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 prioritizing 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)
Indeed. "Aboriginal" and "native" are more correct. But "indigenous" has stuck. SamEV 19:37, 15 March 2007 (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)

[edit] Systemic bias in the title.

They are not "indigenous" any more than any other New World population, as all humans are Old World. The fossil record attests to this; archaeology doesn't lie. All New Worlders, of any race or origin, are Old World transplants. This is widely known and taught in even basic, grade school education. The title is very POV slanted in favor of a revanchism. I have met Indians and Mestizos who think all Atlantic colonists to the New World have no place here, simply because their own Pacific ancestors had arrived earlier. It is a major part of La Raza propaganda. Mexican nationalists tend to call Americans; "gringo Europeans" that must "go back where they come from". Please do us all a favor and change the title; it may help to defuse that nonsense. The only indigenous populations are in the Old World. The people who founded Easter Island were no more native than the colony of Santo Domingo on Hispaniola. Rhode Islander 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "indigenous" need not be absolute, it can be relative. In this case it is about the people indigenous to the Americas, relative to the huge migration of new people post 1492. It seems to me useful to use a term that indicates the difference between the people who came to the Americas many thousands of years ago and those who came in the last few hundred. What different word would you use to illustrate this difference in the time of migration to America? Pfly 02:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That is why the word "indigenous" in this article can be understood by the United Nations definition of Indigenous peoples - this definitions is independent of the notion of "place of origin" that is implicit in the everyday understanding of the word indigenous - but which is completely unhelpful since no humam population live in its original homeland - all peoples have migrational histories or we would live only in southern africa. Saying that the only indigenous people are form the old world is equally ignorant as saying believeing that the precolumbian peoples of the americas have been thee forever. the fact is that most people in the world do understand what is meant by indigenous peoples and realise that most old world people do not fall under that dfinitions. Your accusations of revanchism are absurd - this is simply the way the word is being used every where - to change that would be creating a neologimMaunus 08:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfly has a point, but Maunus does not. Pre-Columbian civilizations would be most NPOV, but only if it includes the Leif Ericson crowd. The Greenlandic settlements into the New World should be accounted for in this article, to avoid the Pacificism inherent in these studies. While it is true that the Columbian settlements (except New England, thought of as a home in the same sense as Vinland) were thought of as colonies, the Greenlanders considered Vinland a part of their sub-Arctic Scandinavian homelands that stretch from the Baltic to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. They did not know it was not Europe. To exclude them from the Pre-Columbian history would then be racist, biased in favor of the Pacific colonists who also did not know of the difference between Old and New Worlds. Or, we could have two separate articles, sans any reference to "who was there first". For instance: the Pacific History of the Americas and Atlantic History of the Americas would be a good way to divide it up, without possible favor to one or the other outlook--time being the only obvious demarcation. To separate them would be advantageous to understanding the qualities of both, for the two modes of movement are equally important. There is no reason to balkanize it though, such as in separating articles for the Amerindians, Easter Islanders and the Chinese or Filipinos, or the Vikings and the French, Spaniards or West Africans. The only way to handle separate Pacific or Atlantic migrations, would be making subarticles beneath the two oceanic models. It might be difficult to isolate European and African movements to the New World, but even more so in the discussion of Australoid entrance to the New World vis a vis the regular Mongoloid one. So, there are two basic and broad histories: Pacific and Atlantic--neither is particularly indigenous from even a pre-Columbian perspective. People conveniently use exclusionary bias on the Norse issue. Greenland and Vinland are both ancient Atlantic homes in the New World; they even named what is now Nunavut Helluland and Labrador Markland. It was their subset of the European world. There was a consciousness shift in the time of Columbus, when they looked for India. Perspectives were more enlightened than previous Old World migrations to the Americas. We must cut through prejudice and uninformed perspectives, like a knife. That is what academia is responsible for. The Vikings did not discover a New World to them, any more than the Ice Age Siberians crossing the Bering Strait. Only later populations considered a difference; including both Pacific and Atlantic countries. It is then of no advantage to NPOV to describe the pre-Columbian Pacific heritage to be some noble savages who have been violated. What of the loss to the family of Leif Ericson? These are all in a pre-Columbian, pre-colonial mind. It is not advantageous to look at it from the pre-/post- Columbus view, even though it should neutralize the "who was here first" thing. More efficient organization is through East/West. Rhode Islander 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Norse colonies could be included, I think; perhaps somewhere around the mention of the Eskimo / Inuit, with whom the Norse came into conflict. Interestingly, the Eskimo page mentions their semi-circumpolar population distribution, similar to the Norse expansion back in the day. If I have it right, the Norse reached southern Greenland before the Eskimo/Inuit. One could argue that the Norse settlements died out in pre-Columbian times, while the Eskimo and Inuit are still around. Then again, one could argue the Norse occupation of Greenland merely had a gap between the earlier settlements and the modern ones today. In any case, I'd say sure, put something into the article about the Norse. Pfly 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pfly's first point. In practice, when people say "indigenous peoples", they mean "relatively indigenous", i.e. more indigenous to a particular place than the others in question. So, it is technically true that I am indigenous to North America, this is a trivial observation because there are others whose ancestors have lived here a lot longer than I have.
The history of Norse settlements in the New World is quite marginal to the history of the North America (it barely existed at all outside of Greenland), and hardly seems to merit more than a passing remark. In addition, the Norse population was a lot more recent than the other groups who are usually described as "indigenous", all of whom had been there for multiple thousands of years; and the Norse-Americans no longer exist and haven't for hundreds years, unlike various Indian groups, so they can only be discussed historically, rather than as an existing indigenous group. All in all, it doesn't seem worth worrying about much.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This and related articles tend to identify present Pacific-origin populations as a continuation of those previous, with excessive historical content vs contemporary conditions. Rhode Islander 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they not a continuation of those previous?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is an excellent discussion and that good points have been made by everyone above. In reading the discussion, I agree that the article as titled runs a risk of being misleading. Rhode Islander suggested the title Pre-Columbian, but I think there are too problems with that. The first is what to do about the Norse settlements. The second is that it doesn't seem right to use label these peoples with the name of someone from another group of people. I have a suggestion to consider:
I suggest the page be re-titled to "Early peoples of the Americas". Advantages:
"Early" is a simpler word than "Indigenous" - it is more likely that people know what the word "Early" means
"Early" is a less ambiguous word than "Indigenous" - Early is not likely to be mistaken for "original" in the same way that Indigenous is.
"Early" implies that there was another group(s) of people who came later
I look forward to other thoughts on this proposal. Johntex\talk 07:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is no ideal name for this topic, and indigenous is as good and bad as any. I can see the logic in using "early", but I can't think of examples of it being used anywhere else, and shouldn't wikipedia reflect actual usage of terms, at least to some degree? My instinct is to prefer terms like "Indian" or "Native American", as they are so commonly used -- but then I live in the United States and I realize these terms are not so common elsewhere in the Americas, even Canada. If I understand it right, the name of this page and others on the topic have already been changed several times. I fear there is simply no term out there that will not result in the same kind of complaints that indigenous does. It doesn't really matter to me what the page is titled, but I think energy would be better spent on content, rather than titles, in general.

As for early contact by non "Indians" in the Americas, regardless of what this page is titled, the content can refer to things like the Norse and less conclusive theories like the Welsh and Chinese contacts, and link to existing pages on those topics, like Norse colonization of the Americas, Vinland, 1421 hypothesis, Madoc, Western Settlement, etc etc. Pfly 08:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of view that people who came to the Americas from Siberia are somehow not native is extremely biased, and is apparently being used by pro-imperialists to justify the colonial conquests of the Americas by various European countries(England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc). The fact is, the first people to arrive in any given land are by definition indigenous to it, just as English people are native to England and French people are native to France even though they must have migrated there from Africa at some point, Native Amweican people are native to the Americas even though they migrated there from Africa through Asia. Native people have lived there for over 15,000 years, and were as much a part of the natural ecosystem as any other animal (yes, all humans are animals) that migrated from Asia before European colonisation (and still are, to some extent), and so clearly have a claim to being the rightful heirs of their ancestral homelands. This sort of opinion is pejorative and dismissive, and is basically designed to deny Native people their rights. (I am Native, by the way, so I get especially peeved when people who apparently have political agendas say that we natives have to right to our own homeland, as it quite frankly comes off as haughty, insensitive, and ethnocentric towards European or western values of pro-imperialism and colonialism)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.252.173 (talk • contribs) 30 March 2007.

There's already an article catering for 'early contact by non "Indians" in the Americas', both real and mythical - pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.
"Early peoples" hardly, if ever, appears in the sources and references as a specific term, and so adopting it would IMO be neologistic.
"Indigenous peoples" on the other hand, is a very well-established term used by a myriad of references, and so it is an appropriate choice, even though some folks may not be aware of it, or are more used to some other expression, or can confuse it with the common adjectival meaning (which does not equate to the same thing).--cjllw | TALK 08:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Americans live around the world!

True...Let's get any serious research on the native American "lost tribes". Ever since the early 1600's, it started by Pocahontas married to John Rolfe, an English settler decidedly returned to England with her and she was baptized Rachael Rolfe, then gave birth to her only child, John Rolfe Jr. the first known Native American born on the European continent. When Ms. Rolfe (Pocahontas) returned to her home land, John Rolfe jr. started farm plantations in Virginia ever since, but his mother caught a fatal illness on her way back to her husband in England.

It's alledged the trans-Atlantic slave trade under Europeans in the 1500's to the late 1700's included a few other races not limited to black Africans. Tens of thousands of indigenous Americans traded from one area of the world to another, but slavery failed to materialize and grow in practice in western Europe and the southern cone of South America. The majority of native American slaves or invited to residence from the 16th to 19th centuries, in Spain, France and the UK might intermarried Europeans and assimilated to a point they lost their native American identity in time.

But,in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Cherokee "diaspora" started with the Trail of Tears tragedy in the Eastern US into their reservation, Indian territory in present-day Oklahoma, might have thousands of skilled farm workers and business-savvy shopowners migrate out of North America for parts of Central & South America, and due to the Cherokees' acclaimed "westernized" cultural identity, the Cherokees are mistaken for being white Americans when in fact they had mostly indigenous ancestry.

In the two world wars that followed, thousands of native Americans in US, Canadian and Mexican army uniforms, although in small numbers, married some European and Asian women ("war brides") and some might stayed in Europe (England, Germany, Italy and Russia), and Japan, Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines & Vietnam (part-time or ever since)...and the discoveries of possible native American descendants in Europe and east Asia fathered by servicemen of indigenous ancestry, are reported and documented.

Today, a small portion of indigenous Americans by race or tribal membership live in other continents. I recalled a global demographic study in 2001 analyzed the percentage of indigenous American genes' distribution into Europe and other continents may be well under 5 percent, but this is a major finding of not only whites, Africans and Amerindians merged in the new world...some of their genes by those native Americans whom lived in Europe, their small bits of DNA entered the European gene pools in five centuries.

The cultural phenomena of "who's part-Cherokee" or "a distant great-grand-relative was [American] Indian" since the 1970's or 80's wasn't limited to the US or Canada, the Cherokee Nation in the 1990's handled an unproven, but possible claim of over 100,000 Cherokee descendants in Latin America (there are 50 other tribes, the Choctans and Muskogeans in former Indian territory known to crossed borders to Canada, Mexico, Cuba and wherever they found safe refuge, like the Lakota in Manitoba, Canada and Kickapoo in the Rio Grande valley in Coahuila, Mexico). 63.3.14.1 07:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Population edits this article and Arawak February 7, 2007

An anonymous IP is boosting the population numbers significantly here and on Arawak. The edits there and here have been reversed. Other editors should be aware of the changes. Ronbo76 22:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference number six broken

I do not have time to fix this link. Please monitor it over the next day or so. If it remains broken, another citation or the broken link reference may be needed. Ronbo76 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

While I do believe that many Mexicans are indeed of a Mixed Racial descent, I do not believe it is sixty percent, and I certainly don't believe that 30 percent of the population is Indian. I make this judgement from being American and being of Mixed Racial heritage, and to be honest, I honestly believe there are more Americans with Mixed blood than Mexicans. I would like to give you an example of why I think Many Mexicans embelish their heritage. My grandfather, is full-blooded White, his Grandmother was from Spain. He is dark and has Black Hair, with the exception of the Blue eyes(which he obtained from the opposite side of the family)he could tell you he was Mestizo and you would believe him. I honestly believe that even if alot of Mexicans are Mixed with Indian and European, that they wouldn't know it unless their government hadn't taught them to hate their European Heritage. Before you judge, I am not Mexican, I have many relatives that are. Not a single one of them has a drop of Indian blood-and I do. So if you can't prove your heritage, don't make that claim.

209.133.132.74 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The average Joe might not know where he/she came from. The educated Joaquin does. Disagree. I can tell you perfectly my lineage (not here of course) and it aint Ango-Saxon. Ronbo76 22:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February 22, 2007 edit

This edit deleted a large set of "See also"s that listed various cultures/indigenous peoples. I believe it should be re-inserted. Ronbo76 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • In Brazil the indigenous populations pure (live in indigenous reserves) are approximately between 700,000-1,000,00 (IBGE).--201.19.167.208 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Btw, Native Americans also wear suits, drive cars, pilot airplanes, are teachers, politicians, singers, etc. They should not be exclusively depicted half-naked or in costumes. SamEV 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Although I don't have a problem with all pictures of half-naked Native Americans [2] ...
Anyway, I'd add pictures if I knew how; my impression is that it's a real hassle.
SamEV 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas_9dc4.html"