Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Part indigenous in the Unites States

I think that 0.7%-0.9% is too small. How about the millions Mexicans and others Hispanics with Amerindian ancestry living there? What about North Americans with partial Amerindian ancestry (many White and Black people there like to claim to have an Indian great-grandmother).

So, the mere 0.7% should grow a lot. I remeber reading an article saying that at least 15 million Americans are at least 25% Native American in their ancestry; and this did not count the Hispanic-Americans. Opinoso (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean all (theortically speaking) Americans of all races (white, Black, Asian, etc.) are distant descendants of indigenous peoples? How interesting to point that out for the US and Canada owes its geneological legacy to their founding great-grand fathers (or mothers) or learn about the Latin American concept of "Mestizaje": the majority of their country populations are of highly mixed white/Euro-AmerIndian or/and black/Afro-AmerIndian origins. I believe 15 million Americans of any race are least one-eighth American Indian and over half the US population has at least one NA/AN ancestor.

The US Census used to classify people by race on how much "black" or AmerIndian blood any person has, including those who would pass as white/Caucasian. Historically until the mid 20th century, any whites of any AmerIndian ancestry (less than a quarter or doesn't have prototypical "Indian" features to be discriminated by the white majority) would go for "passing white" to avoid racial discrimination and prejudices by government officials whom want to "assimilate" Native Americans while they were often confined on Indian reservations.

Today, minority groups such as Native Americans are offered affirmative action in education admissions and employment applications and more whites of any AmerIndian descent became wanting for a "check" (this is about members of federal or state recognized tribes) or be eligible for tribal payments. But it can't reverse the centuries and generations of racial marginalization done to Native Americans who can proof their tribal membership as victims of officialized racism, but the new trend of "wanting" to be Indian is an ironic concept. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The other reason why estimates are so low is because of the one-drop rule. In reality many DNA analysis reflect that between 65-78% of the African American population can easily claim native heritage. And I'm not talking about I'm 10% Native American it varies from family to family, but it's believe the African American population would be cut in half at least if they would actually but down their full heritage and not just a part of it.Mcelite (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please link those studies. Rmhermen (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel there is a problem here will all of you. If you live in the united states, look around you. Do the hispanic peoples around really look like they could pass for native american? Btw if you think so, you've probably never looked at a native american. And no. Just because hispanics usually have dark complexions and dark hair/eyes doesnt make them non-white. It reflects rather their Latin heritage, one that is visible in the more northerly Quebecois and other latin peoples. What all of you seem to be trying to do is to deny the facts readily at hand. Yes many do claim do be part native american, however can they back this up? And even if they could do you think they would really be accepted as native by those who actually look like "red men"(used to be as specific as possible in regards to physical appearence). Your race is based on what you look like, not what your blood is anymore. But to reach a conclusion all of you seem to want to say that whites and blacks who expanded at the expense of the First Nations actually had a blood right due to recent relation to natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavener (talkcontribs) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What Hispanics are you talking? With Cubans, many of whom were higher in socio-economic status when they came over from Cuba, yes, Mediterranean European heritage is much more prevalent. The same holds true for many "Hispanos", "Tejanos", and "Californios", descendant communities of Spanish colonists who have existed in the Southwestern United States since early colonial times. Brazilian, Argentine, and Uruguayan immigrants probably tend to be whiter, too, as do any other South American migrants who come from backgrounds of higher socio-economic status.

A large portion of the US Hispanic population, however, come from lower-class Mexican and Central American mestizo descent and often have noticeable Amerindian phenotypes (not to mention the synchretism in their culture). They don't look quite the same as North American Indians (and there is much regional variation there, too) just as Chinese and Japanese or Western European and Eastern European people tend to have distinctive features, but you can generally tell they are part Amerindian. --76.98.148.217 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agriculture/domestication?

Couple of points: -Shouldn't it be "the American continents", i.e. plural rather than singular? Last time I checked, the big landmass was still made up of two continents.

-Sugar cane is by far the most produced crop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture), which makes the following statements not entirely accurate: "[maize is] arguably the most important crop in the world" and "These species now constitute 50–60% of all crops in cultivation worldwide"; of the top 10 crops on the FAO list, only maize (2), potatoes (5) and tomatoes (10) are endemic to the Americas, barley occurs throughout the northern hemisphere. Their total annual production (including barley) is slightly less than 30% of the total for the top 10. Perhaps the top 20 contains a lot of American endemics?

-As far as I know, "there is evidence that native peoples in the United States area were a few hundred years from domesticating the black bear (presumably for an oxen- or horse-like use)" is entirely false. I just grabbed Jared Diamond's book (the only reference for this statement) and the only times he refers to black bear domestication is by the Ainu of Japan, not native peoples in the US. Even then, the Ainu would kill the bears after a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.10.236 (talk) 12:06, 1'5 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the bear lines (I didn't remember it either.) I think the 50-60% figures refer to types of crop species not production totals but either way it should be sourced. 17:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC) (I am fairly certain that this was my comment, not sure why my name isn't on it. Rmhermen (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Indigenous peoples of the Americas in current days

I entered this article in order to read and learn about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas in this day and age. Although very interesting and inmofrmative, almst this entire article should be under the "history"" subtitle. I was dissappointed not to find any information about current native american culture, music, art, language, literature, politics, cuisine etc., in the reservations - and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.232.246 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I started fixing some redirects (Native Americans to Native Americans (disambiguation) was obvious), but then noticed that a ton of redirects come here that could conceivably go to Native Americans (disambiguation). Is there a particular reason they all come here, or would it be OK to change some of them to Native Americans (disambiguation)? NJGW (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Forced labour as main cause of indigenous depopulation

escuse me, i keep on adding information to this article and the moderators keep erasing it, and i don't know why. I added the bibliografy were that information is from, and i think i didn't offend anyone. I would like some information about what the problem is so i can correct it. Thank you very much in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the text in question:

"Another theories deny the magnitude of this information, saying that the main cause of the population decline was not because of the european diseases, butbecause of the massacres protagonized by european armies and the slavery work that the native population was submited to in order to increase the production of diferent products for europe. In Potosí silver mine in Bolivia, for example, over 5 millon native workers died because of the poor working conditions (16 hours of work a day, toxic waste in the air, bad diet, etc) and the terrible life conditions they were submited to. Similar situations took place in Brasil with the cofee, Cuba with the sugar, Perú with tobacco, etc In other countries, like Argentina, Spanish armies anihilated the native population because their intention was to establish a white european population.[1]. There are some theories that say that the diseases that extermined a great amount of native americans where caught precisely because of the bad life conditions in wich the population was submited because of the hunger, forced work, physical punishment, etc). These conditions would break their immunological sistem, causing them to die of any disease. [2]."

Which is controversial, incompletely sourced, badly spelled/translated. Even the sources as given are not correct as "Trenchs in history" gets zero Google hits (Presumably it refers to Trincheras En La Historia : Historiografia, Marxismo Y Debates) Rmhermen (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a fringe theory to me, and fringe theories are general discouraged from articles. No one would deny that there were massacres, enslavement, and harsh conditions, but all the books I've read state that disease was by far the main contributor to their decline. Kman543210 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The information i'm giving here is not discouraged from any article, but from serious books from respected autors that made very intensive investigations. I read a lot of books that say that the principal cause of decline were the diseases, but of course it was the official history, wich defends the interest of the people who killed the native americans. Never forget that history is written by the winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's bad spelled, and if it was, i sincerely ask you to modify those erros. About the sources, i thought about putting them in english because this is the english wikipedia, but i can put them in Spanish. And About the last point, being controvesrial, i don't see the problem in that. In mather of fact, i think it's perfect to expose every point of view, if not we are only seeing a parcial view of the story, and denying the other part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No serious historian would deny the massacres and killing off of the Amerindians by Europeans were major factors in their decline. I think what's in question here is the "main" cause of the decline. They were all contributing factors, but disease killed off the most, according to the clear majority of historians. Canadian and American historians write this, and they were not the "winners" of anything that happened in South America. Kman543210 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WHITE northamerican and canadian historians, descendants from european colonizers wrote that. I would like to make a parentesis here, with no offensive intentios, and i'm being honest. Please, don´t refer to the USA as "America", America is USA plus all the other countries in it.(I really mean it,i have no intention to insult or provoque anyone, it's just a correction) Now, moving on, in Latin America the accepted version is that there was a sistematic killing of natives in forced working, conquers, rapes, religious crusades, etc. As you can see, i believe this version jajaja, but i'm not trying to impose it on anyone, i didn't erase the other version form the article, i just want people to have a full view of the situation, and not just a parcial view. This has nothing to do with anything, but i'm glad that a southamerican and a northamerican can have a serious and respectfull debate, i think is very productive for everybody. I'm lokking forward for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense was intended, but "American" is the ONLY demonym that exsists in the English language for a citizen of the United States (American and U.S. are both accepted adjectives). When I speak Spanish, I would say 'estadounidense', but there is no such word like that in the English language. Again, in ALL historical accounts by any race, there was systematic killing of natives in forced working,..., but again, the issue is what caused the most deaths? Kman543210 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


I see your point, i always have a discussion about how i express myself with a friend jajaja. I was trying to say exactly that, from the books and investigations y read, the principal cause is forced works and massacres. Imagine, only in Potosí, that's one mine, around 5 millon died. In a mine were mercury was extracted for the explotation of silver in potosí (i can't remember it's name now) a similar number died. I mean, of the 100 millon native americans who died we have allready 7, 8 millon in two mines. They were very important mines, but still, let's picture that in all the fruit, tobacco, sugar, cereal, and other plantationes, all the mines, the meat industry, etc. Y think the add up a very large number. And besides that, the original article doesn't even talk about this. It just mentions that there were some conflicts, but it takes out a lot of relevance to it. I mean, in USA the english directly extermined all the natives to repoblate the country with europeans. How many native americans are nowadays in EEUU? Less than 1% of the population, im sure. That's what i meant, i don't want to impose my point of view, i just want to face it with the other one, so people can know both sides and investigate on their own maybe, i don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 23:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I allready modified my edit to correct some things, i hope you find it interesting.--Agapitomagoya (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many more corrections needed. And the concerns raised about sources have not been addressed. Would you be willing to work on it here before adding it to the article again? Meanwhile, I am restoring the previous version. Sunray (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we can take care of it here. I still can't figure out what is the problem with the sources, i especified them in the references below. If you want to, i can go back to those books and search for the references used by the autors. If there are any other corrections to be made, please especify them and I'll be willing to make them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

after edit conflict: :You are making far too many presumptions and including far too much unsourced material. The fact that 100 million people lived in the Americas before Columbus is highly disputed (see Population history of American indigenous peoples) the fact that 100 million were killed is even more highly disputed. The claim of 5 million deaths at Potosi is unsourced, the claim of "great amount of native americans where caught precisely because of the bad life conditions" is undermined by the statistics shown on this page about the death rates among unenslaved, undisplaced natives in North America and is possibly unsourced. You have not supplied the credentials of the sources or discussed how widely accepted these views are - see how Population history of American indigenous peoples does this, for example. Rmhermen (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Yes, is disputed, but exactly for that reason i think that both sides should be on this page, because if not we are denying the history. The Inca empire had 100 millon inhabitants acording to some sources, and acording to another it didn't, but you can't deny one source because you like the other one. About the sources, nobody has yet explained me what's wrong about my sources, you just keep telling me that it's wrong. I mean, they're books that are widely accepted in South and Central America, and the theories I'm adding are to. If they have no repercussion in North America it's another subject to discuss, but about the acceptance and reliability of the source I think there's nothing to discuss. And about the information in this page, that is exactly what I'm trying to change or complement, so I think it's not a valid backup for your complain. Now, if anybody please can tell me what is wrong about my sources, instead of just keep telling me that they're wrong, I'll be glad.--Agapitomagoya (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reasons that your material cannot be included in its current form:
1. The viewpoint that you try to express is not really controversial: almost all scholars acknowledge that atrocities and violence against the indigenous populations of the americas has played an important part in the depopulation of the early colonial period - if not because of the large numbers of murdered people at least because of the pervasive cruelty with which it was often carried out, however it is fairly well established that when it comes to numbers the biggest killer was not the colonists but germs. I do believe that you misrepresent your sources when you cite them for saying that "violence was the main cause". I don't believe they have any substantiated numbers that they can compare between the two causes but that the importance they ascribe to the violence is ideologically rather than numerically motivated. Whereas the spaniards didn't carry germs on purpose they did commit atrocities on purpose - hence the greater importance. At leats when viewed from the left wing, indigenist viewpoint which your sources both hold.
2. This leads us to the second point: The sources are not reliable. Both Azcuy Ameghino and Galeano are indigenist debate-book authors and can not generally be seen as notable scholars of indigenous prehistory. Azcuy is an economist and sociologist - Galeano is not even a scholar but a journalist and novelist. Both are representatives of the 1970'es indigenist movement and I doubt that the cited works are up oto date with modern historical scholarship - it very miuch looks like they are still theoreticcally stuck in the 1970'es. Such an important section needs MUCH better sources, and there are much better sources to this subject. See: WP:RELIABILITY for clues as how to judge whether a source is reliable or not.
3. The third but probably most important reason that we cannot include any of the material you have written is this: The English used is not very good. Parts of the text are near unintelligible. It is not so much the spelling which has only minor flaws, as it is the bad grammar, the many malformed sentences and the lacking coherence. This however could be mended by letting another editor rephrase the points when we agree on what should be written.
In short. It is possible that we should include a section about the controversies about whether the population plummet of the Americas should be considered genocide or not, this is a debate which has ample literature and which deserves to be in the article. However it cannot be in the version you have now inserted enough times to get you banned for revertwarring.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was just what i was expecting, a coeherent argument. I have some corrections to make: 1. I don't say that the direct violence (murders) was the main cause of population decline, i agree with you that is the diseases. Now, I think the cuestion is why these diseases were able to kill so many people. This is the controversial part, because this article makes it look like they just died because they didn't have natural defenses, when the real causes were because they were enslaved to work 20 hours a day, so they immunological system was screwed. The forced labour, generally in mines, was the main cause for the deaths in America. 2. I really don't see your point, yes, they are indigenist authors, but I don't see how that makes them less credible. And I don't see why not being a scholar makes a person's work less important that being one. I think that travelling trough all America gives you at least the same authority than being graduated from an university. As much as for the year of the books, yo make a good point, I mean, I have read hundredrs of contemporany texts that support this position, but you're right, Las Venas Abiertas is an old book, I'm gonna read some parts again to see Galeano's Sources and if they are more relliable, or consult with some people for other sources. About Trincheras en la Historia, that book is from 2004, so it's very actualized, and that book is precisely were the theory about why the diseases were caught by so many people and were so deadly to them. 3. Yes, i know, my english grammar sucks, i'm not used to writing in english, and even less to write about history jajaja. That's why I am willing to recieve help from anybody to redact the article. --Agapitomagoya (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, wikipedia does not share your acceptance of travel in lieu of degrees. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such requires scientifically sound facts in its articles. This means that we need to put experts' statements over laymen's - Galeano and Azcuy are not experts in history. The fact that they are indigenist writers is important because that means that they are not neutral and that their writings represent a specific POV and not the scientific consensus. I here again give you the link to the wikipedia reliability policies so that you can read them and see why we must request better sources. Secondly the idea about indigenous immunological defenses being weakened because of forced labour is simply not supported by the facts. In Mexico for example devastating epidemics began even before the spaniards reached Tenochtitlan simply because they spread extremely fast among the indigenous population who had never been exposed to those illnesses. It is not in any way controversial to state that the indians where susceptible to european diseases - it doesn't mean that indians where inherently weak, only that those diseases were unknown in the americas and that for this reasons bypassed indian immonodefenses. Also it is a gross exaggeration to say that all of the indigenous population were submitted to forced labour - that is simply not the case. In Mesoamerica most of the indians carried on with their lives on much the same as before, only that now they paid tribute to spaniards instead of to local lords. One policy of the spaniards that can have helped the epidemics spread, and which should probably be mentioned, is the policy of congregation where many smaller communities where often moved into one larger community - thus making people coming into closer contact. This is also the case for the jesuit reductions - which protected indians from forced labour but exposed them to more diseases. ther specific cases - like the potosí silver mine and other mining operations could easily be fitted in as an example of the cruelty of forced labour - but still it doesn't show that forced labour generally has been the cause of depopulation. But the most important point is that we need some better sources: an economist and a journalist with indigenist viewpoints are not reliable when it comes to giving a fair treatment of facts in native american history. We can do better. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 06:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I think neutrality is quite impossible when writing about history, and that like galeano is indeginist, the writers that discredit the forced labour are eurocentrist as much as Galeano is indigenist. I really believe that having a degree doesn't necesarily gives a person knoeledge, it all depens on the university he studied in and the teachings he had. I mean, I don't know how it is in USA, but in Argentinian Schools we keep learning that the spaniards came in peace to help and evangelize the natives, and that Roca, an argentinian president that made the "Desert Campaign"(a.k.a killing all the southern natives for european expansion) is a national procer. I understand your point, but I don't share it. As for the diseases, I'm not denying that a lot of natives died from the first contact with europeans, even in Galeano's book it says that some sources establish that half of the population died this way. This doesn't mean that millons of natives didn't die in the following centuries from diseases genered by forced labour. I extracted some reports from royal funcionaries about this, I'm gonna write them later because I'm a little short of time now. I'm just looking for an inclusion of some information about the massacres and slavery suffered by the native populations, because this article doesn't refer to it at all, and I think it's a great insult to all native american populations. About forced labour, in Mesoamerica the situation changed a little, before they payed some tributes for a lord, working in their lands. Under the colony, they payed this tribute but they also had to pay a work tribute of a determined amount of days a year (around a month in most cases), wich was, even if it wasn't all the year, forced labour. In spanish this is called Mita, I don't know about the English word. For this natives often had to cover great distances, and they often stayed in the working. The congregation policy was made to create working communities, why else? ¿wich could be the objective of putting a lot of people who worked their lands in another place, all together?. About the sources, I think that Wikipedia should open their apreciation for alternative sources, being that the academic sources often stand for the official history, in other words, the european history, in other words, the winners history. Let's never forget that History is written by the winners, we should be very carefull with that. Plus, most of this books that I'm talking about are investigations of national documents that are in gobernment institutions like the State Records, and from KIng's and governers speeches, etc. They are not made out from air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agapitomagoya (talkcontribs) 13:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You make an important point in the response above. Namely that in Argentina the people are generally taught that colonization was good and helped the "savages" etc. I know that this is also the case in some other latin american countries. However english language scholarship is generally past this stage, and also past the next stage the "indigenist" stage. Indigenist historiography also reached the US and Europe in the 1970'es and instead of talking about how lucky the indians were to have been colonized they now talked about how evil the spaniards and colonists were, and how beautiful and peaceful and noble the indians were. They went to the other extreme so to speak, now being biased against the colonists and for the indians. During the last twenty years this attitude has lost credit in the scientific community and now english-language historians generally seek to understand what happened and how it happened without taking a side and without holding a bias. For example modern historians don't state that spaniards were benevolent towards the indians but rather try to understand exactly in which ways european violence impacted the indians' lives. This is neither downplaying the violence nor taking sides but a simple balancing of facts and historical sources to say "this happened". Thus when I say that Azcuy is still ideologically and theoretically stuck in the 1970'es this doesn't mean that his book is not new, but that he is trying to prove something that most of the modern scientific community already know isn't the "truth" but just a different bias (in the same way the idea of giving a marxist view on history has generally been long abandoned by modern historians - Azcuy also seems to hang on to this)."The idea that winners write the history" is an old horse to be beaten here once again - first of all there are many sources written by indigenous people and second of all even though the winners frequently did write more history than losers it is still up to impartial scientists to interpret them - I (and most historians) for example am neither on the losing or winning side, but am simply trying to understand what happened by balancing sources and claims about history against eachother. I am still very open to include a section about the process of colonization including violence and the discussion of a possible genocide - but it will be using scientifically sound sources, written by modern historians (not all of whom are english speaking - there are many spanish speaking historians who are completely upto date with modern historiography). You may not believe that a university degree matters much, but as I stated wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need to represent the current scientific standard of knowledge and in order to do this we have made it a policy to require scientifically sound sources this means sources written by specialists. This is just the way wikipedia works - and you will have to abide by that. I have already pointed you towards the relevant policy of reliable sources twice so I shal refrain form including the link again. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point now. I'm also don't believe in any of those two versions, neither in Africa, Asia or America the colonization was imposed by terrible mosnters to peacefull angels, Horacio Ciafardini talks about the "inside agents" that made the domination possible, in all three continents, and also speaks about "Two spains and two americas", talking about the good americans and the good spaniards, and about the murderers, thiefs, etc from both sides. In America, for example, official history teaches us that the spaniards won beacuase they had horses and more fire power, but it doesn't teach about the alliances between spaniards and the populations subjugated to the Inca empire, and of course it doesn't teach us anything of Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, who (as a lot of other jesuists and misionaries) Fought endlessly for native's rights. I also try to analize the history from both sides and take out a conclusion, maybe because of the debate I made myself look as a speaker of the indigenist theories. I just think that the wikipedia page goes with the eurocentrist view a lot more than with the indigenist view, and I apreciate a lot your offer of including a section of this problematics in the page. I'm going to consult some of my teachers for modern sources about the subject, and try to post them here to help out in the section. I think it's very important to make an analysis of the history based on historical evidence in diverse history books (such as State Records, spanish and native speeches or informs from the colony days, etc) and on historical theories. Yesterday I extracted some historical documents from Las Venas Abiertas. I'm just gonna traslate them here to add some examples of wath kind of documents I'm talking about (as for evidence suport, not defending a position, wich coming from a Galeano's book will obviously be indigenist, these are just examples):

John Collier, The Indians of America, New York, 1947, Information obtained in the "House of contract" or "House of Trade" of Sevilla: In 1581, Felipe II asserted before the Guadalajara audience that already a third of the american indians had been anihilated, and the ones that were still alive were forced to pay tribute for the dead ones. The king also said that indians were bought and sold. That the slept out in the open. That mothers killed their sons to save them form the torment of the mines.

Enrique Firot, Nueva Historia de Bolivia: In 1601 Felipe III dictated rules prohibiting forced labours in the minesm and simultaneously send another secret instructions to continue with it "In case that this rules could make the production to flag". Between 1616 and 1619 The governer Juan de Solózarno made an investigation about the working conditions in the Mercury mines of Huancavélica. He informed to the India's Council and to the king himself that "The poison penetrates in the pure marrow, weakening the limbs and causing constant shaking, dying the workers, in general, in a time space of 4 years". But in 1631 Felipe IV ordered to continue with the same system, and his successor, Carlos II, renewed the decree some time after that.

I think this is the kind of historical documents we should look at, and then analyse them from different historical points of view.

I know that -luckily- history this days has a lot of new views and possibilities, but in general in schools and official sources (except some universities) we keep learning eurocentrist history, that's why I mentioned it.

A short out of subject comment, I really don't think marxist aproach to history is being discarted at all, There are a lot of modern writers and scholars that use them. I personally don't know any better economical, political and social analysis of history than the marxist, even when I don't share a lot of the most famous marxists writers ideas or some theories (like the theory of a necesary evolution through the production systems). If you know some theory or author who has succesfully refuted marxist view of the historical processes please give me his name because I'm looking forward to reading it (and I'm not being sarcastic at all).--Agapitomagoya (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The article as it is is far from perfect - I wouldn't even say that it is good. And I think that we should work towards making the page more informative in relation to the nature of indian/white relations in the colonial period. However we cannot do this in the way you propose by analyzing historical documents in the article. The reason we can't do this is that this would be Original Research - and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia conducting Original Research is not allowed, we must use other scholars interpretations and analyses of the documents. This means that it would be better to use the conclusions drawn by Firot and Collier although they both seem also to be a little outdated. I will look into finding better sources in the next few days. As for Marxist historiography I wouldn't say that its been refuted, but rather that is been superseded by reality - you could say that it has fallen out of fashion. True some historians use it but most of the "fashionable" historians publishing now adays would rather catch clamydia than admit to be using marxist analyses. I also think that it is quite obvious that the marxist view can only account for certain very limited historical processes such as the relations between masses and elite and labour. Other important historical factors hings such as human relations, cultural patterns and changing ideologies are not generally well described by marxist methods and those tend to be the very topics that modern historians want to understand. BTW: see this article Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Your suggestion sounds perfect to me, i'm going to send mails to my professors tomorrow (i don't have a lot of time now) to ask them for references about the subject. About marxism, I totally agree with you, first of all, there are a lot of joints in this times that marxist theories doesn't analize because they didn't exist then, like the formation of a middle class for example. And you're right when saying that there are a lot of humanity aspects left out of their analysis, as also some historical information, what brings me to this article for example, when Lenin talks about imperialism, he makes a great analysis about the systematic distribution of the world between imperialist countries, but doesn't mention the periferic countries politic's colaboration to that distribution. Never the less, the marxist theories about economy and international politics are the best i've yet read.--Agapitomagoya (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of edit by 24.30.38.213

I'm not sure if my revert even needs explanation, but just in case... The Solutrean hypothesis, which the referenced TV show is presumably based upon, is already given balanced coverage in this article. The way the edit was written is not very constructive; has issues with style and grammar (notably subject/verb agreement, complete sentences) and contains authoritative-sounding, blanket statements not germane to a serious encyclopaedia article (and which overstate the implications of the hypothesis). The current research amounts to the formulation of a hypothesis, not something that can be stated as unequivocal fact. It is also a bit arrogant to write -- in the edit to the article itself -- that removal of it would amount to vandalism. I'm curious as to which "terms granted by Wikipedia" stipulate that removal of an unconstructive anonymous edit is considered vandalism. Nonetheless, thanks for the video link, as I've been looking to watch this. You might want to bring things of that nature to the Talk page first. Twalls (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, can someone have a look at what's going on at Olmec. There's an African migration POV pusher that won't back down from what looks to me like OR, and I don't want to keep up a revert war. Sorry to bring it here. NJGW (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. So many articles, so little time! Twalls (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The first people to enter north and Central America has now been found to have been from France. This was proven thru extensive studies which was displayed in the film "First americans: Out of europe". Which is referenced here: First Americans: Out of Europe. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v15355889tAcaJqz5 (Removal of the above is called Vandalism since it is referenced thru terms granted by Wikipedia, this film was made copyright free, it was made solely for the education of the public with no charge to the public, it is 100 percent referenced and available to the public in full at the above link...all of this is included in the film and this meets Wikipedia's reference terms, So any removal of the Out of europe area above act as Vandalism by Wikipedia terms ).

I put this here since vandalism by various people keep causing problems on this site. Probally due to racism which is not condoned by wikipedia. Also the 3 revert rule has been broken by one person which is now up to 6 reverts in a 24 hr period.

That person wouldn't happen to be you?·Maunus·ƛ· 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
HAHA, Maunus....Vandalismdestroyer3 why don't you actually read WP:3RR before you accuse me of violating it. Ctjf83Talk 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
That "documentary" that a few editors are touting here is ridiculously unbalanced in my opinion and has no place whatsoever in the encyclopedia, even in the context of the article concerning the Solutrean hypothesis. "First Americans: Out of Europe" is an unsourced, badly crafted piece of fringe propaganda that's quite obviously designed to confuse viewers into believing that its premises are presently accepted by mainstream thinkers. They are most assuredly *not*. Removing the link to it does not constitute vandalism in any way shape or form. Trash. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Without reading much of the extended discussion below, I would like to point out that the video in question seems to have been created by (or atleast related to) this blogger: Here. The video and the blog cite no sources which makes verifying their accuracy impossible. These two facts makes the video a completely unreliable source. —[DeadEyeArrowTalkContribs] 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is unconstructive and racist to state that native Americans was here first just because of the 1492 theory. The oldest bones in america show Caucasoid features not Mongoloid which is the features of Native Americans. Also Dna x2 which is not found in Asia is found in Native Americans dating back 11,000 years ago. The clovis is not found anywhere in Asia or anywhere else except France. The Clovis style points found in France have in some cases been buried with red Ochre placed on top exactly the same as found in Clovis sites in America. The oldest and most large amount of Artifacts are found on the East coast (Cactus hill Virginia area), Which if the Native americans was here first then most artifacts and oldest artifacts would have been found around Alaska and the West coast but we do not find that. Before 11,000 years ago there was a sheet of ice blocking the path into alaska, however the oldest artifacts and bones date older than 11,000 years ago. Also if the Native Americans was the first then the oldest bones would be mongoloid which we do not find in america, the oldest bones are caucasoid and one being negroid. Languages among the ancient European languages match words and meanings as Native American Algonkian which is a language found in Virginia on the east coast. The oldest bones found in America also have red and blonde hair with no signs of dyes or coloring. The Native American culture is called "folsom" while the Europeans was the "Clovis". There is no evidence to suggest Native Americans ever entered America first. In fact all evidence points to France. The inca's as stated in the book Aku-Aku shows how when the Spainish first came the Inca's elite white whiter skin than their own, The Inca's also told the story of how white people with red and blonde hair and beards was already on the land and had taught them to build structures and grow corn. The vircocha and the chachapoya was nothing like the Native Americans, In Peru today there is deserts of Caucasoid mummies with red and blonde hair. Several native American tribes in USA have oral traditions of Red haired, white skinned people with beards was around before they came but they exterminated these people by trapping them in a cave, it was going by this oral story that a caucasoid red haired woman was discovered in a cave. There is not one bit of evidence suggesting Native Americans was ever in america first or here before 11,000 years ago, So to put this in a article about the first Americans is biased, racist, and unconstructive. As you can also clearly see in this article there is not a single bit of evidence stated that even suggests Native americans was here in America first. there is not even a theory that backs up native Americans first. So how can someone add this to a article on the first americans without having a single bit of evidence to back it up? When the ancient fish bone sewing needle was brought to the inuit tribe in alaksa....they said it was a inuit needle, it really surprised the Inuit people when it was told the needle was dated older than any needle found in America and that is was found in France. Also if you go to the caves in France you will see deep sea creatures painted on the cave walls, paintings dated older than 11,000 years ago. In old inca and Aztec paintings you will find every so often paintings of white people. Also the description of god among the Inca and Aztec match nearly the same as that of Christian jesus which clearly suggests a continued travel from the East coast. In West Virginia there is findings of the Viking writings which does not match any other writings in the americas, when put next to Viking writings they match perfect which suggests that even in 1000 ad the Vikings was continuing the voyages to America. In Europea there was a people called the Picts (thought to be the ancestors of the Celts)....these people practiced body painting like found in America....the vikings came to this area...it is thought that from pict's descendants the knowledge of America was given to the vikings. In Egyptian mummies Tobbacco was found, also traces of Corn have been found in Ancient Egypt. The oldest structures in the world are found just a ways from France in Italy at the Malta islands...structures that date nearly 1000 years older than those in Egypt....we know the builders of Malta came from the France caves because the statues found at Malta matched 100 percent to the hand statues found at the France caves dated about 40,000 years old. Another interesting thing found in the Americas and France is the fact that the very first used of a man with a bird head was found at the Shaft of the dead man cave in France...the man with the bird head is common all over Native Americans.....we also have to common Celt spiral design found all over the Native American's ancient pottery. There really has of yet been a single thing found that suggests Native Americans was first in america. Even the caves down in South America....their cave paintings match 100 percent to those found among the Aboriginals of Austrialia. There also was no bones ever found older than 11,000 years old that showed any sign of murder...yet those younger than 11,000 years had started showing signs of murder which suggest a war of some sort after the ice sheets in alaska melted. In the caves of South america....there is one dated to about 11,000 years ago and it to shows signs of a great battle (the cave paintings before 11,000 years ago showed no sign at all of any human figures fighting other humans. The only was people could have cross into america from the West coast would have been thru Alaska...however Alaska's passage was blocked until 11,000 years ago. However on the east coast there was a sheet of ice that cross from America to europe....if people crossed thru this way they would have landed in virginia which is in fact where the oldest artifact was found in Cactus hill Virginia. If there was no contact between europeans and Native Americans before 1492...then the native americans would not carry dNA x2 which dates back in the native american's dna tests to 11,000 years ago which is once agian the time the ice melted in alaska. Asia does not have traces of DNA x2. Europeans however do have this. Now here is my task to anyone that reads this...reply with evidence the Native Americans was here in America first...not any "oral history" either....I said evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalismdestroyer33 (talkcontribs) August 9, 2008 16:57,

It is not the job of editors to provide evidence but rather sources. I too saw a television show on the Solutrean hypothesis several years back and admit that it was intruiging and seemed to have a lot of circumstantial evidence to back it up; however, whether it's true or not is not the point. Not enough of the scientific community supports it for it to be included at the same level as the other accepted theories, so it's considered fringe at this point. All alternative theories are already given their own article, but until it goes beyond fringe, it doesn't belong in a main article. Kman543210 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


You can't expect to introduce such inexactitudes and murky reasoning into this article and not have it reverted. It's just not serious scholarship. I watched that video (it actually wasn't the one I was looking for, which was the Discovery Channel program) - I was quite disappointed. The poor reasoning, logical leaps and assumptions stated as facts (not to mention misspellings) in that video leave it bereft of all credibility. It's actually tragic, because such a presentation does a disservice to serious scholars interested in questions like the Solutrean hypothesis and archaeologists working on pre-Clovis sites. There really are more and more sites being found that predate Clovis, and more bones that don't fit Amerind phenotypes, but you really need to study the available literature more rigorously before making such blanket claims. But then again, you're taking various facts and tidbits and anomalies and haphazardly tying them together to support this confused agenda about who was first, so I guess being more rigorous might not help your case. It smacks of pseudoscience and is in the same league as Africa-America contact theories of van Sertima's ilk.
The Solutrean hypothesis doesn't have a bearing as to the "first" entrants to the Americas. It merely suggests that the Solutrean toolmaking tradition influenced the later Clovis tradition. The "Europeans first" claim only makes sense if you first accept the "Clovis first" premise, assuming the Clovis people crossed the Bering land bridge 12 KYA, a theory which has been pretty much obsolete ever since dates at Monteverde were firmly established. There may very well have been a movement of people across the north Atlantic in the last Ice Age, but this does not (and cannot, logically) exclude other routes at other times. You can't really say this or that group was "first" - we only know what we find, and there is always the chance there were previous occupations, however small. There is a second level at Monteverde date tentatively dated to 33KYA.
And to say "they came from France" is just sloppy (can't help but think of the Coneheads). Solutrean toolmaking was present in many areas in northwestern Europe, including modern-day England, Spain, France, and likely in areas that are now underwater. The presence of mtDNA haplogroup X lends circumstantial but not direct support to the hypothesis, as the exact route or date of entry of X really hasn't been established. Further, there aren't any linguistic links that point to a north Atlantic migration. That's just bunkum - a couple of Basque loanwoards in Micmac are from a time when Basque fishermen regularly visited the northeast - a few centuries ago, not 18,000 years ago. And the Algonquian/Algic family of languages is all over northern North America, not just Virginia. Twalls (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Europeans in America

Well, The finding at Cactus hill, Virginia was older than clovis, it was the progression between Solutrean and Clovis. Just as Solutrean disappeared in Europe...that is when it starts showing up along the Eastern Unitied States. These are not the only things which show the European migration. There is several structures in North America which are nearly exact replicas of structure building in Europe.

MYSTERY HILL - "AMERICA'S STONEHENGE" The most dramatic of the early structures on the North American continent is to be found at a site called "Mystery Hill", located near the town of Salem, in the present day American state of New Hampshire. There, a 30 acre megalith site - in many respects identical to those found in Western Europe, and equally as old - has been open to the public since 1958. While diggings at the "America's Stonehenge" site has produced artifacts from most time periods, the most significant find at the site has been a Celtic (Indo-European) etching on a rock: a Celtic sun symbol, which unquestionably puts Whites at the site.

In addition to these buildings, a number of iron working sites have been discovered in North America. Iron working was foreign to the Amerinds. The presence of 9000 year old White skeletal remains and these ancient structures, serves as powerful evidence of Pre-Amerind Whites in North America. All indications are that most of these Whites were exterminated in conflict with the Amerinds - with survivors being physically absorbed into the Amerind population.

IRON WORKING SITES IN AMERICA Archeologists and historians are of the unanimous opinion that the Red Indians did not have smelting or iron casting technology or ability - yet in a number of areas in North America, remains of iron smelting furnaces have been found, all following Indo-European designs, the likes of which had only been found in Europe. The ability to work iron was one of the single biggest advances which originated with the Indo-Europeans

Now at a lecture with Dr. Jim Chatters He wnet into detail on several things of interest.

Mitochondria X One of the more interesting revelations concerns mitochondrial DNA. Heretofore, scientists had analyzed Indians in terms of four standard mitochondrial haploid groups, called A, B, C, and D. Recently one more classification, called X, has been added. Mitochondria X is rare in American Indians, but occurs in the archaic, Caucasoid skeletons of ancient America. It is typically found in Europe and in the Middle East. Dr. Chatters admitted that this indicated some sort of connection between these far-separated populations, but cautioned that the nature of that relationship is not clear. (Native Americans are normally refered to as Mongoloid while white people, Arabs, Iranians, morrocans, Egyptians, etc are Caucasoid).

Morphology of Nevada Finds Another significant statement had to do with Wizard Beach Man, one of Kennewick Man's contemporaries, who was found in a shelter cave in Nevada. According to Chatters, the Wizard Beach skull is the "most Indian" of any of the remains from the archaic period - but it is on the "very fringe" of the morphological range associated with American Indians. The implication is that the other skelet ons from the archaic period are even less Indian than this, and do not overlap the Indian category at all. Spirit Cave Man (who is currently being claimed by the Paiutes), on the other hand, has a skull very much like that of Kennewick Man. He is described as most resembling a person from a "western Eurasian" population. I found this an interesting phrase; just what would you call the western part of Eurasia? Might it not simply be...Europe? To top it off, Spirit Cave Man displays mitochondria X, connecting him with the people of Europe and the Middle East.

Chatters found it interesting, too, that while Indian remains would sometimes sit in a storage locker for several years before their respective tribes would get around to claiming them, this was not the case when it came to Kennewick Man. They wanted him right away, immediately! Could it be they know who he is - and want to get him out of sight as quickly as possible before people start asking awkward questions about who was here, and when? Whatever the motivations of the Indians, Chatters saw no secret in the behavior of the Army Corps of Engineers, which until recently was the custodian of the bones. He described their colonel as a stereotypical caricature of the military man, who knew what his mission was: as Chatters put it, "to keep the Indians happy." Unfortunately, keeping the Indians happy has enjoyed a higher priority than little details like truth, impartiality, or justice!

Now there is a site where you can learn more about Dr. Jim Chatters' Lectures on this subject, there was a report on his "The Life and Death of Kennewick Man"Thursday, November 30, 2000 lecture. http://www.illahee.org/lectures/archive/jimchatterslecture

Now the Piute indians had a name for light skinned red haired tall people, Si-Te-Cah: Significantly, the name Si-Te-Cah means "tule eaters" - tule being the fibrous reed which is the base material of the mats in which the Spirit Cave Mummy was buried. Tule is no longer found in the region and was likely imported along with the people who used it. According to the Paiute, the red-haired peoples were warlike, and a number of the Indian tribes joined together in a long war against them. According to the Indian legend, after a long struggle, a coalition of Indian tribes trapped the remaining Si-Te-Cah in what is now called Lovelock Cave. When they refused to come out, the Indians piled brush before the cave mouth and set it aflame. The Si-Te-Cah were incinerated. Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, daughter of Paiute Chief Winnemucca, related many stories about the Si-Te-Cah in her book "Life Among the Paiutes." On page 75, she relates: "My people say that the tribe we exterminated had reddish hair. I have some of their hair, which has been handed down from father to son. I have a dress which has been in our family a great many years, trimmed with the reddish hair. I am going to wear it some time when I lecture. It is called a mourning dress, and no one has such a dress but my family." In 1931, further skeletons were discovered in the Humboldt Lake bed. Eight years later, a mystery skeleton was unearthed on a ranch in the region. In each case, the skeletons were exceptionally tall - much taller than the surrounding Amerinds. There is a small display on the Si-Te-Cah in the Lovelock museum today, but it ignores the evidence which indicates that the Si-Te-Cah were not Amerinds. The Nevada State Historical Society also displays some artifacts from the cave. Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The most famous of these iron furnaces is to be found on Spruce Hill, a flat top mountain in the Scioto Valley in south central Ohio. The collapsed walls of a surrounding fort and other buildings - some 200,000 tons of cut rock - are still to be seen on the site, which was first fully explored by Arlington Mallery in 1948, and detailed in his book "The Rediscovery of Lost America" (E.P. Dutton, New York, 1979). Mallery went on to discover 14 other iron working sites, which clearly were foreign to the Amerinds ('Red Indians'), in the Deer Creek Valley, about ten miles from Spruce Hill. What makes the iron smelting sites so significant is the fact that they are identical to Indo-European sites found in Europe itself. At s ome stage of pre-history, Indo-Europeans managed to sail the divide between Europe and North America. Most likely the route taken would have followed the far north, from Scandinavia to Greenland, and then possibly hugging the ice pack coast down into the north eastern seaboard of the North American continent. More research is crucial to reveal the full extent of the lost great White migration to North America.

As understanding of the significance of megalithic structures in North America has spread, more such buildings have come to light. The Alexander Chamber, Warwick, MA. The Shutesbury Chamber, MA, USA. The remains of a stone circle, Burnt Hill, MA, USA. Harvard Ch amber, Harvard, MA. Estabrok Woods Chamber, Concord, MA, USA. A lime kiln, Bolton, MA, USA. The Palmer Chamber, Palmer, MA, USA. The Sherborn Chamber, MA. "The Shrine", Shutesbury, MA, USA. Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

THE MYSTERY OF THE ANASAZI: COULD THEY HAVE BEEN European? For over a century, the mysterious ruins of the cliff dwellings in Nevada and elsewhere in the Western USA have baffled archeologists and historians. Square stone structures were foreign to the Amerinds, and local Indian legends themselves claimed that the buildings were first created by a mysterious people called the Anasazi, who inhabited the area before the Amerinds. There are hundreds of similar structures to be found all over the US South West: while all are attributed to Amerinds, the question can be rightly asked: if Amerinds did indeed build these structures, why were they living in buffalo skin tents when Europeans colonized that country after the 1500s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalismdestroyer33 (talkcontribs) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First use of Man with head of Bird

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/pt.htm

The first recorded use of a man with the head of a bird was found at the France cave known as "Shaft of the dead man" inside the The Lascaux Caves. These paintings were created around 15,000 BC Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Inti the Inca's Son of God VS Enki the Sumerian's son of God

Central America: In Inca mythology, Apu Qun Tiqsi Wiraqutra, commonly known today as Con-Tici Viracocha or simply Viracocha, was the creator of civilization, and one of the most important deities in the Inca pantheon. Encyclopedia Mythica defines Viracocha as "The supreme Inca god, synthesis of sun-god and storm-god." In one legend he had one son, Inti, and two daughters, Mama Quilla and Pachamama. In this legend, he destroyed the people around Lake Titicaca with a Great Flood called Unu Pachakuti, saving two to bring civilization to the rest of the world, these two beings are Manco Capac, the son of Inti (sometimes taken as the son of Viracocha), which name means "splendid foundation", and Mama Ocllo, which means "mother fertility". These two founded the Inca civilization carrying a golden staff, called ‘tapac-yauri’. In another legend, he fathered the first eight civilized human beings. In some stories, he has a wife called Mama Cocha. According to one source legends of the Aymara Indians say that the Creator God Viracocha rose from Lake Titicaca during the time of darkness to bring forth light. Viracocha was a storm god and a sun god who was represented as wearing the sun for a crown, with thunderbolts in his hands, and tears descending from his eyes as rain. He wandered the earth disguised as a beggar and wept when he saw the plight of the creatures he had created. Viracocha made the earth, the stars, the sky and mankind, but his first creation displeased him, so he destroyed it with a flood and made a new, better one, taking to his wanderings as a beggar, teaching his new creations the basics of civilization, as well as working numerous miracles. Viracocha eventually disappeared across the Pacific Ocean (by walking on the water), and never returned. It was thought that Viracocha would re-appear in times of trouble. For the meaning of Tiqsi Huiracocha, tiqsi means foundation or base in Quechua, huira means fat (which the Inca knew as a source of energy), and cocha means lake, sea, or reservoir. His many epithets include great, all knowing, powerful, etc. Viracocha - and in some cases his 'men - was described as being a Caucasian, bearded man in some writings, with white skin, hair on the face and beautiful emerald eyes in others wearing long white robes and sandals, carrying a staff, with a cougar lying at his feet. He was a kind and peace-loving god. Viracocha, as a good deity, came to the Andes to restore civilization, culture and knowledge after the Flood. As with nearly all ancient peoples, Inca legend claims that the original people were flood survivors who by hiding in a hollow up on a very high mountain peak, were saved and repopulated the Earth. Viracocha is depicted by a water symbol that of the serpent or snake. This is not unlike other myths which mention aquatic gods who came from the heavens, went into the seas, then moved forth from the seas and created civilizations. Legends of the Aymara Indians say that the Creator God Viracocha rose from Lake Titicaca during the time of darkness to bring forth light. Viracocha was a storm god and a sun god who was represented as wearing the sun for a crown, with thunderbolts in his hands, and tears descending from his eyes as rain. He wandered the earth disguised as a beggar and wept when he saw the plight of the creatures he had created, but knew that he must sustain them. Viracocha made the earth, the stars, the sky and mankind, but his first creation displeased him, so he destroyed it with a flood and made a new, better one, taking to his wanderings as a beggar, teaching his new creations the rudiments of civilization, as well as working numerous miracles. Viracocha eventually disappeared across the Pacific Ocean (by walking on the water), setting off near Manta Ecuador, and never returned. It was thought that Viracocha would re-appear in times of trouble. References are also found of a group of men named the suncasapa or bearded ones - they were the mythic soldiers of Viracocha, aka the 'angelic warriors of Viracocha'.




Middle East: Enki was a deity in Sumerian mythology, later known as Ea in Babylonian mythology, originally chief god of the city of Eridu. He was the deity of crafts water intelligence and creation. The exact meaning of his name is uncertain: the common translation is "Lord of the Earth": the Sumerian en is translated as a title equivalent to "lord"; it was originally a title given to the High Priest; ki means "earth"; but there are theories that ki in this name has another origin, possibly kig of unknown meaning, or kur meaning "mound". The name Ea is allegedly Hurrian in origin while others claim that it is possibly of Semitic origin and may be a derivation from the West-Semitic root *hyy meaning "life" in this case used for "spring", "running water." In Sumerian E-A means "the house of water", and it has been suggested that this was originally the name for the shrine to the God at Eridu. The main temple of Enki was called é-engur-a, the "house of the lord of deep waters"; e-unir or é-abzu, the "house of Abzu" (the house of far waters), the underground area of sweet waters (most probably the Sumerians' explanation of groundwater) marshlands that surrounded the mound on which the temple to Enki at Eridu was built. It was in Eridu, which was then in the wetlands of the Euphrates valley not far from the Persian Gulf. He was the keeper of the holy powers called Me, the gifts of civilized living. His image of the double-helix snake is reminiscent of the DNA helix. Enki is also the master shaper of the world, god of wisdom and of all magic. He is the lord of the Apsu (Akkadian, Abzu in Sumerian, hence perhaps the Greek abussos and English word "abyss"), the freshwater ocean of groundwater under the earth. In the later Babylonian "Enuma Eliš" Abzu, the "begetter of the gods", is inert and sleepy but finds his peace disturbed by the younger gods so sets out to destroy them. His grandson Enki, chosen to represent the younger gods puts a spell on Abzu "casting him into a deep sleep" confining him deep underground. Enki subsequently sets up his home "in the depths of the Abzu." Enki thus takes on all of the functions of the Abzu including his fertilising powers as lord of the waters and lord of semen. Tablet I contains a creation myth about the Sumerian gods Anu, Enlil and Enki, gods of sky, wind and water, "when gods were in the ways of men" according to its incipit. Following the casting of lots, heaven is ruled by Anu, earth by Enlil, and the freshwater sea by Enki. Enlil assigned junior gods to do farm labor and maintain the rivers and canals, but after forty years they rebelled and refused to do hard labor. Instead of punishing the rebels, Enki, who is also the kind, wise counselor to the gods, suggested that humans be created to do the work. The mother goddess Mami is assigned the task of creating humans by shaping clay figurines mixed with the flesh and blood of a slain god. The under-god Weila or Aw-ilu, was slain for this purpose. After ten months, a specially made womb breaks open and humans are born. Tablet I continues with legends about overpopulation and plagues. Atrahasis is mentioned at the end of Tablet I.

Tablet II begins with more overpopulation of humans and the god Enlil sending first famine and drought at formulaic intervals of 1200 years to reduce the population. In this epic Enlil is depicted as a nasty capricious god while Enki is depicted as a kind helpful god, perhaps because priests of Enki were writing and copying the story. Tablet II is mostly damaged, but ends with Enlil's decision to destroy mankind with a flood and Enki bound by an oath to keep the plan secret.

Tablet III of the Atrahasis Epic contains the flood story. This is the part that was adapted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI. Tablet III of Atrahasis tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis ("Extremely Wise") of Shuruppak, speaking through a reed wall (suggestive of an oracle) to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape the flood planned by the god Enlil to destroy mankind. The boat is to have a roof "like Apsu" (a fresh water marsh next to the temple of Enki), upper and lower decks, and to be sealed with bitumen. Atrahasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The storm and flood begin. Even the gods are afraid. After seven days the flood ends and Atrahasis offers sacrifices to the gods. Enlil is furious with Enki for violating his oath. But Enki denies breaking his oath and argues: "I made sure life was preserved." Enki and Enlil agree on other means for controlling the human population. Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oldest American remains Vs Oldest European remains

Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. A group of geneticists, coordinated by Guido Barbujani and David Caramelli of the Universities of Ferrara and Florence, shows that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically. The Cro-Magnoid people long coexisted in Europe with other humans, the Neandertals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204741.htm

Human skulls are 'oldest Americans' Tests on skulls found in Mexico suggest they are almost 13,000 years old - and shed fresh light on how humans colonised the Americas. The human skulls are the oldest tested so far from the continent, and their shape is set to inflame further a controversy over native American burial rights. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2538323.stm Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cactus hill, Virginia artifacts

Some of the artifacts found at the Cactus Hill sites are controversial owing to their very early dates. Beardsley, Tom. "Tool Time on Cactus Hill". Scientific American Online. Nov. 1998. Accessed 23 Nov. 1999. http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198scicit4.html

But when Jim Adavasio continued to dig below the Clovis layer at his dig near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he found blades and blade cores dating back to 16,000BC. The Clovis people were clearly not the first humans to set foot across North America. More evidence emerged from an archaeological dig in Cactus Hill, Virginia. A bifaced flint point found there was dated to 16kya, far older than Clovis. Even more startling was its style. To flintknapper Bruce Bradley's eye, the Cactus Hill flint was a technological midpoint between the French Solutrean style and the Clovis points dating five millennia later. It seemed there is no great divide in time. The Solutrean flint methods evolved into Clovis. Stone Age Columbus BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for including sections in the article which include non Native America views

I believe the above sections should help in giving reason for the Non Native American first views credit into being included into the page. should help with future editors Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are still attempting to push a fringe argument that is already given due weight and adequately addressed in the section "Original peopling of the Americas" and the other related articles that are linked at the top of that section. Please stop trying to use this article and its associated talk page as a platform in an attempt at highlighting your own particular spin on already existing marginal theoretical positions. I have already placed two warning templates on your talk page regarding this and I will have no difficulty continuing this practice if you continue to persist. Please stop. Deconstructhis (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Deconstructhis. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it my "Own" when I have proven it is no where near my "Own"...."Own" means one person...which this is clearly not my "Own". "Own" defined: adj. Of or belonging to oneself or itself: She makes her own clothes. noun. That which belongs to one: I wanted a room of my own. When there is more than one person then it is no longer a definition of "Own". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandalismdestroyer33 (talkcontribs) 03:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I do not want to fall off subject here...I am still going to address what you stated "Deconstructhis". Wikipedia's section for "Talk pages". Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal). Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.


"comparing contradictory facts from different sources," "their own different points of view about controversial issues" "so that the end result is neutral and objective " "which may mean including conflicting viewpoints" Since the current status of the Article is Pro Native American, I am adding various ways to make this article more Neutral. We really should just stick to the "Facts" and evidence that supports the First people of the Americas. Since no one truely knows who the first people are then this article should not be Pro anything, Each side should have a equal section. Currently there is 4 ideas on the first people in America. The photo included in this article shows that this article is Pro Native American even though alot of top researchers are now showing their findings which are not pointing to them as the first Americans. We should really stick to the Evidence we have at hand and use the Evidence found in order to keep this article as close to fact as possible, no matter how controversial. Do we currently have any evidence we can include in this article to back up the native americans first theory? If not then this article really should not be pro native american...it should be neutral. Vandalismdestroyer33 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having an increasingly difficult time believing that you've actually taken the advice of another editor and sat down and read: reliable sources, neutral point of view, and fringe science and I'd advise taking another realistic look at talk page policy as well. In my opinion if you got a handle on how this encyclopedia (or any reliable encyclopedia for that matter) actually works, you wouldn't even be wasting your time trying to slip this stuff through the 'back door'. Your activities on this talk page still seems to me to basically consist of an attempt on your part to rationalize the introduction of your own idiosyncratic spin on an already existing (and already adequately addressed) area of fringe science. I'm asking you one more time to please attempt to understand and comply with existing policy. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think copying long passages from websites such as white-history.com and stormfront.org (I googled some of Vandalismdestroyer33's text) to this talk page have any bearing on improving the article or making it more neutral; it is in fact disruptive. Some of the material makes reference to facts, some of it is a stretch, there are several misrepresentations, a lot of speculation and some things that are just plain wrong (who says the Inca were in Central America?). Agenda-driven sites of that nature are not productive sources for information about archaeology, history or current field research.
That said, I don't agree that newer theories and clues already discussed in the article constitute fringe science, as they are part of current scholarship. The fact that they sometimes get hijacked by extremist groups is regrettable. Twalls (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Royal

I erased the following: Some authors see ideological underpinnings in this population debate. For example, Robert Royal writes that "estimates of pre-Columbian population figures have become heavily politicized with scholars who are particularly critical of Europe and/or Western civilization often favoring wildly higher figures."[9]. The views of author Robert Royal, a controversial Catholic 'scholar', have absolutely no place in any of Wikipedia's history entries, except the biographic one about Robert Royal. They are particularly irrelevant without inclusion of his educational background and his political stance. I find it disturbing that whoever wrote this finds 'ideological underpinnings' in other's arguments, without giving one example, while at the same time quoting someone who is a famous polemicist and whose dubious scholarship puts him at odds with almost all academic historians.--Chordophone (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Badagnani (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When we look at the part of the European colonization it is actually more related to deaseases but nothing about a colony so maybe if the information there is changed to something more related to what did the europeans do to kill this huge number of tribes or what weapons they used,what where the reasons of conquering the oldworld ?It'll then be much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.216.248 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indians named InDios

In 1492 India and the Indies were not named yet. So Columbus did not know the name Indian (Eng). He was told by priests that he had discovered humans who were with God. So they were named en Dios -- inDios -- Indios (Span).

I heard this explanation from an Aztec the other day.

~~CWWP~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.128.38 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary says that the word was first used as a descriptor for the area we now refer to as India in circa 893 AD. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

India is the Ancient Greek word for India, derived from Sanskrit sindhu. They had a name for China too--Sin--even though no Greek had ever been there. There were Greek kingdoms and colonies in India founded by Alexander the Great.Shrikeangel (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Horrific Exception?

Can someone explain how a people who once occupied the majority of the Country were WIPED OUT to the the nearest 5%? According to the article, one would picture Europeans as being peaceful settlers who inadvertently infected the indigenous population. Even the suggestion that they died of Small pox because of a lack of immunity suggests that he Europeans were immune.

This is simply the most biased article on the site by a million miles, and it's not even had its neutrality questioned? Ridiculous.

Calorus (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UT

You could add a neutrality template to the page.--Noqoělpi (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course Europeans weren't immune to smallpox, and the article does not suggest this. The missing piece for Calorus is that Europeans had hundreds of years to adapt to smallpox and other diseases, but indigenous people did not, so the diseases were far more deadly to them than to Europeans. Neither does it follow that if most natives died of smallpox, Europeans must have been peaceful settlers. Europeans certainly worked very hard to kill those people that their diseases hadn't killed already. Calorus's own biases and lapses of logic are not the fault of the article.Shrikeangel (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be more about colonialization in this article, I couldn't find any estimates of how many people died due to the conquering. The german article has much more information about that. There is a special lemma just about the smallpox in California which has english sources. Maybe someone who is a native englishspeaker can add some info on that. The weblinks are at the bottom of de:Pockenepidemie_an_der_Pazifikküste_Nordamerikas_1862--Schweizerfranke (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RacistPicture

The depicted Columbian statue is racist, its body clearly imposes an european body type (John White·s drawings, de Bry graphics).--Radh (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

name controversy source

I added a tag for citations (as none were there), but it was removed saying "not necessary." Why would a citation not be necessary? Is it because it on the other page. If so then elsewhere in Wikipedia this policy is not consistent. Granted there is more detail and more sources on the other page, at least some source (for a short para like this maybe 1-2) could be added here too. This is done elsewhere. Lihaas (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess here, but I think you might get a more rapid response from the editor who performed the edit by posting a query regarding this directly on their personal talk page[1] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
No sources are necessary because it isn't a controversial statement to say that a controvery exists. The details of the controversy are discussed in detail with sources on the linked article. Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
But sources are not given only for controversial statements. Just because it may be "common knowledge" to some doesn't mean it will be so to all. Remember, wikipedia is read outside the Americas too. Sure the details are elsewhere, but 1 or two sources from the lead could well be added here. Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph has good info

While I agree that this paragraph was unsourced, I don't think it is OR. This news story states that the Amazon is 72% given over to oil and gas development (the removed paragraph says 80%, but it may be a question of source quality), and this PubMed article discuss the social consequences these issues have on the indigenous populations of the Western Amazon. I would simply reinsert a modified version of the paragraph with these sources, but I don't think this applies only to Peru. Can somebody with more history with this artice have a look and try to work this information in. NJGW (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-introduced horses?

The re-introduction of the horse had a profound impact on Native American culture in the Great Plains of North America and of Patagonia in South America. This new mode of travel made it possible for some tribes to greatly expand their territories, exchange many goods with neighboring tribes, and more easily capture game.

It is my understanding the horse was not known in the America's prior to Europeans bringing it. Shouldn't that be introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talkcontribs) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It probably wasn't known to the Amerindians, but according to the Horse article, "Equus caballus disappeared from North America around 10,000 years ago, at the end of the last ice age." That's probably what this article means by re-introduction. Kman543210 (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Reintroduction is proper. There had been horses before.--Noqoělpi (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Peru section missing?

Hello, Wikipedia.

This past Dec. 8th, user 201.230.111.218 deleted the entire "Peru" section of this article. I'm restoring the deleted section right now.

On a personal level, I don't particularly like the preachy, almost critical tone of the paragraph, but I will say that the content itself is accurate, in my observation. Also, I believe it's better to leave an imperfect paragraph, thus allowing someone with a more neutral POV to work on it later, than to have no mention of "Indigenous people of Peru" in an article about "Indigenous people of the Americas" -- especially seeing how a large percentage of us are, in fact, either "indigenous" or "partly indigenous."

It's interesting to note that 201.230.111.218 is a Peruvian IP. I have a lot of thoughts regarding this, most of which revolve around the fact that native people's rights is a very touchy subject in Peru, and is something that Peruvians haven't really talked about openly, until very recently.

Since it might help explain things, I will mention this: As of March 2009, in Peru, there is an ongoing controversy involving the (often vitriolic) opposition, from certain parties in the government, to creating museums, or monuments dedicated to the memories of the Peruvians fallen during the Peruvian civil war, of the 80s and 90s. Allow me to editorialize a bit, and say it seems to be much easier to erase or distort history, than to talk about such issues in an open, objective manner.

To the experts watching this article, I would very much appreciate if you keep an eye on vandalism of this sort. Thank you.

--kenohki (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized article

Somebody has been vadalizing this article. Somebody claimed 36% of Brazilians are "pure" Indians and that 15% of Argentine is pure Indian. This is nonsense. Opinoso (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The same goes for at least Argentina. The reference reported says:"La ECPI estima que hay 600.329 personas que se reconocen pertenecientes y/o descendientes en primera generación de pueblos indígenas (población indígena). Estas personas forman parte de una gran diversidad de pueblos indígenas y están distribuidas en todas las provincias del país."
I don't know any Spanish, but since romance languages are all somewhat similar I can still read it, and it says that about six hundred thousand people are first-generation amerindians, i.e. not of mixed ancestry. Over a population of forty million how can that be 15 percent of the total?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Also for the United States. It claims 10% of Americans are pure Indians. I don't know who vandlized it, but I think the article should be reverted to an older version. Opinoso (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a revert based on the numbers from the given sources and for unsourced numbers I used the Nov 30, 2008 version. This article attracts a large number of edits from various POV editors and pure vandals, so we really need to have sources for each of the numbers used in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I remember last time I checked this article, months ago, that table had correct figures. Nowadays they're all wrong. USA keep being reported as 10% pure Amerindian and Argentina 15%. Maybe an even older version will be correct. Opinoso (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Rmhermen, you made two edits to the page and you still didn't change anything. Perhaps you accidentally reverted your own revision.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Good catch. I was editing with two windows open to the page and made one change in each window instead of both in the same one. Should be restored now. Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody like to revert the figures back to what they were a few months ago before this article was vandalised as the current figures are obviously very wrong and nonsensical. Thanks.90.209.174.211 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did that two days before your comment. Are there some specific issues you still have with the numbers? Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The figures on the table were not corrected with the rest of the article, at this point I don't know if they ever were correct.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I don't know how that happened (and it took two tries to fix it today). The article should now reflect all the values as they were on the Nov. 30, 2008. I hope those values all reflect the given sources. I checked the ones that I could access online and those were correct. Rmhermen (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally found out who it was to create this mess. Bosorg (talk · contribs) introduced all that misinformation in the page, but he promptly undid his own edit. Days after this, an anonymous IP restored Bosorg's version using a misleading edit summary, and this time it went unnoticed, at least until now. The image map near the table was created by the same user, so it needs to be removed. After this fact, I think we should reference each entry individually, and not with a note at the end of the table.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Part Indigenous" vs. "Mestizo"

Another user has reverted my revert of his change to the column heading in the table. I maintain that mestizo is not always identical in meaning to the more general "part indigenous". Tis is mentioned in the etymology and Americas sections of that article. The reversion of my change was explained as "No all people has part Indigenous" which I don't understand. Extra opinions/further input are welcomed. Rmhermen (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're referring to this edit: [2].
It is certainly true that the two terms are not identical. Zambos are a part-Indigenous group separate from Mestizos, for example. And what of a lesser known combo: part Asian-part Indigenous?
The column should be titled according to the data it contains. It should only be titled "Mestizo" if it presents Mestizo percentages only. Try and find out what the case is and edit accordingly.
Also, what do you think of those separate columns for the references? I think they're unnecessary. The refs could be placed right next to the percentages they reference. SamEV (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The numbers definitely refer to any mixed heritage. Rmhermen (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is wordy and imprecise

e.g., farming began before agriculture. lots of other examples of that kind of thing.--Noqoělpi (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you claiming that "farming began before agriculture" or are you saying that the article is making that claim? I didn't see it in the article, but perhaps I am misunderstanding. Rmhermen (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexico section contains obviously wrong info.

The last paragraph of the mexico section seems fabricated.

"Some have also bought up the fact that while the national average wage per-capita stands at $37,000 USD the average wage of a person of Aztecan decent stands at almost three times that at $86,000 USD and top of that Aztecan Mexicans currently hold over ninety percent of all stocks held in Mexico. Many analysts have used this as evidence that Mexican corporations generaly prefer Aztecan citizens over others due in part to the fact that most Mexican corporations and industries are Aztecan run which is a clear sign of racial-protectionism in the Mexican corporate system."

At the very least the per capita incomes are much too high, but I suspect the whole paragraph is fabricated. I don't want to edit it because I don't know nothing about Mexico. but wanted to bring it to the attention of someone who does

Gyroidben (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)gyroidben

Recent Genetic Research (?)

This section needs updating. It does not match information provided in the "Defining Populations" in the article Haplogroup which notes five separate Y DNA haplogroups in the Americas. --Eddylyons (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil and Indians

The article writes:"In Brazil the indigenous population has declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated 3 million to some 300,000 in 1997." Well, Brazilian population is mainly descendent of Indians.All the last six Brazilian Presidents are descendents of Indians, including today's President Lula.In Brazil, the politics for Indians wasn't to exterminate them, but to convert the Indians to the Roman Catholicism.Brazilian Indians weren't exterminated, but integrated to Brazilian society in any levels.Their descendents are in all places, including Brazilian Presidency. Agre22 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

NB: CIA World factbook sourcing

It appears that the CIA World Factbook [3] website is undergoing an extensive renovation which includes the alteration of the urls that this article utilizes for much of its referencing. From what I've looked at so far, that's changed on their site, it appears that we will have to alter the "country code" portion of each of the old reference urls from lower case letters to their upper case equivalents to affect the necessary repairs. I'd like to propose that until these repairs have occurred, no further additions of statistics be made to the article that utilize the factbook as their source, unless a new referencing link is established. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I got them all. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Although, IMO the CIA World Factbook is really not a particularly good source to rely upon for information of this type, ie not good enough to use on its own. I realise its one-stop-shop convenience and accessibility make it a popular source to use on wiki, but it'd be more ideal to use a range of more specific and qualified sources to back up statements about populations. In a few cases here, a population estimate range wld be more appropriate, than a single figure.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous Amerindians look like East Asians

High-blooded indigenous Amerindians, including Eskimos, look like Chinese and Japanese. Did their ancestors migrate from East Asia?--Newzebras (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read through the article, particularly the lead and first section. The article Models of migration to the New World has more.

Comparison of stereotypical appearance and physiognomy are not good indicators.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with CJLL.Mcelite (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A few points of confusion

Indigenous peoples make up the majority of the population in Bolivia and Peru, and are a significant element in most other former Spanish colonies. Exceptions to this include Costa Rica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Dominican Republic, Chile, and Uruguay. At least three of the native American languages (Quechua in Peru and Bolivia; Aymara also in Peru, Bolivia and Chile, and Guarani in Paraguay) are recognized along with Spanish as national languages (or Aymara in Chile, by regional basis).

This seems to be talking about indigenous heritage, including that of mestizos and zambos, rather than "indigenous people". In most countries of Central America and northern South America, mestizos make up a significant element of the population while culturally indigenous people do not. In that case, Chile and Puerto Rico should be removed from the "exceptions" list... A majority of the Chilean population has some native ancestry, and the culturally indigenous people make up a larger percentage of the population than many Latin American states not mentioned. As for Puerto Rico, genetic testing has shown that a large majority of the population has Taino mitochondrial DNA. The Dominican Republic and Cuba are unknown at this time but I imagine genetic testing will reveal more indigenous heritage there, too. There are certainly many features remaining the dialects, customs, cuisines, and even phenotypes.

Also, should Greenland be given more coverage in the article? There is exactly one mention of Greenland, although it has an indigenous majority and an indigenous official language. It seems Greenland should be added at least to the demography table, and perhaps its own section as well. How about Bermuda? Bermuda had no Native American population before European contact, but a number of Wampanoag and other North American Indians were exiled there and maintain descendants to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.148.217 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the points raised here. What this article should really be about is indigenous peoples in the more narrow and specific cultural, group identity and political senses that are used in the main indigenous peoples article and in the source literature. Whether or not individuals or populations have some degree of "indigenous" genetic lineage is really besides the point. Genetic makeup is not a determinant of whether populations/peoples are regarded (by themselves or others) as indigenous populations/peoples (or indeed ethnic identities in general); social, cultural and political factors are.

The genetic studies referenced are not designed to explicitly address questions about indigenous or 'part-indigenous' cultural identification. Using them to back up statements about such identifications is probably WP:SYN.

I think the population table, giving per-ctry estimates for 'indigenous' and 'part-indigenous' percentages, then a sum of the two, is and always has been problematic. In addition to concerns about what 'part-indigenous' in that context may validly and consistently mean, I don't think adding these together produces any very meaningful information. I'd propose removing the 'part-indigenous' and 'totals' columns, and sticking with the focus on indigenous peoples in the specific and particular (cultural-political) sense that the usage of the term here intends.

I'd also agree on the point about Greenland needing better coverage here. Re Bermuda, I guess it would depend to what extent there is any self-identification or recognition as an indigenous population.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The main problem I see with the demography table is that it attempts to reconcile at least several very different world views on race and culture with genetics... What it means to be "part indigenous" in Anglo North America and Latin America (and also French Canada and even between different regions within Latin America) is very different. Case in point: When I studied abroad in Ecuador, my self-identified mestizo host parents asked me if I was part indigenous. I'm not, but they knew that I was very interested by indigenous cultures (as a student of anthropology). They also had hosted students from the United States for twenty years prior, so they were likely somewhat familiar with the United States view of race where one does not have to have predominantly Native American ancestry or "look" Native American to identify as such. Despite my very pale, white skin and my reddish-brown hair (which isn't at all remarkable in the United States but sticks out strongly in much of Ecuador), they still considered it possible that I might be a Native American.
Curiously, I asked them the same question, knowing that they had previously described themselves as "mestizo". They responded by awkwardly beating around the bush and changing the subject. In their society, despite the technical definition of "mestizo" to imply indigenous ancestry, the socio-political implications of identifying as "part indigenous" means something different altogether. Therefore, I agree with you, "part indigenous" is not a very useful measure, despite notable genetic, linguistic, and cultural influences on mestizo society in Latin America. There's plenty of academic evidence to support and explain this view, too.
The paragraph I quoted above is curious because it seems to place the strictly genetic definition of "indigenous" above cultural affiliation. For example, Venezuela's exclusion from the list of "exceptions" implies that indigenous peoples make up a very large part of Venezuela's population. While mestizos are the majority element in Venezuela, "indigenous people" in the cultural sense of the word only make up 1-2% percent of the population. Compare this with Chile, on the exceptions list, where the majority of the population is "castizo" and "white" but actual indigenous people make up anywhere between 5-10% of the population, and have been a significant socio-political factor in the country's modern history. It's a strange and confusing contradiction, and it leads me to wonder if having an "exceptions" list is useful or meaningful in the first place.
As for Native Americans in Bermuda, here is a nice article explaining their history in light of recent festival that highlighted this heritage:

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/tribeslink/emissed14.htm

Historical, oral, and phenotypical evidence is prevalent on St. David's Island of Bermuda, while one cultural element is seen in the gombey dancing of the country. Maybe later I'll add a small note about it to the article. --76.98.148.217 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Link concerns

Per discussion here, and the fact that the site lists known fraudulent groups without any disclaimer, I've removed the link. - Kathryn NicDhàna 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1904 Nordisk familjebok image

Would people mind if the "Nordisk familjebok (1904)" image at the beginning of the article were removed or placed lower in the article? I find the image repellent as it is reminiscent of all images of racial categorization of the early 20th century. If people are okay with its removal, I can replace it with photos, preferably of contemporary indigenous Americans. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Thanks, Funandtrvl, the photos of actual people look great! -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Columbus

Application of the term "Indian" originated with Christopher Columbus, who thought that he had arrived in the East Indies, while seeking Asia.
This is crap. Columbus was no doubt fuzzy on exactly where he was, but a 12,000 mile error is just absolute utter garbage. The appellation came from "In Dios", or "of God", referring to the innocent, Adam & Eve-like state of the peoples he first encountered, and has not one single thing to do with him believing he was 12,000 further around the earth.

What's next? Arguments over whether they were afraid they'd fall off the edge of the earth?
OBloodyHell (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be speaking with a great deal of certainty about something that has more than a little controversy attached to it.[4] Even a quick perusal of sources with somewhat more 'depth' than "Straight Dope", suggest that the "In Dios" theory is in all probability a late 20th century hoax. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There can be no doubt that "in Dios" is an etymological fallacy. One only needs to read the extant writings of Columbus himself, or any of the numerous reproductions and commentaries on them. In addition to Columbus's Letter on the First Voyage referenced in that Straight Dope response, there is the text of Columbus' diario or running log that he made on the 1st voyage and presented to the Catholic Monarchs upon his return. The original and direct copies are now lost, but it survives in a partly quoted and partly described text made from Columbus' copy in the 1530s by Bartolome de las Casas.

In addition to consistently calling the (is)lands las yndias and their inhabitants los yndios, Columbus never deviates from the belief that they had reached the Orient and were nearby the kingdom of the "Great Khan" (Gran Can) known through Marco Polo's travels, that he'd been sent out to make contact with. On 13 October the day after the initial sighting of land and landfall at "Guanahaní", he decides not to waste time but set out again to find the island of Cipangu (Polo's name for Japan; "..por no perder tiempo quiero yr a ver si puedo topar a la ysla de Çipango"). About a week later on 21 Oct while anchored (probably) at Crooked Island Columbus notes his intention to proceed in search of the source of the natives' gold to a nearby large island (ie, Cuba) that they'd told him about, which he believes is Cipango ("después partir para otra isla grande mucho que creo que deve ser Cipango según las señas que me dan estos yndios que yo traygo"). From there he's determined to go to the 'mainland' and Polo's city of "Quinsay" (Hangzhou) seat of the Mongol Khan's govt and treasury, and pass on Ferdinand and Isabella's letters to the Great Khan ("tengo determinado de yr a la tierra firme y a la çiudad de Quisay y dar las cartas de Vuestras Altezas al Gran Can y pedir respuesta y venir con ella").

His departure is delayed a little but he does reach Cuba on 29 Oct, still thinking it is Cipangu. He finds a harbour where he believes large ships from the Great Khan visit and that the [Chinese] mainland is 10 days away ("entendía el Almirante que allí venían naos del Gran Can y grandes, y que de allí a tierra firme avía jornada de diez días"). After a few more days' sailing by 1 November he's convinced he's at or near the mainland within 100 leagues of the Chinese port cities described by Polo ("Y es çierto, dize el Almirante, que esta es la tierra firme y que estoy, dize él, ante Zaytó y Quinsay cien leguas poco más o poco menos lexos de lo uno y de lo otro"). But after about another month he nonetheless continues to believe that a people called the "Caniba" who he is told by local inhabitants they are fearful of because they come in ships to raid them, are in fact the Great Khan's subjects ("Y así torno a dezir como otras vezes dixe, dize él, que Caniba no es otra cosa sino la gente del Gran Can que deve ser aquí muy vezino"). By now he's reached Hispaniola, and despite finding no cities remains of the impression that he is at or near the mainland. When later on his way back to Europe, having reached the Azores and at the point he composed the Letter mentioned above, he still writes in his journal that the lands he discovered were the "furthest Orient" ("Así que aquellas tierras que agora él avía descubierto es (dize él) el fin del Oriente", as Las Casas puts it). See also, Voyages of Christopher Columbus#Navigation plans. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Genetic Research

This section contradicts the information found in the article Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and Haplogroup X (mtDNA) which note there are 5 mtDNA haplogroups for Indigenous Peoples of the Americas. I propose that the information provided in this article be stated as a theory based on one study.--Eddylyons (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Article to your watch list

I have added new section on genetics ...and ... pls add article to your watch list! I have recently created an article called Indigenous Amerindian genetics that we need to watch for vandalism..as this is the core article on Indigenous Americana genetics .. !!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Conquistador - bias

Could people please check the Conquistador entry. I found it racist and highly biased against indigenous peoples (unlike this article). --Tediouspedant (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this map accurate? =

File:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spreading homo sapiens.jpg


I see some problems with this map:

1- It seems to me that this map only shows the very first homo-sapiens immigrations, not the further ones...

1a- For example, regarding New Zealand, this map shows the islands being occupied by melanesian peoples that I suppose to be the morioris, while we know the maoris (the ones who come after the morioris and decimated them) were actually Polinesian...

1b- Europe is shown being occupied by settlers from Anatolia, those were the certainly the Paleo-Europeans... This map does not show the further occupation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans who originated in the Caspian Basin, migrated to Europe and pushed the Paleoeuropeans westards and southwards.

1c- The Brazilian Amerindians are not of Colombian ancestry, they are either of Caribbean origin (the Caribs and Arawaks) or of Paraguayan-Northern-Argentine origin (the Tupi-Guaranis). The bulk of the Amerindians who were in Brazil about the time of the arrival of the Portuguese were these Tupi-Guaranis. They came from Paraguay and spread all over the Brazilian coast till the valley of the Amazon River. When you show a map where Brazilian Amerindians are all coming from Colombia, you are showing a totally contradictory information.

1d- The Dravidians reached India from Ethiopia to Yemen, from Yemen to Oman, from Oman to Southeast Iran, from Southeast Iran to the Valley of Indus. What is shown on that map is that the route of the occupation of India by the Indo-Europeans (from Iran through Bactria).

1e- The hipothesis of ancient waves of Paleoeuroepan settling in the eastern coast of North America is ignored, while some geneticists have found evidences of that --due to the existance of the Mithocondrial gene "X" ("Xenia") among North-American Native Americans.

1f- This map also seems to ignore the Australoid migrations to South America, some people claim that the Australoids have reached South America before the Mongoloids due to some archeological findings in Brazil.


Anyways, I believe it should be explained that the migrations of the homo-sapiens show on that map are only the first, the early migrations, and the route of their early settling in India should be corrected.

Also, I would suggest a second map, showing further homo-sapiens migrations (now including the Maori migration from Polinesia, the correct migrations in South America and the settling of the Indo-Europeans in Europe.


189.25.2.194 (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)R. Alberto

"First Americans" ?

I badly mangled my objection to the use of this term in my edit summary, so I thought I would add some clarification. The remainder of the terms (apart from "Amerigine") "Native Americans, "Aboriginal" and "First Nation" are commonly suffixed with "person" as a descriptor for an individual person. I'm not sure I've ever come across the expression "First American" used in this way. I realize that the term is used occasionally in the same sense that "first Australians", or "first Europeans" might be utilized as a general descriptor used in a title when speaking of the original inhabitants of either of those places; however I'd like to see a reliable reference supporting a capitalized "First American(s)" being used in the way it was used here. The article currently stipulates "often also referred to as", the operative word being "often". Is this expression really in common use in this way? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It was quite common in the 60s-70's. Wm Appleman Williams used it, for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.230.143 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Amerigine"?

Just wondering about the appropriateness of the use of this term in the opening section of the article alongside other obviously commonly used terms described as "often referred to" when talking about the original inhabitants of the western hemisphere. Is this term contextually really deserving of being described as "often referred to" in the sense it's being used in the article? Actually, after searching, it's use seems rather restricted to me. Other opinions? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Given what Amerigine says about it, I'd say the use of this term is covered by WP:FRINGE. It's inclusion here as an alternate name for pre-Columbian peoples on a par with "First Nations" and "Native Americans" seems to run afoul of WP:UNDUE. RJC TalkContribs 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the term. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

USA combined total 1.5%?

I hear that there are lots of Mexicans in the USA. Surely this would bring the part indigenous American population much higher than 1.5%?--Basement Facts (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Myth, propaganda, lies and reality.

Myth, propaganda, lies and reality. ==

The cruel Spanish were supposed to have anihilated the native peoples of the Americas. In fact, according to modern science, and according to anyone with a brain who knows Spain and the Americas, the population of the Americas ruled by the Spanish are still mainly of Native American stock:


http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html

Iterestingly, Native Amerindians were indeed virtually anihilated in the North ruled by the English and the "Americans". Their bunch of lies and cheap propaganda is being increasingly cornered.

In fact this part of the article is wrong:

Other parts of the Americas

Indigenous peoples make up the majority of the population in Bolivia and Peru, and are a significant element in most other former Spanish colonies. Exceptions to this include Costa Rica, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Dominican Republic, and Uruguay. At least three of the native American languages (Quechua in Peru and Bolivia; Aymara also in Peru, Bolivia and Chile, and Guaraní in Paraguay) are recognized along with Spanish as national languages (or Aymara in Chile, by regional basis).


As is wrong many other parts. Amerindians are the main component in most Spanish speaking countries in the Americans, as multiple genetic studies are demonstrating, even in the Caribbean. Koon.


Koon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.178.239 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 (talk)  


yes you are somewhat correct if you had read the whole article you would have see this --> Indigenous peoples of the Americas#Demography of contemporary populations Moxy (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Suriname

What about Suriname, there are a recent amount of Indigenous peoples there. Best regards. 198.184.231.254 (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This statement is false

They are often also referred to as Native Americans,[16] Aboriginals,[17] First Nations,[17] and (by Christopher Columbus' geographic mistake) Indians,[16] later disambiguated as Red Indians, American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, and by unique tribal citizenry.

This is totally false.

First Nations and Aboriginal are "ONLY" applied to the indigenous people of Canada. First Nations is a "self-identification" term used for a specific indigenous group of people within Canada, and Aboriginal is a term that Canada applies to multiple distinct indigenous groups within Canada.

Amerindians and Amerinds, have never been applied to the indigenous people of Canada nor the United States. The United States is the ONLY country that identifies it's indigenous people as Native Americans, no other country uses that term.

Only someone writing from a non-indigenous perspective would use the term Red Indians because it is totally insulting. Niineta (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not "totally false" at all. Please read Native American naming controversy (and perhaps the dozen or so archives worth of debate on the issues. Rmhermen (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a True Statement.
Some terms in use are Native Americans, Original Americans, First Peoples, First Nations, and Indigenous Peoples of America. Indian remains in use among Native Americans, especially as an in-group usage, but in wider usage it is often qualified, as in American Indians, Amerindians, and Amerinds.
This Statement is False
They are often also referred to as Native Americans,[16] Aboriginals,[17] First Nations.
The explanation above is the correct use of First Nations and Aboriginal Those terms are not broad terms that are applied to any other indigenous groups of the Americas. Those terms are specific to the indigenous people within Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niineta (talkcontribs) 18:14, 27 January 2011 UTC)
While aborigine and first nation are terms in law in Canada, they are not exclusive used in Canada. Try googling Navajo First Nation or Cherokee First Nation or South American Aborigine. Rmhermen (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlike those people who define themselves by color such as Black or White (people). No other people of the world define themselves by color. There are no people who say I'm Yellow nor do the indigenous people of the Americas say I'm Red.
Just because it is acceptable for non-indigenous people to label indigenous people with derogatory names the doesn't make it acceptable to those people. Why stop at Red Indians is it not just as accept able to use Savage, Injuns and any other derogatory names that are/were in common use. Where and Why would you use Yellow Chinese? Most people would not find that acceptable.Niineta (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in the business of simply reporting, not in the business of determining how people should think, talk or act. Rmhermen (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement is still false as the sited reference [17] states, these are terms applied only in Canada.
That's exactly the reason I made my comments here, rather than making edits. Racism in relationship to the indigenous people is always justified in one way or another. It's just the reality of how racism is so ingrained and acceptable in the mindset of mainstream society. If racial slurs against another ethnic group found their way on to the pages of Wikipedia, it would have been dealt with immediately and without discussion.
What does the information lack by saying "later disambiguated as American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, and by unique tribal citizenry". Where as American Indians is used in the United States, and in the English language "Amerindians" and "Amerinds" are used as an alternative to the Spanish term "Indios". Niineta (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I did Google Navajo First Nation, Cherokee First Nation and South American Aborigine. What is displayed is the Navajo Nation and Cherokee Nation just like every other indigenous nation in North America, such as the Seneca Nation, Sioux Nation or Anishinaabe Nation. The term is "Nation" not "First Nations" there is a difference.
I didn't get anything worth while for South American Aborigine not surprising since the language is Spanish and English translations are substituted by English speakers. Niineta (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The word Amerindian is used widely in the science community pls see Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas for some examples. Moxy (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is the use of Amerindian contested? It would have been more productive if you could provide sources for the scientific, governmental, or academic common usage for the term Red Indian. Then that would have addressed the issue that is being contested.Niineta (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats easy - it was used to describe those from New England and Atlantic Canada area - most often referring to the Beothuk and/or Mi'kmaq people and/or Red Paint People
Here are some historical references

And some modern ones

In reference to. . . Indians,[16] later disambiguated as Red Indians, American Indians, Amerindians, Amerinds, and by unique tribal citizenry.
I don't see the point of the references you provided.
Particularly since the "Red Paint People" is a fabricated name much like Folsom or Clovis people. These are terms used to refer to "unknown pre-Columbian people" as identified through archeological excavations. The Beothuk were exterminated at the Europeans arrival and few people even today know of their existence.
Please tell me how this information disambiguated the terms used for the indigenous peoples throughout the Americas or where such terms are used by reputable sources to Identify the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
In the United States the popular terms to identify Asian or American "Indians" is "dot" or "feather" and "convenience store" or "casino". Just because those terms are in common use by the general public does that qualify those terms to be used in an encyclopedic format? They are definately used to disambiguate the term "Indian". - Niineta (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You asked for references referring to Red Indians and there they are (more ref1 more ref2 more ref3) - its clear the term was used historically offensive or not. Wikipedia is not censored and we are not concern if someone is offended by historical terms - as we simply show the facts as found throughout history. If you can find sources for "dot" or "feather" and "convenience store" or "casino" or any other terms .. pls add them to the appropriate articles in an appropriate manner and/or the List of ethnic slurs (i guess i am an apple LOL). Moxy (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The request was to provide a source which uses Red Indian to disambiguate the term "Indian" None of the information you provided gave that source. That clearly is what the statement of the article says. Just as there is no source which identifies the people throughout the Americas as First Nations. As it says here, Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Interesting you claim to be an apple no doubt royalty at that. - Niineta (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Red Indian Red Indian Tribal Nomenclature: American Indian, Native American, and First Nation.Moxy (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not reliable sources anyone can edit those online publications - furthermore it states.
Some of these terms are used almost interchangeably, while others indicate relatively specific entities Which is the case for "First Nations"
As for Red Indian it shows that a phrase exists (but of course we already knew that) not a disambiguation for the term "Indian" That was worthwhile for a belly laugh, an image of a Whiteman in a hat that look like a turkey's fanned tail. That demonstrates REAL knowledge.
There definitely is a need for improvement, someone needs to plunge right in. - Niineta (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • actually in French Canada, such as in Quebec and surrounding areas, "Amerindiens" is a common term. Being from Canada, Aboriginal is certainly the most widely used term, but other popular titles are "Indigenous" and "Native". I never use the term Aboriginal, I either say Indigenous or native. "First nations" is also used widely among all Canadians, native and non-native. The use of the word can reveal how the speaker views the groups. To say native, first nation/s, or indigenous seems to refer more to socio-historical context, while "Indian" and even "Aboriginal" more of a racial category (since race does not exist and the native nations of the Americas do not make up one group, then these are incorrect).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Colombia

"A small minority today within Colombia's overwhelmingly Mestizo and Afro-Colombian population, Colombia's indigenous peoples nonetheless encompass at least 85 distinct cultures and more than 1,378,884 people."

This statement is partially incorrect as the population is estimated to be about 60% Mestizo and 20% European with Afro-Colombians making up the majority of the remaining population. The omission of Europeans or Whites is misleading.

CIA - The World Factbook

mrtony77 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Indian"

The traditional argument that "Indian" became a term was because Columbus was confused and thought he made it to India. This does not make much sense since Europeans were aware of what India looked like since they had been there on many occassions. People from India were known to smelt metal en masse. Since this did not largely take place in the Americas, he would have known. Furthermore, the landscape of the Carribean, where Columbus landed, was quite different from that of India - which he would have recognized. Lastly, in Columbus' journal he refers to the indigenous people of the Americas as being In Deus, meaning "in God", "of God", or "full of God". This last reason is the most dominate argument against the traditional understanding of the origin of the term.

You might want to see Native American naming controversy#Indian which cites sources that debunk the In Deus etymology. olderwiser 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am very much aware of these sources. The article discusses the traditional belief as being fact and therefore is biased. I am making aware to people that this is not always accepted by everyone as being truth. Wikipedia as a source of common knowledge should recognize various sides of an argument, not choose one perspective and include that as "the" reality. By you asking me to look at this source is demonstrating your bias as well, as if one source is the bearer of all truth. The question is, why are you filtering information as to what people accept as a source for knowledge' concerning an issue? That is not your job, regardless of your personal belief, you must include all sides to an argument, Wikipedia facilitates information about scholarly issues, it is not supposed to proselytize a view, such as you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:FORUM and get off your soapbox please. Reliable sources are used for the current information, and in the section pointed to you above, they verify that your fringe view has been debunked. Heiro 19:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If people come to Wikipedia they need to know what opinions exist. YOU believe it has been debunked. regardless of what YOU believe, people have a right to know what perspectives exist out there concerning an issue such as this. The question is, what right do you have to filter what other people agree with? Go write your own paper on the topic, bias has no place here my friend. It is humourous how you assume I have a position in this matter. I have never told you what I believe on the issue. I simply am offering the other point of view which is not included in the article. The perspective I initially brought up is one other people have a right to know as well. What is interesting, is that you did not initially direct me to the WP:FORUM page, which I was unaware of, instead the basis of your initial argument had to do with what you personally believe, "which cites sources that debunk the In Deus etymology". Apparently I was in violation of diagreeing with you, rather than that I was including an argument that is not referenced as much as the dominate theory is. I am also including an alternative viewpoint on the discussion page, not the article. So what have I violated exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. We do not include every concievable viewpoint on a subject, in every article. The viewpoint you are pushing is discussed in an article here, you were pointed to it.Heiro 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Is that link included in the main article for people who want to know more on the subject? I understand we cannot include every conceivable viewpoint, but your intiial argument had no place here, I never told you what I personally believe. Maybe you should fix the article so it directs people to the Native American naming controversy#Indian. Is not that link in violation of WP:FORUM and soapbox? I mean is the role of wikipedia to "debunk" certain viewpoints. It seems to me that the "debunk" page was included to legitimize the viewpoint of the "confusion with India" argument. At the same time the acceptance of a debunk is subjective. In Columbus' journal they state that the people in the Americas are In Deus, that is a primary source, and it seems to me just as likely plausible as the confusion with India argument.
  • Excuse me, I pressed "save page" by accident. What I meant to say was that in Jesuit Relations they state that the people are "In Deus". The dominate assumption is that Columbus originated the term, however, there is no proof of that. It seems to me the "debunk" page took a leap of faith since it provides no evidence against the In Deus argument; therefore it has debunked nothing. We would need a primary source, clearly indicating that Columbus' confusiuon with India led to the adoption of the term. Since the primary evidence in Jesuit relations indicating In Deus and Columbus noting he thought he was in the Indies hold the same weight, we have to assume both scnarios are likely. The debunk page has done nothing to support confusion with India nor have they proved that In Deus is incorrect.
Have you read Columbus journal yourself? The cited source indicates that Columbus did not write that in his journal. The role of Wikipedia is to present various viewpoints neutrally with appropriate weighting as indicated by reliable sources. A fringe theory should be presented as just that -- a fringe theory. olderwiser 14:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to Columbus' letter which was widely published to announce his "discovery": http://usm.maine.edu/maps/web-document/1/4/sub-/4-translation The same site also provides a facsimile of the original and a transcription of the Latin. The letter contains references to India, but not of In Dios or In Deus references to the land or the people. olderwiser 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
And here is a link to a translation of Columbus' journal: http://books.google.com/books?id=qY8sAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false. The first encounter with natives begins on page 35. Although this is translation, can you point to any portion that would support the In Dios claim? olderwiser 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not need to point to any place where Columbus makes the claim that they are In Deus, that was a typo, I stated the Jesuit Relations did that. As you have stated, this is a translation. What would the original, in Latin, have looked like? You cannot just say, “although it is translation”, and continue - taking a leap of faith. We need to see what “Indian” looked like in Latin before the translation. Columbus intended on going to India, as is believed; however did he intend to rename it when he arrived? The trip itself was triggered to find another route to India since the traditional land route through eastern Europe and the “Middle” East (i.e. Constantinople) was blocked. If he thought he landed in India, a well known place and trade route, why did he rename it Hispana? There is also a school of thought which claims Portugal was well aware of the Americas existing (and as a separate entity from India or Asia) long before any other European Empire. Likewise, Europe was familiar with India for a very long time, activities such as metallurgy was practiced in India, but the Carribean was not known for such activity. During Columbus’ time India was known as Hindustan. Columbus and the Europeans with him probably recognized they were not Hindus and did not acquire the same resources that Europeans were familiar with Hindustan as having. Also, the use of the term, considering the historical context, does not prove he was “confused with India (Hindustan)”.

Again, what I am trying to demonstrate is that both arguments should be represented. I think the “confusion with India” argument is very strong as well, but there is another, and it is important to entertain as well. It is possible that both led to the use of the term. It seems also that if Columbus termed them Indian, being that India was known as Hindustan, that this got reversed today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're the one making the claims. You're the one that needs to back up your claims with verifiable citations to reliable sources. The business of Columbus supposedly saying something or other about In Dios or In Deus is a crock that has been disproven, but which is nonetheless still in circulation because some people want it to be true and would rather believe something that sound nice rather than something based on evidence. olderwiser 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I said the Jesuit Relations state this not Columbus. I want people to be aware that more than just the textbook reason exists, you are making it criminal to even suggest another possibility. People have a right to know. As I have said, I find the India explanation more compelling, I am not proselytizing a view over another, simply trying to give other people the opportunity to be aware and check it out for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.66.246 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You really would need to provide a source - because as of right now there seems to be many assumptions being made. I cant find this at all in Volume 1....Volume 1: Acadia 1610 to 1613 perhaps there in the other Volumes The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents 1610 to 1791.Moxy (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand where you are coming from, however, I think it is fine to provide another explanation other than what is explained in the article. People should be aware of other arguments so they can choose for themselves what they accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.66.246 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not how Wikipedia works. Once again, see our policies on WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. We do not include every concievable viewpoint on a subject, in every article. The viewpoint you are pushing is discussed in an article here, you were pointed to it. it does not need to be duplicated here and given undue weight "so people can decide what they accept". We WP:CITE information to WP:VERIFY its accuracy to WP:RELIABLE sources. Read up on these bluelinks please. And until you find verifiable, reliable sources lending credence to this, it will not be added to this article. The burden is on you. And do not bring a WP:PRIMARY source such as the links to translations above. Bring sources where respected historians and/or linguistics argue for this interpretation. Heiro 01:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing how you do not read my comments. I made no attempt at adding anything to the original article as you have indicated, why do you make false claims? I stated my intent, go back and read it. I have used this discussion page for what it is, and on this discussion page I intended to include another viewpoint - which I did. You continually misinterpreted what I said over and over and over again. I am not quite sure how the Jesuit Relations is not a "verifiable, reliable source(s) lending credence to this", but maybe that is just me. Now when I see people I will make them aware, unlike you, of how significant and diverse opinions and viewpoints exist on this subject - thus demonstrating the beauty of scholarship called "discussion". Now stop sweating over it, at least people other than you, can see our discussion and learn how complicated an issue this really is. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.69.3 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I read it. You are here arguing for its inclusion in the article. I explained to you the protocol here. This page is for discussing the improvement of the article and the addition of new material, especially contentious material such as this. If that is not your purpose, why are we having this conversation? If this is so you can just discuss your thoughts on the matter, then as I suggested above, see WP:FORUM, and note that that is not what this page is for. Heiro 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
@IP You keep saying that the Jesuit Relations says something. Please provide a more specific reference so the claim can be verified. olderwiser 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is still interested, I have expanded the section at Native American name controversy#Indian to discuss the situation further with citations to several sources and linked the term appearing in this article to that section. Heiro 13:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ See "The open veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano.
  2. ^ See "Trenchs in history" by Eduardo Azcuy Ameghino.