Talk:Indigenous peoples of Africa

Proposed deletion
I would contest a proposed deletion of this article. The topic itself is clearly a notable and valid encyclopaedic entry, part of a series of indigenous peoples by region or continent. It was originally broken out from the main indigenous peoples article, and if you look there (or any cursory search) you'll find ample WP:V and WP:RS to identify it as such.

As for the style, happy to grant that it may read a little essay-like, but that does not mean its contents derive from Original Research or are unsubstantiated opinion. When I originally wrote the text more than 3 years ago (not much has been changed or added since then), it was based on a distillation of sources from the UN's WGIP, IPACC and the African Union's ACHPR among others, a couple of which are mentioned in the text itself, instead of as explicit citations. None of it is my original opinion, and I think it fairly reflects the info obtainable at these sources and does not concentrate on some POV slant. If there are any specific passages someone may think to be OR or POV, pls identify them & it can be further discussed.

The contributions of mine here were made early-on in my wiki editing career, when I was not then adept at providing references & cites as you go (though I recall much of wikipedia lacking inline cites back then). Certainly agree it needs better and more direct citations, and a prose overhaul. However, thanks to Maunus' recent efforts there are now a few more refs appended to the article, which could be worked into inline cites at some stage. I hope that at least that is sufficient demonstration of the article's notability and adherence to OR, V, RS and POV policies to forestall any deletion proposal, even if the prose quality and layout itself leaves a bit to be desired. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 08:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, cjllw. It sounds reasonable. And by the way, I am in no hurry to rush this off to an Afd. These things take time and I would much prefer to see this article properly expanded. It would be great to have more specific references added with in-line citations. However, now that you have remarked on the article coming from a split, that raises a primary problem. When looking at the Indigenous peoples, I find a generalized discussion about the definition of "indigenous people" followed by general remarks about the "discrimination against indigenous people" from IPACC and ACHPR. When I click on the split to the main article Indigenous peoples of Africa, I find nothing but an unnecessary repetition of the exact same remarks. Nothing more. No expansion and no information about actual indigenous peoples about Africa. It would almost be better simply to split to a List of indigenous peoples, so anyone looking for more elucidation can delve deeper. Contrast this with Indigenous peoples which offers some generalized facts, and then splits off to the much more in-depth discussion of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which delves into history, culture, demographics, and includes further splits to specific regions and countries. It seems to me that this is the proper approach that this article should attain. As it stands now, this article could be renamed as Discrimination of Indigenous Peoples of Africa or Marginalization of Indigenous peoples of Africa, but as a description or discussion of the actual Indigenous peoples of Africa, it fails. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi CactusWriter and thanks for your understanding and comments. Don't dispute there are deficiencies in the article. Ideally yes it should do much more than reflect the original article it was split from, but alas it appears to be one of those topics which while entirely valid and demanding of an encyclopaedic article, has extremely few active editors interested or knowledgeable enough to be do something about it. A case unfortunately in need of countering systemic bias, & you can readily understand that the Americas articles attract much higher interest & participation while African ones mostly do not.
 * While not my highest priority I will see what I can do over time to knock it into better shape. With many competing commitments ATM it will probably only be in dribs and drabs, and I can't see myself being able to set aside large blocs of time to devote to it right now. But at some point, will try. It won't be quick, but it's on the mid-to-long term list.
 * Speaking of lists, don't think that 'list of indigenous peoples of africa'-style article would help much. Firstly, the individual peoples' articles rarely have info specific to their indigeneity claims in them, and secondly as List of indigenous peoples has shown it is v difficult to maintain any consistency of interpretation abt what shld/shld not be included. --cjllw ʘ  TALK 02:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
I think this article is great! I think if a photo was added and a little more structure it would make it much easier (and exciting) to read! Allykittencat (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)allykittencat

Proposed merge
In May 2018, User:Dbachmann proposed that this article be merged with List of ethnic groups of Africa. While I don't support the proposal (at least as it stands), I'm creating this section to facilitate discussion of it, as well as ideas for improvement of the article. (Note also the discussion from 2008, above, about "Proposed deletion.")

The topic of the article is complicated since, as it mentions: "the vast majority of Native Africans can be considered to be "indigenous" in the sense that they have originated from that continent and nowhere else, ...." And indeed, the list of African ethnicities included in the List of indigenous peoples seems to reflect that broad definition. However, the definition of "indigenous peoples," coming mainly from experience largely in the Americas & Oceania, covers clearly identifiable groups relatively small in population. So, in the case of Africa, as the article explores, factors other than "" itself are considered in order to define "indigenous peoples" of the continent.

This is not to argue for or against that approach, as there are certainly human rights and economic issues facing peoples in Africa so defined. But it does lead to outcomes quite different in Africa than one would find in the Americas or Oceania. For example the first issue of the UNESCO Courier in 2019 (on "Indigenous Languages and Knowledge (IYIL 2019)") includes an article on the "Mbororo" a Fulani subgroup that arrived in Chad (focus of the article) later in history than some other groups not considered indigenous. This kind of situation is noted in the article.

This is, however, an interesting situation especially given the tradition in some parts of the continent at least, that there is a special connection between the first people to occupy an area of land and that land (don't have a reference on that handy, but this would be something that should be discussed somewhere in this article).

Also, in terms of "indigenous" in its broader sense, what does the way "indigenous people" is definedin Africa make the rest of the continent's native ethnicities? The article notes that few groups in Africa claim indigenous status, and if that's the case, reasons should be explored. In any event, these are some quick thoughts about the subject of the article and how it is treated. --A12n (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What a mess
This article is such a mess - referring to the multiple issues tagged. Shouldn't we just scrap it? Rossouw 16:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NO -- see below.

Cleanup vs. deletion
If there should indeed be an article called "indigenous peoples of Africa," which I'm not entirely sure there should be (not super knowledgeable about what "indigenous" even means in an African context) then yeah, I agree that this a case of WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashunreality (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Not Be Deleted, Clear Relevance and Value
Categorically, this page should NOT be deleted. Indigeneity is a complex concept, and in Africa and Europe, indigeneity has different dimensions than it does in the Americas and the Pacific due to different histories; but doubtless, the Sami people are as indigenous as the San people -- and each are as indigenous as the Shoshone or Samoans. Deleting this page in order to hold fast to an outdated, Euro-centric concept of indigenous people as being 'anyone who was here when Europeans arrived' does not serve the goal of providing clear, unbiased, and accurate information to the general public. From a 2018 paper:

"The meaning of the term 'indigenous' seems to have evolved through several distinct phases. During the colonial era, the term 'indigenous' was applied to all peoples found in colonised territories, regardless of where they were born or their migration patterns, or descendants of those who occupied a given territory that was invaded, conquered and colonised by white colonial powers.' Following this, different meanings alluding to 'indigenous peoples' emerged from the aftermath of the Second World War, the subsequent decolonisation process and the changing attitudes towards the fate or current  situation of colonised  populations....the foci of the above mentioned definitions are the elements of 'historical continuity', 'pre-invasion' and 'pre-colonial', in other words first peoples who were dislocated  from their traditional way of life through colonial conquest, mass murder, dispossession and displacement. When it came to Africa, this presented an obstacle, as clearly the situation in most parts of the continent was very different, with very few groups being able to claim status as 'first peoples'....it became obvious that there was a need to refocus the definition from an African perspective."

Increasingly, indigeneity is seen as a combination of factors, including: original, communal territorial tenure; cultural/physical/spiritual sense of connectedness to place; deep ecological knowledge of place predicated on multigenerational data-gathering (data are often transmitted orally); and ongoing, recognizably continuous adherence to specific lifeways (e.g. seasonal hunting + gathering) which are practiced in recognizably similar forms over multiple generations with the intent of maximizing the long-term sustainable use of a local ecology. These terms are often relative terms (i.e. the concept of 'first' is relative to there being a 'second' etc.).

In Africa, concepts of indigeneity usually center on hunter-gatherer groups and (usually nomadic/semi-nomadic) traditional pastoralists. This is an emerging but commonly held definition, as a review of the discussions surrounding the African nations' signing of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) makes clear. Per an article reviewing that event, "there are over 40 hunter-gatherer peoples and 12 major pastoralist peoples making claims to indigenous peoples' status in their respective countries. None of the hunter-gatherers claim territorial sovereignty and only the Tuareg pastoralists are claiming administrative rights in their desert territories and have been involved in armed conflict with their national state authority."

So first, it is clear that indigeneity is a valid concept within the African context, although it may look slightly different to viewers most accustomed to the American context. Second, it is clear that indigenous peoples of Africa are distinct, discrete, and identifiable -- both self-identifying and identifiable as such by others. Last, it is clear that African indigeneity has continued political and social relevance to global discussions of human rights and indigenous survival. So why would we delete this?

173.95.44.195 (talk) a.e. sutton