[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Indigenous peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.7.157.110 (talk) at 19:59, 27 June 2017 (→Indigenous White People in Europe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This is not an article on "indigenous people"

It seems clear to me, as a lawyer with an anthropology background, that this article is NOT about indigenous people per se, but rather addresses relatively recent efforts to protect the rights of certain indigenous people based on the perception that they are being discriminated against or persecuted.

That being the case, it seems that this article, which is really a poorly-written and sourced hodge-podge and needs a lot of work--should be renamed. Protecting the Rights of Disadvantaged Indigenous Peoples, perhaps. Another short article with the traditional, common sense definitions could be titled Indigenous Peoples.

The fact is that neither the UN nor other organizations can change the definition of a common word. The UN can define which types of indigenous people are to be protected, but that is different. Combining all these concepts in one article is confusing in the extreme, and makes no sense. Avocats (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one used UNs definition then perhaps you would have a point - but the fact is that there is a gigantic body of literature that discusses "indigenous peoples" in the same sense as the one used by the UN. There is no body of literature that talks about "indigenous people" in the sense of people who are indigenous to a place (since that would be all peoples, making the term useless). Hence there really is not alternative to the current definition and to the focus of the article - the literature on a topic determines what goes into the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and no. The article is a mess and it is about the conception of indigenous peoples but that term is very much a constructed one that is legally and politically defined. There has been a fight over the last 30 years about the definition of the word - it seems common now but wasn't for a long time e.g. the fight over calling the working group at the UN the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, not Peoples and then calling the permanment forum the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues. Peoples have specific rights in international law, like the right to self-determiniation, which states don't want to give up as that is a sovereign prerogative and would pull countries apart in theory.

'Indigenous' itself is a constructed term - which the article mentions briefly. It was used in the 1600s originally but it's 'new' use was constructed as part of an international activist movement. I have lots of notes of this but not on this computer. I'll come back to this article when I have time and the notes. Would love help on it?

Developmentnerd (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Developmentnerd, Avocats is right. The UN has not defined the term "indigenous," it has defined "indigenous status" in the political realm. An article on disability (to take another example) should not begin with a description of what is required to get a disabled-status parking permit, or to get special accessibility accommodations in ones' workplace or school. Moreover, whoever wrote the opening (run-on) sentence here doesn't even have a command of (1) grammar (the final fragment doesn't have a clear verb), or (2) logic (the description doesn't even really meet the UN's definition; the "cultural or historical distinctiveness" clause in UN policy documents isn't a sufficient or necessary characteristic of indigeneity, as the sentence implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcarson (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clunky lead is an unfortunate consequence of this page being a magnet for POV-pushers trying to minimise the political marginalisation of indigenous peoples and insert fringe rhetoric on "indigenous whites". This article is about "indigenous people" – a concept that is well defined and widely used not just in international legislation but in development, anthropology, history, cultural studies, linguistics... the list goes on. The UN happens to have the most concise and authoritative description of the common usage that we've found so far, but if you think you can improve upon it please do. Joe Roe (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous White People in Europe

White People are also Indigenous to Western and Northern Europe. I demand a passage relating to Germanic White People be placed on this Page immediately. Germanic White People deserve to be recognized as having a Homeland, and should not be denied their Geographical and Racial Roots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.57.68 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ. Being an indigenous people does not mean to have a homeland. All peoples have homelands and identities, but they do not all fall under the international definitions of the ILO, and UNESCO's convention for indigenous peoples.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UN have specifically reformulated the word indigenous to exclude Europeans, and this article is written as if the partisan political activities of the UN get to redefine a word in usage for centuries, which clearly violates NPOV Rivalin (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No they have not. Saami are European Indigenous people under the established UNESCO definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In recent times the word indigenous is frequently misused. What it means, is "having originated in; growing, living, or occurring naturally in a given region or environment." It is therefore incorrect to speak of "indigenous peoples of the Americas", for example, as there is no scientific evidence that any human beings -- ancient or modern -- evolved from a more primal species here in the Americas.
It is correct, however, to refer to "aboriginal peoples of the Americas," as aboriginal means "being the first of its kind in a region". There are aboriginal Americans, but none of them are indigenous Americans, as their ancestors all migrated to the Americas from somewhere else.
This article not only fails to make this distinction clear; it further confuses it, beginning with the very first sentence in which indigenous, aboriginal, and native are used as if they are all synonymous. The function of an encyclopedic article should be to make careful distinctions and clear up confusion. As it stands, the article is both inaccurate, and creates confusion, rather than dispelling it.
I agree with the first commenter, who suggested that the article be more appropriately renamed something like: Protecting the Rights of Disadvantaged Indigenous, Aboriginal, and Native Peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed umpteen times on this talk page, the title of this article is not indigenous, it's indigenous people. We are going by the established usage of that term in relevant and reliable sources (not just the UN/UNESCO – they just happen to give us an explicit and widely accepted definition to work from). This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, so it's not our place to prescribe a "correct" or all-inclusive definition of the word indigenous. There are plenty of other articles on the history of white people in Europe. Joe Roe (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthals were in Europe long before whities came—or homo sapien sapiens in Europe turned into white people. Go by the UN definitions: they are totally neutral and inerrant. Only people with indigenous ancestry of Turtle Island and Australia get to be called indigenous: it is to risk being racist to think otherwise.199.7.157.110 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Section Had to Go

The section entitled "Indigenous worldviews and the global community" had to be deleted.

The grammar/syntax mistakes make it unreadable. The editor's command of English is so bad as to render any attempt at meaning impossible.

As such, this would be fixable, a matter of editing by a fluent English speaker. However, the underlying concepts are simply a mishmash of racist, anti-white arguments conflated with the usual pseudo-intellectual, SJW nonsense. (And an ignorance of actual history that is, literally, breathtaking. <cough, cough>. To wit attributing an intact view of what comprised the actual views of Early Modern Europeans that is utterly anachronistic; i.e., ascribing the ideas of scientific racism centuries before the ideas had been invented.)

Relations between nations are just that - relations between nations. The Romans had diplomatic relations (as the Greek Diadochi kindgoms before) with states in Arabia, Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Prattling on about Hobbes (or something) is less than useful.

PainMan

Quite apart from your political musings, I agree that this section was note useful or informative.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indigenous peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_peoples&oldid=787827416"