Talk:Aboriginal American

Does this term include native pacific islanders? heidimo 03:08, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merger

Native American discusses the varied and sundry terminology. It seems like it would be easier for readers if all of this information was in the same place. So this article should merge and redirect, I think. -- Beland 04:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge would be good idea, but with Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, and a redirect afterword.D-Rock 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this is a term in wide usage. A citation is needed to show this isn't a coinage by the editor. NickelShoe 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Native American's archived talk. I think that if this is considered a worthy topic, it definitely needs linked to on the Native American page for explanation. NickelShoe 19:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link, not redirect

While information on Native Americans is relevant and/or similar, it is not quite the same. Therefore link, not redirect. Please expand on Aboriginal American content while avoiding dilution with related yet different terms "native" and "indigenous".

Ruhbee! 08:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back to a redirect to Indigenous peoples of the Americas. There is no functional distinction between 'Aboriginal Americans' and 'Indigenous peoples of the Americas', and 'Native Americans' would be a near-cognate as well were it not that certain northern indigenous peoples are usually referred to separately. That is to say, there is nothing which could be covered under 'Aboriginal Americans' which is not also covered by 'Indigenous peoples (of the Americas)'.

This confusion seems to arise from a failure to recognise the difference between when common words such as aboriginal, native, and indigenous are used as pure adjectives, and when they form part of a compound noun, such as in indigenous peoples and Native Americans which have specific and particular meanings which are not necessarily exactly the same as their adjectives they are derived from.

True enough, there are nuances of difference which can be observed between the three adjectives, to wit:

native — implying birth or origin in a locality
indigenous — similar, but adds implication that has not come from elsewhere
aboriginal — similar, but implies the first known occupancy of a locality

although in common use they are often used a little interchangeably, and could be regarded as (near-)synonyms (see for eg Merriam-Webster dic..

However, wikipedia articles are about things (nouns), not adjectives, and accordingly articles such as Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, etc all deal with specific peoples whose particular identity as indigenous peoples are asserted or recognised, and whose claims to various collective rights on this basis are pursued, studied, debated and documented. These articles are not about all those who are not immigrants to a country, for example, as the previous description would have logically implied. Sure, it can be true enough to remark that someone born on US soil is native to America, but as demonstrated the various 'Native American'-style articles are not about native-born individuals in general, but as a collective term for particular peoples for whom that designation is used with respect to their status and identity as indigenous peoples.

Also, the distinction raised between 'aboriginal' and 'indigenous' in this context is a spurious one: if you review the indigenous peoples article, you will see that being the absolute first people of an area is not a criteria for identifying as an indigenous people, there is more to it than that. In the case of the original peopling of the American continent, the sequence and timimg itself is not securely known but there is general acceptance of at least three separate movements of peoples into the continent before the coming of European colonisers- however all such groups who populated the region may be considered an indigenous people, and are not excluded because they may not have been the very first inhabitants of a given locality. Indigenous identity in this context is more a recognition of rights to cultural and political identity of these groups in relation to custom, land and laws in contrast to that of the 'dominant' political culture, not (only) a measure of how long they have been there.--cjllw | TALK 01:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]