Talk:Pueblo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, 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:
|
|
|
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
== == the definition under law with the one informed by the folklore of people who had little knowledge of the indigenous communities of the American SouthWest. There are pueblos and there are reservations, side by side in some areas. One was established by the King of Spain and the other by the United States Congress. The definition in folklore - mud house - started with those postcards wealthy tourists carried home from their vacations. Having this one on the page is both beautiful and offensive. Most of the pueblos have prohibitions against photography in their community. Rainchild 07:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 09:44, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) It is if you omit the "e". I've re-removed the text. If you mean a particular King of Spain, say which, and provide some evidence.
---
Mr. Connolley, a telephone call to the Bureau of Indian Affairs will provide you the answer you are seeking. The King of Spain refers not to one king but to the Crown of Spain, and that would be the Crown of Spain from the time of Onate's travels up until the time of the Treaty of Gildalgo (if I have spelled that correctly from recollection). The construct of pueblo is recognized in U.S. law and if you will patiently respect the information that has been presented here until you have sufficient knowledge to rebutt the article, I will attempt to kindly look up for you and for other readers those laws. I can develop on other pages information about Congress' current actions regarding ongoing efforts to adjudicate land transfers from the Spanish Crown to the people of the SouthWest, involving today the common lands of the Spanish land grants.
It appears that the writer who recently edited this article had considerable knowledge both of Pueblo history and of the appropriate presentation of Pueblo history in scholarly and legal contexts. If you have evidence that this article is not accurate, please discuss it here on the talk page, and not by reverting edits that are being explained. The sourcing of this article is no weaker than that of any article in Wikipedia.
Kareem 11:13, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
If you mean crown of spain, say so. Don't say King of Spain.
I don't trust your additions. I hope that other more informed people will comment.
-
- "Spanish Crown" works, but it is inanimate. In the cultural sensitivity training sessions for police, teachers and social workers who work on or near pueblos, the boilerplate phrase is more or less as it appears in this article.
-
-
- (William M. Connolley 11:54, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) "more or less" is vague. If you can find a link to the text you are referring to and put it here, it will support your case.
-
-
-
-
- It appears at this point the obligation would be yours to present evidence that in the United States a pueblo is any Native American village and not specifically those first established under land grants from the King of Spain. Kareem 12:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
-
I hope that you dignify the Pueblo people with genuine interest in their story. As I noted on your talk page, I will find for you information to explain the root of that term in United States law. Kareem 11:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 11:54, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) I dispute your interpretation of wiki policy. It doesn't make your edits wrong, it just makes them suspect.
-
- I would hope editors treat material with suspicion not out of mistrust but of affection for the subject. Do you have much familiarity with English usage in the American Southwest, Doctor? If not, you may be suprised to learn that "King of Spain" is the common term used today to refer to the king du jour of that time.
-
- I think this came from Southwestern Indian Tribes, KC Publications, P.O. Box 428, Flagstaff, Arizona, but the sources were somewhat merged in that document. Anyway, its fair use. This is educational:
|
-
- Reservation tribal chairmen have various staffs and canes they have receieved as well, but the canes from the king of Spain will only be found at one of the 20 federally recognized Pueblos.
-
- I'll find more that is even more specific, at least in the symbols of Western law, but please, don't take anyone's authority on the matter, and do some research of your own. Kareem 12:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
Dr. Connolley, I trust you will contact the people addressed in this article to obtain the best information:
- I archived the contact information. Kareem 03:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There are 18 others, but for their privacy I prefer not to republish their contact information any more than neccessery. Each of their Pueblo governments may be located by Google searches.
If i find more soon, I will post it Kareem 12:30, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have refactored this page, removing the worst of the personal remarks (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
Let's focus on improving the pueblo article. --Uncle Ed 12:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 12:57, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)) Hi Ed. I'm happy to take your advice on this issue. Feel free to "refactor"
The talk page refactor looks okay. The lead sentence in the story was starting to run on, so I cut it into manageble phrases. Also, I preserved the factual accuracy I can contribute re:Spanish origin of Pueblo as a construct, and delimiting pueblos from nearby reservations. Kareem 13:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Quotes linked to an outside source for attribution are not the best, because the links aren't durable. I didn't change it because it is set in a block quote, it is hard to change, people get all edgy, and I am more concerned about accurate history, but it should at least have "USNPS" in there or something to identify the source. Kareem
- I don't know a thing about pueblos except that they are mud- or stucco-based buildings in use before Europeans came to America. I guess natives lived in some of them for centuries before and after that; kind of interesting, how long that kind of construction has lasted.
- I'd like to know more about the history and culture of the Pueblo people. And also, how the arrival of the Spaniards affected their life -- for good or bad. (One source I read today said the conquerors taught them "morals" but also demanded "work" -- an intriguing trade-off.)
- And, yes, web links are easy but not durable. I'd love to see references to, er, "dead tree" documentation. We rely on Internet sources far too much around here.
- Finally, thank you for your gracious and cordial acceptance of my refactoring -- and Welcome to Wikipedia! --Uncle Ed 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
-
- Spanish influence might be treated by an elder Pueblo story teller not as something either good nor bad, but as something that happened. Changes in the language that describes their history might be cited as evidence of agression against them. We might hear a story about how they endured.
-
- In contributing to the tribal sovereignty article while researching some info for Doc Connolley, I did discover a statement by Cheif Justice John Marshall that said essentially, Europeans gave Native Americans civilization and Christianity, and that was more or less fair compensation for taking whatever Europeans got, but that they still must respect basic property rights of the justly conquered people. Needless to say, many analysts from Indian communities differed with the Justices' sense of justice.
-
- In the past few minutes, I moved the quote from the National Park Service down to fit in the discussion of early buildings and cultures. There is a nod to that subject where it was placed, but the current location places the Park Service use of the term "Late Pueblo" in the context of the Indian Country axiom that there were not Indians - or Pueblos - in the Americas until Europeans came along and applied the Eurocentric names. Floyd Westerman's song "Here come the Anthros" perhaps best typifies the harm recognized when one culture declares itself the official story teller of another.
-
- Actually, the NPS quote backs in to the truth of the matter when it says the Peublo people built the large communities the Spaniards encountered. It doesn't say Pueblo people are the ones who built large communities with mud bricks in the Southwest, it says large communites with adobe architecture whose stories were first Anglicized by the Spaniards are now called the Pueblo peoples. Native communities of the Southwest are separated by linguistic differences, too, but the basic distinction in anthropology and in law was the the nationality of the group so classifying these people, not the history of the people as they told it.
-
- In this case, the prevailing academic anthropology is correctly represented, but the anthropology is not widely accepted by those it describes. Unlike minority views of other sciences that need not be balanced with a greater concensus, in anthropology there is a recognized and long-established community that has a different perspective - and language - behind descriptions of their own history.
-
- For your efforts, Ed, I'm sure the article is less dodgy sounding to our freinds who live in monarchies, and the information is still reasonably fair and accurate to the best of my understanding. Kareem 18:20, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The discussion of Spanish land grants could grow to become a separate article.
The statement that boundaries "were frequently overturned" is accurate, but is a gross generalization of 500 years of history involving United States, Mexico, Spain, and numerous indigenous nations, each of which produced legal documents regarding the claims. The claims were probably more frequently upheld, but were often lost by chicanery or speculation, were just as frequently clouded by legal questions as by vaguaries of historic surveys.
Much of the grant land lost was lost in chicanery involving multiple members defrauding each other of land rights. Some of the national forests of the Southwest trace back to speculators who obtained a land right from one member of a land grant, then perfected the right in an treaty-related adjudication process that excluded the other land holders simply because the speculator showed up first and made the case at the land office.
The other major land losses had not so much to do with riverine valleys and the vagauries of historic surveys, but with the failure of the United States to recognize common land holdings assigned by the Crown to the pueblos, which would be all of the land grants, not just the indigenous pueblos. The indigenous pueblos did better gaining recognition of common lands perhaps because their legal arguments have long relied first on traditions of Spanish law and secondly on aboriginal rights. Recent water-rights struggles and a very recent settlement proposal in one area highlight the importance of aboriginal rights as an adjunct to historic rights guaranteed in treaty agreements.
Regarding the lost common lands sought by the many land grants now established in the Southwest, the Government Accounting Office is conduction an length assessment of historical records to establish what common lands were expropriated from the land trusts during adjudication of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (text of treaty at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1848hidalgo.html ) article VIII:
In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it, guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.
One part of the problem is that land title under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo rested on title conditions estblished in a treaty of 20 years earlier between Mexico and Spain. Current efforts to understand the land title require review of both treaties, and of related title claims and original documents that establish the grants.
Part of the problem was that these so-called Mexicans had immigrant status in the territory dating futher back than many Anglo-European families. After 20 short years under Mexican jurisdiction, these original "American Settlers" with as much claim to a role in early American history as the pilgrims, were now treated as aliens, who could win their rights in this country by proving ownership of their land, based on documents written sometimes more than 100 years earlier. Regardless chickanery of speculators and callous of the land courts, many did prove their claim, but the courts refused to recognize traditional common areas. It would be like a court refusing to recognize public property of any other town of village; Congress now recognizes the error and is attempting to discover the scope of damages that resulted and determine fair ways to make ammends.
[edit] Pueblo?
Living in a 'pueblo' in Spain, I am surprised to see the confident assertion at the beginning of the main article that "Pueblos are traditional Native American communities of the Southwest United States of America." Although the article goes on to concede that "On the central Spanish meseta the unit of settlement was and is the pueblo . . ", the remainder of the article appears to ignore the fact that by far the most common usage of the term is in relation to Spanish pueblos rather than the certainly far less numerous North American variants. I have no objection whatsoever to an article on North American pueblos. However, I think the article should make it clear at the outset that it's purpose is specifically to discuss the North American pueblo and the preliminary definition at the article should make this restricted sense clear. Johngosling 12:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge this article?
The quality of this article seems to have deteriorated substantially over the last six months and has never been equal to that of Pueblo_people. Does anyone else think that it would make more sense to discuss Pueblos from within the discussion of the Pueblo people?Bridgewater 23:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
