Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas

An additional section of Child Development

Since this page does not already have a section on Indigenous American styles of child development and child rearing, we may begin to include a general introduction to patterns found in Indigenous communities regarding child learning within the next week or two. Laurenwurst (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

An request from WarriorsPride6565

I couldn't log on to my WarriorsPride6565 account. I got an new computer but I can't remember my password or email-address but anyway I would like to add this piece of important information, please do not prevent the truth. Allow to add this please----->" They are also related to the Amerindians. Blood tests made upon today's Ainu reveal Mongoloid ties."

Book: Proto-religions in Central Asia. Author: Charles Graves, Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer, 1994 - History - 223 pages

Link---> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qTFuAAAAMAAJ&q=Proto-Mongoloid+amerindians&dq=Proto-Mongoloid+amerindians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dEW8T7adKpPR8QONpsk2&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg-94.175.118.39 (talk) 3:05, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Child development

I have moved the new section "Child development" to its own article Child development of the indigenous peoples of the Americas...as its very detailed for this overview article. and the fact it merits its own space..well source etc... -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Massacres

This passage: " The loss of lives was exacerbated by violence on the part of colonists who frequently perpetrated massacres on the indigenous groups and enslaved them." Is problematic. First it uses three references, none of which can be checked, though I've no doubt they may support it. Two of them are works by scholars on the extreme side of the issue. This is obviously a one sided portrayal of the matter, massacres were perpetrated by both colonists and indians, and they were often done in retaliation for massacres done by the other side first. The very statement violence on the part of the colonists is so biased it approaches fiction- as if indians wouldn't fight back and were completely submissive. Can we rework this to present a more balanced view?Batvette (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The passage is largely accurate, and considered to be so by most contemporary scholars. It takes very little acquaintance with the history of Indigenous populations in the Americas to verify it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying that there was violence perpetrated by indians against European settlers? And you imply I am the one not acquainted with history?Batvette (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No I am not, and neither is the passage that you refer to. The phrase is discussing the cause of the Indigenous population decline. Obviously indigenous population decline was not exacerbated by violence done by indigenous peoples against colonists. Scholars also agree very widely that the relative death toll in massacres by the two sides is not even close to comparable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously indigenous population decline was not exacerbated by violence done by indigenous peoples against colonists.

Perhaps a visit to wiktionary's entry for the word retaliation is in order- or if you're familiar maybe you should employ better debate tactics than feigned ignorance. The passage implies violence was always initiated by the colonists and not that a massacre may have been the result of retaliation after previous violence initiated by the natives. Is this now clear to you or do you need anything else slowly spelled out or explained for you?

Are there references provided to support colonist initiated massacres of indians without undue provocation, and that this is significant statistically compared to disease and other causes?Batvette (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Red indian

The term Red indian redirects here, but is not mentioned in the article. Discuss. Guinness2702 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discuss what?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the term must be mentioned. I am aware that it is highly problematic; therefore, all we have to do is treat it as such. "Indigenous people were once pejoratively referred to..." or something like that. The term was used historically, and wikipedia is not censored; so shouldn't there be some treatment of it? If most RS call it a racist term or a tool of oppression or whatever (which is more or less accurate) then we can refer to it as such; but why wipe it out of the article altogether? Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

JusT one of many terms that redirect here -- this is not Wiktionary. WP:POFRED-- Moxy (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware that this is not a dictionary, and I am not suggesting that every possible variation on this word get a treatment in here. I have not searched the sources systematically, but I was under the impression that the word had a significant history. I am hardly wedded to putting it in; but don't trivialize the question, please. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what more can be said on the topic... We mention the origins of the term Indian. Red Indians is a term not used from a historical academic prospective.... just a slang term used by southerners in the late 19th and 20th century for south American indigenous peoples. Not a term that needs mention here. -- Moxy (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "just a slang term". Fifty years ago, in kids' TV shows and movies, it was a very common term. I don't recall it as being pejorative. I think it could definitely do with some context and explanation. For starters - Moxy - what do you mean by "south American". HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK it was common to use Red Indian as a term in the 1970s, and not just slang. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I know, the term has received scholarly treatment, and it is typically seen as pejorative. See 1, 2, [www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614369100390301#.U_SmMmO00Xk 3] (I'm not suggesting these articles need be covered; just to illustrate my point.) Also, it's received coverage not just as a questionable term, but the Shoemaker source seems to discuss the term as relevant to Native American history; which makes it relevant to this page, right? We are not obligated to explain it, but where it is historically relevant to the people, it seems to me we should cover it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly didn't originate as a slang term, and at least early 19th century, not late.[1][2][3][4]. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted the addition of a fairly large and somewhat incoherent section, which appeared to be saying that Native Americans are descended from Europeans on the paternal side, which makes little sense; also, the source does not use the term "paternal" at all, and so this really needs some discussion before we can be sure it is not OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The source does not appear to mention the terms maternal or paternal. Not true you must not understand genetics well and I quote the Y chromosome of MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages

which means that

and the Y chromosome of MA-1 (R*) is basal to modern-day western (R)Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages (Q) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html#supplementary-information

209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) and Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014106a.html

The y-chromosme is Paternal, it said nothing about Materal.

K2b is not associated with East asia, it is associated with Melanesia do you want to add that also? 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Genome Wide History of Eurasia and the Americas.

Native Americans do not descend from Europe however they are partially western Eurasian, unless nearly all Western Eurasians are partly native American. Native Americans are descendent of an ancestral North Eurasian population, which is not Eastern Eurasian, and Ancestral to some of the blood in Europe and Americas and probably has roots in South Asia. And I quote Similarly, we find autosomal evidence that MA-1 is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and genetically closely related to modern-day Native Americans, with no close affinity to east Asians This is really difficult to explain because most people have a simplified view on genetics. Nearly all Native America males lineages are much closer to about half of Europe than they are to any of East Asia. 209.236.86.201 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What I know about genetics can be put in a thimble -- but what you're saying might be consistent with what is said in the Solutrean hypothesis article -- to which I made some minor contributions. See the following quote:

"A 2014 genetic analysis published in the journal Nature reported that the DNA from a 24,000 year-old skeleton excavated in Central Siberia provided mitochondrial, Y chromosomal, and autosomal genetic evidence that suggests 14 to 38% of Native American ancestry originates from an ancient Western Eurasian population. The Mal'ta era skeleton's mitochondrial genome belonged to haplogroup U, which has also been found at high frequencies among Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers. The authors state that their findings have four implications, the third being that "such an easterly presence in Asia of a population related to contemporary western Eurasians provides a possibility that non-east Asian cranial characteristics of the First Americans derived from the Old World via migration through Beringia, rather than by a trans-Atlantic voyage from Iberia as proposed by the Solutrean hypothesis." [6]

"In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a 12,500+-year-old infant from Montana was sequenced.[5] The DNA was taken from a skeleton referred to as Anzick-1, found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity with European sources. The DNA also showed strong affinities with all existing Native American populations, which indicated that all of them derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population.[13]" Smallchief (talk 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.

Bold means we indicate the data is quoted

On a wide scale  14 to 38% of Native American ancestry may originate through gene flow from a population basal to modern day western Eurasians.  And the western Eurasian genetic signatures in modern-day Native Americans derive not only from post-Columbian admixture, as commonly thought, but also from a mixed ancestry of the First Americans. A 24,000 year old sample showed a line (haplogroup R* y-dna desendend of QR y-dna ) that is basal to modern-day western Eurasians and near the root of most Native American lineages Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.