Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 1

message: Please lend a hand with the disambiguation effort, as described on Talk:Native Americans. À propos page moves, shouldn't this page be at Indigenous peoples of the Americas? –Hajor 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being bold with the move, Nat. –Hajor 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moving and disambiguation

message: Native American cuisine, which I will link to from here when it is ready --Rakista 12:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need help with  

message: hi. does anyone know what is the received list of culture areas in South America (assuming there is one)? I know there is that multivolume handbook from the 1950s (which I havent looked at), but I was wondering if anyone had read anything more recent. The only thing I have looked up so far is the 12 "geolinguistic regions" of Terrence Kaufman (1990, 1994), which he says are based on genetic linguistic, typological linguistic, cultural, and geographical features. I am using Kaufman's list in :Category:Indigenous languages of the Americas (which you can see there). Any other competing culture area lists?
(by the way, little has been mentioned of culture areas in North America. Mesoamerica does have related articles.). peace – ishwar  (speak) 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: South American culture areas

message: I was just wondering whether the photo of "A Hupa Indian, 1923" is really the best photo to use, considering that Curtis posed and dressed up Native Americans in the early 1900's, after they had already been exposed to the modernized style of living. -- MacAddct1984 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curtis Photo 

message: I have added the content dealing with The Intelligent Direction Theory. I feel that it is NOT biased and should be left alone. If you feel it is biased please be a professional and speak with me about it. Jeremp 16:25, 2006 May 25 (207.239.160.135)
:Whether it is biased or not does not matter.  It is not the right subject matter for this article.  Read the below discussion related to the House of Israel theory.  The community agrees this is not the place for migration ideas.  Go try to put it on Models of migration to the New World if you want it on Wikipedia, or add it as a separate article.  TriNotch 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory Disputations

message: This section doesn't make sense. What do those three sets of numbers by each country refer to? Ideally this kind of information should be in a table if anyone can figure out what it's referring to. -- D.M. (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume the first figure is the %age of the total population who are indigenous, the second figure the %age of the population who are mestizos ("mixed"), and the third the total of these two %ages. Agree that tabular format would be better. --cjllw | TALK 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now converted to table format.--cjllw | TALK 01:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Additionally, look at the figures for the United States and it's no wonder that the CIA World Factbook cannot even account for "mixed" Americans (Native Indian and Caucasian) who, in My opinion, number in the millions, if not tens of millions, although most of them are categorized as White and have European surnames. The unaliable fact remains that if you have an native ancestor you wouldn't exist because of them, no matter how minute the percentage (genetically speaking).--71.131.186.12 06:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article already notes the 'inexactness' of the "mixed" classification. Being a mestizo does not necessarily disbar one from identifying with indigenous heritage (it's rather up to the individual concerned, and their community), which I suppose is the intention of showing the combined percentage. Living a "mainstream way of life" also does not preclude identity as indigenous, or of indigenous heritage. Figures are not given by the original source for Brazil, and some others. I am not championing the source (CIA factbook) as wholly reliable, however- given the obvious difficulties and variations in such attempts at classification, there are other equally-valid estimates around. --cjllw | TALK 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics on indigenous populations

message: -I've made a minor change which is nevertheless important, and I'd like to explain.  Here's the line that I changed: "While many indigenous peoples of the Americas retained a nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle through the time of European settlement of the New World, in some regions, specifically in the Mississippi River valley of the United States, in Mexico, Central America, and the Andes of South America, they built advanced civilizations with monumental architecture and large-scale organization into cities and states."
-The problem I have with this relates to the definitions of the terms "civilization," "city," and "state."  While I feel the Andean, Mexican, and Central American cultures DO fit this sentence, the Mississippi River cultures may not.  With the possible exception of Cahokia, none of the settlements in the greater Mississippi River valley is the same kind of complex center of human habitation that you find in Mesoamerica.  The populations involved are typically a small fraction of those found in Incan or Aztec cities, for example.  The major polities along the Mississippi are most likely to be chiefdoms, not states.  Also the term "civilization" is considered inappropriate to many because it implies that the "non-civilized" peoples are somehow bad or unimportant.
-Anyway, I have changed it to say that state level societies with large complex urban centers developed in Mesoamerica and the Andes, while sophisticated sedentary chiefdom polities developed in many places throughout the Americas, including the rivers valleys and coastal areas of the Eastern United States (see Mississippian culture), the Northwest Coast, Hawaii, the Southwest, etc. etc. I hope no one will object. TriNotch 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mississippi River states and cities

message: "According to current scientific knowledge, most (if not all) of those indigenous peoples descend from hunter peoples from Siberia, who probably entered North America within the last 15,000 years..."
According to a TV documentary the first people came from Europe (now France) and brought advanced flint technology 20 000 years ago.
Xx236 10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that documentary was referring to the hypothesis of Solutrean contact, via some Atlantic coastal route from Europe, which has been put forward by a couple of researchers. However, with the only evidence for this being an alleged resemblance of stone tool manufacture techniques between the Solutrean and Clovis cultures, this idea remains highly speculative and has not attracted many adherents. The Beringia migration model, and timing of c.12500ka or perhaps earlier, remains the majority view.--cjllw | TALK 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: Someone has added a template to Indigenous peoples of the Americas proposing a merge with Sexual Victimization of Native American Women.  Will the proposer please care to comment? Thanks and all the best, Jorge Stolfi 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with Sexual Victimization page 

message: The second and third paragraphs here (concerning homosexuals and something referrenced as "two-spirited" persons) seems to go beyond what one would consider "common knowledge" (not to mention it was obviously inserted to advance a certain cause, however politically correct that cause may be); therefore, I beleive this either needs to have a reputable source cited or be removed.  Also, if reputable reliable sources can indeed be cited, this section still needs to be cleaned up.  This article is about "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" in general and I don't believe that all Nations/Tribes had similar customs in treating this topic; in fact, I believe they were quite varied.--WilliamThweatt 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What is the reader to make of sentences such as "Most indigenous peoples had traditional gender roles"? 'Traditional' in what sense - according to Western ideals, or their own, or...? It's a valid-enough topic to be mentioned in the article, but needs to reference the actual research done in this area, as well as recognise that the scope is all of the Americas, not just a few.--cjllw | TALK 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, why is the "Gender Roles" section there?  I see ambiguous, un-cited statements, appearing to refer to a particular, unidentified North American indigenous group (possibly of one of the Plains cultures), that definitely do not apply to all the many groups included as "Indigenous Peoples of the Americas."  Could we take it out until the author provides some citation material from which we could mold a more scholarly article?  DevinMcGevin 05:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I finally took out the section on Gender Roles for the above reasons.  In fact, I think that for an article on a topic as broad as "Indigenous Peoples of the Americas," a culture section should really only brief the generic subsistence/culture patterns that are applied to various geographic regions.  For example, Eastern Seaboard/Woodlands, Southeast, Plains, Southwest, Pacific Northwest, Arctic, North Central American, Andean, and so on.  Making claims about specific practices, including gender roles, labor divisions, clothing, tools, etc. (for example, I believe only a few indigenous groups carried their infants in backboards) belongs in articles solely dedicated to those cultures/tribes/First Nations.  Thanks!  DevinMcGevin 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture -- Gender Roles

message: Why does the phrase "Real American" redirect to this page? Unless there's something relevant in the article that a cursory search for the term missed, it seems unnecessarily combative to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.16.183 (talk • contribs) 
:Good point. I'll delete it.--Rockero 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Real American

message: 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)
thread_title:  French Guiana/Guyana 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mexico

message: 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 sections on culture contains a paragraph which compares and contrasts North American music with South American music.  This would be more intresting on separate pages for the Indigenous peoples of North America and the Indigenous peoples of South America.  Those pages have not been written yet, but I think they should be.
*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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Scope and Structure

message: 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)
replies: text: What solution do you propose?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the Indigenous American editors of this article?