Talk:Pueblo clown

A fact from Pueblo clown appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Pueblo Clowns were priests in the Kachina religion of the Pueblo Indians?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/January.

Wikipedia

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Religion

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History?[edit]

Anyone knows the origin of this tradition? I don't think there are clowns before the contact with Europeans, but I don't know if this is really a clown, or is it actually something else that happens to resemble one and thus named as such. Yel D'ohan (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Blackface from the chart[edit]

It doesn't belong in a group with clown archetypes. It's not an archetype or persona. This 'role' was not earmarked for professional performers, did not require expertise, was not born out of a custom or central figure in our country's zeitgeist.

Additionally, it is NOT okay to casually list a term like this in a group with the others without some caveat, asterisk, or clarification. Even worse, rolling over the word and then going to the actual article doesn't properly frame the word either.

Hell, I'm even willing to engage in a debate about whether this screwed-up blip in our history is a form of a clown but there needs to be some accountability here. I'm not asking for censorship by any means. Just making sure to do our due diligence for people that aren't familiar with the history.

The lack of accountability for our language and history is exactly why there are people openly saying they don't see what the big deal is. Looking at the Blackface article, I would bet that the author actually has that point of view. To be clear...BLACKFACE IS ABSOLUTELY RACIST AND NOT OKAY. Why? If you have to ask why, you won't understand but at the very least...it's offensive because of the question. If a stranger on a train asked you to stop kicking her seat or singing to the top of your lungs, you'd absolutely do it just because that's the human thing to do. Responding to the request with, 'what's your problem? I don't see why it bothers you.' Is offensive and absurd.

Happy to chat about it. Thank you for reading. Grokante (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]