Talk:Tuareg

I've brought in material from the Italian and German and reorganized the article to follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups Template. However, this still deserves a lot more work. -- Jmabel 03:07, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ...some of which I've now done. -- Jmabel 01:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous additions roughly 25-28 March 2004 look plausible, if sometimes ungrammatical, but no references are cited at all. I would expect this material is more accurate than not, but on a topic where there is much contradictory information on the web, this mass of information without citations worries me a little. -- Jmabel 00:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I am going about cleaning it up grammatically, insofar as I can make sense of it. This article could really use a going-over by someone knowledgable, and this new material could use some decent citation of sources. -- Jmabel 23:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have pulled the following out of the article, pending citation:

Important remark is to know that: Tamajaq, Tamasheq, Tamahaq, sometimes spelled Tamashek, all these are local names form the same Tuareg language. Therefore the Tuareg people are: Kel Tamajaq, Kel Tamasheq.., the ones who speak Tamajaq language.

Obviously, "Important remark is to know that" is not how an encyclopedia should read, but the reason I've pulled this is that there is no source cited and the generally reliable http://www.ethnologue.com seems to consider these distinct dialects. I do not know the facts of the matter, but would like to see a citation if an equivalent statement is to be restored to the article, contradicting ethnologue.com. -- Jmabel 00:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They are mutually comprehensible; cf. Karl-G. Prasse, who regards them as a single language. However, while he is vastly more authoritative than the Ethnologue, there is no doubt room for dispute; there almost always is with distant dialects/closely related languages. - Mustafaa 00:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Map

I've created a map of the area where Tuaregs live. Sources are Sudlow 2001, Lhote 1984 en Bernus 1996. It is a beta version, please tell me what you think. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 12:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd recaption it as "areas where significant numbers of Tuaregs live"; I think it's useful, but the precise lines are liable to prove controversial. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:20, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, my sources all differ from each other. That's why I hatched it and didn't give it an outline. As for the recaptioning, good idea. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 20:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(map is now in article) -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples category

I should like to add a few comments and references in support of my proposal to assign the category Category:Indigenous peoples (actually its appropriate regional sub-category) to this entry.

First of all, I acknowledge that the term indigenous peoples itself is open to a variety of interpretations, uses and misuses. However, there is a specific, well-documented and frequent usage intended here, and I have attempted to circumvent some of this confusion at some indigenous-related pages - please refer to these:

• Firstly, at the main indigenous peoples article itself, by explicitly refining and correlating the definition to those documented by recognised international bodies, governments and indigenous representatives;
• Secondly, at the Category:Indigenous peoples page, where I have attempted to define just what is meant by the category, reasons why the category can be considered a valid one, and proposed criteria by which to ascertain potential members of the category. See in particular the Category talk:Indigenous peoples page for a more complete exposition.

Without fully recounting these, the notion and term indigenous peoples has a valid, contemporary usage in national and trans-national social, academic and political contexts. As such, it is a notable feature of human society, study and politics, and therefore worthy of encyclopaedic mention in Wikipedia, particularly insofar as it can add to the overall understanding of a relevant people, state, event, and history. Many different groups are identified or seek to be identified as indigenous (or some other locally-used cognate term), many publications and studies concern themselves with indigenous issues, and many governments acknowledge (even if partially) or are under persuasion to acknowledge the indigenous identity and claims of some of their peoples in their legal and regulatory instruments.

This is not to say that all such claims are equally recognised, universally held or supported. Even so, where substantiated (ie, noted in independent sources) claims are made but disputed by some other sector of the population or government in question, they may still rightly be noted in WP. It is also somewhat irrelevant what one's own views may be on the validity or otherwise of a people's indigenous status - what matters is whether in the "real world" this debate takes place or not, and where events and entities in the real world concern indigenous affairs, WP may cover this - under its NPOV & other guidelines, of course.

The utility of having a category on indigenous peoples is that it is a method which will facilitate comparative study between and of the various peoples for whom the claim to indigenous status is made. Of course, not every single ethnicity or ethno-stub will warrant such a claim; indigenous peoples are rather a subset of ethnic groups if you like, and categorisation as indigenous will not interfere with any other category scheme, but rather complement them. Note in particular that indigenous does not mean the very first peoples who inhabited a land, but rather that the peoples' current context and relation to the wider society means that they, organisations and perhaps governments are motivated to assert their rights to practise and observe at least some of their own ways and traditions in their territories, without being totally subsumed into an overall, externally-imposed identity.

Now, as per the criteria documented on the Category page, to overcome difficulties and POV-based judgements on whether or not any particular group ought to be associated with an indigenous status, it should be necessary to seek and provide external and notable references to demonstrate that indigenous affairs and issues play at least a part in that group's status and interactions. In the case of the Tuareg, these are the references I used:

• Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (http://www.ipaac.org.za/westafrica.asp) This recognised organisation of African indigenous peoples is active in coordinating issues for various groups, negotiating with governments, and the like. Tuareg individuals hold regional representative posts for the organisation. In its section on West Africa, they note:
  • Groups claiming indigenous status include the Tuareg, Bororo, Wodaabe, Tubu (Teda and Daza) and Mbororo...The claim for collective rights as indigenous peoples arises from the marginalisation of Saharan nomads, first under colonialism and then later by independent states, all of which are dominated by sedentary agricultural peoples living in the South...Following a new census, Nigeriens are acknowledging that the Tuareg are the second largest ethnic group in the country. Niger conducted long delayed democratic elections in 2004. There are now Tuareg controlled councils in more than 10 communes. The challenge for Niger nomads and agricultural peoples is how to find common ground to work together...Tuareg nomads from Mali and Burkina participated in CIDA sponsored follow ups on the World Summit on the Information Society in Ottawa

• 2002 UN Report of the Special Rapporteur (http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2002/documentation/commission/e-cn4-2002-97-add1.htm) on indigenous issues. Tuareg and other west and north African peoples have made frequent representations to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), and other bodies. This is but one example, an extract from which reads:
  • ' Case 12. In several North African countries (mainly Algeria and Morocco), the Amazigh people (also referred to as Kabyles, Touareg and Berbers), who consider themselves as indigenous to these countries, have been asking for official recognition of their language, culture and identity, as well as the full enjoyment of their civil and political rights (Communications addressed to the Special Rapporteur, Geneva, July 2001). After a rebellion in 1990, which actually started in Niger, the Touareg of Mali entered into a peace treaty with the Government in 1991, followed by one in 1992, to allow them regional self-governance and internal democracy, enabling the Government to grant autonomy to the northern areas of the country occupied by the Touareg.
  • ' Case 13. While in Africa there is no consensus on the use of the term "indigenous", the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has argued for the protection of the human rights of specific sectors of the population... The African Commission argued that "language is an integral part of the structure of culture; it in fact constitutes its pillar and means of expression par excellence. Its usage enriches the individual and enables him to take an active part in the community and in its activities. To deprive a man of such participation amounts to depriving him of his identity …".
• submission to 3rd Session of UNPFII (http://www.redasociativa.org/dosorillas/?q=node/view/614) from association of Amazigh organisations, which requested:
  • ...[intercession] with the governments of North Africa and the Sahel to bring them to respect the fundamental rights of the Amazigh indigenous people by acknowledging their identity and their culture, and to take constitutional and institutional responsibility for the Amazigh language as an official national language
  • ...[intercession] with the government of Algeria in order to put an end to the crisis in Kabylia, which has existed since April 2001, by undertaking the claims of the Kabyle popular movement, as well as those of the populations of the Touaregs and Aures regions
  • ...[intercession] with the governments of North Africa and the Sahel against forced settlements of the Tuareg people under the pretext of the fight against terrorism.
  • ...[intercession] with the governments of Niger to take necessary steps to ward off possible health risks of the Tuareg people caused by uranium operations at the Arlit mine.

There are a few others, but this will do for now. In short(!), I maintain that (a)indigenous peoples is a useful and valid category, and (b) the Tuareg warrant inclusion in this category.--cjllw | TALK 09:03, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

As a postscript, I will be away/offline the next few days, so will be happy to continue any discussion upon my return, probably sometime mid next week.--cjllw | TALK 09:17, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

OK. I'm still doubtful about a. - I regard this term's use in most contexts, especially that of the Tuareg, as essentially political propaganda, little different from the use of words like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", both of which have widespread international usage - but I'll grant that you have established b. - Mustafaa 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)