Talk:Indigenous peoples of Mexico

Misc comments

The line:

(In fact, the great majority of the Mexican immigration to the United States is of Amerindian origin)

needs a citation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.12.81 (talk • contribs)

its common knowladge that most Mexicans in america hail from the predominantly Mestizo/Amerindian Lower class in mexico rather than the caucasian upperclass, most of the imigration is from regions like puebla mexico where the average population leans more towards their Amerindian ancestry rather than their european ancestry.--GorenSleiczik 07:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge is not sufficient as it is not verifiable. It mus be sourced to a reliable printed source.--Rockero 15:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it can be verified directly: Mexico does not classify its population according to race, and the US classifies all Mexicans as "Hispanics" regardless of race. In this case we do have to appeal to common knowledge though I would rather say self-evidence. I guess the fact that consular services are provided in Amerindian languages (and the fact that bureaucratic services in Mexico are rarely provided in an Amerindian language despite the fact that they are obliged to do so by law) should hint that it is thought or it could be said that the percentage of Amerindians amongst the Mexican immigrants is higher than that of the Mexican population as a whole. Nonetheless, I guess this fact could be proved indirectly. For example, it can be established that the great majority of Mexican immigrants do come from rural communities: the World Bank does report that rural poverty decreased substantially from 2000-2004, from 40+% to 20+%, mainly because of "remittances", while urban poverty (which, arguably, is not a great receptor or remittances) has remained the same [1]. After that, it can be shown, from INEGI that on most rural communities the percentage of population that speaks an Amerindian language is higher than that of urban communities (or the national average for that matter). But I guess all of this could be considered original work (that is, wikipedia is supposed to "report" not to "propose"). --Alonso 00:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is all original research. I agree that most immigrants are mestizos with a significant minority of indios, but there is no data source that I could find to verify the idea that criollos tend not to emigrate from México due to their generally already high socioeconomic status.

Also, I think this article needs to be cleaned up a bit by someone with good English abilities as right now it seems to have been written by somebody with about an en-3 level of English. --Node 00:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say anything about the proposal of "original research" above. So there is no need to worry. Just a comment, "indio" is, to put it mildly, politically incorrect in Mexico; "indígena" is by far, preferred. Also, feel free to correct grammar or spelling if necessary. --the Dúnadan 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I know these things. I corrected some of the grammatical errors. However, this article is still very poor in quality for three reasons: 1) It still has grammatical issues and cannot seem to decide what we should call the indigenous population of Mexico when consistency is very important to article quality; 2) It uses far too many parenthetical remarks; 3) There are no references, although some of the statements may be dubious. --Node 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Parenthetical remarks are simply style. They are not wrong in themselves, and do not reduce the quality of the article. If you dislike the style, simply rephrase and insert them in the appropriate paragraphs. I see that you made an extensive (if not exaggerated) use of the {{fact}} template. I will try, myself, to provide as many references as possible. --the Dúnadan 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost every guide to the English language advises against such extensive usage of parentheticals. They should be used sparingly. Take a look at any article that has ever been nominated for featured article here and you will find that none of them makes such an extensive usage of parenthesis. I added so many fact templates because there are literally 0 references and because some of the statements are either slightly dubious or are true but need references because some people may not believe them without them. --Node 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I was trying to find references to some claims (if they were available or true) but I just decided to rewrite the whole thing. Let me know what you think.--the Dúnadan 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very good. My only objections are about the brevity of the section on the ELZN -- I think this is a very significant topic in indigenous politics -- and the dismissal of anything north of the historical region of Mesoamerica as just nomadic tribes. I don't know a lot about the archaeology of northern Mexico but I do know that the cultural region of the Mogollon people extended well into what is now Chihuahua, and they were responsible for several impressive monuments including the ruins at Chaco Canyon (although Chaco Canyon is not currently in Mexico, the culture that was responsible for it extended well into modern Mexican territory). The idea of a Mesoamerican heritage for Mexico as a nation seems a bit convoluted to me and ignores all of the happenings of the northern regions which I should think are just as significant. --Node 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need more information on the EZLN, in spite of the fact that it will probably be a controversial topic for many editors. About the regions north of Mesoamerica, I agree with you in that several civilizations developed. But from what I've read, most civilizations had been destroyed by the many nomadic tribes of that area, most notably the Chichimeca, who not even the Aztecs could subdue. However, nomadic, semi-nomadic or sedentary, all indigenous groups are -or should be- as significant to Mexican culture, history and demographics as the Aztecs or Mayas. In fact, the idea of an Aztec heritage that Mexico tried to appropriate as an independent nation seems not only to me, but to some authors (at least Dr. Hanmett, whose work is cited in the article), a bit convoluted in that it not only ignores the other ethnic groups of the north, but also ignores the historical fact that the Aztec Empire was a very loose tributary system in which many different ethnic groups were subjugated, and not a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. That being said, I fully agree with you. Perhaps we should add more information about "the North".--the Dúnadan 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Chichimeca is actually a general term used to refer to the "savages" of the North collectively, and includes groups like the Tepehuans, Yaquis, Mayos, Tarahumaras, Seris, Papagos, etc. Evidence actually indicates that most of these civilizations are actually the predecessors of modern inhabitants of the area, and that they fell not due to invasion (although some people believe this to be the case) but due to drought or famine, which ruined their civilizations and turned them from mostly village-dwelling peoples to mostly nomadic peoples. --Node 00:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

True, a collective term. Still, like you said.. ruined their civilizations and turned them from mostly village-dwelling peoples to mostly nomadic peoples. Anyway, we should add more info about "the North". --the Dúnadan 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again though, it was not (or at least it is not commonly believed to have been) people who ruined their civilizations but rather the forces of nature. The people who were responsible for those civilisations and the "Chichimeca" are largely the same people, according to modern scholarship. --Node 08:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed my point. Regardless of the fact that some authors do say that it was the "fierce" (their adjective) nomadic tribes which caused many a civilization to crumble in the North, I wasn't really arguing against the alternative theory, based on evidence, that the civilizations fell due to natural calamities. My point was that by the time the Spanish arrived -and regardless of how the civilizations fell- the region was mostly nomadic, which was the point you argued against in the first place. But again, it doesn't matter. Nomadic or not, all ethnic groups are important and have played a significant role in the formation of the Mexican nation, and as such, we should add more info on the ethnic groups of the North. --the Dúnadan 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, by the time of the Spanish exploration (and later invasion) of the area, the civilisations simply were in crumbles. Quite a coincidence for certain cases -- the Hohokam civilisation is believed to have fallen just a couple of years before Columbus' initial arrival to the Carribean. But yes, you are right that the genesis of the modern Mexican nation is owed to all indigenous groups. The fact that a Seri man (or is it a Yaqui? I don't know) appears for example on Sonoran licence plates and the state seal, or that Chihuahua still has a relatively large Tarahumara population are all relevant and the article should explore the history of such issues. --Node 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Palencia as indigenous people

I haven't seen or heard any reference of this. Is there any source for this claim? Is not mentioned on his wikipedia Page. Hugo cantu (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed him. There is no reason to believe he claims indigenous status. It appears that someone writing on mexican atheletes has misunderstood the meaning of indigenous and put all atheletes born in Mexico in the "indigenous Mexican" category. I have rectified this now. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of indigenous people in Mexico

In the first paragraph it says that indigenous Mexicans constitute between 11 and 13% of the population, but in the second paragraph it says that 15% speak an indigenous language, which it says is fewer than the number of total indigenous Mexicans. Could someone more knowledgeable explain or correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.35.199 (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. The 15% value was incorrect, it was one of a number of unjustified adhoc changes to the stats that was carried out here a little while ago, by someone apparently wishing to inflate the figures for whatever reason. The actual value from INEGI out of the 2005 census is abt 6.7& of the total Mexican population over the age of 5 years, who speak an indigenous language. Figure is now corrected.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources of Information

The most reliable source of information on the indigenous peoples of Mexico comes from Mexico's own National Commission for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples (Mexican acronym: CDI) and Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Mexican acronym: INEGI), as well as publications made by universities or peer reviewed articles or journals and encyclopedias (that aren't wikipedia).

• Website for the CDI: [2]

• The following CDI links have more specific demographics and also defines the criteria for people to be counted as indigenous: [3] This other link will take you to where you can look at more articles which are similar to the previous one: [4]

• An academic publication by the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México which reveals racial demographics of various countries, Mexico included: [5]

• INEGI Publication: [6] Ocelotl10293 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of these are reliable. The exception is the paper by Lizcano which completely confuses the terms race and ethnicity - describing "negro" and "indigena" as an "etnia" (ethnic group) which they are of course not. I would advocate the use of all of the mentioned sources except that one for use in the article. And I would strongly reccomend against relying solely on these official mexican sources - but instead supply with well chosen English language scholarly articles from respected journals. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I would add INALI to the list of reliable sources - in my opinion they are more so than the CDI.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem we are having here as well as in all the Mexico-related articles when it comes to race or ethnicity is that there is a lack of reliable sources. This is why I added this section so people can bring here whatever they can find and then analyze it to see if we can use the information. That is why I mention that, in Mexico at least, the term Indígena is a political term rather than a racial one. Mexicans that are racially indigenous but who do not fit the criteria for being Indígenas by not speaking an indigenous language or belonging to an established indigenous community are not counted as indigenous thus reporting a much lower number of racially indigenous Mexicans than there actually are. I also have to warn that the genetic studies are only abstract and only apply to the specific regions where they were conducted. For example: a 20% African admixture taken from a sample in small town of Veracruz does not infer that the overall genetic composition of the entire nation is 20% African admixture; I mention this because I have seen people misuse the data to either boost or reduce demographical numbers. The first thing we must sort out here is this Rave vs. Ethnicity issue. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• National Institute of Indigenous Languages (INALI) Homepage: [7] Ocelotl10293 (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The concept of indigeneity itself—anywhere, not just in Mexico or Latin America—is inseparable from the socio-cultural-political contexts that the definitions are primarily founded in. The political dimension is apparent not only in the historical development of the term indigenous peoples, but also in its practical, cultural and legal appearances and uses. It is not a bad thing that this is so, nor does it render the definitions and uses somehow less valid. It's just how it is.

It's neither necessarily nor sufficiently based in genetics (there is of course no 'indigenous' gene), genealogy, or even primacy in settlement of some given region. It has a basis in collective rights not individual rights, and so it's quite possible that given two individuals with "the same" admixture of 'native' heritage, one might be considered a member of an indigenous people/group and the other, not so considered (self-identified by themselves, and/or recognised by others).

Thus the notion of 'racially indigenous' people/s is a bit of a furphy, one needs to be careful not to engage in WP:OR by claiming there are many more "really" indigenous people out there, based solely on genetics or bloodlines. All we can do is report on how and what qualified reliable sources identify as indigenous peoples in some particular regional context, and use those stats without coming up with our own versions. In the (probably universal) case where qualified sources arrive at different estimates, we'd just note the range and base any commentary within the article on their respective accuracies on any WP:RS 3rd-party sources that have examined the estimates, if there are any of these.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent reversions

I've reversed a series of recent edits that, while undoubtedly made in good faith, IMO introduced more problematic items than improvements. Some of the issues identified include:

• introducing a spuriously precise 'estimate' of ±22,466,593 that is not mentioned in any of the 3 sources given against it. Presumably this was arrived at by averaging some values incl. the aberrent 30% figure, that's not a statistically valid way of doing it. (nb this was since changed back by an anon to something more in-line with most of the published stats, but in doing so the previous cites to relevant sources were replaced).
• More emphasis / parity seems to be placed on sources such as CIA Factbook which as argued before is not a reliable or authorative source for this kind of info, and its ests regarded as exaggerated; see for eg Lizcano 2005: p.221, note j ["La importancia concedida a los indígenas por estas fuentes resulta exagerada"]
• inconsistency with sources when mentioning %ages of overall population
• Some invalid and non-RS sources were (re-)introduced, such as crystalinks.com (a non-copyright compliant mirror of wikipedia and other sources' texts, run by a self-proclaimed psychic that has no value as a source)
• Dividing the precolumbian history section into Mesoamerican chronological periods is not really applicable for the country as a whole; this periodisation doesn't make much sense if used for much of northern mexico, baja, etc. The history section does not need to be that detailed here in any case, just a brief overview required since the main focus shld be on the contemporary (when the term indigenous peoples is most usefully applied).
• The definitions/claims introduced re "racially indigenous Mexicans" seem problematic, as argued above in preceding section.

The original text was not perfect either, of course, and needs further work; but I think it stood closer to what the more reliable sources have to say, than the sum of those recent amendments. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the info under the Demographics sections to try to explain the disparity of numbers when it comes to different sources because there is an obvious and major conflict between Political Correctness and those who are indigenous by race. For example, in the top right infobox there are Emiliano Zapata and Benito Juarez. Under the current criteria these two individuals are not classified as Indigenous even though they obviously are. The reason for this is that the Mexican government has a political classification for who constitutes as indigenous and who doesn't. Even though Zapata spoke Nahuatl he did not live in an indigenous culture as it is politically defined in the 1917 constitution. This article needs to include both the politically-ethnic and the racially-ethnic groups of indigenous Mexicans and well as their respective demographics. There are many more indigenous Mexicans living outside the indigenous communities and cultures than there are within them, these people need to be taken into account. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Emiliano Zapata

Why is Zapata put here on the pictures of the infobox? Zapata was a mestizo, sure he was pretty dark, but he still was a mestizo.

Zapata was from Anenecuilco, Morelos. Around the turn of the century Anenecuilco was not a Mestizo town, it was an indigenous Nahua community (censuses from the time confirm this). Further more Zapata spoke Nahuatl which is documented by eyewitnesses. I know Womack says he wasn't indigenous but he is quite simply wrong on this point.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Zapata's Wikipedia article says that he is mestizo.