differences is to miss most of the story. Rmhermen 01:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
(I withdraw my previous comment regarding the European colonization of the Americas.) I agree that most of the story regarding the indigenous peoples of the Americas is to be told in describing their differences since they are more different than they are similar. However, I believe that part of the story is best told in 500 other articles rather than this one article. Encyclopedic articles are strongest if they tackle their subject in small bites. This article is tackling an enourmous subject, and I propose that the most interesting bite it should take is to focus on what the indigenous peoples of the Americas have in common. There are not many things, but they are extraordinary things.--ErinHowarth 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that most of the suggestions you have put forward are all based upon European POV, (Bering Strait BS Theory) instead of using First Nations in Canada, we should be using the name of the Nation (Anishinaabek, Lakota etc;)yes we are legal NATIONS, as this would be more accurate in regards to our history, rather then the history of european settlers POV (past & present).

[edit] Using 'Indigenous'

Why are they called Indigenous?

in·dig·e·nous Pronunciation (n-dj-ns) adj. 1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

As it states in the article, they are neither originating or naturally occuring in North America... Humans did not develop here. Shouldn't they be called Founding Peoples of the Americas, or something to that affect? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.197.135.128 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 August 2006.

They didn't found the Americas either; colonial powers did. See Indigenous people for the dfefintion we use at Wikipedia. --Kmsiever 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
First, it's not called "Indigenous peoples of Anahuac" or some other equivalent name because it is not politically correct nor recognizable to use an indigenous term for America. Besides, the Americas are named after the Amerique mountains of Central America, which Columbus and Vespucci both knew about. Vespucci changed his Christian name from Albergus to Americus in the spirit of the "New World", which rapidly gained the name after the gold-laden eponymous range. It is a folk etymology to believe we are named after the first name of the discover of South America.
Second, if you want to question the indigenous label then perhaps no one is ever indigenous. However, the term does have its uses. More specifically, the indigenous people have been present on this continent far longer than 10,000 years. Most Euro-Americans have been here for far less than 500 years. That's enough time to earn the label of indigenous. Euro-Americans have led and perpetrated the greatest effort to depopulate the original inhabitants of an entire continent using force (concerted genocide), trickery (uneven application of the rule of law) and luck (germs). That will be noted in the history books, because the Native American population will never be wiped out but will always be present to point out the hypocrisy of Western "Civilization". Euro-Americans must make spiritual amends for their recent role in the history of this continent. NoraBG 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the Indigenous American editors of this article?

If this article does not have any Indigenous American editors, it is simply not neutral point of view, it is likely too biased towards the white man.

65.97.14.167 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What solution do you propose?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanksgiving

Could someone please clear up the section about Thanksgiving (under agriculture). It seems as though it is generalizing (or at least is very vague). 70.113.25.170 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear 70.113.25.170,
To the letter, the text just states that "Thanksgiving is an American (U.S.) national holiday".
Would you please explain the reasoning from which you draw your interpretation that the text "is generalizing or at least is very vague"?
Kind regards, Zack Holly Venturi 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas_9dc4.html"