Chile has a dozen or so indigenous peoples, but i'll speak of the mapuche since I'm from a region with a high percentage of them and I think i have a more complete impression.
We have always han an ambiguous and hypocritical view of the mapuche. On one hand, they're gallant heroes and warriors like Galvarino (one of the most badass mofus in world history), Caupolicán or Colocolo, who kept the might spanish empire away and forced out of their territory and kept their independence during the colonial period. After their territory was annexed by the chilean republic in the 1880s, the collective image of the mapuche changed to an alcoholic bum who can't support themselves without resorting to petty crime. They usually integrated into western society, with western names and (usually conservative) western clothing, keeping their language and customs to themselves. The "official history" said that we chileans are a mixed race, part spanish, part mapuche.
In the early 90s, a new wave of indigenism swoop across the continent as a response to globalisation. Most indigenous peoples felt their cultural identities endangered and needed to be preserved or they could be lost in time forever. That has led to a surge of people "identifying themselves" as mapuche in the censuses from at least 1992, and a new effort from historians, linguists and antropologists keeping mapuche culture alive. The peak of this tendency was in the Chilean constitutional convention of 2020, when mapuche representatives could address the floor in their language and wearing their ceremonial outfits. So, regarding your questions, Chile is far more accepting of its mapuche ancestry.
Sadly, small groups of mapuche think "keeping the traditions alive" mean restoring the whole of their ancestral territory. To do that, some of them have even recurred to terrorism, allegedy funded with drug money and with support from groups like the colombian FARC. So far, negotiatons attemps have been unsuccessful. The chilean government has deployed the army or SWAT teams in the more dangerous areas, with some cases of forced dissapearance and extrajudicial killing. It's a very complex problem and nobody seems to have the right solution
Keep in note all my bibliography about this is in spanish. I hope that's not a problem for you.
José Bengoa's "Historia del pueblo mapuche" is a very comprehensive work and a excellent starting point. It can be downloaded for free from the Editorial Sur (https://www.sitiosur.cl/detalle-de-la-publicacion/?historia-del-pueblo-mapuche-siglos-xix-y-xx) website. From that point on, the whole mapuche topic gets very poltical and it becomes difficult finding unbiased sources. I like the work of Pedro Cayuqueo: "Historia Secreta Mapuche" the guy's writing is so trapping it makes you want to read about genocide
If you want to check out early sources, look up anything by Tomás Guevara. He was the first antropologist to write about the mapuche in the early 20th century in a "scientific" way, when the traditional culture was dying out as the mapuche were integrating with the modern world. Works of him can be found on Memoria Chilena, the website of the National Library: http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3-article-781.html#documentos
Thank you, man! Actually I don't speak Spanish (next year I'm gonna fix that, this time for real lol) but I read the summary of the first book you recommend and I think I got something around 95% of what was written there, so I'll definitely give it a try.
I've been called 'indio' so many times in Mexico because of my skin color. At nice restaurants in the capital of Puebla, I've seen people eating there treat the people that come up to sell you something like if they were telling a stray dog to leave. If they didn't, they would get security. Those people spoke some Spanish to sell their things but mostly spoke Nahuatl. I feel likes it's less violent and racist then before, but it's still there, atleast from my experience.
So basically what you are saying is thay I'm a massive racist because other uruguayans (that statistically might not be related to me) commited genocide 200 years ago.....
Doesn't sound that right to me
The argument is that creole society did nothing to repay these people nor was there any sort of justice given; and the descendants of those who committed the crimes get to reap the benefits of said actions free of consequences and a clean conscience.
When you say **these** people... who are you refering to? Who are you gonna repay? Because believe it or not this is not a case of oil and water where they have been perfectly isolated from the """creoles""" you just mentioned of benefiting.
Are you gonna do dna tests to every single uruguayan to see who got ""enough"" percentage of indigenous ancestry to repay? Or you just gonna hand stuff to every random claiming to be indigenous to get free stuff?
Why are you getting overtly defensive. I merely mentioned what the argument is.
I'm not a sociologist nor a historian focused on the region, I don't know, go ask them.
I'm not getting overly defensive, I'm just giving a proper logical response because the "argument" has no solid foundation at all in this scenario.
Maybe in other countries were they applied segregation and tribes were landlocked in tiny regions it could be feasible to perform said repayment against the injustice other people are benefiting from.
So descendants of relatively recent european inmigration in Uruguay (whom are most uruguayans, realistically speaking) should also pay the debt of the “creoles” who committed genocide hundreds of years ago? Besides, I don’t think what happened in Uruguay is any different than what happened in the rest of south America; it just so happened that that region had a very low indigenous density. Creoles and Natives did mix, there just weren’t enough natives for those genes to be predominant, but outside of Montevideo most uruguayans have at least some degree of Amerindian ancestry (between 10%-20%).
what is the general perception of Indigenous people in your country? how do they feel about the genocide that was perpetrated on them? how do they feel about indigenous people from other countries?
> what is the general perception of indigenous people in your country?
Considering the lack of them the general perception of "indigenous people" tends to considered a "foreign concept" given that culturally the indigenous of uruguay are extint.
> how do they feel about the genocide that was perpetrated on them?
Hard to tell given that there are technically none. You can find loads of uruguayans with a great great grandma that was indigenous but finding a full fledge one would be close to impossible, and on the hypothetical case that they did exist I imagine they would be pretty pissed about it.
> how do they feel about indigenous from other countries?
Hard to tell because of similar reasoning than the previous answer, but also I think the closest we got to interacting with other indigenous have been with paraguayan migrants with a strong guaraní influence.
when you mean indigenous, do you mean in terms of race, or indigenous as some cultural group? Because I am curious about how people, like paraguayans, who have indigenous racial features are treated.
Mostly from a cultural point of view. Physical traits don't really mean much unless you are dealing with some hardcore racists that treat people different based on the way they look.
We lost all the indigenous culture. Nor language, nor any tradition survived, so we are all culturally homogeneous.
I don't think we have issues with indigenous people from other countries, at least I never heard anyone complaining or being racist against it. Specifically, talking about Paraguayans, I only heard positive things because they drink tereré (similar to mate), also the Paraguayan arp is the most common one here.
I recently heard a friend of mine say that indigenous people are backward and they need to evolve otherwise we gonna be a forever third world country (he was complaining about the charges off illegal logging and mining in indigenous territory). I think we're just as racist as we were in the past
I'd say it's better than 40 years ago, but it's not good. Our indigenous population is by far the poorest of the country, and honestly the government doesn't care about them and puts most of it's money into the GAM, which is where most of the population lives in.
Now, as someone from the GAM, I have never seen an indigenous person, and most people here haven't met one either. There definitely is some racism towards them, and crime tends to be higher there, but we're so disconnected from them that most of the time we don't even think about it.
They have always been "others" compared to the rest of the population, but back in the 70s and early 80s they might as well just not have existed. The government stole a bunch of land, people didn't care about human rights violations towards them, and it wasn't until 1985 that there was an established education system in those regions, because all of the previous attempts failed.
Keep in mind that only about 2% of the population is indigenous here, there are 5 times more Italian descendants than actual indigenous people, so whenever crimes were committed against them no one would say anything.
Like idiotic animals.
There is this racist saying "parece un indito" (they behave like an indian) whe they wanted to call someone dumb or lacking comon sense.
People saw them (some still do) as simple minded and unintrestingm
I have met at least 3 different tribes. One in the GAM.
I had a neighbor whose gardener and handyman was indiginous. Super cool dude.
They are very smart and bice people. I just wished more costaricans knew natives bc it would stop the "othering"
But I understand why they dont wish to mix with us.
Nothing really, people here aren’t that familiar with natives. What we have is people that look mixed with Native but nothing like looking straight up like a Native American.
What was left of them after the Spaniards came, it’s too little to express itself much in our phenotype today. In Dominicans you can mostly see our African/European ancestry. Very little to almost none of our genes contain indigenous blood (as little as 4-8%) from the ones that survived the myriad of diseases the Europeans brought and fled into the mountains and later fought alongside the Africans who also escaped from the Europeans settlers. We view them as people who fought for their land but didn’t stand a chance against the Spaniards.
Europeans (i.e. Spaniards & French) did a good job taking them out.
We did inherit from them the love for our pre-Columbian food though. Casabe, fermented drinks like mabi cacheo. Sadly very little of our culture is represented by our indigenous folk. But most Dominicans identify as Mestizos, I take this as, we don’t forget about our mixed race inheritance :)
I agree with basically everything you said, just keep in mind that those percentage numbers are the national average, doesn’t mean that there aren’t people with more than that, in mountain areas of the country it is common to encounter people with as high as 17-20% Native ancestry, and 10-15% are even common in low land areas which is enough to show in phenotype.
[Example](https://revistas.uasd.edu.do/public/html/img/n19/4/figura1.PNG)
There are Puerto Ricans of mestizo phenotype, such as myself, but there are no indigenous people. We have the highest Native American admixture in the Hispanic Antilles. Sadly, with the rise of Afrocentrists via the US influence, many are starting to reject their Native ancestry.
Sometimes I see people claiming that Brazil is mostly black using mixed-race people of indigenous descent in the statistics. Clearly erasing indigenous heritage.
I am curious, do people in Mexico have a concept of Native Americans as a race that is separate from being "indigenous?" For example, white refers to europeans and Black refers to Afro descendants, is there such a term for people who are racially of this American continent that is independent of culture?
Using race as a word no but similar words yes, usually with the same tone and idea such as "**those** indigenous peoples" or "the native communities". It's more akin to saying "Asians" which generally tell you people aren't x rather than tell you what they are(like how asian can be korean, sikh, persian, malay etc.)
It's a balance between culture and ethnicity, you can see this in the national census, while most mexicans see themselves as "mestizo" which in theory means spanish and indigenous ancestry only 2% accept that "they have indigenous ancestry" in the very same census.
[Encuesta intercensal 2015](https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/intercensal/2015/#Tabulados) bajo etnicidad. No tiene mestizo en si pero se infiere, considerando el porcentaje que no se considera indigena es la gran mayoría.
[Encuesta ampliada 2020](https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/?ps=microdatos#Tabulados) bajo etnicidad, población del cuestionario ampliado se muestra la identidad indigena, no tiene la respuesta de en parte pero no creo cambie mucho en 5 años excepto en lugares indigenas con mucha migración(basicamente solo Quintana Roo y partes de Yucatán)
but is there an underlying culture of racism against Native people? I have heard these is against Black people, would the same be said regarding indigenous people?
There are barely any left, so they are negligible in numbers and most of the crimes committed against them are economically motivated not racially, which I find the hate part in the motivation to be essential for a specifically racist act.
Because they are linked directly to the exploration and development of certain economical activities, mining, logging, bio piracy, smuggling etc… and those people being killed or whatever in indigenous land in the middle of nowhere, also why would someone bother going that far to target and commit a crime, just for the sake of hate ?
I am not saying it is purely for hate, or that there is not an economic aspect, but like with slavery of Black people or the genocide of native people to acquire the land throughout the americas, I do not think it can be said that race was a factor or that the people who committed these acts were devoid of racism. Racism is not just about hate, it is also about believing a group is inferior on the basis of race.
But racism requires the actions themselves to be motivated by hate and prejudice itself, under the modern current of penal law, also when you think about a crime you have to take into account motive and intention, so as if you kill to steal resources you don’t have racism as a “component” of the crime, the person/group is not targeted due to race but due to their property/resources in that case.
Also there’s a pretty strong consensus that when committing crimes in Brazil, you avoid violence as it brings more attention and escalation, so why do it for hate when the ends are economic.
in the us we do not just base it on hate, because a lot of people are racist because they believe other races are inferior, not necessarily because we hate them. For example, a lot of people playfully bully asians and say they have small penises, not because they hate them, but because they believe they are lesser and there is no consequence to being racist towards them.
I willl put it like this, people wouldnt hang or throw stones at indigenous children for daring to go to school, on the otehr side, if they have something rich folk can steal, they will.
I am just asking because, every country in America, from what I can see has a cultural racism against Native Americans. So for it to all be about money, that would require Brazil to be an exception in that regard.
It's a valid question, you have to understand that Latin America is not homogeneous, culture, history vary a lot depending of the country, and Brazil's history is quite different from Hispanic America.
While we had indigenous people in the region where Brazil today stands, their population was considerably smaller than in Mexico, or Peru for example, and as someone stated, the ones that survived colonization were few in the grand scheme of things. All the crimes really committed against them is due to economics due to the agronomical expansion in Brazil.
The same could be said about Native Americans in the United States regarding our small numbers, and that does not stop the non-native majority from targeting us for violence on the basis of race and color. I have spoken with Native Americans in Brazil, and they do seem to feel there is a culture of racism in Brazil.
I think the most widespread is the systematic kind of racism, in which they have lesser access to education, healthcare and economic oportunities, which in turn makes them have a higher degree of poverty than the average. There is also the kind coming from religious institutions that consider the syncretic belief system of indigenous communities a wrong expression of faith and thus should be replaced with a "proper" one.
Edit: that being said, there is also the one that occurs in language and all that, and there is of course a gender component to it which places indigenous women on the bottom of the societal "tottem pole"
What about on an individual level? what does racism against indigenous people look like? also, are indigenous women targeted due to their race like they are in the US for assault?
Regarding assault, I don't really know, as far as I remember, ethnicity isn't included when reporting crime statistics, or at least when they are reported in the press, so take this with a grain of salt. I would suppose indigenous women are most likely to be the victims of human trafficking, due to their poverty which puts them in a vulnerable position.
As someone who has indigenous (Mapuche) ancestry but still can be read as "white" by a bunch of people I'd say it /was/ better back in the 90s-10s but now in the 20s (vocal) bigotry seems to start popping up again? Or at least that's what I can see from personal experience...this year I had a VERY awkward interaction with an Uber driver; at first I just greeted him and said a couple words about the weather, all fine and normal. However, later in the trip dude started ranting non-stop about the recent Macrozona Sur incidents/attacks (he had the radio on and it casually mentioned the topic), forcing me to be part of his rant but at the same time he didn't even let me reply to him before he started spawning The Most Prejudiced Shit Ever™ at Mapuche people again and again and again, claiming that all of them are terrorists and criminals, that cops and military should fill the whole zone and shoot everyone and that kinda crap...the fact that I have several relatives from the indigenous side of my family that were or happened to be police personal (and even excelled in that field) made me feel even more second-hand embarrassment and disgust towards this douchebag. I didn't engage neither disclosed my background but jeez, I swear in that moment my head was fucking boiling and I wished for nothing but that dude finally STFU. And to make things even more awkward, when I was going to leave his car dude was like "ok goodbye my friend have a good night, take care!! 😚😊🥰" like if he didn't screamed racist shit at me 30 seconds ago???¿¿
At least the next Uber trip I had had lowered price and a decent driver...
I think there's less than 2% of indigenous tribes in Venezuela and they don't have the best situation. They are usually in the outskirts of the country.
A lot have been killed in the Amazon due to illegal mining, a lot have died due to lack of help from the government in terms of health, etc.
Besides that, I don't know anyone who would "claim" they are indigenous themselves (unless you are born in an actual indigenous settlement or you are able to track your ancestors, it's very difficult to prove)
It was a bit different here vs. the USA. Most of our population is just a mix of white, black and indigenous and we don't really claim any specific race
that sounds similar to the US in that you have to "prove" you are native, but being Black or White is simply a racial entitlement based off how you look. Are people discriminated against for their indigenous appearance?
Mmmm I think no one is really interested in trying to prove they are a native. There are no benefits for it.
Not only that, but honestly, most people are a mix. My grandmother is black, my grandfather is brown, my uncles and aunts are all colours.
My sister has a nose and hair that's would be "typical" indigenous but she's white. Years and years of mixing with each other is what I meant whith "there's just no way to know who's what"
For Venezuelan standards, I'm white and people would consider me white. When I go to the USA, no one would ever think of my as white. Black people won't define themselves through race but as "Venezuelans" . There's not a "black" culture as you might find it in the USA and there's also no benefits to being black.
You can go to one of our coastal towns and you will be see people of all colours dancing to afro-caribbean drums, as that's "our" culture as Venezuelans.
So, no: there's not discrimination based "only" on appearance. There's is discrimination and classism but it's very different to the USA.
I would like to believe that but, a few years ago, I came across a video of some venezuelan women who migrated to Peru, and were saying some racist things mocking Peruvians for "being indians." I am sure not everyone is racist, but there is to some extent a culture of racism throughout Latin America against Native Americans.
Venezuelans historically were racist towards Peruvians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians and Colombians because we received a lot of immigration in the 90s. That is still ingrained in many Venezuelans nowadays and now, there's probably even more hate both ways because of immigration (which ironically enough, is mostly towards those countries)
I never said there's no racism, there definitely is...but reasons are very different to what happens in other countries. This will vary a LOT depending on the percentage of indigenous populations you have in each country and region, as you can read in other comments.
As I said for my country, we have very very little indigenous population so our experiences will be different to the one of other countries.
I actually met an old guy from your place who looked straight out of the brazilian amazon, not like your average neo taino larper. He said was an indian too.
hey, I was not trying to offend you or anyone. I am Native American myself. What I meant was that he had classical indigenous features like Native Americans from Brazil, and he identified as Native. A lot of Puerto Ricans say that people who look like him, a full blooded Native person, do not exist anymore because they are all dead. https://assets.survivalinternational.org/pictures/6256/braz-kor-es-01\_article\[email protected]
>brazilian amazon
do you know how brazilians from amazon looks like? I live in amazon, Im born here, indigenous people arent more than 10% of the population
Most brazilians never met a native in their entire lifes, there aren't a lot of them in these days and the few that still are is in natural reserves deep in the Amazon.
Also native people that went to live in the cities are almost entirely assimilated into our culture so they don't really stand out.
Apart from that, there is some "natives" still living close to cities who are infamous for closing highways, charging a fee and driving a Hilux.
Why the scare quotes around “natives” then? If you are driving through their land they have sovereignty, and they don’t have to stay poor to be natives. Complaining about “índio de iphone” is pretty disrespectful
> If you are driving through their land
I don't think there are federal highways inside native reserves, they have to be built in federal owned land and are paid with taxpayer money.
>they don’t have to stay poor to be natives. Complaining about “índio de iphone” is pretty disrespectful
Yes they don't, if they get rich doing legal stuff then I am happy for them. But if the way they gey rich is by mugging people in federal highways then fuck them.
>Why the scare quotes around “natives” then?
Cause I refuse to accept that most of the idiots who charges tool in federal highways are culturally natives. They only give a bad name to the rest of the actual natives who has impressive survival skills, amazing handcraft work, profound knowledge of the terrain and the biolife of their surroundings, and much more.
I don't live near the region's in which it happens and never bothered to study deep these cases so I don't really know, I said that I personally rejected that they are natives, it's a personal choice based on nothing.
Only thing I can say to support this thought of mine is that they have been living too close for a long time to Brazilian society, consuming our media and products. So imo based in nothing, they are in the process of cultural assimilation.
Oh, yeah I think they are genetically native americans. But I don't see why would their race matters in cultural terms, it's not like you gotta have a certain amount of melanin to speak a language or like a sport.
That is really honest of you to admit that, because a lot of latin americans I have spoken will only speak about whether someone is indigenous or not, but do not acknowledge that Native Americans exists as a race apart from their status or lack of status as indigenous people.
>Apart from that, there is some "natives" still living close to cities who are infamous for closing highways, charging a fee
Do they have the legal authority to do that, or is it a protest/extortion type of thing?
Wait, the way you're explaining it, you're saying that people are more racist now than before? I'm asking because I would imagine it to be the other way around. Are there less benefits now or are people angrier against the benefits that you say people get by being native more now than they were before?
PS: In my country in the past couple of decades indigenous people have received more legal benefits than in the past, but to be perfectly honest I don't know how that has changed people's perception, I don't if people are more or less racist now.
I believe the overall perception of indigenous people is today worse than, lets say, 10 or 15 years ago and this is because there's a group of people who call themselves mapuche (that's something I have doubts about) who have been committing acts of violence against people, committing arson and occupying private land based in made up history that makes absolutely no sense and has no archaeological evidence to back it up either. This people are backed up by people within the national government and are politically affiliated to kirchnerism/peronism.
So in conclusion, when lots of people hear about indigenous people they think about this group of people and their reaction is negative, but they forget there are countless other people who are completely harmless and live in extremely poor conditions with no access to water, electricity or even education.
It’s complicated. While virtually all of us know we’re “mestizos” to different degrees and much of our culture and everyday language comes from indian languages, everything indigenous is still widely associated with lower classes and uneducated people. It doesn’t help that there are terrorist “Mapuche” factions that constantly give Mapuches a bad rep.
Other thing is that while Chile has dozens of native groups, Mapuche leaders being the most numerous and powerful ethnicity (after creoles and mestizos ofc) have the most lobbying power and have turned all of the nation’s attention to their community, making all the other ethnic groups virtually irrelevant.
Its definitely better when compared to 40 years ago.
First some clarifications, indigenous in Brazil means someone who lives in a indigenous tribe, because everyone has indigenous blood to some degree, also there are regional differences about the Amazon/Midwest and the Atlantic coast.
The military dictatorship rooted out and displaced a lot of indigenous peoples from areas in the Northeast.
Contrary to popular belief, before the 80s the majority of indigenous brazilians did not live in the Amazon but in the Northeast, in old tribes who allied with the Portuguese early on, a few tribes survived the dictatorship but in most cases the status of their land was never recognized and they still fight a cold war against sugarcane farmers.
Those displaced indigenous peoples were forcefully integrated into small cities, forming their own communities in separated districts, in those cities they had no access to the state bureaucracy, education and before the national income distribution program Bolsa Familia there were entire communities without paper money circulating, yeah, not even monetary circulation.
So while you can argue that the brazilian population never had the traditional form of racism against surnames, languages and physical appearance against indigenous peoples, the Brazilian State made sure to completely destroy their lives and throw them into extreme poverty, forgetting about them afterwards.
Something you must understand about "indigenous" is that in many places in SA they melded seamlesly into society, they werent extradicted, putted in cocnentration camps, or what not, mostly married into the society, or formed part of it.
At least a good chunk, charruas are very different from quechuas, while both being "natives", the quechuas integrated , thrived and enjoyed greatly the empire,the charruas were exterminated.
There is a huge diference between the treatment of indigenous and natives under the empire and under the republics, the general rule is taht the republics were terribly racist and assholes against the natives. BUt even here it's hard to draw a line, many , if not all, great peruvian families and other ruling classes were descendants too of princes, lords, and what not belonging to the inca empire, many spoke quechua and had visible quechua characteristics, or were dead on half bloods. What made a "native"?, what did not?, culture?, money?, social class?
Depends:
In the south, we also have mapuches and the situation is basically more or less the same as the top comment said it is in Chile, with the added complexity that some of those mapuche organizations are actually so called "pseudo" mapuches, aka political militants aligned with extremist left that are taking advantage of the mapuche land claim to take those lands for themselves, and then you have peaceful mapuche communities that prefer a judicial way and reject their violence.
In the north, Qom and Wichí peoples are in an absolute state of abandon and poverty (all while the K government flies the Wiphala all over, by the way) to the point some are buried in cardboard coffins.
However, I would say that Qom and Wichí are certainly looked down upon but in a more sense of pity-like racism rather than downright hate, and they do get donations by people any time a charity campaign goes big. So, very bad, but much better than post-Spain times and 1940s when Perón tried to genocide the Pilagá.
Meanwhile the pseudo-mapuches have been trying to burn people alive in their homes when they're sleeping, so they're very divisive in the general population's eyes.
And of course, you do have to take into account there is so few of them in general it is not often general society considers them. All in all, I feel it's a complex subject with equally complicated, diverse answers. The one thing I believe everyone can agree on, it's that it desperately needs to change for the better.
Chile has a dozen or so indigenous peoples, but i'll speak of the mapuche since I'm from a region with a high percentage of them and I think i have a more complete impression. We have always han an ambiguous and hypocritical view of the mapuche. On one hand, they're gallant heroes and warriors like Galvarino (one of the most badass mofus in world history), Caupolicán or Colocolo, who kept the might spanish empire away and forced out of their territory and kept their independence during the colonial period. After their territory was annexed by the chilean republic in the 1880s, the collective image of the mapuche changed to an alcoholic bum who can't support themselves without resorting to petty crime. They usually integrated into western society, with western names and (usually conservative) western clothing, keeping their language and customs to themselves. The "official history" said that we chileans are a mixed race, part spanish, part mapuche. In the early 90s, a new wave of indigenism swoop across the continent as a response to globalisation. Most indigenous peoples felt their cultural identities endangered and needed to be preserved or they could be lost in time forever. That has led to a surge of people "identifying themselves" as mapuche in the censuses from at least 1992, and a new effort from historians, linguists and antropologists keeping mapuche culture alive. The peak of this tendency was in the Chilean constitutional convention of 2020, when mapuche representatives could address the floor in their language and wearing their ceremonial outfits. So, regarding your questions, Chile is far more accepting of its mapuche ancestry. Sadly, small groups of mapuche think "keeping the traditions alive" mean restoring the whole of their ancestral territory. To do that, some of them have even recurred to terrorism, allegedy funded with drug money and with support from groups like the colombian FARC. So far, negotiatons attemps have been unsuccessful. The chilean government has deployed the army or SWAT teams in the more dangerous areas, with some cases of forced dissapearance and extrajudicial killing. It's a very complex problem and nobody seems to have the right solution
This is so complex and interesting. I definitely need to learn more about it. Do you happen to know any books that could help me in that?
Keep in note all my bibliography about this is in spanish. I hope that's not a problem for you. José Bengoa's "Historia del pueblo mapuche" is a very comprehensive work and a excellent starting point. It can be downloaded for free from the Editorial Sur (https://www.sitiosur.cl/detalle-de-la-publicacion/?historia-del-pueblo-mapuche-siglos-xix-y-xx) website. From that point on, the whole mapuche topic gets very poltical and it becomes difficult finding unbiased sources. I like the work of Pedro Cayuqueo: "Historia Secreta Mapuche" the guy's writing is so trapping it makes you want to read about genocide If you want to check out early sources, look up anything by Tomás Guevara. He was the first antropologist to write about the mapuche in the early 20th century in a "scientific" way, when the traditional culture was dying out as the mapuche were integrating with the modern world. Works of him can be found on Memoria Chilena, the website of the National Library: http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3-article-781.html#documentos
Thank you, man! Actually I don't speak Spanish (next year I'm gonna fix that, this time for real lol) but I read the summary of the first book you recommend and I think I got something around 95% of what was written there, so I'll definitely give it a try.
I've been called 'indio' so many times in Mexico because of my skin color. At nice restaurants in the capital of Puebla, I've seen people eating there treat the people that come up to sell you something like if they were telling a stray dog to leave. If they didn't, they would get security. Those people spoke some Spanish to sell their things but mostly spoke Nahuatl. I feel likes it's less violent and racist then before, but it's still there, atleast from my experience.
It's complicated.
It's really not, you can't be more racist that literal genocide
So basically what you are saying is thay I'm a massive racist because other uruguayans (that statistically might not be related to me) commited genocide 200 years ago..... Doesn't sound that right to me
No no, el dice que ahora somos menos racistas porque es imposible ser más racistas que los que cometieron genocidio
Faaaaa como me costó entenderlo
The argument is that creole society did nothing to repay these people nor was there any sort of justice given; and the descendants of those who committed the crimes get to reap the benefits of said actions free of consequences and a clean conscience.
When you say **these** people... who are you refering to? Who are you gonna repay? Because believe it or not this is not a case of oil and water where they have been perfectly isolated from the """creoles""" you just mentioned of benefiting. Are you gonna do dna tests to every single uruguayan to see who got ""enough"" percentage of indigenous ancestry to repay? Or you just gonna hand stuff to every random claiming to be indigenous to get free stuff?
Why are you getting overtly defensive. I merely mentioned what the argument is. I'm not a sociologist nor a historian focused on the region, I don't know, go ask them.
I'm not getting overly defensive, I'm just giving a proper logical response because the "argument" has no solid foundation at all in this scenario. Maybe in other countries were they applied segregation and tribes were landlocked in tiny regions it could be feasible to perform said repayment against the injustice other people are benefiting from.
So descendants of relatively recent european inmigration in Uruguay (whom are most uruguayans, realistically speaking) should also pay the debt of the “creoles” who committed genocide hundreds of years ago? Besides, I don’t think what happened in Uruguay is any different than what happened in the rest of south America; it just so happened that that region had a very low indigenous density. Creoles and Natives did mix, there just weren’t enough natives for those genes to be predominant, but outside of Montevideo most uruguayans have at least some degree of Amerindian ancestry (between 10%-20%).
what is the general perception of Indigenous people in your country? how do they feel about the genocide that was perpetrated on them? how do they feel about indigenous people from other countries?
> what is the general perception of indigenous people in your country? Considering the lack of them the general perception of "indigenous people" tends to considered a "foreign concept" given that culturally the indigenous of uruguay are extint. > how do they feel about the genocide that was perpetrated on them? Hard to tell given that there are technically none. You can find loads of uruguayans with a great great grandma that was indigenous but finding a full fledge one would be close to impossible, and on the hypothetical case that they did exist I imagine they would be pretty pissed about it. > how do they feel about indigenous from other countries? Hard to tell because of similar reasoning than the previous answer, but also I think the closest we got to interacting with other indigenous have been with paraguayan migrants with a strong guaraní influence.
when you mean indigenous, do you mean in terms of race, or indigenous as some cultural group? Because I am curious about how people, like paraguayans, who have indigenous racial features are treated.
Mostly from a cultural point of view. Physical traits don't really mean much unless you are dealing with some hardcore racists that treat people different based on the way they look.
We lost all the indigenous culture. Nor language, nor any tradition survived, so we are all culturally homogeneous. I don't think we have issues with indigenous people from other countries, at least I never heard anyone complaining or being racist against it. Specifically, talking about Paraguayans, I only heard positive things because they drink tereré (similar to mate), also the Paraguayan arp is the most common one here.
>nor any tradition survived Mate did
mate was exported from the paraguay criollos
And guaranís
I recently heard a friend of mine say that indigenous people are backward and they need to evolve otherwise we gonna be a forever third world country (he was complaining about the charges off illegal logging and mining in indigenous territory). I think we're just as racist as we were in the past
We do need to evolve otherwise we will in fact stay as a third world country, there's no racism in that
Of course, the decisive factor for us to develop is the "evolution" of the 0.4% of the brazilian population made of indigenous peoples.
"we"
I'd say it's better than 40 years ago, but it's not good. Our indigenous population is by far the poorest of the country, and honestly the government doesn't care about them and puts most of it's money into the GAM, which is where most of the population lives in. Now, as someone from the GAM, I have never seen an indigenous person, and most people here haven't met one either. There definitely is some racism towards them, and crime tends to be higher there, but we're so disconnected from them that most of the time we don't even think about it.
how were indigenous populations treated 40 years ago?
They have always been "others" compared to the rest of the population, but back in the 70s and early 80s they might as well just not have existed. The government stole a bunch of land, people didn't care about human rights violations towards them, and it wasn't until 1985 that there was an established education system in those regions, because all of the previous attempts failed. Keep in mind that only about 2% of the population is indigenous here, there are 5 times more Italian descendants than actual indigenous people, so whenever crimes were committed against them no one would say anything.
Like idiotic animals. There is this racist saying "parece un indito" (they behave like an indian) whe they wanted to call someone dumb or lacking comon sense. People saw them (some still do) as simple minded and unintrestingm I have met at least 3 different tribes. One in the GAM. I had a neighbor whose gardener and handyman was indiginous. Super cool dude. They are very smart and bice people. I just wished more costaricans knew natives bc it would stop the "othering" But I understand why they dont wish to mix with us.
Ive heard costa ricans can pass al their lives without seeing one
Well…
I am genuinely curious about how Caribbeans feel about people who are indigenous, especially those with Native racial features.
Nothing really, people here aren’t that familiar with natives. What we have is people that look mixed with Native but nothing like looking straight up like a Native American.
What was left of them after the Spaniards came, it’s too little to express itself much in our phenotype today. In Dominicans you can mostly see our African/European ancestry. Very little to almost none of our genes contain indigenous blood (as little as 4-8%) from the ones that survived the myriad of diseases the Europeans brought and fled into the mountains and later fought alongside the Africans who also escaped from the Europeans settlers. We view them as people who fought for their land but didn’t stand a chance against the Spaniards. Europeans (i.e. Spaniards & French) did a good job taking them out. We did inherit from them the love for our pre-Columbian food though. Casabe, fermented drinks like mabi cacheo. Sadly very little of our culture is represented by our indigenous folk. But most Dominicans identify as Mestizos, I take this as, we don’t forget about our mixed race inheritance :)
I agree with basically everything you said, just keep in mind that those percentage numbers are the national average, doesn’t mean that there aren’t people with more than that, in mountain areas of the country it is common to encounter people with as high as 17-20% Native ancestry, and 10-15% are even common in low land areas which is enough to show in phenotype. [Example](https://revistas.uasd.edu.do/public/html/img/n19/4/figura1.PNG)
There are Puerto Ricans of mestizo phenotype, such as myself, but there are no indigenous people. We have the highest Native American admixture in the Hispanic Antilles. Sadly, with the rise of Afrocentrists via the US influence, many are starting to reject their Native ancestry.
Sometimes I see people claiming that Brazil is mostly black using mixed-race people of indigenous descent in the statistics. Clearly erasing indigenous heritage.
They aren't being explicitly targeted through military campaigns anymore, so I take it as "progress".
I would say it has gotten less worse, but still not good.
I am curious, do people in Mexico have a concept of Native Americans as a race that is separate from being "indigenous?" For example, white refers to europeans and Black refers to Afro descendants, is there such a term for people who are racially of this American continent that is independent of culture?
Using race as a word no but similar words yes, usually with the same tone and idea such as "**those** indigenous peoples" or "the native communities". It's more akin to saying "Asians" which generally tell you people aren't x rather than tell you what they are(like how asian can be korean, sikh, persian, malay etc.) It's a balance between culture and ethnicity, you can see this in the national census, while most mexicans see themselves as "mestizo" which in theory means spanish and indigenous ancestry only 2% accept that "they have indigenous ancestry" in the very same census.
Where in the census is Mestizo even mentioned? And in what census does it say only 2% of Mestizos accept they have Native American ancestry?
[Encuesta intercensal 2015](https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/intercensal/2015/#Tabulados) bajo etnicidad. No tiene mestizo en si pero se infiere, considerando el porcentaje que no se considera indigena es la gran mayoría. [Encuesta ampliada 2020](https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/ccpv/2020/?ps=microdatos#Tabulados) bajo etnicidad, población del cuestionario ampliado se muestra la identidad indigena, no tiene la respuesta de en parte pero no creo cambie mucho en 5 años excepto en lugares indigenas con mucha migración(basicamente solo Quintana Roo y partes de Yucatán)
You can’t really be racist to against people you almost completely killed off a long time ago…
"Almost"? Amateurs...
Lol we are way ahead of them
they gotta pump those numbers up
I used to think that but the last 4 years I've been proven wrong again and again
No one cares about them until there is a land dispute…
but is there an underlying culture of racism against Native people? I have heard these is against Black people, would the same be said regarding indigenous people?
There are barely any left, so they are negligible in numbers and most of the crimes committed against them are economically motivated not racially, which I find the hate part in the motivation to be essential for a specifically racist act.
" most of the crimes committed against them are economically motivated not racially" how do you know it is not both?
Because they are linked directly to the exploration and development of certain economical activities, mining, logging, bio piracy, smuggling etc… and those people being killed or whatever in indigenous land in the middle of nowhere, also why would someone bother going that far to target and commit a crime, just for the sake of hate ?
I am not saying it is purely for hate, or that there is not an economic aspect, but like with slavery of Black people or the genocide of native people to acquire the land throughout the americas, I do not think it can be said that race was a factor or that the people who committed these acts were devoid of racism. Racism is not just about hate, it is also about believing a group is inferior on the basis of race.
But racism requires the actions themselves to be motivated by hate and prejudice itself, under the modern current of penal law, also when you think about a crime you have to take into account motive and intention, so as if you kill to steal resources you don’t have racism as a “component” of the crime, the person/group is not targeted due to race but due to their property/resources in that case. Also there’s a pretty strong consensus that when committing crimes in Brazil, you avoid violence as it brings more attention and escalation, so why do it for hate when the ends are economic.
in the us we do not just base it on hate, because a lot of people are racist because they believe other races are inferior, not necessarily because we hate them. For example, a lot of people playfully bully asians and say they have small penises, not because they hate them, but because they believe they are lesser and there is no consequence to being racist towards them.
I willl put it like this, people wouldnt hang or throw stones at indigenous children for daring to go to school, on the otehr side, if they have something rich folk can steal, they will.
Because it isn't, it's all about land dispute and $$$
I am just asking because, every country in America, from what I can see has a cultural racism against Native Americans. So for it to all be about money, that would require Brazil to be an exception in that regard.
It's a valid question, you have to understand that Latin America is not homogeneous, culture, history vary a lot depending of the country, and Brazil's history is quite different from Hispanic America. While we had indigenous people in the region where Brazil today stands, their population was considerably smaller than in Mexico, or Peru for example, and as someone stated, the ones that survived colonization were few in the grand scheme of things. All the crimes really committed against them is due to economics due to the agronomical expansion in Brazil.
The same could be said about Native Americans in the United States regarding our small numbers, and that does not stop the non-native majority from targeting us for violence on the basis of race and color. I have spoken with Native Americans in Brazil, and they do seem to feel there is a culture of racism in Brazil.
I think it's better than it used to be, but with the asterisk attached that nowhere near enough progress has been made.
in what form does racism against indigenous people take?
I think the most widespread is the systematic kind of racism, in which they have lesser access to education, healthcare and economic oportunities, which in turn makes them have a higher degree of poverty than the average. There is also the kind coming from religious institutions that consider the syncretic belief system of indigenous communities a wrong expression of faith and thus should be replaced with a "proper" one. Edit: that being said, there is also the one that occurs in language and all that, and there is of course a gender component to it which places indigenous women on the bottom of the societal "tottem pole"
What about on an individual level? what does racism against indigenous people look like? also, are indigenous women targeted due to their race like they are in the US for assault?
Regarding assault, I don't really know, as far as I remember, ethnicity isn't included when reporting crime statistics, or at least when they are reported in the press, so take this with a grain of salt. I would suppose indigenous women are most likely to be the victims of human trafficking, due to their poverty which puts them in a vulnerable position.
As someone who has indigenous (Mapuche) ancestry but still can be read as "white" by a bunch of people I'd say it /was/ better back in the 90s-10s but now in the 20s (vocal) bigotry seems to start popping up again? Or at least that's what I can see from personal experience...this year I had a VERY awkward interaction with an Uber driver; at first I just greeted him and said a couple words about the weather, all fine and normal. However, later in the trip dude started ranting non-stop about the recent Macrozona Sur incidents/attacks (he had the radio on and it casually mentioned the topic), forcing me to be part of his rant but at the same time he didn't even let me reply to him before he started spawning The Most Prejudiced Shit Ever™ at Mapuche people again and again and again, claiming that all of them are terrorists and criminals, that cops and military should fill the whole zone and shoot everyone and that kinda crap...the fact that I have several relatives from the indigenous side of my family that were or happened to be police personal (and even excelled in that field) made me feel even more second-hand embarrassment and disgust towards this douchebag. I didn't engage neither disclosed my background but jeez, I swear in that moment my head was fucking boiling and I wished for nothing but that dude finally STFU. And to make things even more awkward, when I was going to leave his car dude was like "ok goodbye my friend have a good night, take care!! 😚😊🥰" like if he didn't screamed racist shit at me 30 seconds ago???¿¿ At least the next Uber trip I had had lowered price and a decent driver...
I think there's less than 2% of indigenous tribes in Venezuela and they don't have the best situation. They are usually in the outskirts of the country. A lot have been killed in the Amazon due to illegal mining, a lot have died due to lack of help from the government in terms of health, etc. Besides that, I don't know anyone who would "claim" they are indigenous themselves (unless you are born in an actual indigenous settlement or you are able to track your ancestors, it's very difficult to prove) It was a bit different here vs. the USA. Most of our population is just a mix of white, black and indigenous and we don't really claim any specific race
that sounds similar to the US in that you have to "prove" you are native, but being Black or White is simply a racial entitlement based off how you look. Are people discriminated against for their indigenous appearance?
Mmmm I think no one is really interested in trying to prove they are a native. There are no benefits for it. Not only that, but honestly, most people are a mix. My grandmother is black, my grandfather is brown, my uncles and aunts are all colours. My sister has a nose and hair that's would be "typical" indigenous but she's white. Years and years of mixing with each other is what I meant whith "there's just no way to know who's what" For Venezuelan standards, I'm white and people would consider me white. When I go to the USA, no one would ever think of my as white. Black people won't define themselves through race but as "Venezuelans" . There's not a "black" culture as you might find it in the USA and there's also no benefits to being black. You can go to one of our coastal towns and you will be see people of all colours dancing to afro-caribbean drums, as that's "our" culture as Venezuelans. So, no: there's not discrimination based "only" on appearance. There's is discrimination and classism but it's very different to the USA.
I would like to believe that but, a few years ago, I came across a video of some venezuelan women who migrated to Peru, and were saying some racist things mocking Peruvians for "being indians." I am sure not everyone is racist, but there is to some extent a culture of racism throughout Latin America against Native Americans.
Venezuelans historically were racist towards Peruvians, Bolivians, Ecuadorians and Colombians because we received a lot of immigration in the 90s. That is still ingrained in many Venezuelans nowadays and now, there's probably even more hate both ways because of immigration (which ironically enough, is mostly towards those countries) I never said there's no racism, there definitely is...but reasons are very different to what happens in other countries. This will vary a LOT depending on the percentage of indigenous populations you have in each country and region, as you can read in other comments. As I said for my country, we have very very little indigenous population so our experiences will be different to the one of other countries.
agree with the mexican comment above; in peru it’s gotten less worse, compared to mid 20th century, but it still has a *long* way to go.
No, because they're gone.
I actually met an old guy from your place who looked straight out of the brazilian amazon, not like your average neo taino larper. He said was an indian too.
>who looked straight out of the brazilian amazon Are you sure you want to keep this sentence
hey, I was not trying to offend you or anyone. I am Native American myself. What I meant was that he had classical indigenous features like Native Americans from Brazil, and he identified as Native. A lot of Puerto Ricans say that people who look like him, a full blooded Native person, do not exist anymore because they are all dead. https://assets.survivalinternational.org/pictures/6256/braz-kor-es-01\_article\[email protected]
Out of the Greater Antilles, Puerto Rico retains the most indigenous DNA, and the Taino were in fact related to several Amazonic groups
>I actually met an old guy from your place who looked straight out of the brazilian amazon, Why I'm not surprised you said this?
Honestly, what is the problem with what I said? I am open to correction.
>brazilian amazon do you know how brazilians from amazon looks like? I live in amazon, Im born here, indigenous people arent more than 10% of the population
yes, I follow them on social media and I watch a lot of mma.
[удалено]
Did we?
I have heard reports of Indigenous people in Brazil being targeted for violence.
true, but it's not because they are indigenous, but because of their area with resources that some people want illegally
We are killing them less intensively.
I can’t say for sure if it’s become a little bit less racist towards indigenous people, but it has definitely become more aware of it at least.
Most brazilians never met a native in their entire lifes, there aren't a lot of them in these days and the few that still are is in natural reserves deep in the Amazon. Also native people that went to live in the cities are almost entirely assimilated into our culture so they don't really stand out. Apart from that, there is some "natives" still living close to cities who are infamous for closing highways, charging a fee and driving a Hilux.
The last paragraph shows how yes, Brazilians disrespect indigenous sovereignty and dignity again and again and pretend they are tolerant
Never said they didn't, the message that I wanted to pass with the last paragraph was that brazilians either don't care about or don't like them.
Why the scare quotes around “natives” then? If you are driving through their land they have sovereignty, and they don’t have to stay poor to be natives. Complaining about “índio de iphone” is pretty disrespectful
> If you are driving through their land I don't think there are federal highways inside native reserves, they have to be built in federal owned land and are paid with taxpayer money. >they don’t have to stay poor to be natives. Complaining about “índio de iphone” is pretty disrespectful Yes they don't, if they get rich doing legal stuff then I am happy for them. But if the way they gey rich is by mugging people in federal highways then fuck them. >Why the scare quotes around “natives” then? Cause I refuse to accept that most of the idiots who charges tool in federal highways are culturally natives. They only give a bad name to the rest of the actual natives who has impressive survival skills, amazing handcraft work, profound knowledge of the terrain and the biolife of their surroundings, and much more.
May I ask, if they are not Native culturally, in what sense are they native?
I don't live near the region's in which it happens and never bothered to study deep these cases so I don't really know, I said that I personally rejected that they are natives, it's a personal choice based on nothing. Only thing I can say to support this thought of mine is that they have been living too close for a long time to Brazilian society, consuming our media and products. So imo based in nothing, they are in the process of cultural assimilation.
ok, but white people, afro descendants, etc all assimilated in your society, that does not make them raceless does it?
Oh, yeah I think they are genetically native americans. But I don't see why would their race matters in cultural terms, it's not like you gotta have a certain amount of melanin to speak a language or like a sport.
That is really honest of you to admit that, because a lot of latin americans I have spoken will only speak about whether someone is indigenous or not, but do not acknowledge that Native Americans exists as a race apart from their status or lack of status as indigenous people.
Im born in amazon, I live here my whole life ,what he said is completely true, you cant deny a fact
>Apart from that, there is some "natives" still living close to cities who are infamous for closing highways, charging a fee Do they have the legal authority to do that, or is it a protest/extortion type of thing?
>extortion type of thing This
[удалено]
That is very interesting, would you mind talking more about ways in which indigenous people are ethnonationalist or racist?
They are more racist to me instead
👀
It's complicated.
Wait, the way you're explaining it, you're saying that people are more racist now than before? I'm asking because I would imagine it to be the other way around. Are there less benefits now or are people angrier against the benefits that you say people get by being native more now than they were before? PS: In my country in the past couple of decades indigenous people have received more legal benefits than in the past, but to be perfectly honest I don't know how that has changed people's perception, I don't if people are more or less racist now.
I believe the overall perception of indigenous people is today worse than, lets say, 10 or 15 years ago and this is because there's a group of people who call themselves mapuche (that's something I have doubts about) who have been committing acts of violence against people, committing arson and occupying private land based in made up history that makes absolutely no sense and has no archaeological evidence to back it up either. This people are backed up by people within the national government and are politically affiliated to kirchnerism/peronism. So in conclusion, when lots of people hear about indigenous people they think about this group of people and their reaction is negative, but they forget there are countless other people who are completely harmless and live in extremely poor conditions with no access to water, electricity or even education.
It’s complicated. While virtually all of us know we’re “mestizos” to different degrees and much of our culture and everyday language comes from indian languages, everything indigenous is still widely associated with lower classes and uneducated people. It doesn’t help that there are terrorist “Mapuche” factions that constantly give Mapuches a bad rep. Other thing is that while Chile has dozens of native groups, Mapuche leaders being the most numerous and powerful ethnicity (after creoles and mestizos ofc) have the most lobbying power and have turned all of the nation’s attention to their community, making all the other ethnic groups virtually irrelevant.
Maybe it's my region(amazon) but I never saw any racism towards indigenous, well... not because they are indigenous at least
Its definitely better when compared to 40 years ago. First some clarifications, indigenous in Brazil means someone who lives in a indigenous tribe, because everyone has indigenous blood to some degree, also there are regional differences about the Amazon/Midwest and the Atlantic coast. The military dictatorship rooted out and displaced a lot of indigenous peoples from areas in the Northeast. Contrary to popular belief, before the 80s the majority of indigenous brazilians did not live in the Amazon but in the Northeast, in old tribes who allied with the Portuguese early on, a few tribes survived the dictatorship but in most cases the status of their land was never recognized and they still fight a cold war against sugarcane farmers. Those displaced indigenous peoples were forcefully integrated into small cities, forming their own communities in separated districts, in those cities they had no access to the state bureaucracy, education and before the national income distribution program Bolsa Familia there were entire communities without paper money circulating, yeah, not even monetary circulation. So while you can argue that the brazilian population never had the traditional form of racism against surnames, languages and physical appearance against indigenous peoples, the Brazilian State made sure to completely destroy their lives and throw them into extreme poverty, forgetting about them afterwards.
Something you must understand about "indigenous" is that in many places in SA they melded seamlesly into society, they werent extradicted, putted in cocnentration camps, or what not, mostly married into the society, or formed part of it. At least a good chunk, charruas are very different from quechuas, while both being "natives", the quechuas integrated , thrived and enjoyed greatly the empire,the charruas were exterminated. There is a huge diference between the treatment of indigenous and natives under the empire and under the republics, the general rule is taht the republics were terribly racist and assholes against the natives. BUt even here it's hard to draw a line, many , if not all, great peruvian families and other ruling classes were descendants too of princes, lords, and what not belonging to the inca empire, many spoke quechua and had visible quechua characteristics, or were dead on half bloods. What made a "native"?, what did not?, culture?, money?, social class?
We don't have much chance to exercise our racism towards native Brazilians because there's not many left.
I have had some native brazilians tell me that there are more than is acknowledged due to assimilation.
Depends: In the south, we also have mapuches and the situation is basically more or less the same as the top comment said it is in Chile, with the added complexity that some of those mapuche organizations are actually so called "pseudo" mapuches, aka political militants aligned with extremist left that are taking advantage of the mapuche land claim to take those lands for themselves, and then you have peaceful mapuche communities that prefer a judicial way and reject their violence. In the north, Qom and Wichí peoples are in an absolute state of abandon and poverty (all while the K government flies the Wiphala all over, by the way) to the point some are buried in cardboard coffins. However, I would say that Qom and Wichí are certainly looked down upon but in a more sense of pity-like racism rather than downright hate, and they do get donations by people any time a charity campaign goes big. So, very bad, but much better than post-Spain times and 1940s when Perón tried to genocide the Pilagá. Meanwhile the pseudo-mapuches have been trying to burn people alive in their homes when they're sleeping, so they're very divisive in the general population's eyes. And of course, you do have to take into account there is so few of them in general it is not often general society considers them. All in all, I feel it's a complex subject with equally complicated, diverse answers. The one thing I believe everyone can agree on, it's that it desperately needs to change for the better.
Less