Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Indigenous Americans live around the world! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population edits this article and [[Arawak]] [[February 7]], [[2007]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reference number six broken 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Opinion

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[February 22]], [[2007]] edit 

message: the land bridge lie is offensive to many natives, so how is that unsupported?Charred Feathers 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Then where you put your addition, reference it.  OldManRivers 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsupported my butt 

message: Your constant reverts to old versions of the article that you added which have repeatedly been undone due to your inability to understand WP:OR, WP:POINT, WP:FORM, WP:STYLE, WP:CITE, and many other basic rules are getting on my nerves.  You added some valuable information to this page regarding oral histories contradicting science, but you need to understand something important: Wikipedia is a Scientific encyclopedia.  Everything we have here is based on fundamental western ideal of scientific proof.  That is who we are.  You're never going to be able make wikipedia replace scientific viewpoints with ones based on non-scientific cultural theories and, let's be frank, unreliable stories.  If you don't accept that, maybe you could find a Native American Folklore and Oral Tradition Wiki somewhere online. --Rebent 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but you're still inserting blatant commentary into the article (particularly with that comment about the discovery of a 10,000 year-old tooth being grave robbing). Every time you do that, it is going to be reverted. What's wrong with trying to build a consensus about the way things are presented first instead of trying to upset the apple cart here? If you feel native cultures are sometimes treated as one big hodegepodge (which you are right about) then let's work to fix it. The title of that section though, refers to culture in general and can be in the singular 'Culture' without implying that there is no diversity in native cultures. And it follows that native cultures do not all have identical oral histories or beliefs -- something which you unfortunately seem to imply in things you have written. Thanks, Twalls 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, Charred Feathers 

message: This is such a poor section of this article.  First of all, the content is truly minimal.  Second, of all the opening sentences paint a picture of extreme disparate origins with no shared culture between them.  Third, these suggestions are completely unrefrerced and conjectural.  
Any comparison of the indigenous peoples of Eurasia or the indigenous peoples of Africa will show them to more diverse than the indigenous peoples of America, who share related linguistic, ethnic, and material culture.  Sure, there are interesting differences and unique features which distinguish the different groups, but in an article of this sort it is more informative to begin pointing out the shared culture (i.e. top to bottom approach).  Individual differences should be addressed in the individual wiki pages for that group.
I suspect that the culture/cultures debate is informed less by anthropological insight and more by a desire to show high levels of diversity and unconnectedness.  Jake of A 11:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Sorry Jake but you are wrong in the assumption than Africa or Europe has greater cultural diversity than the americas - that is simply an unfounded statement. Linguistically the Americas along with Papua New Guinea are the two most linguistically diverse regions in the world, much more diverse than Africa, Australia, Asia or Europe. It is true that Greenbergs classification seems to cover up this fact but there is a reason that this classification is completely disregarded in the general linguistic community - that reason being that it is wrong. Comparing cultures with regards to percentage of similarity is an undertaking that has no basis in anthropological theory so stating that the americas is less culturally diverse than Europe is unverifiable and OR. Fact is that there is no single cultural trait that you can name that is shared by all the cultures of America (unless it is also shared by the majority of the worlds population). Talking about "Indigenous american culture" is as uninfomed and uninforming as to talk about African or Asian culture, i can only be regarded as stating a stereotype.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture/cultures 

message: The word Indian has recently come under fire for being insensitive or not politically correct. This is based on the notion that Columbus thought he was heading for India. Recently i have heard a different version from several different sources, including a curator for a museum of Native American history in Arizona, who happened to be a Navajo. The story is that because of a certain law if a newly discovered people were pagan (worshiped many gods) they could be conquered with no qualms. But since most Indians worshipped one god with a hierarchy of spirits (which Columbus likened to saints) Columbus befriended them. He apparently gave them the name Endeos (meaning one god, it may be misspelled). I realize that not only is this original research but it also flies in the face of certain theories. However it would be helpful if anyone who can finds anything on the subject could either include it in the article or prove me wrong. Please do not delete this based on the OR policy.66.176.172.119 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Columbus befriended the Indians? The way I heard it, he enslaved and decimated them. I'm sorry to say this story has been debunked in the past.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian 

message: Yeesh, does every aboriginal culture have to be linked?  I mean, there are hundreds more... why link Olmecs, Chipewa, etc... while leaving countless others out?  Many are already linked and mentioned in the article.  Then, there are things like Frank Baum's horrendous views... relevant, but worth a link?  I think such links need to be incorporated into the article.  May I respectfully suggest that we pare down the "SEE ALSO" area?  --Dylanfly 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Far too many internal links?

message: This article is a total mess when it comes to reference citation formatting.  The "Notes" section needs to be eliminated (or restricted to explanatory footnotes, not reference citations), and all of the references done inline with ... and .  As it stands now, the refs are completely bollixed in many cases, with Harvard short style being used before the reference has even been referred to in full, and so forth.  There are also numerous bare URL "references" that needs to be done properly with .  Etc.  PS: See  if one ref. needs to be cited numerous times at different page numbers/ranges. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points, SMccandlish!  Alas, it will fall on you, wikignomes, and other brave souls.  The topic attracts people of various familiarity with proper notation.  If you're able to start the shoveling, no doubt others will join in.  I'm deep into fixing the muck of consciousness, otherwise I'd lend a hand. --Dylanfly 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs need cleanup 

message: This article gives a good, brief, description of why the term "Indians" is used. The First Nations page describes in some detail the connotations and origins of that term, along with a list of other terms used in Canada for indigenous peoples. A term like "Native Americans" seems pretty straightforward as to its intent and origins, but I still think it would be useful to have an article describing the different terms applied in different parts of the Americas, the connotations associated with them, etc. LordAmeth 13:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's supposed to be what Native American name controversy is for.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 14:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Hadn't seen that article. Thanks. Sorry for the bother. LordAmeth 16:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The paragraph being edited a bit recently seems to be about both agriculture and "complex" polities like chiefdoms, states, along with "monumental architecture", etc. It seems a bit confusing having the two topics so tightly linked. True "states" may have required agriculture, but chiefdoms, even complex ("paramount") chiefdoms and permanent towns existed among some hunter-gatherers (the most obvious example in my mind is the Pacific Northwest coastal areas). Also many societies practiced a mix of farming and hunting-gathering, yet established complex chiefdoms and built "monumental architecture". So I tried to separate the topics of agriculture and political systems a little, while still keeping the link somewhat. 
I also removed the bit about "other groups were pastoral, nomadic, or foraging." Linking hunter-gatherer gets foraging in there. Nomad simply means a lifestyle of moving around, which can (and did) occur among farming people as well as hunter-gatherers, in the Old World as well as the New ("swidden" being a slash-and-burn nomadic farming method of ancient use in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the New World (not much practiced these days though). Also, some hunter-gatherers, like those Pacific Northwest peoples, were often sedentary and not nomadic. The term didn't seem appropriate for the paragraph so I moved it. Perhaps the topic of nomadic lifestyle could be address another way? 
I also removed the mention of "other groups were pastoral".  I'm guessing it's not pastoral so much as pastoralism that was meant -- that is, the domestication, breeding, and keeping of livestock, with a migratory or transhumance aspect. I have only a vague understanding of the use of llamas in South America. Was that truly pastoralism? In North America dogs were domesticated and kept, but not really breed as far as I know, and definitely not used in a pastorialist sense. In keeping with this, I also took out the word "fauna". Please add pastorialism and fauna back in if there are good examples. Pfly 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Pfly has done a good job salvaging this.  I presume the original paragraph was conceived as a way to demonstrate the "advanced" achievements of Indians.  But it read like it was written by someone who thinks that their are stages of "civilization."  I felt that the unwitting subtext was "look, they weren't all primitives."  It made me cringe.  That's why I was editing it.  I still think the lead is too long, though.  Anyway, nice work by Pfly.  --Dylanfly 14:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to intro about agriculture, chiefdoms, states, etc

message: I'd like to suggest that this become a paragraph or two, rather than a bulleted list.  Each item (e.g. coca leaves) need not be explained, since most link to a fuller discussion elsewhere. Second, the tone of the paragraph--"endowment"--suggests that the agriculture of the Americas was some sort of gift or contribution to the world, rather than valuable on its own.  It seems to imply "look what they gave us" or "they made advancements too."  I think it's more encyclopedic just to discuss the agriculture on its own merits, without reference to "what it gave" anyone else.  People can draw that conclusion themselves, I suppose. --Dylanfly 16:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to go ahead and make these changes, but am still waiting for reactions from fellow editors. Cheers, --Dylanfly 15:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go ahead. Your idea sounds very promising.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's September now, and only one reply.  I went for it.  Please chime in and tinker.  Basically, I was feeling that a lot of it was redundant.  E.g., anyone who wants to learn about indigenous uses of coca need only follow the link; ditto for tobacco, maize's origins, strawberries, and so forth. --Dylanfly 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. the reference for 50-60% is pretty weak.  No offense to AgExporter but I don't think I'd be using that citation for a scholarly work.  Also, it's not clear if we're speaking of tonnage, value, or sheer diversity of species.  I'm guessing its tonnage, of which they speak, given the gargantuan amount of corn grown on this little planet, but that's not clear. Cassava rocks too.  A clearer, better cite would help. --Dylanfly 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agricultural Endowment

message: Shall we archive everything up to the current debates?  (I think the Solutrean in the intro. is settled, but we're still chewing on the TAGS on the "Indian" thing).  I don't know how to archive, but I think it would be a good time, eh? --Dylanfly 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: A check of these figures may be in order, at least of those figures changed by  a couple of days ago in this edit. At the moment of this writing, this anon IP user has made a total of four edits, one to this article & three to Native Americans in the United States, all three of which introduced erroneous populations figures to that article.  See also this user's talk page for documentation of these edits. --Yksin 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for staying on top of this, Yksin! --Dylanfly 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Please do check those figures, I unfortunately am unable to. -- This anon IP for the second time has claimed in an edit summary to be reverting my purported "vandalism" which in both cases was my reversion of the anon IPs introduction of deliberate factual errors. Looks like a trip to AIV for me. This just makes me all the more certain this person's edit here was also to introduce erroneous figures. --Yksin 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern statistics on indigenous populations 

message: The official numbers of amerindians in argentina are 400.000, that mean the 1% of the population, NO THE 10%!!!! --Shrewsbury333 03:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, ten percent sounds very high, unless one is counting mestizos, such as Diego Maradona.--Dylanfly 13:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentine-Amerindians 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Demography section--send to its own page?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Getting up to standard: the road to Featured 

message: Information about a new DNA study. Badagnani (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New DNA study 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Indigenous Movements in the Americas

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