Talk:Indigenous peoples in Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC) == a'whh(: ==_aaleeeeks=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.194.85.54 (talk) 00:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francisco Palencia as indigenous people

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

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