Talk:Nahuas

Apparent copyvio

The previous contents of this article appears to entirely consist of an extract from the online EB article of the same name; compare here. I've removed all of the text and replaced it with a temporary sentence or two, until it can be more appropriately rewritten.--cjllw | TALK 08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Article title

I'd like to suggest that this article (expansion coming along nicely, btw!) be renamed to Nahua peoples, given the plurality of groups and by way of parallel with Maya peoples. Any takers, or counter-proposals? --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or the other. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Ptcamn (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, page is now moved to the plural title. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of Nahua persons

I am against the inclusion of pictures of celebrities in this article's infobox. BEing Nahua is not a matter of descendence - it is a matter of cultural identification with a Nahua cultural group - the criteria of INALI for ethnic status is primarily linguistic - to justify inclusion would require a source saying that a person is a heritage speaker of Nahuatl. Regarding Zapata I agree that it is likely that he was ethnically Nahua and did speak Nahuatl - this is however not the currently accepted mainstream view, as biographers such as Womack describe him as fully mestizo (because they don't recognize the validity of eyewitness accounts of Zapata speaking Nahuatl). For the other persons supposed for inclusion the sources are much too weak to tie them to Nahua culture. I still believe that in recognition of the fact that most Nahua peoples are not celebrities I think it is better not to include photos - or to include a photo of an common Nahua person with whom a majority of Nahua people can idenitify instead of past celebrities, that no one in Mexican society, least of all the Nahuas themselves identify as being Nahua. Also Manuel Mondragón was born in Ixtlahuaca, which is not a Nahua speaking area but a Mazahua speaking one. I don't think his daughters words carries much weight here unless she expressly says that he spoke Nahuatl and identified with a Nahua cultural heritage. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have very odd view, are you implying that when one is successful then they discard their Nahua culture because the two are not compatible? They can not connect with being Nahua? Not all Nahua live in villages as Campesions and it's ridiculous to think that Nahuas only can connect with someone like that. That is a very belittling and arrogant take on an entire ethnicity. And that is an outright rude and prejudiced statement to make. There are wealthy urbanized Nahua comminities in Mexico City, that would instantly be able to recognize these people as they have contributed to Mexico's history. Mondragón was born in Ixtlahuaca but that dosent mean he was Mazahua. Just because a Chinese person is born in Moscow it wouldn't automatically make him a Slav. Mapudunganpanzer (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The only urbanized fully Nahua community in Mexico is Milpa Alta and that is definitely not well off. Lopok at INEGI's own statistics and think if those suggest that generals who don't speak Nahuatl and are born in a Mazahua speaking area are the most representative image of a Nahua person you can think of. Either you produce sources that support that they were ethnically Nahua or they stay out. We have policies here, please abide by them. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You mean to say that every single Nahua besides those who live in Milpa Alta live in rural areas? That is plain stupid. Santa Fe on the periphery of Mexico City has a sizable Nahua community. I would know. I lived there. And it is common knowledge that Zapata was a Nahua. You are being extremely narrow and closed minded. Mapudunganpanzer (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have lived there too and I have studied Nahua culture for the past ten years at university level - living for three years in different Nahua communities in Mexico. Take your anecdotes elsewhere, I have many more than yuou anyway - start following policy instead. Try this one: WP:V·Maunus·ƛ· 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is an entire text by Zapata in Nahuatl: http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/cuicatontli/zapata.htm Mapudunganpanzer (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source and it doesn't cover the other two persons. I happen to be very familiar with the socalled "Zapata manifestos" they were not written by Zapata but by a translator from Puebla. You should read Leon-Portillas book about them or some of the articles published about them in the journal Amerindia. The only testimony we have of Zapata speaking NAhuatl is from Luz Jimenez, and it has not been considered by any of Zapata's biographers who still regard him as a mestizo - I think this will change when the next biopgraphy is written but it still is the general view. Zapata never identified himself as Nahua in any written document. YOu are the one who is talking about something you have no clue about. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you want for varification? First you said someone who is an ethnic Nahua there were (Mondragon and Marco Rito-Palomares) and then you said that they must speak Nahua too. Under this criteria Mondragon, and Palomares both fit. Mondragon spoke fluent Nahatl as stated in his daughters biography yet somehow you said this isn't enough proof. Palomares in his interview with millenio said he grew up in a nahua community and spoke only nahuatl until learning Spanish at school and Zapata is debatable but there still is a source saying he did speak Nahuatl so i don't understand why you wouldn't see this as a credible source. Rahlgd (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

if you can provide quotes from reliable sources that say that they either selfidentify as Nahua or speak Nahuatl then we can include them. you have presented no such sources yet. Television interviews are not reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can find no reference to an autobiography by Nahui Olin - in this book it says specifically that she did not claim indigenous heritage:[1].·Maunus·ƛ· 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing content

There is no text under the second and third period of colonization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.204.37 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo

An IP is editwarring to insert a file that seems to be a copyrights violation and has no educational value since it is not representative of Nahua people. It seems likely to be an image from an 19th century publication aiming to show the racial inferiority of indigenous peoples.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

How so? It looks like a bog standard photo from the era to me. I have uploaded some old photos, are they racist? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a bog standard photo from the period as anyone who knows the period in Mexico and how Nahua people looked and lived like can tell you. It looks more like they are dressed up for a minstrel show. It is not representative at all of any group of Nahua people now, then or ever. As you may know in the late 1800s there was a general consensus that non-white people were savages. And as you also may know sometimes they tried to prove this by showing them in degrading or absurd situations or costumes, or by exhibiting them as animals. This looks very much like one such situation. I am trying to find out whether this photo has ever been used in any work about the Aztecs or Nahuas and in what context. If the photo had any educational or informational value that could be verified we could include it in the body, but it has nothing to do in the infobox whatsoever.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong here mate, obviously the pic is not representative of the people, but a lot of indigenous people wore western/the latest fashions back then. I just do not see it as racist. But again you are correct in that it has zero educational value. I see no reason to have it in the article at all as it is not at all representative of the people. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)