Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-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:
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Demography section--send to its own page?

I have to wonder about this giant demography/racial table in the middle of the article. Its humongous, and not terribly useful. What does it mean to say that 90% of population is 'mixed?' Or that only 1% of a population is 'pure' (however they define that) Indian? It's a race chart, plain and simple. Maybe it could get its own WP page and then we could say, see main article "Demography of Current Native American populations." Basically, I think the emphasis on race and numbers is a detraction and a distraction from the far more important aspects of these incredible peoples. --Smilo Don 00:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What's most unuseful about it to me is that it's poorly sourced. I'm not sure about whether it's a good idea to break it out into its own article at the moment -- maybe once the article itself gets larger (right now its 44 kb) -- but otherwise I'm okay with the idea. It needs better sourcing, as I mentioned; but also it would be good if a section or article on demographics included not just current stats (assuming it's even accurate given poor sourcing & recent vandalism), but also a historical dimension, i.e., what were the estimated populations at contact? And over the years? But that takes more research that I'm willing to do in this area, inasmuch as I'm occupied with other projects (both Wiki & not). --Yksin 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting up to standard: the road to Featured

Folks, when I look at this article, I see a piece that lacks coherent structure. If I had my druthers I'd rewrite the whole thing, but the result would be something too "postmodern" for most people's tastes. And so, out of respect to the group and the norms/goals of WP, I'm wondering aloud how best to restructure the article. My first thought is to look to a model--to Featured articles on WP of a similar type. Can anyone suggest some articles we ought to compare this with? --Smilo Don 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Please look here: WP:FA --Smilo Don 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Based on a 4 minute look, I'm thinking of these as examples for us: Azerbaijani people, Iranian peoples, Mandan, Pashtun people, Taiwanese aborigines, and Tamil people. If y'all have thoughts on using any/none of these as a model, please speak up. --Smilo Don 17:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I was about to save when you re-commented with more so here's it: I agree with you, and even though I would love to see it re-written in a co-herent manner, there's always someone who has to disagree with the changes so it's more labourous than just re-writing it. I looked through WP:FA, Mandan, Taiwanese aborigines and Iranian peoples are really nice articles--it's probably more difficult to write an article on a broad range of people instead of the focus you can get on smaller groups of people, but, there are sections and an organizational pattern from these that can be used on here (this page needs the work). And lovely examples to write an introduction that avoids someone's POV and explains the topic thoroughly. Haha, oncamera(t) 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Points well taken, camera. Yah--I think that certain sections in the above Featured Articles (say, Geography) are not going to be terribly relevant. Early/Mid/Late history then contemporary overview. These would still be good. I mean, ANY group is a bloody fiction ("Tamil", "Pashtun", "Mandan"), but at least some have more geographic/cultural integrity than others. My hard fight to keep the Columbus/invention paragraph has been to highlight that this "group" of people was invented by Columbus: the whole category is a zany, wacky concoction, without scarcely a shred of integrity. Nevertheless, the category has a discursive life in politics, pop culture, and even (sigh) anthropology. My own preference would be to do something rather radical and unprecedented on WP: to write an article which details the Foucauldian genealogy of this discursive construct. That notion is predicted on the fact that "Indians" (or 'Native Americans' or whatever you want to say) did not exist until Columbus. The category itself, in other words, is a direct artifact of 1492. Instead of having an ignorant category which purports to list and classify the peoples as if they really were one group (and reifies/compounds the falsehood) we could actually make something much better. Could be one of the most significant WP pages in existence. --Smilo Don 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for more DNA evidence

I'd like more Dna evidence, it's sad that only a few theories on who they are, & were they came from exist. If they from Asia which is a fact, where in Asia, what Asian languages are related to their present languages are they related to?, if it one migrantian, I believe but many, I believe it happen more recent these many present theory believes, maybe about some 4,300 year at most or later. I wonder why there so many connections with the not just ancient "turkish" & other ethic group marsh dwellers in the middle Eastern, but also Russian steppes peoples, plus polyensians with the native American of all America not U.S.A.

I'd read somewhere, a few African migrants now the "natives" came to Brazil region a few thousands years ago, is that true?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd all love to see more DNA research, but you can only sample so many groups, and human remains, if available, deteriorate over time, making analysis of older remains tougher. The 4,300 YA figure is um, so 1907. The undisputed layer at Monte Verde has been dated to about 12,000 BC -- and evidence points to an older layer at the same site. Why should Asians in Asia be expected to speak related languages? Languages change drastically over time, and there are so many language isolates in the Americas to begin with. Even a hypothetical Indo-European proto-language goes back only a few thousand years. On the other hand, Yupik is an Eskimo-Aleut tongue spoken in Alaska and Siberia.
Are you referring to the Luzia skeleton from Brazil? Yes, she and other nearby discoveries have markedly different morphology than your typical Amerind remains, but I don't think anyone is suggesting a migration directly out of Africa. There is the pre-Siberian American aborigine theory, which would likely entail a Pacific coastal migration or even one along the rim of Antartica during the Last Glacial Maximum or before. It's far, far from proven, but the theory might explain the older dates found in South America. Twalls 05:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Still language could allot, if a language was Indo-European, or Semitic, African, or mixed. History is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Altaic languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenland

I think the Aboriginal people from Greenland should be here too. JC 09:05 18 Octuber 2007 (PST)


[edit] New DNA study

Information about a new DNA study. Badagnani (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Genetic Variation and Population Structure in Native Americans in the Public Library of Science Genetics journal. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Similar words between American Indian dialects and Turkish of Modern Turkey

Interestingly they have many same words with Turkic People. They must be related with Turkic People in some where may be before the Huns. Here are the list of some related words with American Indian and Turkish of Modern Turkey:

Some examples:

Indian Dialects Turkish English
Tepek Tepe Hill
Yatkı Ev, yatılan yer House, the area which is for to lie down
Dodohişça Dudak Mouth
T-sün Uzun Long
Yu Su, yu-mak, yıkamak Water, watering
Tete Dede Grandfather
Tamazkal Temiz kal Be clean
Hogan Hopan(Kerpiç ev) House(made of sun-dried bricks)
Kuşa Kuş Bird
Missigi Mısır Corn
Türe Türe, Töre Ethic Laws
Hu Hu, Hu hu(Selam) Hi
Yanunda Yanında Near of
Aş-köz Aş(Yemek) Cooked Food
İldiş Dişleme Bite
Atış-ka Ateş, Atış Fire

Notice the similarity. If there are some similarities between Turkish of Modern Turkey and Indian Dialects then there must be more similarity between Indian and old Turkic. Is there anyone can provide more examples including similar words between American Indian and Turkic(expecially non-Oghuz like Yakut,Kazakh,Kyrgyz,Tatar,Chuvas etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.10.59 (talk • contribs) 3 December 2007

Sorry no, I don't think there's any cause to mention or discuss here this utterly discredited notion, evidently derived from some reconstructivist work in the "Turkish History Thesis" or "Sun Language Theory" variety. This list is quite worthless. Although it may be seen plastered about on various discussion boards (unsourced), if it is not actually taken from one of the Turanist or Kemalist authors of nationalistic mythmaking and (pseudo-)histories active in the 1930s (Zeki Velidi Togan is a possible candidate), it is clearly influenced by that movement. While it may be interesting to note that for a brief period under Ataturk some quite bizarre, irredentist and ultimately false claims were officially promoted, no-one outside of a handful of ultra-nationalists gave these the slightest credence. If mentioned at all it should be on articles relating to mythologising trends in Turkic history and linguistics, not here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, what does "Indian Dialects" mean? There are thousands of New World languages that differ greatly from one another. I don't recognize this one. Pfly 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what "Indian dialects" refers to either, but it's funny that modern Turkish orthography is used to represent them. Clearly, these are mere false cognates, and as usual, CJLL Wright sets the record straight.
You know what always got me? "Su" means water in Turkish, but it means "Fire" in Basque! Likewise, Turkish 'şad' means 'happy' and 'beter' means 'worse'!! Twalls 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh! I wonder how those sun-theory proponents would have accounted for that, given their central tenet that some old Turkic language (funnily based on modern Turkish cognates) is ancestral to all languages. I think that's partly why the supposed "Indian" words are written in the modern Turkish orthography- in effect, there are supposed to be no words 'foreign' to Turkic languages, only words that may be 'reclaimed'. And preposterously enough, I understand that it was claimed this all literally came about when early Neolithic folks (proto-Turks, natch) one day looked up into the sky, saw the sun and exclaimed "Aa!"— and the development of language went on from there. Like I said, curious & interesting stuff in a way and worthwhile documenting somewhere- but nothing at all to do with this article. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The topic title meant "American Indian" not Asian Indian and he explores a possible relationship of American Indian languages with those of the Turkic language family since there are many Siberian tribes who spoke Turkic languages (i.e. the Yakuts or Sakha). Some anthropologists and linguists studied the language relationship of native American tribes in the US west Coast with those of Chinese and Japanese with theories on a maritime migration took place along the Pacific coast from east Asia or Siberia to the Aleutians or Alaska and all the way down to California. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Movements in the Americas

Hi there! I'm doing a project on Indigenous Movements in the Americas and I made a small contribution to your page titled the "Rise of Indigenous Movements." I hope it works well with your piece. If you'd like you can check out my page titled "Indigenous Movements in the Americas." Thanks. --Lydia 86 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, Lydia. Could you provide the sources where you learned this info? It would really help the article and ensure that others will respect what you added. SamEV (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Peoples"?

I thought the word "people" was already a plural of "person". --SpeedKing (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true in one of its senses. In another sense, that of a ethnic group, 'people' is singular (and can be made plural with an 's'). An example: "Some say that the Scots are a thrifty people." -R. S. Shaw (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Original peopling of the Americas

I moved the Vine Deloria bit to the end of this section. I'm not sure it should be included at all. The guy was a great Native activist, yes, but that book cannot really be considered a contribution to the subject at hand. He dismisses all modern archaeology, geology, and other sciences. I mean, the guy is a Young Earth proponent, lumps all Native oral histories together (thus misrepresenting them and taking selected ones literally) and even claims that dinosaurs coexisted with native peoples. Twalls (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard that about Deloria. That's pretty slanderous. Do you have a source for that stuff about Deloria? Smilo Don (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Slanderous? I'm not maligning his person or character at all, I'm just highlighting some of his proposals. Google his book Red Earth, White Lies (1995) and reviews of it. Regards, Twalls (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus' Historical Geographical Mistake

The first paragraph says Columbus referred to indigenous peoples of the Americas as Indians as he thought he had reached India. This is not so. It was not a mistake. He got the name from the Italian, "in dio", meaning "in 'the all-knowing/all-wise' (god)". It was not a mistake. Just a title, or nickname, if you will, that he gave to the natives. It just evolved from Indio to Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominatrixdave (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have heard this argument made many times, by many different people, yet I have never seen any evidence to support this claim. On the other hand, I have never seen any evidence to support the India claim either. Is there any evidence? Does anyone know? IanCheesman (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States notes that in Columbus's time the area comprising the modern nation of India was known as Hindustan, not India, and thus the theory that Columbus mistakenly named Native Americans "Indians" seems somewhat nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.199.220 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Part indigenous in the Unites States

I think that 0.7%-0.9% is too small. How about the millions Mexicans and others Hispanics with Amerindian ancestry living there? What about North Americans with partial Amerindian ancestry (many White and Black people there like to claim to have an Indian great-grandmother).

So, the mere 0.7% should grow a lot. I remeber reading an article saying that at least 15 million Americans are at least 25% Native American in their ancestry; and this did not count the Hispanic-Americans. Opinoso (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean all (theortically speaking) Americans of all races (white, Black, Asian, etc.) are distant descendants of indigenous peoples? How interesting to point that out for the US and Canada owes its geneological legacy to their founding great-grand fathers (or mothers) or learn about the Latin American concept of "Mestizaje": the majority of their country populations are of highly mixed white/Euro-AmerIndian or/and black/Afro-AmerIndian origins. I believe 15 million Americans of any race are least one-eighth American Indian and over half the US population has at least one NA/AN ancestor.

The US Census used to classify people by race on how much "black" or AmerIndian blood any person has, including those who would pass as white/Caucasian. Historically until the mid 20th century, any whites of any AmerIndian ancestry (less than a quarter or doesn't have prototypical "Indian" features to be discriminated by the white majority) would go for "passing white" to avoid racial discrimination and prejudices by government officials whom want to "assimilate" Native Americans while they were often confined on Indian reservations.

Today, minority groups such as Native Americans are offered affirmative action in education admissions and employment applications and more whites of any AmerIndian descent became wanting for a "check" (this is about members of federal or state recognized tribes) or be eligible for tribal payments. But it can't reverse the centuries and generations of racial marginalization done to Native Americans who can proof their tribal membership as victims of officialized racism, but the new trend of "wanting" to be Indian is an ironic concept. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The other reason why estimates are so low is because of the one-drop rule. In reality many DNA analysis reflect that between 65-78% of the African American population can easily claim native heritage. And I'm not talking about I'm 10% Native American it varies from family to family, but it's believe the African American population would be cut in half at least if they would actually but down their full heritage and not just a part of it.Mcelite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agriculture/domestication?

Couple of points: -Shouldn't it be "the American continents", i.e. plural rather than singular? Last time I checked, the big landmass was still made up of two continents.

-Sugar cane is by far the most produced crop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture), which makes the following statements not entirely accurate: "[maize is] arguably the most important crop in the world" and "These species now constitute 50–60% of all crops in cultivation worldwide"; of the top 10 crops on the FAO list, only maize (2), potatoes (5) and tomatoes (10) are endemic to the Americas, barley occurs throughout the northern hemisphere. Their total annual production (including barley) is slightly less than 30% of the total for the top 10. Perhaps the top 20 contains a lot of American endemics?

-As far as I know, "there is evidence that native peoples in the United States area were a few hundred years from domesticating the black bear (presumably for an oxen- or horse-like use)" is entirely false. I just grabbed Jared Diamond's book (the only reference for this statement) and the only times he refers to black bear domestication is by the Ainu of Japan, not native peoples in the US. Even then, the Ainu would kill the bears after a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.10.236 (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous peoples of the Americas in current days

I entered this article in order to read and learn about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas in this day and age. Although very interesting and inmofrmative, almst this entire article should be under the "history"" subtitle. I was dissappointed not to find any information about current native american culture, music, art, language, literature, politics, cuisine etc., in the reservations - and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.232.246 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)