Talk:First Nations in Canada/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Indians

I don't know enough about the topic to change the article, but I would appreciate it if someone (especially, a Canadian Wikipedian) would comment on the article's use of the word "Indians" throughout. In the U.S., many Native Americans find this term offensive, and don't agree with its use - should it be used to explain what "First Nations" means? --Xinoph 07:53, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Indian is the term used in the Indian Act and the Indian Register, which together define who are members of First Nations. I find First Nation offensive, because it implies that Indians have autonomy, which the rest of us Canadians are careful not to let them have. The term has been seized on by the government to imply that it's forward-thinking and open-minded, which it sure isn't about aboriginal peoples. Anyway, whatever term you find offensive, you can't change the fact that the Indian Register registers Indians and the Indian Act's official name is An Act respecting Indians. Of course, it's perfectly legitimate to observe in the article that people find Indian offensive. John FitzGerald
There are many in the U.S. actually prefer "Indian" to "Native American." It's not a cut-and-dried situation. (Both names, after all, were coined by whites and thrust on the people.) I imagine the same is true in Canada. Funnyhat 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say that in Canada despite anyone's personal feelings on terminology "Indian" is an accepted legal and constitutional term in our system of governance. Until that changes "Indian" will remain in use, at least in a legal context. Wyldkat

First Nations

I am new to wiki and have the knowledge to change the article on First Nations of Canada as it pertains to my people, The Namgis First Nation (a First Nation under the Kwakwaka'wakw) but do not at the moment have the time. It has long been an incorrect term to call the Kwakwaka'wakw people Kwakiutl. The Kwakiutl people are an individual group of the Kwakwaka'wakw, which means 'Kwakwala speaking people' in kwakwala, a language of the Wakashan group. Franz Boas did a lot of exploring and research with a man named George Hunt, from Ft. Rupert where the Kwakiutl live, and from that research all the people that Boaz came into contact in the area were incorrectly called Kwakiutl, instead of being recognized by their different group names.

Some kwakwaka'wakw people are; 

 Kwakiutl from Ft. Rupert
 Mamalilikala from Village Island
 Namgis from Alert Bay
 Dzawada'enux from Kingcome Inlet

There are many more but I do not have the time right now to fix this entry.

As for the term indians, I myself do not find it offensive at all, nor do many other first nations that I know. It's simply a mistake that was made when America was 'discovered' and thought to be India.

Brian Svanvik

Confusing redirect

Canadian Holocaust redirects here -- but there's no content here about any such thing. That's extremely confusing -- we either need to have the content here, or else (more likely) Canadian Holocaust needs to be an article in its own right. Any opinions? More importantly, anyone who actually knows what the term refers to, and could write such content? I know I can't! 17:16, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canadian Holocaust should simply be deleted. It is not a commonly used name for any event or historical phenomenon, and the title is inherently POV. I have added "Canadian Holocaust" to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Indefatigable 15:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean with the Canadian Holocaust, never heard of it. You might mean the Japanese Canadian Internment. Danthemango

Re: First Nations as bands

Someone placed this unsigned coment in the article. I've moved it here. Radagast 13:42, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

(- - what does "Band" mean in this context? I am guessing it has a specific legal/political/social meaning. Could somebody do a wiki page?)

Canadian First Peoples category?

I'm posting this here because I suspect few people watch the Category:Canadian First Nations page. In the second paragraph of this First Nations of Canada article, it states:

"The First Nations people of Canada are made up of four main groups, excluding the Inuit in the North and Métis. The collective term for all three aboriginal groups is First Peoples."

With the growing Category:Métis and Category:Inuit Categories currently within the Category:Canadian First Nations, should the latter category be renamed to something that refers to the label 'First Peoples' rather than 'First Nations'? Otherwise it is incorrect to include the Métis and Inuit under this larger term. Thoughts? Kurieeto 22:21, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about my initial suggestion and I've found ways to improve it. I suggest that a new Category be created and labelled "Canadian First Peoples". It would begin empty, and then the existing Métis and Inuit categories would be moved from the Canadian First Nations category and placed into the new Canadian First Peoples Category. Then the Canadian First Nations category and the article First Peoples would be added to the new First Peoples category. The above would correct the currently incorrect groupings. I invite comments regarding this matter, if none are received in a week I'll go ahead with the changes as I've suggested. Kurieeto 00:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why are the Inuit excluded? Aren't they also "First Nations?" Funnyhat 20:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When the Aboriginal peoples' lobby groups coined the term first nation, it was a euphemism for Indian reserve. The Inuit and Metis are not part of the treaty and reserve system, so they are not first nations. Indefatigable 20:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the article

I feel this article should be renamed for two primary reasons. First, the naming guidelines of the Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs advise that one should "Avoid describing Aboriginal people as "belonging" to Canada. Use neutral terms instead."[1] "First Nations of Canada" implies belonging, as does the name of Category:Canadian First Nations. Given the desire to avoid implying belonging, one initial alternative name for this article would be "First Nations in Canada".

Secondly, I've looked into the wikilinks that direct traffic to this article. Currently there are three active redirects that lead here, "First Nations", "First Nation", and "List of First Nations". I've changed wikilinks that were structured as "First Nations of Canada|First Nations" or "First Nations of Canada|First Nation" to instead simply be "First Nations" or "First Nation", so that the redirects established are accurate reflections of how often those terms are used in other articles.

With that in mind, here is how many wikilinks exist on Wikipedia to this article, and which go to redirects.

  1. First Nations of Canada - 35 wikilinks, 7.0%
  2. First Nations - 361 wikilinks, 72.6%
  3. First Nation - 99 wikilinks, 19.9%
  4. List of First Nations - 2 wikilinks, 0.4%

The above statistics demonstrate that it is only proper for the actual name of this article to be used in 7% of Wikipedia articles that link to it. Therefore, the two most frequently used redirects, "First Nations" and "First Nation", should also be considered as replacement names.

Keeping in mind that I advise Category:Canadian First Nations should be renamed as well, "First Nations" may be the ideal replacement name for both this article and the category mentioned. It is neutral, used in over 70% of the traffic to this article, is brief, and can be easily modified for sub-categories such as Category:First Nations culture, Category:First Nations people, etc. Mentioning "Canada" in either the article or category name is redundant as the terms "First Nation" and "First Nations" are not used in any other country. Additionally, Canada is mentioned in the first sentence of the current revision of the article. Similarly, the mention of Canada in a descriptive sentence in the proposed Category:First Nations should also be sufficient. Suggestions and comments? Kurieeto July 2, 2005 16:23 (UTC)

I've put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves for the article to be moved to First Nations as discussed above. Kurieeto 04:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

First Nations of Canada → First Nations The current wording of "First Nations of Canada" implies belonging, which is advised against by the Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs when referring to Aboriginal peoples in Canada [2]. First Nations is currently used as a redirect to First Nations of Canada, but the article has an edit history so this move requires an administrator. As of July 2, 2005, only 7% of all Wikilinks to First Nations of Canada are direct links. Slightly more than 70% of all Wikilinks to the article go through the First Nations redirect, and another 20% go through a redirect at First Nation [3]. The term "First Nations" is not used in any other country, making the inclusion of "Canada" unnecessary in the article name. "Canada" is also mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Kurieeto 04:04, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Thanks for doing the work on this. I fully support your proposal. Sunray 06:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The fact that this term is not used outside Canada is an argument for keeping it as is, not for changing it. Gene Nygaard 08:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support First Nations (strongly) per 'use the most common name' policy. Second choice First Nations (Canada). Niteowlneils 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Niteowlneils' second choice if disambiguation should become necessary. older≠wiser 03:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep as is or use the second choice "First Nations (Canada)" proposed by Niteowlneils. – AxSkov (T) 08:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would support First Nations (Canada) -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, no need to specify that they are of Canada. - SimonP 01:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. The articles First Nations and First Nations of Canada have been swapped, to preserve the article history. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The fact that this term is not used outside Canada is an argument for keeping it as is, not for changing it. Gene Nygaard 08:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Gene. I wanted to ask you what your thoughts are with regard to my first point, that the naming guidelines of the Government of Canada's Department of Indian and Northern Affairs advise that one should "Avoid describing Aboriginal people as "belonging" to Canada. Use neutral terms instead."[4] At the conclusion of my initial paragraph I provided "First Nations in Canada" as an solution to avoiding this problem, what do you think of that option? A Google search of "First Nations of Canada" yields 8,000 hits, while a search of "First Nations in Canada" yields 11,200 hits. I really hope that an alternative title name can be found because I feel that when only 7% of all Wikilinks to this article are direct links, there exists a strong indiciation that the current title can be improved. As more general information, I googled "First Nations" and got 1,810,000 hits, as well as "First Nation", which got 635,000 hits.
I would also add that your concerns about identifying Canada with First Nations could alternatively be accomplished by the following writing style within articles: "The Tsuu T'ina Nation is a First Nation in Canada." This allows us to link to two related articles, First Nation and Canada, instead of to just one. Kurieeto 14:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The term apparently is spreading outside Canada (US[5], Caribbean[6]), although the Canadian usage is overwhelming enuf for this article to have primary disambiguation, as it currently does via the redirect. But primary disambiguation thru a redirect in most cases, including this one, seems pointless to me--if it's the most common use, just move the article there. While I agree First Nations in Canada is better than "First Nations of Canada", I think First Nations (Canada) is even better, as it makes it easy to only display the first two words using [[First Nations (Canada)|]], plus "First Nations of Canada" only gets 8k hits, and "First Nations in Canada" gets only 11k. "First Nations" canada gets over one million. Niteowlneils 02:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The redirects work fine for linking. Your other arguments are like trying to keep Sweden out of Gustavus Adolphus (follow the link to whatever the title ended up being there and see the renaming discussion, probably on the talk page). In other words, it is unrelated to the "use the most common name policy"—it is additional identifying information in addition to the name. This is most useful in things such as category listings. One reason why it is particularly useful in this case is the inclusion of the word "nation" in the name. If this gets put into some category not specific to Canada, the only thing that shows up in the category listings is the title of the article. It is also useful in another sense; it helps all those search-engine searches you are doing, or done by anyone else, by making that appear in the searches (and the fact that it is in the title moves it up in the priority of presenting the results in most search engines, and some can specifically limit searches to titles as well). I don't care much about how the Canada is presented; maybe the parenthetical one would be best. Gene Nygaard 11:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe a better example related to your Google searches is Theo van Gogh (art dealer) or grain (measure). You won't find many hits for either of those as specific phrases, I'd bet. Certainly nowhere near the 8,010 hits for the specific phrase "First Nations of Canada" and the 11,300 hits for the specific phrase "First Nations in Canada", which would probably have little overlap so would total nearly 20,000. Gene Nygaard 11:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
In both those cases, disambiguation is necessary in the title because both "Theo van Gogh" and "grain" have articles with other uses of the term. That is not the case with First Nations--there are no other articles by just that name. I am not aware of ANY general policy or guideline that suggests including "...additional identifying information in addition to the name." in an article title. Koala doesn't redirect to Koala (Australia); 10 Downing Street doesn't redirect to 10 Downing Street of England or 10 Downing Street (UK. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is there solely because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for 'monarchical titles'. Niteowlneils 13:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the choice of First Nations (Canada) will likely result in the number of direct links to the article continuing to decrease from 7%. I would ask at what threshold we would acknowledge that an article title is not suitable if it has such a low percentage of direct links.
Additionally, the choice of how Canada is presented in the article name, if that becomes the consensus to do, is very important. Keeping "First Nations of Canada" continues to imply belonging which is in direct conflict with the guidelines of a respected source, the Government of Canada. "First Nations in Canada" avoids this problem, and is a phrase that is more likely than "First Nations (Canada)" to be able to be used in common language in Wikipedia articles. Kurieeto 16:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kurieeto are that [[First Nations (Canada)|]] (that is the name followed by a horizontal bar "|") results in the name appearing in the text without the bracked word: First Nations, so it is likely that the number of direct links will go up if that name is adopted. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with that technique, but I find it cumbersome if Wikipedia editors are choosing the phrase "First Nations" 70% of the time, with that percentage likely increasing. Kurieeto 18:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
My understand is that we are supposed to use "Article Name (something)" in cases or disambiguation ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation) or in cases where precision is needed (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). In the case we are dealing with, it seems to me that using First Nations (Canada) would mean that there is a First Nations (other place). Is it the case or not? If it is the case, then First Nations (Canada) would make sense, assuming there really is enough difference in the use of the term in Canada vs some other place. Otherwize, I think First Nations alone is the most logical choice. -- Mathieugp 18:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The norm is that something like "of Canada", "in Canada" or "(Canada)" would be used as disambiguators. If the term doesn't exist outside of Canada, then there's nothing to disambiguate this article from -- and thus the geographic disambiguators don't belong in the title. I support the move. Bearcat 22:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Following the successful requested article move, I have made requests at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion & renaming for Category:Canadian First Nations to be renamed to Category:First Nations, Category:Canadian First Nations culture to be renamed to Category:First Nations culture, and Category:Canadian First Nations people to be renamed to Category:First Nations people. On the same page I have also made proposals regarding four other categories that relate to Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Kurieeto 03:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Shouldn't this article mention the serious problems many Indians face in Canada? ie poverty, alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence etc? TastyCakes 20:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Diversity

I think the section on diversity needs to be removed or seriously changed. It currently provides very little if any accurate information. Breaking up indigenous groups by geographic area is useful, but not based in anything concrete, and that should be made clearer. The Secwepemc and the Haida don't have much in common, as far as I know. Even language families are a problematic grouping scheme, but that's a whole different story. -- TheMightyQuill 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal Issues Pertaining to The Phrase "First Nations" vs "Aboriginal Peoples and Indigenous Peoples

I understand the need to catagorize for the sake of Wiki readers, and indeed, I also understand the need of the Canadian Government to catagorize for their own purposes. But what about the needs of the Aboriginal Peoples/Indigenous Peoples as well? Are their desires, or their very legitimate grievances about being labelled by other people to count for much? I certainly hope that the Wiki project doesn't become unwittingly a tool of the assimilationists and neo-colonizers... and let me explain here, why I am afraid of some of what I have seen sprinkled through the pages to do with these issues...

Agreed "First Nations" and "First Peoples" is a common parlance for all people, Metis, Inuit, "Indian" , Indigenous, Aboriginal, whatever the Canadian Government or regular Joe Six-Pack Canadian, people want to call us or indeed, what some Indigenous People have taken to calling themselves.

Where the term "First Nations" or "First Peoples" becomes problematic however is that for those Indigenous Peoples who have Treaty Rights, which are Nation-to-Nation relationships with Canada and the Indigenous Nations, and especially for those Indigenous Nations who have not signed Treaties, the use of the phrase "First Nations" or "First Peoples" to self-describe, or being described as such by the Canadian Government places us in grave peril insofar as our ability to recourse under International Law Covenants, and being able to reference The Royal Proclamation 1763, which is enshrined in the Canadian Constituion Act Section 25.

These phrases "First Nations" and "First Peoples" while I understand them to be seen as politicaly correct, and at least insofar as they are certainly a damned sight better than "Indian", are actually part of the assimilation agenda.

"First Nations" and "First Peoples" under International Law are only Domestic Ethnic Minorities within Canada. As such they may appeal to the UN on those grounds for violations of their human rights, but when it comes to those Aboriginal Nations, Indigenous Nations of Indigenous Peoples, who are seeking recognition of their Sovereignty and recourse with the UN via the Vienna Convention on Treaties 1969, (Wiki it) we simply can not afford to use this sort of terminology. If we do, when making our case to the UN, all Canada needs to do is say "These people are not "Indigenous Peoples or Tribes or Nations" they are "Domestic Ethnic Minorities" and as such the UN has no place or mandate to intervene on their behalf unless we are violating their rights as minorities within Canada.

For my part, and those of the Indigenous Nation that I belong to, I insist on the use of the phrase "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples" or "Indigenous Tribes or Nations" -- and will not use "First Nations" as nice of a catch-phrase as it is, and as PC as it has become. It doesn't help us in our very serious efforts to achieve recognition of independence and assertion of our Sovereignty to Nation-States beyond Canada.

I strongly encourage people to check out the work of Janice Switlo on this subject (Link to her articles and position papers is available at her website which is linked to from her wiki entry). Switlo is an excellent international law expert specializing in Indigenous Rights. Our Nation has recieved advice from Ms.Switlo for a few years now, and it is because of her instruction that we are ever so cautious in how we self-describe, and are tedious to the point of anal-retentiveness when it comes to making sure that we do not get "trapped" by the english words that the Canadian Government is throwing around to "stuff all us Indians" into a neat little box called "First Peoples" and as such avoid having to actually deal with these pesky little things called TREATIES and the honor of the crown being at stake in not continuing to actually Treat with the remaining Indigenous Nations on a Nation to Nation basis.

Hope this explains why there might be some confusion and bitterness on this subject from both the Indigenous side of the debate and the non-indigenous side of the debate over these phrase. I know people mean well by the use of these words, but honestly, thanks to my understanding of the legal realities involved, I cringe in horror, everytime I see them being used, especially when they are being used with more legitimacy than other terms that do have weight and substance in International law.

Thank you for taking the time to read all this Somena 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your criticism, and agree, but I'm not sure how we can fix it. Is your suggestion, then, that we scrap the First Nations and American Indian labels, and concentrate on Indigenous Peoples of North America? And then break things down by language family, or physical geography (plains/coast/etc) from there? -- TheMightyQuill 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Mighty Quill. I was actually thinking of asking Ms.Switlo for advice on this. It seems an overwhelming task since so much good work has gone on already and the point of all this is to enhance that work, and not disrupt it.

The problems are numerous...Firstly because many people firmly believe that using the term "First Nations" is the only polite way to refer to Aboriginals or Indigenous Peoples. And then there are even Indigenous people in Canada who also insist on the term, not knowing, or understanding what's at stake. Believe me, I used the term quite frequently for a number of years until Switlo painstakingly explained to me and my elders what was wrong with it's common usage as it pertained to our rights as a Sovereign Nation.

Perhaps an entry devoted to just the discussion - where members of the Indigenous Wiki Project could all participate, and where we could reference some of the materials mentioned, like the Royal Proclamation 1763, (relevant sections), the British North America Act, The Vienna Convention on Treaties 1969 (which went into effect in 1980 and of which Canada is a signatory to) and Canadian Constituion sections 25 and 35 -- particular emphasis on 25, since it refers to rights derived from Treaty, and specifically mentions Rights of Aboriginal/Indigenous people protected by the Royal Proclamation. This page would also link to UNPO whick I believe already has a few Indigenous Nations within North America signed on.

It also doesn't help that the UN also has attempted to skirt the issue by creating a forum for Indigenous People that focuses primarily on the rights of Indigenous Peoples AS domestic ethnic minorities in Canada, while not much is or has been done on the side of those who seek a Nation-To-Nation relationship with Canada and other Nations.

It also doesn't help that from time to time, when there are changes in the AFN, a body that is supposed to "represent" Indigenous People in Canada does silly things like Abolish the International Law division at the AFN, (as has happened during Phil Fontaines term) So in essence, at this time, there is no officially recognized body of Indigenous People in Canada that the Canadian government recognizes which is seeking equal Nation-to-Nation status. I think the wiki entry that claims the AFN represents Aboriginal People in Canada is a bit of a misnomer as well, since it's budget comes from the Canadian Government, and it is primarily a lobby group, generally with tight connections to the Federal Government, and we've seen what happens if the AFN bucks the trend that the DIA is pursuing... (like what happened during Matthew CoonComes term when the budget was slashed again and again, simply because CoonCome was not dancing to the tune of the Feds and took his campaign to raise awareness of what was occuring in Canada with respect to it's relationship with Aboriginals on the road to Europe and addressed a world-wide audience there.

Then there is the issue of militancy, and those non-indigenous people who seem to believe that Aboriginal People who assert their sovereignty are all scary bad guys -- ie The Warrior Societies that assist when there is a protest or a blockade or such. Sovereigntists within Indigenous Politics have to walk an incredibly thin line between militancy and aggressive assertion of rights, especially in cases of terribly egregious rights violations, and the desire for true lasting peace, which will only be achieved when Treaties are honored, and the Crown continues what it must do, and actually continue to negotiate real Treaties with un-treated with Nations... instead of what is currently going on in BC, which is called the "BC Treaty Process" but is actually just fake name for a "Land Claims Agreement" process, which is an attempt to get Aboriginals to cede and go along with the extinguishment of their rights and claims, in exchange for some sort of cash settlement.

There are a whole lot of people, who have a whole lot invested in keeping this "First Nations" and "Indian Act" business going. This is just more backgrounder on the whole matter to explain what exactly Indigenous Nations seeking that their Sovereign Rights remain intact are facing on a daily basis. There's no quick solutions -- and I can already see that the very good work that has gone on thus far, can be re-arranged to accomodate the Sovereignists... but it's going to require some thought as to how to do it, without being disruptive.

Just my thoughts on it for now. best Somena 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the appropriateness of the terminology in question, Wikipedia has a policy of neutrality (WP:NPOV) and can't legislate usage. If "First Nations" is what an knowledgeable English speaker would use to refer to something having to do with aboriginals in Canada, then that's (unfortunately from your perspective) the word that should be used.
For a more comprehensible example, if Wikipedia had been around in, say, the 1950s, it would have to refer to aboriginals in Canada as "Indians" and "Eskimos", because those terms were then current. --Saforrest 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Plurality

The article doesn't exactlly explain in itself why the title is listed in plural; could someone clarify? Paul C 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean first nations rather than nation? Because there are more than one of them? Perhaps I misunderstand the question.. TastyCakes 18:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant; I asked because the naming conventions include preference for singular nouns. Paul C 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. No I think plural is appropriate here because "First Nations" is the PC term for the various aboriginal groups in Canada. Each is considered a seperate nation, but all are referred to in this article. I'd say it's the direct equivalent of "Aboriginal people of Canada" or something like that. TastyCakes 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify: "First Nations" in common usage refers to "Indian" people and NOT to Inuit or Métis people, so it cannot be used as a synonym for "Aboriginal People" (or "Aboriginal Peoples") which would include First Nations (old term "Indians"), Inuit (old term "Eskimos") and Métis. (I use the old terms just to be sure I'm understood, not to indicate that I approve of them.) The discussion above is complex and fascinating; I am driven to make only a couple of comments at this point: 1) Despite Canadians' reputation for compliance, we actually pay relatively little attention when government departments tell us how to speak; we may not even notice. So, with respect to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's handwringing about about avoiding any hint that First Nations "belong" to Canada, try Googling "Canada's First Nations"; that's right, a cool 52,000 hits, many from highly reputable sites, including Canadian Government, media, publishers and university sites. Personally I don't interpret this as implying that First Nations are chattels of the Canadian state, but only as indicating that Canada is where they live and have their roots; however, I appreciate that some First Nations people may have a more sinister interpretation. 2) The possible arcane legal implications of saying "First Nations" as opposed to "Indigenous Tribes or Peoples" are beyond my expertise to judge; I only know that I have never encountered any evidence that people who use "First Nations" are choosing this term as a way of undermining indigenous peoples' rights. Most would be baffled by the suggestion. Good luck with this one! Count Vronsky 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


The first sentence in the Controversial terminology paragraph states that the term "First Nations" came in to common usage in the 1970s and was coined in the 1980s. This is a fallacy - if the term was in common use in the 1970s, it couldn't have been coined afterwards. It would be nice if someone could clarify when the term was coined.

Merge with Aboriginal peoples in Canada?

While editing an article I came across the two articles First Nations and Aboriginal peoples in Canada. I seems to me that they are more or less synonymous. Shouldn't they be merged, and if so, which name should be used? I have not tagged them for merging as I am adept at things Canadian, and I am hoping that some clarification should be made by the experts first. --Ezeu 19:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. First Nations, aka North American Indians, are a subset of aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal people also include Inuit and Metis in addition to First Nations. Luigizanasi 19:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I withdraw my suggestion. --Ezeu 20:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong, & I assumed that probably you removed my tag. The distinction you referred to is POLITICAL, these's articles must be merged.
68.148.165.213 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
He is not wrong. First Nations are one subset of Aboriginal peoples in Canada; the other two are Inuit and Métis. Of course, that has already been said. --Kmsiever 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
He is wrong, Canada imposed this distinction, as I said above, & I'M SERIOUS, that this is POLITICAL. Humans are much more alike than not, I don't know how to explains this to you guys; linguistically, there are First Nations that are so radically differnt, & from a genetic POV, some are more differnt than others, but I AM POSTIVIVE that these distinctions because of these 3 groups do not correspond to said linguistic & genetic group differences. Here's another example, if you want to be even more nittygritty, the Métis are mixed First Nations & European, so they technically aren't "pure" or [a] First Nation[s].
68.148.165.213 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. Which is why Métis are not included in the First Nations article. --Kmsiever 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aboriginal people in Canada are of three recognized groups: Metis, First Nations and Inuit. This is a legal definition set out in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 [7]. Moreover, Metis people and Inuit people are pretty vocal that they are not First Nations and some resent the focus and benefits afforded to First Nations people who are Status Indians (aka Registered Indians) under treaty. There is another group who are First Nations by blood, but that have no benefits; they are known as non-Status Indians. It's all very confusing even for those of us who have worked in government for so long but many of these divisions are entirely artificial and possibly even designed to be so by the Canadian government's policy of funding one group over another to breed discontent[8]. There is much written in both legal texts and in the academic literature on all of this, yet most Canadians are ignorant of this part of their history[9]; it's quite a shame because Aboriginal history and policy is quite rich; it is also quintessentially Canadian. As for the genetic bio-molecular argument and blood-quantum arguments, they are not very convincing for the simple reason that the government and much of Canadian society implements these so-called political divisions. They may as well be real because everyone treats them as being real and there is real legislation to that effect. For example, if you move to Italy and two generations later, voila, your children's children would probably be considered Italian even if all their spouses were imported. Why? Because of legislation, not because of genetics. Nobody (yet) goes about asking for mitochondrial or autosomal markers as proof of nationality. Well, there goes my lunch hour. Let's all hope Wikipedia will help sort it out! 142.104.100.20 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Please leave genetics out of this for another reason.

Indian women lost their Indian status when they married a non-Indian before 1985. Non-Indian women got Indian status when they married a man having Indian status. If their male offspring married a non-native woman the same happened again. So whatever validity the concept of race may have it certainly doesn't make much sense with respect to Indians in Canada. gatorinvancouver June 11, 2007

It doesn't matter if they are the same or if First Nations are a subset of Aboriginal people in Canada, they can still be merged. Personally, I think the articles cover much of the same subject matter and it makes a lot of sense to combine them. TastyCakes (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted to watch for a First Nations spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http://wabanoong has it/ Wabanoong Communications - Aboriginal Fine Arts & Culture]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal Land Claimswithdrawn68.148.165.213 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC) and Indigenous peoples of the Americas

These distinctions are only political, maybe it might be required to make the distinctions in the merged article, but defintely not by separting these & each of these articles. And if there are any articles along these lines please merge them.

It seems to me that the articles were separted [if they were once a single article] because the how First Nations were treated differently in US & in Canada. If that was the reason the article was broken up, then the article title is off. I should be The Treatment Of First Nations In Canada, & The Treatment of First Nations In US.

Also, First Nations Land Claims [it should also be renamed as] is a fundamental part of the history & politcal landscape of the First Nations; it just makes sense that it should merged with the article.withdrawn68.148.165.213 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

68.148.165.213 14:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments here.[10] --Kmsiever 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of Indigenous

Why is it done? What does it mean? MisterSheik 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It suggests a formal status for "Indigenous Peoples" (i.e. Aboriginal peoples) as opposed to just indigenous in the way that someone can be indigenous to Toronto (if they were born there). - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B class, although it requires cleanup, expansion and more inline citations, and of high importance as I feel that this topic plays a vital role in the understanding of the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. Badagnani (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First Nations disaster

This article should mention the volcanic eruption of Tseax Cone which caused a large disaster killing 2,000 First Nations and distroyed two First Nations communities. Black Tusk (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:First_Nations_in_Canada/Archive_1"