Talk:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
View comments (edit) First nations people have always been excluded from the formation of this greatest of all nations. Canada or Kanata as it was first called is a first nations term. First nations is a term used for lack of a better accepted term by the foriegn hords that first came to this great country and still do to this day. After the great epedemics that followed first nation populations were decimated, their food sources eliminated these first nations catastrophies were taken as fortuitus events by the governing bodies of the establishing dominion. Settlement was easy after, and immagration became the vechile of choice to overrun a nation of people. Along with warring factions between the French and English,the Hudson bay, North west company and the Revillon Frefres company and then you had pacifism by the church of England and French Catholics vying for dominance it was a miracle first nations did not become completely extinct. There are many things that occurred in history in Canada that the Canadian government is not too proud of or too willing to put into his historical documentation and will not take account for. This nation was built for economic reasons to proliferate it's natural resources and compete in the world markets at any cost all else came later. First nations were exclude from the developement of the french and english governing systems. proper governing policies and legislation was not implemented, with respect to first nations. These policies could not apply to first nations because they were adopted from European nations and first nations lacked the experiences of Europe. Of all the best academic minds in the world why is there nobody who could solve the dilemma of first nations. If it is up to first nations themselves why than are these not accepted by the controlling governments. First nations people seem to be held hostage in their own country, and unlike the many other foriegn nations of people we cannot go back from where we originate because Canada is where we are genuinely from. Although these statements may sound like generalizations, one need only to understand Thoroughly Canadian history its people and it's developement excluding first nations. The going trend for generation after generation of immagrants to this great place is, merely to jump on the already established band wagon, claw your way to the top and keep your position and status on the pecking order and do like the locals do, if you see the locals discriminating do like they do. This being an entirely new form of lower discrimination,and there will always remain first nations and exclusion inthis state of things people feel priveleged.

[edit] Completely redundant

Everything in this article is contained in the article First Nations of Canada. Two things were in this article and not in said better article, the capitalization of "Aboriginal" and a few external links, and i have moved both. Furthermore, the other article has much more content. We only need one page for this material (info on "Aboriginal" is on the other page). Since "Aboriginal" is not the current preferred title for natives in Canada, i believe that this must be a redirect instead of a stub article.

I noticed this from the stub category, came here and after looking over both this and the aforementioned article i have concluded that this is (after moving the two pieces of material to the other page) 100% redundant. Why such an action should be debated is beyond me, other than to preserve someone's additon - which isn't the point of Wikipedia.

"Being throrough is not being redundant": this is not being thorough. if you want to be thorough, add more content to the larger article. to be thorough is to go deep into a topic's material, not to repeat already-stated information.

update: in your edit on First Nations of Canada, you have linked a more complete article to an article of repeated content. Kilter 19:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for such a rash action. If Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada belongs on Wikipedia, then an article for the same topic does as well. We need a central article that addresses the collective aboriginal ethnicities of Canada: The First Nations, the Métis, and the Inuit. If any Wikipedian is unsatisfied with the amount of content in the current Aboriginal peoples in Canada article then they are encouraged to add to it.

Furthermore, if future paragraphs were to be written for example about the health of Aboriginal populations and communities in Canada, given the above proposal that information would go into the First Nations of Canada article. This is incorrect and is an insult to the Inuit and Métis people, as it would imply that they are secondary to those of First Nations ethnicity. Having an Aboriginal peoples in Canada article ensures that all three ethnicities are treated with equal respect.

Additionally, "aboriginal" is the current preferred title used by the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit to refer to themselves collectively. There is strong evidence for this, including articles here on Wikipedia. The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, Aboriginal Voices Radio, the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation and the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards exist just to name a few. It is also the preferred terminology used by the Government of Canada. An example of this is National Aboriginal Day. This article itself references the naming guidelines of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs who advise in favour of the use of the word "aboriginal" [1].

All articles can grow. The question to be addressed is: Is the subject noteworthy enough to merit its own article? For all of the reasons above, I strongly believe so. Kurieeto 20:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ok so here's a deal

You move all of the content from the "First Nations" article to this one and redirect. I dont really care which one has all the content, but there is no sense in two having the same content and topic. Either way, i cant help you out because i'm going to Scotland for a month. So, since "Aboriginal" is the "proper" term, please move all First Nations article content to this one and let the debate end. But whatever makes most sense to you. I just highly suggest that these two articles be merged in whatever way possible under your guidelines so that Wikipedia users will have one source for the information they will be looking for. Such a revision may mean a number of category changes as well (there is a First Nations in Canada category as well, i think). Good luck in the work.

"Aboriginal" is only the proper term when referring to the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit in Canada collectively. Therefore, an article for each ethnicity must remain in some form. I don't disagree with you that better organization is needed, but this content on Wikipedia is a slow work in progress. Please see Aboriginal peoples in Alberta for an example of where I think the "Aboriginal" grouping works very well. I'll do my best to have the content in question as easily accessed as possible, but this will likely require some time for consultation with others. I would also be surprised if the consensus that develops is to eliminate the Category:Canadian First Nations as there are many articles that relate only to the First Nations, and not to the Métis and Inuit as well at the same time. Kurieeto 15:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the difference?

I definitely respect the cultural differences between different people groups, but I do not understand why Métis and Inuit are not included as part of the term "First Nations". Were they not here before European colonization? Do what we currently call First Nations not also have cultural distinctions? I do not believe their relative size should be a factor. I don't think anyone would ever say "Russians and Europeans" or if they did (considering that much of Russia is in Asia), they would never say "Chinese and Asians". If they made a distinction, they would say "Chinese and other Asians". If we must make a distinction, why not "Métis, Inuit, and other First Nations"? Obviously, a talk page on Wikipedia has about 0% likelihood of changing terminology, and again, Wikipedia should reflect what is in use. But I still wonder: why the difference? Why are they excluded? If anyone has a good answer or a comment, feel free to leave it here, or on my talk page, where I will be far more likely to see it.

On a side note, I, as a citizen of the United States and of European descent, consider the term "First Nations" vastly better than "Indian", which sounds a) like a term from the 1800s; b) offensive, derogatory, or at best disrespectful (due to the way the US sees and has seen the term, even though reactions by people to which the term is applied vary widely); and c) technically incorrect, since Indians, if not from India, are from the West Indies (another obsolete and problematic term), which makes them West Indians (though I would call them Haitians, Jamaicans, etc. or refer to them by their tribal names). Mainly, I guess, I feel the term "Indian" does not respect culture (including the culture of India and the culture of the First Nations, etc.), while terms like "Native Americans" and "First Nations", while being collective, still respect culture (like the term "Europeans" does), despite the fact that a significant percentage of Native Americans in the US call themselves Indians and another significant percentage see the term as neutral. This is why I think that the Indian Registry and other similarly-named government programs and institutions should change their names (as the US has done, though certainly not because the US has done so). Besides, a 600-year-old mistake by Columbus and company should not be perpetuated by us, nor should it decide our terminology. Accuracy, like cleanliness, is next to godliness, I think. --Cromwellt|Talk 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Métis and the Inuit are also "First Nations"; but as their own groups, they have their own distinct names. Each of the other NATIVE tribes also has its own name; that is the name of its nation (Anishnabe, Hodenashone, Mi'kmaq, etc). But when you speak of the Métis as a group, and the Inuit as another group, then you want to speak of all the other NATIVE peoples as a third group apart from these other two, then they are called the "First Nations" by default, for want of a more exclusive term (even though the "First Nations" is really inclusive of all of these).

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Helping Indigenous People By Use of the Phrase "First Nations"

Look, I know people mean well, by trying to use the phrase 'First Nations' - but the phrase itself was only invented a decade or so ago, and when Aboriginal or Indigenous People or Government use it, it can do irrepairable harm to the claims of Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples to push their case for Sovereignty, and settlement of Land Claims, via the UN.

'First Nations' have no legal rights under International Law Covenants. This term "first nations' is slowly being used to replace "Indians" -- and I know that it was invented and has been used in an attempt to be less offensive to Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples, however, it's a misnomer. If anything, if I had my druther's as an Indigenous person, who belongs to an Indigenous Nation that has, as of yet not signed a Treaty with the Crown, I'd rather see the "First Nations" wiki entry moved and replaced by the Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal Peoples entry than the other way around.

It's a small but very important legal and technical distinction being made here. One that can have far reaching consequences for Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples. For those who seek assimilation, and the extinguishment of their rights, and to become nothing more than members of a domestic ethnic minority in Canada, I take no issue with them calling themselves "First Nations" -- that's what the term was invented for. But for those of us who would like to keep our culture, our statehood, and our rights intact, and unfringed upon, we must insist on the term "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples" and the term "Tribes or Nations being used interchangeably, just like with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Thanks for your attention to this contentious issue. Somena

No, "First Peoples" is NOT "technically incorrect", nor a misnomer. It's "technically correct". They were sovereign nations long before there was a Canada, they NEVER abrogated that sovereignty, they fit every definition of the word "first" and the word "peoples", an as for your argument that it does not "help" or "international recognition", that is irrelevant becaue they don't need "help". It's simply a fact that they are sovereign, and you cannot point to the calendar date when they ceased to be. It is only "technically incorrect" in the eyes of the Canadian Government, I guess you can imagine how legitimate the First Nations consider that pointof view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Explanation

I'm just pointing out that when, for example my Indigenous Nation takes our case to UNPO or to the UN, if we use terms like "First Nations" or "First Peoples" we will have no standing, except to be seen as "domestic ethnic minorities" under International Law. I don't know what Nation you belong to, but my Nation has never signed a Treaty, has never signed away any of it's rights, our rights as a Sovereign Entity have never been extinguished and we will not consent to any attempt by the Federal Government of Canada or Colonizers to stick us in the little box of "domestic ethnic minority".

Read the Royal Proclamation of 1763, (it's available on Wiki) Look at the words used by the King to describe the people whom he was dealing with. He uses the phrase "Tribes or Nations". NOT "First Nations". As such, protections that are afforded to us under the Royal Proclamation, which is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, are only available to those of us who belong to "Tribes or Nations". "First Nations" was simply invented a decade and a half or so ago, and it holds no weight in the courts, or in the laws. Use it in common every day talk if you must. Use it in the privacy of your homes. But do not allow your Band, Nation, or Tribe to put forward any document that claims they are a "First Nation" instead of a "Tribe or Nation" or that they are "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples". The reasons for this are laid out in the Vienna Convention on Treaties, 1969, or which Canada and Great Britain are a signatory to.

I don't know what you and your nation are doing to protect your rights, or to assert your sovereignty, but for those of us who are actually working to assert such rights, under International Law, NOT UNDER domestic law, we can't afford sloppy language that undermines our position in any way shape or form.

I highly recommend you check out Janice Switlo's web entry, visit her site, and especially read her two articles there called "Apple Cede" as well as "Trick or Treaty".

I understand why it is that my relations feel that "First Nations" is good, and I'll admit that it's slightly better than just "Indians" and "Indian Bands" -- but for extra gusto in asserting one's rights, and that of their nations Sovereignty... (not just talking about it -- actually doing it... we must be very very careful to make sure that the white, man's words are not used to "trap" us into a legal situation that we did not see coming.

Switlo's articles should help you understand why I am explaining this to you. I fully understand your position, and I 100% believe that whatever Nation you belong to is a Sovereign Nation of Indigenous People. I got it. You don't need to convince me. But, collectively, we do at some point need to convince other Nations in the world to recognize this historical and legal reality, and the only way that is going to happen is under efforts made under International Laws.

Feel free to chat me up more about this on my talk page. Cheers Somena 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Aboriginal peoples in Canada?

Discuss at Talk:First Nations. --Ezeu 19:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Suggestion withdrawn. --Ezeu 20:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with First Nations, Native Americans in the United States, Aboriginal Land Claimswithdrawn68.148.165.213 15:49, 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 14:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Conditions are entirely different for Native peoples in Canada than in the US or elsewhere, and have been ever since these were separate entities. This is a logical division of subject matter and there's no reason why all the articles should all be lumped into one mega-article, or why this article shouldn't exist as its own article because of what it addresses. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very sure if your experienced with Wikipedia. They are POLITICAL separate entities, obviously BECAUSE of the governments. They were their own nations as much as the Catalan & Basque Nations in Spain or the Gasgon Nation in France. Or the English Nation, refering to England and the English. They had their OWN govenments, their OWN sociologies, its only because of Coloniazation that they lost all this. This is a illogical division of of '...subject matter...'; this division ACKNOWLEDGES how they are only NOW politically divided, the 49th parallel or whatever did not divide the Original Nations rightly. You could include in the article how the HISTORY & how they are divided, between the US and Canada, & how they have affected them but because they are a group, like the Orientals, or Europeans are a group, they should have their one article.

68.148.165.213 16:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, ethnically, they are not one homogenous group. There are Algonquians in both countries, who are socially and linguistically distinct from Hokan-Siouan, Athapascan, etc. Different nations not only had completely different languages, but different beliefs, customs, etc. There should be articles about each of these distinct subdivisions, and this article is specifically about the modern political situation which should not be confused between US and Canada. I actually agree that the boundary line was arbitrarily drawn and is essentially meaningless to First Nations Peoples from any historical standpoint. But reality is that conditions and legal status for First Nations today varies depending on what side of that border you're talking about. No matter how legitimate or not the means for establishing that border were, it is internationally recognised in the here and now. As for my experience with wikipedia, I've been around long enough to see several similar proposals for merging this page get shot down for this reason. Welcome to the article, and have a nice day! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: See my comments here.[2] --Kmsiever 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)