Talk:Indigenous peoples

Please can we have more balance

As it stands the section on indigenous viewpoints is tiny and insufficiently sourced; the section on non-indigenous viewpoints is about three times the size. Given the range of indigenous activism since the 1960s surely someone can come up with more data. Bonfire elefantti (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)and we hate you

Go right ahead, I support your suggestion 100%. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will get back to you on this. I don't yet know how to cite sources that are books but if I try in good faith perhaps people will not be too offended if I do not get the formatting right. Bonfire elefantti (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

-indigenous in mexico can be like the 30% of the population,not just less than the 10% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.235.63.196 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Colonisation of Europe

The following statement is debatable: "Since most of Europe in historical times was never colonized by non-European powers with lasting effect..." I would like to draw your attention to the Roman Empire, which conquered and colonised at least a third of Europe in historical times (Italy, Gaul, Iberia, Britain, the Alpine regions...), and to the Roman Catholic Church, which eventually completed the Roman Colonisation of most of Europe in historical times through missionary work as well as military conquests (Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia, the Baltic peoples, the western Slavs...). Pictonon (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to draw your attention to the location of Rome. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictonon's point, and it is a valid point, is that the process of acculturation by external imperial cultures occurred within Europe, and in the same pattern as by Europe into other cultures at later dates. The acculturation of local, indigenous tribes within Europe happened several times in the historical record. Indo-eropean culture invaded pre-Celtic British Isles, for one notible, historical example (see Julius Caesar's reports from northwestern europe.)

Themightyquill's point seems to be that since Rome is in Europe ... um ... I'm not sure what the point is really. But it seems to ignore the vast diversity of the ethnic groups in Europe. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The point, to me, is that it begs for a precising definition of just what constitutes "indigenous" peoples. What does, exactly? Which of those European ethnic groups are "indigenous" and which aren't, and why? mike4ty4 (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, constituting an "indigenous" person is difficult. For example I think Indigenous Australians should be anyone born here after 1850 when they stopped importing convicts. The Australian Government however blatantly ignores the ideology against racism by discriminating against me because I am not "dark skinned" as they put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.144.70 (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thought this phrase seems a bit contentious "Greco-Roman society flourished between 250 BC and 480 AD and commanded successive waves of conquests that gripped more than half of the globe." Was it really across such area (i.e. most of Africa, Asia, part of Europe and all of the Americas were never part of the Roman Empire)? There's no citation either. Admittedly, I'm no expert, just thought I ought to point it out. 137.44.169.174 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

French interwiki

The correct French interwiki is fr:Peuple autochtone and not fr:Indigène. The latter article discusses the word, not the peoples. Note that despite being related, English indigenous and French indigène have different connotations : in French indigène is potentially offensive because it was the term used by colonial administrations; it is therefore often avoided in French today (in PC speech, that is), though it can still be encountered - partly by intereference with English use in international settings. Bertrand Bellet (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

It appears as if there is considerable difficulty defining this term. There is even a separate article just to define it. I thought that indigenous people were the first human settlers in a region and their descendants. It shouldn't depend on being subsequently colonized or religious beliefs that God planted you there. If this is a controversial topic, shouldn't it be discussed here? –Shoaler (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to replace the first paragraph with:

"The term indigenous peoples is used to refer to the first human settlers in a region. It is also used for the descendants of these people who have lived more or less continuously in the same region."

Comments?–Shoaler (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Moreover, Indigenous does not necessarily denote first. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Shoaler, the definition used here is very nebulous. Defining indigenous as the first human settlers in a region is clearer and more subject to proof. But the fact is that many people who claim to be indigenous were not actually the first human settlers - in fact they displaced (or at least culturally supplanted) other human populations whose existence is only known through archeological research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.216.103 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I came here looking for a definition of "indigenous people" but the existing section is very difficult to follow. 64.91.111.8 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad Citations

This page contains many bad citations. For example, the following definition of "indigenous" is attributed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: "politically underprivileged group, who share a similar ethnic identity different to the nation in power, and who have been an ethnic entity in the locality before the present ruling nation took over power". This phrase does not appear in the Declaration, nor does any other definition of "indigenous", however the Declaration is the only source cited in the 'Definition' section of the page. Most of the references to the Declaration on this page make no sense, it looks like somebody just cited it out of laziness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.197.72 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle East section

The Middle East section links to "Arab Tribes" as the main article, and speaks almost exclusively about Arabs. This is highly misleading and, in large part, downright false. The Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian Peninsula -- which would be a more appropriate title for the section in question. The indigenous peoples of the Middle East, meaning, the Fertile Crescent and perhaps North Africa, include Assyrians, Kurds, Copts, Jews, Berbers and others. Arabs being native to Arabia are in fact foreign conquerors who arrived in the Ferticle Crescent and Africa only after the Muslim conquests in the 7th Century.

As far as I know, Berbers are not indigenous to the Middle East.If Egypt, Pakistan or Afghanistan (and Persia/Turkey/Georgia/Armenia) are part of the Middle East is subject to controversy. These are recent and transitory political definitions. Yes, the Middle East has a number of indigenous people, icluding Caanites, but please remember that even the Arab tribes are partly of fertile crecent origin Adnani Arabs and even the Qahtani Arabs originated at one point from the north.Kurds and other Iranians are not indigenous to the regions as they moved into the region in historic times from Central Asia and Khorasan. Same is true for Turks, Turkmens and Circassians. Jews may be indigenous to the region and so are Assyrians, Samarians, decendants of Phonenicians and Araamic speaking peoples. However, many of these peoples adopted Arab culture and language and they are city and town/village dwelling people without extand tribal affiliation. You are wrong about Arabs only being present in the fertile crecent after islamic expansion. Ancient (North Arabian) Arab tribes are recorded in Syria, Jordan and Irak from ancient times.Some tribes moved in later, but not all. There also have been christian Arab tribes Ghassanids as well as Jewish (conveted) and Christian Arab tribes in the South as well as the North.Many Syrians and Lebanese trace their origins back to these tribes.Only a fraction of Lebanese are of Phonician origin. But generally speaking, the fertile Crecent has been such a melting pot of Romans, Greeks, Hebrews,, Circassians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians, Akkadidans, Mitanni,sea peoples, Egyptians, Caucasians (region), Mongols, Europeans and recently European Jews (not necessarily Hebrews), that it is difficult to say which group is indigenous since they have also mixed.In addition, the above groups form the ruling industrialized class, while the Beduin tribes who stick to traditional ways are surpressed and often do not participate in the political process of the Levant. Some of the ruling towns people may, or may not have any tribal affiliations, most have lost any of their original cultural diversity and language. (Lebanese, Syrians, Mesopotamians and European Jews). They may have adopted a foreign cultures, lifestyle or political system, or they may have adopted other languages Arabic or even artificial re-created languages such as modern Israeli Hebrew.They are involved with a largely industrial life style and limititing te intertribal cross border relations of the indigenous tribes. This doesn't qualify most fertile crecent inhabitants to be listed as indigineous peoples, same as with town dwelling Arabs without any tribal affiliations. They are not "indigenous peoples" even though they may be native to the region.However, there are few exeptions. Feel free to expand the article if you find one.95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest we amend this section to reflect these realities. --Sstr (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I support your intent. I changed the "Arab tribes" link to a "see also" instead of main article link. There is a bigger problem here, though. It seems that every other part of the world has an extant "Indigenous people of xxx" wikipage but the Middle East does not; this may be why Arab tribes was chosen as a main page.

I am not sure how much use I can be in helping to either sort this out or make a new article or both, but perhaps if you knew of a basic highly reputable online source for content I may help you adapt, cite, and wikify the bones of it for this purpose. Blue Rasberry 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Arabs outside of the Arabian peninsula are populations that adopted the Arabic language, with minimal admixture with Arab DNA. One of the few exceptions to this would be documented mass migrations, i.e. the Banu Hillal in Tunisia. Aside from those, it's fair to say that Arabs are indigenous to wherever they are found in the Middle East, even though the term Arab might be a misnomer from a geneological perspective. MrOakes (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues?

Hi.

I saw this: Indigenous_peoples#Indigenous knowledge and culture

That bit, the way it's written, sounds like an opinion piece (though one I'd agree with to some extent, but that's irrelevant here), rather than a neutral encyclopedia piece.

And the section Indigenous_peoples#Viewpoints on indigenous societies shows the same problem of seeming to give lots more coverage to "non-indigenous" viewpoints that was mentioned 2 years ago (see "Please can we have more balance" above). mike4ty4 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The colour's NOT good

The colour chosen for the text in the template (dark red) is not good, because it looks like the colour of a link leading to a not yet existent page (normal red). I think this confuses people. You can't colour a good link with a shade so close to the colour of a broken link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain revert on Kurds etc.

"One is IRANIC, other one is TURKIC people. Non-Academic references means nothing." I don't understand the relevance of this phrase (in italics), used to justify a revert. Please explain.--Carwil (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, here's the removed text.

The Kurds, native to parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, are indigenous peoples of the region.1,2

1. Hughes, Lotte (2003-04). The no-nonsense guide to indigenous peoples. Verso. pp. 94–95. ISBN 9781859844380. 
2. Ibrahim, Ferhad; Gülistan Gürbey (2000). The Kurdish conflict in Turkey: obstacles and chances for peace and democracy. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 40. ISBN 9780312236298. 
3. "Under the existing working definition one could easily identify Basques, Kurds, Abkazians, Bretons, Chechens, Tibetans, Timorese, Puerto Ricans, Northern Irish, Welsh, Tamils, Madan Arabs, or Palestinians as indigenous people." Corntassel, Jeff J.; Tomas Hopkins Primeau (1995-05). "Indigenous "Sovereignty" and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing "Self-Determination"". Human Rights Quarterly 17 (2): 348. ISSN 02750392. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.gc.cuny.edu/stable/762521. Retrieved 2010-12-16. 

Palgrave Macmillan is an academic publisher, by the way. I've added a third, clearly academic reference.--Carwil (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits

I have rewritten the definition which for some reason has degraded from earlier well argued definitions based on sources to a layman dicitonary type definition. I also removed unsourced content of racialist nature, as well as nonsensical and unsourced descriptions of "Norse greenlanders" as indigenous peoples. The article as it was when I found it was a terible POV mess which did not do justice to the topic at all. I expect reversions to a previous version to be well argued and justified by sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Participation in REDD

Many organisations and indiginous groups (ie Kayapo, Huaorani, ...) have cited to be intrested in policing areas for REDD, ie see

• http://www.guilfordian.com/sports/alliance-of-forest-people-discuss-deforestation-1.327158
• http://www.ismagazine.nl/2010/03/17/geen-bodemschatten-maar-bomen/

Also, perhaps these organisations can be mentioned somewhere on the page

• http://www.forestpeoples.org/background/about-forest-peoples-programme
• http://www.international-alliance.org/about_whoweare_eng.htm
• http://www.globalforestcoalition.org/?page_id=206

91.182.193.178 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Inuit versus Eskimo

The latter-day Canadian bias against the term "Eskimo" seems to have gotten into this article. It seems unlikely to me that Brazilians refer only to an Inuk as an "esquimo" and more likely that all Eskimos are called by that name. And the article lists indigenous populations in the US as "Native Americans, Inuit, and other...", even though the US Inuit use "Inupiat" and "Eskimo" (which includes the Yupik) to identify themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)