Toronto Star asks: Is "Indian" a derogatory word?
PUBLIC EDITOR
As artistic director of Native Earth Performing Arts, a theatre company dedicated to "artistic expression of the Aboriginal experience in Canada," Yvette Nolan well understands the power of words to both harm and to heal.
On the wall above her desk hangs a photo published in the Star in October 2006. Taken at a Caledonia rally to protest the occupation by those from the Six Nations reserve who claim that land slated for a housing development belongs to native people, the photo shows a protester holding a sign that reads, "Get a job, you filthy Indians."
Nolan, an Algonquin, considers "Indian" to be an outdated and derogatory word for which to label Canada's aboriginal peoples and was incensed by the sign's crude message. Still, she ordered a copy of the photo and hung it above her desk as a vivid reminder of the importance of the theatre company's mission to "communicate to our audiences the experiences that are unique to Native people in contemporary society."
Public education about language, labels and the right to self-identify is an ongoing role for this theatre company. For last month's debut of A Very Polite Genocide or The Girl Who Fell to Earth, an exploration of aboriginal identity and the "scar tissue" of the residential school system, Native Earth provided reviewers with an "education guide." That guide clearly articulated the company's view that "Indian" is "archaic and offensive.
"To use the term Indian when referring to Aboriginal people is considered derogatory," it states.
So how come, despite that information, the Star's Dec. 11 review twice used the word "Indian" to reference aboriginal people, not surprisingly causing much outrage within this theatre company and the wider aboriginal community?
Uh, yes it is, and it is offensive asking it here such as you did.
The Star is also wrong!
__________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Is it the prominent term in the USA? For example, the AIM or has its usage been supplanted there.
Yes, it is.
Just using the title of the article. I didn't realize the title didn't get posted with the article but I can't go edit the OP.
I posted this thread because I know there is great debate about it. Some FN people I have met have no problems with it, while others take great issue with it. I also know some FN people who have issues with the term aboriginal, which isn't brought up in the article. Wanted some feedback from people about what they think /know.
It's not a simple question. "Indian" is still a legal category in both Canada and the U.S., from the Indian Act, to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, to the issues of status and non-status Indians, etc. I am unaware of any public outcries demanding these words all be changed immediately, but I may be mistaken on that. Likewise in the U.S., there's (for example) the very impressive new Museum of the North American Indian in Washington, which was designed and operates with much Aboriginal support.
It's obviously an outdated term, an inaccurate term, a term which can be and is used in abusive ways, and a term which (I believe) most Aboriginal organizations don't use (at least in Canada) and are progressively pushing to replace by more respectful and accurate terminology. It's a question of historical forward movement.
Obviously babblers, progressive folks, and I myself will never use the term, except rarely when we have to distinguish between status and non-status in some minute legalistic context, but even then we'll talk about FN or Aboroginal or indigenous or Metis (is that a derogatory term???), as the case may be.
Having said all this, I stand to be corrected.
I wonder if those people who actually use that term would mind if they were referred to as ignoramuses and morons?
I wonder if those people who actually use that term would mind if they were referred to as ignoramuses and morons?
Well, once again, Fidel, it depends on which country, which context, etc.
Ya, and I think the average monthly income for indigenous people on reserves down there is something like $350/mo and owning some of the worst health and mortality statistics in that country.
And by the way, I dont use the word "Indian" except when referring to people who originate from India. That way I'm not mistaken for a Yanqui or a moron from Ontario.
The term "non-status Indian" is certainly derogatory in most circumstances. The only exception I can think of is when so-called "non-status Indians" use it to describe the fact that they are not recognized under the apartheid Indian Act and are on that technical basis denied access to most of the rights, programs and services available for registered "status Indians".
Several court decisions have confirmed that there is no legal basis for treating "status Indians" and "non-status Indians" differently, and that doing so constitutes illegal discrimination, yet both levels of government have ignored these decisions and continue to treat "non-status" as non-existent.
Refuge, I changed the title of your thread, hope you don't mind. If people see "Is 'Indian' a derogatory term" it will make some people think this thread is for debating whether it is or not, as opposed to discussing the media's use of the term.
Honestly, I'm always kind of amazed that the Indian Act still uses the term, too. Why haven't they changed it or at least updated it, I wonder? Of course, as Joey Ramone says, the Act probably needs way more of a substantive overhaul than simply the terminology used in it.
I love how, in the article, they say it's very "important" to point out that they didn't MEAN to offend anyone. Well, if you didn't MEAN to be racist, then I guess you weren't, right?
It's important to note that there was no intent to offend here. Still, I understand why offence was taken. Though freelance theatre critic Mark Selby, mindful of Native Earth's guidance, used the word "aboriginals" in the review he wrote, a Star copy editor changed that to "Indians."
That editor, who had not seen the theatre company's education guide, did so in line with a long-time Star style dictum that tells journalists here "to avoid the terms First Nations, natives and aboriginals as nouns" and further adds that, "The word Indian, while objectionable to some is still perfectly useable."
When informed of this, the theatre group called on the Star to find "more respectful ways to refer to Aboriginals," saying that it considers the Star's policy on this to be, "as educated as Christopher Columbus was an expert navigator."
How could that POSSIBLY still be part of the Toronto Star's style guide, that editors should go out of their WAY to refer to Indigenous people as "Indians" and that it explicitly recommends AGAINST using "Aboriginal" and "First Nations"? It's incredible.
What's even more incredible is that they are so out of touch that it took them until 2009 to do any soul-searching on this issue, and also that they felt the need to publish this soul-searching in an editorial, AND that they are now going to meet with "major organizations" to try to determine whether or not using "Indian" instead of "First Nations" or "Aboriginal" is offensive. What, seriously?
Hey Toronto Star, it's for you - 1960's on the phone. They want their terminology back.
Yep, thank you much, I couldn't change it once I realized that the title of the article wasn't in the article! But that title fits much better to the article. I had originally posted to talk about how the Star had "not realized" it's mistake (since the reporting that I have seen from the Star has not only had problems with wording but in general their slant on native issues) but I am open to what people think about the term in general as well, though, and why - as this discussion is interesting as well.
The way I say it is usually the nation they are from ie Haudenoshaunee, Anishnabe. But even that gets complicated because some people prefer one name over another - Algonquin over Anishnabe. I think it could be a good place to discuss not only the name but as Unionist put it:
so I guess why people prefer certain "names" over others. The discussion that ensued actually reminded me of the quote at the end of the article:
I guess I am open to exploring the power of the name in people's viewpoints and why each term would either give or take away power, as well as the media use of the word.
Unionist example of American Indian movement is a very good example of this. I think that their use of the word gives the name Indian a lot of power but I actually think that using the term Indian in a legal sense takes away that power because that is what the Indian Act is meant to do - disempower people. As Joey Ramone talked about status versus non status classifications of Indian.
Whenever I hear someone use it erroneously, I correct them. And then I remind the geographically and culturally challenged person that just because Chris Columbus couldnt find his way out of wet paper bag in the 15th century, it's no excuse for them to repeat his blunder today. And that's when it's an honest mistake.
The term "non-status Indian" is certainly derogatory in most circumstances. The only exception I can think of is when so-called "non-status Indians" use it to describe the fact that they are not recognized under the apartheid Indian Act and are on that technical basis denied access to most of the rights, programs and services available for registered "status Indians".
Several court decisions have confirmed that there is no legal basis for treating "status Indians" and "non-status Indians" differently, and that doing so constitutes illegal discrimination, yet both levels of government have ignored these decisions and continue to treat "non-status" as non-existent.
I don't want to argue with the sentiment of your post, but it is important to point out that the distinction of 'status' and 'non-status' is in fact important. Indeed, when FN groups were given the option of scrapping the Indian Act in the tellingly named 1969 White Paper, it was soundly rejected. The problem is, as you say, that those who self-identify as 'Indians' (or, more accurately, as the appropriate first nation) are not granted 'status' because of some settler law.
The elimination of 'status' is in fact a settler objective, not a FN one.
Also, with regard to the power of naming, we can turn to no better critic than Thomas King in Green Grass, Running Water:
You are a microwave oven, Ahdamn tells the Elk.
Nope, says that Elk. Try again.
You are a garage sale, Ahdamn tells the Bear.
We got to get you some glasses, says the Bear.
You are a telephone book, Ahdamn tells the Cedar Tree.
You're getting closer, says the Cedar Tree.
I don't want to argue with the sentiment of your post, but it is important to point out that the distinction of 'status' and 'non-status' is in fact important. Indeed, when FN groups were given the option of scrapping the Indian Act in the tellingly named 1969 White Paper, it was soundly rejected.
But not because they want the 'Indian' Act or label so badly, as you imply ... only because the white paper was worse.
Quite right, saga. The Indian act is a criminal, apartheid piece of legislation. I did not mean to imply otherwise. But at present, it's all the FN have and getting rid of it would be worse. At least entrenched in the Indian Act is the idea that FN are distinct from settler society: an idea that would vanish if the White Paper, and indeed, most Canadian governments, had their way.
Nice observations, thanks for the history I couldn't get anywhere else.
ETA: as easily.
The term "Indian" or "American Indian" is fairly common in the U.S.
For example:
Indian Country Today
American Indian Law Review
American Indian Movement
National Museum of the American Indian
American Indian Library Association
Probably equally as common is "Native American". One doesn't see the term "First Nation" much, if at all, in the U.S.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
The term "Indian" or "American Indian" is fairly common in the U.S.
For example:
Indian Country Today
American Indian Law Review
American Indian Movement
National Museum of the American Indian
American Indian Library Association
Probably equally as common is "Native American". One doesn't see the term "First Nation" much, if at all, in the U.S.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Says alot.
People should also realise that using the term "Indian" for any one who is not a native of South Asia/Indian subcontinent, is an insult to real Indians.
Just the fact that 500 years ago an ignorant ship captain from Genoa could not get his geography facts straight is no excuse.
The term "Indian" or "American Indian" is fairly common in the U.S.
I dont use the term Indian to describe Africans or Norwegians. Why would I use it to refer to indigenous people in North America? It's a sign of ignorance and stupidity. And it's just a small indication of how your country has failed indigenous people, Sven. Canada too.
Says alot.
So, what does it say?
Russell Means: "I am an American Indian, not a Native American!"
A 1995 census survey (I can't find anything more recent) of American Indians / Native Americans showed a preference to self-label as "American Indian".
From the American Heritage Book of English Usage:
Assuming that he had reached the Indies, Columbus called the people on the islands his ships visited “indios,” or “Indians,” and the misnomer has stuck ever since. It is natural that people would propose alternatives to this term, whether to avoid confusion between the inhabitants of America and India or to indicate respect for the original occupants of the American continents. Thus Native American has become widely established in American English, being acceptable in most contemporary contexts and preferred in many, especially in formal or official communication.
However, the acceptance of Native American has not brought about the demise of Indian. Unlike Negro, which was quickly stigmatized once black became preferred, Indian never fell out of favor with a large segment of the American population. It is firmly rooted in English in such common terms as Plains Indian, French and Indian War, and Indian summer as well as in numerous plant and place names. In locutions of this kind there is no possibility of substitution.
The criticism that Indian is hopelessly tainted by the ignorant or romantic stereotypes of popular American culture can be answered, at least in part, by pointing to the continuing use of this term among American Indians themselves. Indeed, Indian authors and those sympathetic to Indian causes often prefer it for its unpretentious familiarity as well as its emotional impact, as in this passage from the Kiowa writer N. Scott Momaday’s memoir The Names (1976): “It was about this time that [my mother] began to see herself as an Indian. That dim native heritage became a fascination and a cause for her.“
Here is an essay by a Cherokee writer from All Things Cherokee
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
[Using the term "Indian" is] a sign of ignorance and stupidity.
Even when used by an American Indian?
On this site, I use FN (because that seems to be the norm in Canada). On American sites (including on Native American sites), I use "Native American" or "American Indian" interchangably. Just because that doesn't conform to Canadian norms doesn't make it "ignorant and stupid", no?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
"Turkey shoots" in Iraq, "Ragheads" in Afghanistan, "Injuns" in America, - it makes it easier to dehumanize, oppress, and steal valuable land from under their feet and segregate whole nations of people onto reserves. They were once proud to live and proud to die. Predatory capitalists are like mongrel dogs, cocking their legs up in any port and transforming millions of people around the world into ghosts on their own land.
When someone makes reference to Indians, unless the context is obvious, I ask them "dots or feathers?" This usually makes the person stop and consider the connotation of the "Indian" designation for Aboriginal persons. In the immigration context, dealing with people from India who have never really encoutered the day-to-day North American use of the word can sometimes be amusing, since they usually find it bizarre.
I actually got the question itself from an Anishinabe friend, who is also a legal scholar. In law school I came to understand the term Indian in the context of the Indian Act. I would support the re-naming of that Act, if only because the term "Indian" would be pushed from the official lexicon, and people could no longer as easily mask their derogatory by its use.
"Injuns"
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
The terms "Native American" and "American Indian" are commonly used by, well, American Indians (!!) in the United States, whereas "Injuns" is not.
Many indigenous Americans, such as Russell Means (see above), prefer the term "American Indian" to other terms.
Are they just being, as you say with moral certitude, "stupid and ignorant"?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
That all being said, I think it's quite safe to say that the preferred term here on babble is "FN".
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
"Injuns"
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
The terms "Native American" and "American Indian" are commonly used by, well, American Indians (!!) in the United States, whereas "Injuns" is not.
Many indigenous Americans, such as Russell Means (see above), prefer the term "American Indian" to other terms.
Are they just being, as you say with moral certitude, "stupid and ignorant"?
That's ridiculous, Sven. I imagine American inidigenous people must check-off the little boxes marked Indian in order that embedded bureaucrats in government dont screw up the liberal-fascist paperwork in triplicate. They can't take a chance on name changes when relying on $350 a month blood money to their people subsisting in what amount to South African townships American-style. Again, we'd appreciate it if you'd use your head for something more than a hatrack.
Like I said, Fidel, "moral certitude". Just because Canada has adopted a particular term doesn't mean that the rest of the world must do so as well or suffer being labeled "stupid and ignorant".
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
That's okay, because our own dough-heads in Ottawa arent the brightest bulbs on the tree either.
As much fun as this Eurocentric discussion is, I need to make a critical response from an anti-oppression perspective.
Sven, think logically and think on a macro level. The word "Indian" would never have come into the lexicon in NA if it wasn't for colonialism, Colombus, massacre, rape and genocide.
And by the way, the terms First Nations, Aboriginal, Metis and Inuit are words mostly used by outsiders to the community (of which I'm one), as the most respectful words within a limited lexicon. Most original inhabitants (not just in North America) refer to themselves and others by their clan or tribe or region. So even the "good" terms are laden with Eurocentrism.
In the US context, the term Indian has become a point of pride for some, a position you have unfailingly supported and made efforts to bring to this thread, Sven. But what you don't know is this is not a discussion point. Issues of racial identity, oppression and connection to heritage that has been marginalized and oppressed are issues I don't think you understand, Sven. For you to use the words of people who embrace the word "Indian", given your complete and unapologetic identification with the dominant oppressive culture is, quite simply, fucked up. How about you next link us to a First Nations person who says racism against FN people isn't so bad. Just kidding. FFS.
And Fidel, what the fuck is this supposed to mean:
Seriously? Where do you find this stuff, John Wayne movies?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Back to the actual topic of the thread, which is NOT whether the term "Indian" is offensive in the CANADIAN context, but dishing the Toronto Star's liberal angst and public flogging of themselves and their moronic processes, while they end up at the status quo (shocking!).
Not much to say, really. We're asking the colonizer, and its representatives, to fairly represent oppression and colonialism. Not sure why we expect an anti-oppression and anti-colonial perspective, though. The Star is a liberal and a Liberal paper. They will not show leadership, in 2009 or anytime, on these or any other anti-oppression issues.
Brilliant. Thanks, Maysie.
And Fidel, what the fuck is this supposed to mean:
I dunno. Filler I guess. I've worked with Ojibway and Cree people in remote northern regions across three provinces. Perhaps some of it is still with me. Why in hell do you ask? me-she wa ka tom ka wap ne tin
Ditto. Thanks for getting this discussion back on track.
Derailed again Michelle.
Um, CEP, this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Did you post it here by accident instead of another thread? Anyhow, I'm deleting the post since it has nothing to do with this thread and I'd really rather not have this thread derailed further.
People should also realise that using the term "Indian" for any one who is not a native of South Asia/Indian subcontinent, is an insult to real Indians.
Just the fact that 500 years ago an ignorant ship captain from Genoa could not get his geography facts straight is no excuse.
What about calling people in the western hemisphere "Americans" - after Amerigo Vespucci? Is that an insult to real Italians?
Same question, Fidel - what's this "America" stuff? Vespucci was a colonialist.
Five hundred plus years after Columbus and Caboto, and we're still searching for a one size fits all name for the nations we colonized. We're adept at inventing all encompassing labels for people other than ourselves. It probably stems from our inability to recognize differences among the respective non white communities. Invariably, it ends up being us and them anyway. Oddly enough though, we manage, by and large, to correctly identify the inhabitants of Asia, based on their region of origin and distinctive cultures, such as Turks, Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese, Russians, Syrians, Mongolians, and yes, Indians. As Maysie suggests, accepting self-identifying terminology in whatever form it takes is better than anything we could devise. If we really must insist on generic labelling though, perhaps the terms settlers and non-settlers would be a good starting point to work from. And besides, all this self-flagelation, amusing as it might appear, must get tiresome to behold after awhile.
It might be an insult had they named the first colonial settlers "Italians" I sometimes refer to them as Yanquis and Yanqui imperialists myself. I'm sure they dont mind.
Incidentally, did anyone notice that the author of the Star's apologia for their righteous usage of the word 'Indian' is named Kathy English?
Try Ronald Wright's What is America: A Short History of the New World Order for a refreshing take on the subject. "Is America what it thinks it is? Is America what the world has long believed it to be?" Wright leaves no doubt that the answer is NO - on both fronts.
It should be a mandatory read for editors and their leash-holders.
At the risk of moving the thread further from the article I noticed one difference in the posts. Sven (and Unionist) were mostly referencing terms used by Native American's themselves while others are referencing terms that are made, as Maysie pointed out from an outsiders perspective.
If you are talking the difference between Canadian and American terms from with the community of Native people a lot of people I have talked with in the communities don't distinguish between the boarder ie the Haudenoshaunee in Ontario don't see a distinction between themselves and the New York Haudenoshaunee any more than they see a distinction between theemselves and the Haudenoshaunee from Quebec. So Sven talking about how the Native American's view themselves does have validity within Canada based on this premise.
The borders are a colonial invention.
Where the border comes into play is, as Maysie said when it is looked at from an outsider point of view of a Canadian or an American. Then the terms FN, Native American etc etc are either more or less politically correct.
Catchfire wrote:
"I don't want to argue with the sentiment of your post, but it is important to point out that the distinction of 'status' and 'non-status' is in fact important. Indeed, when FN groups were given the option of scrapping the Indian Act in the tellingly named 1969 White Paper, it was soundly rejected. The problem is, as you say, that those who self-identify as 'Indians' (or, more accurately, as the appropriate first nation) are not granted 'status' because of some settler law.
The elimination of 'status' is in fact a settler objective, not a FN one."
From the point of view of so-called "non-status" First Nations, this is absurd and offensive. Yes, corrupt, collaborator "status" FN elites benefit from dividing FNs into "status" and "non-status", as does the federal government which denies any responsibility for so-called "non-status" FN people on the grounds that they are not "Indians" because they are not registered under the Indian Act. Then the provinces also deny responsibility for them on the grounds that they are "Indians" despite the fact that they are not "status". There are impoverished "non-status" FN communities in Ontario which receive no services or funding whatsoever from either level of government.
It's no suprise that the organizations representing the "status" Indian Act Chiefs do not, for the most part, support the elimination of the status registration provisions of the Indian Act. There would be no colonialism without collaborators. Last year, when the "non-status" Ardoch Algonquin FN was fighting a lonely battle against uranium mining on their territory (they have no reserve) the Union of Ontario (Status) Indians was not content to merely not support them; they actually lobbied other FNs and eco and human rights groups not to support Ardoch in any way on the grounds that Ardoch is "non-status" and therefore "not legitimate". All this while "non-status" Bob Lovelace was rotting in an Ontario prison for his non-violent resistance to uranium mining.
The main beneficiaries of this divide-and-conquer are, of course, the resource extraction companies which have the full support of both levels of government and the collaborator "status Indian" elites when they ignore the basic rights of "non-status" communities to be consulted regarding the use of their traditional lands and resources.
I am a status Indian from Central Ontario.
I was born Anishnawbe.
I was registered under the Indian Act as an "Indian".
My children were born Anishnawbe.
They are not eligble, due to me marrying someone without Indian status, and they are non-status Indians.
Some of these terms are legal, some traditional. Neither are offensive.
If someone calls me and Indian I really don't mind. I would rather fight about the ignorance of treaties and rights than ignorance of terms.
Other names I get called:
Native - less clear why this one is used so much. In some ways all Canadians born here are "Native"
Aboriginal - Section 35 of the constitution act "Existing Aboriginal and Treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed". This generally applies to Status and Non-Status Indians, Metis and Inuit in total.
Pan-Aboriginal - is meant to refer to all Aboriginal peoples. Sometimes this is meant as an insult as some program or service lumps all cultures and people into a mish-mash of cultural approaches or inappropriate actions. Usually a red herring in my opinion.
First Nations - amuses me the most. Some indigenous peoples prefer this as they believe it is not pan-Aboriginal. Ofcourse the term is in response to the two founding nation theories of Canada, and a not so gentle reminder that other nations pre-dated European contact. The same critism of First Nations could be made as pan-Aboriginal.
First Peoples - fairly obivious.
Indigenous - more of an international term referring to the first peoples of the world. The UN systems love this term.
Aborigine - is pretty offensive in Canada. It is an Australia term that gets used here on occasion.
Two last notes:
The 1969 White Paper was only called that because it is the first paper that gets developed in any new policy exercises in the federal system, not because it sought to take away our rights as Indian/Aboriginal/Native/First Nation/Metis/Inuit/Aborigine/First/Indigenous peoples.
The term Indian is still preferred in many parts of Canada. The FSIN stands for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Service providers and other representative groups prefer the term.
My preference is to deal with substantive issues. I understand that words and terms matter, but in a sense, only if you let it.
I am an Anishnawbe person. My peoples have lived here for thousands of years. The rest is just BS.
Thank you Ruffled_Feathers.
Worth repeating:
Thankyou Ruffled_Feathers. Your view is much appreciated.
Ruffled_Feathers wrote:
"My preference is to deal with substantive issues. I understand that words and terms matter, but in a sense, only if you let it."
I agree with this. I grew up thinking of myself as "half-breed" because that's what my parents called us. Within our family and our community it was never meant in a derogatory way and we never thought of it as such. I remember a Metis periodical in the early 70's called New Breed. As an adult, more aware of my identity and heritage, I came to self identify as "Metis".
Obviously a term like "half-breed" can be, and usually is, used in a derogatory way.
However, I stand by my point about dividing Aboriginal people (regardless of what they call themselves) into "status" and "non-status". This is invariably done to deny the rights, and even the existence, of communities and people classified as "non-status". These parts of the Indian Act are disgusting and should have been repealed a long time ago.
I have worked, on various occasions, in FN/Indian contexts and communities, both in BC and Ontario. From my experience, most of these folks use the term "Indian" themselves, and do not take issue with the term being used in reference to them. Perhaps this is because they have more/better things to concern themselves with, than such relatively petty matters as semantics and nomenclature?
Further, anyone with an interest in semiotics and deconstruction might appreciate that signifiers have no real foundation in meaning or connection to the thing (in this case person or people) that is signified. So regardless of the fact that Columbus got it wrong, it really makes no difference. All that really DOES make a difference is the context as to how the term is used, and the related intention of its user.
Further, I wonder at how such a new instance of political-correctedness and nomenclature can distract from other long-standing instances of the same. For starters, the only daily newspaper in BC's capital city of Victoria remains proudly "The Times Colonist". Why aren't we up-in-arms over that?
Further, I wonder how many of you commenting might count even one Indian (oops) as a friend?
Well, it is apparently Aboriginal people who have raised this issue with the Toronto Star. So apparently they don't feel it's "petty".
Why would you assume that the people participating in this discussion a) have no Aboriginal friends, or b) aren't Aboriginal themselves?
Crap - another double post. Sorry. Just repeating my thanks.
Yeah, thanks Ruffled_Feathers. I really appreciated that post too.
In personal discourse, it's good to keep in mind that each person is an individual who has their own view on this matter (no group is a monolith). If a particular person prefers to be referred to as "American Indian" or "Lakota" or "First Nation" or etc., then use that term.
It's not as clear-cut in public discourse (such as in the media...or on public boards like this) because there is no consensus on the preferred term to use.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Ahhh. This is the two sides to the debate that I was talking about in post #4.
I think this issue is a good example of how treating the countless number of separate nations (etc) within Turtle Island or North America as one can get pretty messed up.
I have met communities who seem to believe as a whole using the word "Indian" is fine, I have also met what seems like communities who believe as a whole it is wrong. I have also met communities that seem divided on the issue.
It seems as if Gabriel Sinduda may have worked with communities who thought one way however the Toronto Star received complaints from a community (or individuals within a community) who thought a different way.
Thus my questions on what people thought of the article as well as the word itself (or others like it) and what is behind their thoughts.
edited to add - just saw your post Sven. As you can read agreed
If anyone ever gets a chance, maybe we should insist on calling her "Susan" untill she gets annoyed.
In my years, I have seen labels for peopel come and go. I think sometimes it's just to see who is keeping up, and who can't be bothered.
I think what matters most is that you refer to people in the way they want to be refered to. Just like you want the same respect shown to you.
So, send off your letters to Susan English, at the Star.
Several people have mentioned "substantive issues" as being more important than getting the name right. And from Caledonia east in Ontario to the Rideau Lakes region several instances of land claims have kept the courts busy for a couple of years now, and hopefully, native land claims will eventually be recognized. But it will be a slow process.
At the moment, a substantive issue is that of funding for schools , and I understand that the federal budget offering is only a small fraction of what would be required to upgrade First Nation schooling to an acceptable standard.
Past efforts by this poster to discover the major failings in educational opportunity have gone nowhere. There has even been the suggestion that education is perhaps not going to be a major concern for Turtle Island (hope I have this right). That education represents a degree of integration that is not acceptable for a growing First Nation nationalism.
Could there be a "substantial" discussion based on experience on this issue, in a thread dedicated not to resolution of the problem but an accounting of the areas to be remedied and some suggested solutions? And, of course, the areas of concern will vary across a country as big as this...even across a province.
Bear with me please on this request. I learned something last year from Thomas Berger's ongoing interventions on the side of schooling in the far north. I come here to learn what I can in my 7th decade of life experiences. We old farts should be able to eventually tell the grandkids something they don't already know, advise them somehow and not just wind up apologizing for leaving them with one helluva mess.
I have worked, on various occasions, in FN/Indian contexts and communities, both in BC and Ontario. From my experience, most of these folks use the term "Indian" themselves, and do not take issue with the term being used in reference to them.
Naturally the issue here is being discussed from the FN viewpoint, whether they consider it insulting or not. But how about the "real" Indians, the people of south Asia? Shouldn't we ask their opinion too before using this term for the native Canadians/Americans?
The term might have been appropriate in the past when there were few immigrants from India in North America. But now they form a large part of this society. I think it is only fair to request that the word "Indian" be used exclusively to refer to people of south asian origin to avoid any confusion.
And don't tell me this is just a name. If, for instance, we start using the term "Mohawks" to refer to Iranian-Canadians, would not that offend the real Mohawks?
IMO I believe this would be a good topic for another forum, such as the anti racism forum but I don't think it is appropriate for this forum and in my opinion this thread.
[Using the term "Indian" is] a sign of ignorance and stupidity.
Even when used by an American Indian?
******************
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
I have worked, on various occasions, in FN/Indian contexts and communities, both in BC and Ontario. From my experience, most of these folks use the term "Indian" themselves, and do not take issue with the term being used in reference to them. Perhaps this is because they have more/better things to concern themselves with, than such relatively petty matters as semantics and nomenclature?
Further, anyone with an interest in semiotics and deconstruction might appreciate that signifiers have no real foundation in meaning or connection to the thing (in this case person or people) that is signified. So regardless of the fact that Columbus got it wrong, it really makes no difference. All that really DOES make a difference is the context as to how the term is used, and the related intention of its user.
Further, I wonder at how such a new instance of political-correctedness and nomenclature can distract from other long-standing instances of the same. For starters, the only daily newspaper in BC's capital city of Victoria remains proudly "The Times Colonist". Why aren't we up-in-arms over that?
Further, I wonder how many of you commenting might count even one Indian (oops) as a friend?
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
They were once proud to live and proud to die.
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
While we are on the topic of using `friends of colo\genda\sexualness etc.` as an excuse to indulge in bad manners, here is a neat little column from one of the amazing Graces: http://gracethespot.com/?p=665
******
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
So please accept the fact that most FN peoples of Turtle Island dislike the term.
That does seem to be true in Canada.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
They were once proud to live and proud to die.
Yep, they did sing those lyrics. I'll have to credit them next time before the Maysie feds come down on me. Some Cree guys I worked with never heard of those guys. They were from Kinoosao reserve Saskatchewan and were into Platinum Blonde at the time. And so was I every day one winter. They liked doing crossword puzzles, the really easy ones in English. And some nights after supper, they'd leave me for the other side of the lake to build a big fire and "speak Cree loudly" with one another. They said no offense to me intended, but they needed some time by themselves. We'd race like hell on skidoos to work every morning and back to the camp everynight. sometimes across two or three lakes spanning 20 kliks. I wasnt use to the sun hanging so low in the sky all day long and tended to rely more on my watch. Not those guys. It was as if they were born on skidoos and prolly were.
Something I did come to understand growing up in Northern Ontario is how important native burial sites are. Sometimes construction crews and land developers would try to keep it quiet whenever digging up native burial sites, either accidentally or with intent to carry on as if nothing happened. Someone would typically make a phone call, and all hell would break loose, job shut down for six months and the whole bit.
Thanks Makwa. Could you explain further what you believe the different contexts/conotations are and why it is seen as offensive to you?
I was got a clear unerstanding of why Ruffled_Feathers felt the way he did but I would like a better understanding of why you feel the way you do.
I may not have anything to add to this conversation but I would like to thank those who posted because I was able to take a lot away from it.
In the States "Indian" is pretty much the standard term. So is "Eskimo" for Inuit people. The more "enlightened" or "progressive" people tend to use "Native American" but "First Nations" and "Aboriginal" are terms I don't think I've ever heard used down here.
Why would he have to explain it to you? It is sufficient that he stated it is non-appropriate.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Why would he have to explain it to you? It is sufficient that he stated it is non-appropriate.
He doesn't "have to" explain anything to me that is why I used the words "Could" and "I would like".
I believe that inner awareness comes from introspection and reasoning. I would like to hear his view as I am sure it will help me come to a better understanding of things, his view is a part of this discussion and just as relevent as everyone elses.
If he doesn't wish to respond, I understand that as well, it is his choice.
That's why I always refer to Americans as Yanquis, gringos, and sometimes Yanqui imperialists. Everyone knows which country's nationals I'm referring to off-hand, and it goes without saying.
Actually, I don't believe I said that I found it personally offensive. However, as many FN and others find the term offensive when used by settlers (my daughter in particular) I must insist that the term be avoided in this forum.
****
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
Indians live in India. I think it was a geography lesson in grade school.
Thanks Makwa. Could you explain further what you believe the different contexts/conotations are and why you have seen it as being interperated as offensive?
No, thank you. It is not an issue I wish to pursue in depth at this time, other than to note that the term has been associated with pejorative and derogatory language from settlers for so long, that many FN people and others have become quite sensitized to it, and are constantly irritated by settler's resistance in adopting less historically laden terminology.
**********
Even now / We are not lost: If you look out at the night / You'll see the colours and the lights seem to say / People are not far away, at least in distance, / And it's only our own dumb resistance / That's making us stay.
Thatnks, Makwa. I appreciate your answer, it does answer my question. I also appreciate you don't want to go into depth further. For me, there are cases when the simple answer leads to more understanding.
It's not difficult for me. When people tell me they dont appreciate being labelled something that doesnt apply to them in either a geographical or historically accurate sense, I can understand why. There is no need to continue repeating the mistakes of directionally-challenged European explorers of the past. That American governments still insist that indigenous people in that country refer to themselves as Indians I think reflects the racism that persists in their society. I think we should not use the word Indian here or anywhere except when referring to people who are actually Indian. That makes sense to me.
Agreed. If the government is insisting the FN people refer to themselves as "Indians" against their will it does reflect the racism that persists in their society and if it were done on a personal level this too would show how racism is persisting in society and within that person.
There has been dialogue on the thread about person to person contact and there are cases where the use of the word "Indian" is not seen as offensive across the board. There has also been talk about organizations that are not affiliated with the government (and in some cases anti-government) who also do not see it as offensive.
I think that you are correct in not using the word here (if you are talking about the board) however when dealing with FN groups or individuals not all FN groups think the same, or individuals within those groups. IMO I think we should let the person or groups we are with take the lead on deciding if it is okay or offensive. By making a blanket statement it is just another way of speaking for them.
I will repost my earlier thoughts in post #54 about treating all FN communities the same as I can't think of a better way to say it.
Edited to Add: "this issue" in the following paragraph refers to the FN group that made the complaint having issues with the word while other people have experienced cases where FN people have not had issues with the word
I think this issue is a good example of how treating the countless number of separate nations (etc) within Turtle Island or North America as one can get pretty messed up.
I have met communities who seem to believe as a whole using the word "Indian" is fine, I have also met what seems like communities who believe as a whole it is wrong. I have also met communities that seem divided on the issue.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
What are you going to do, assume that some do not mind and keep on using the word until told that particular person/group doesn't like to be called "Indian"?
Or are you going to go up to said group and/or individiual and ask them whether or not they mind if you call them "Indian"?
Are you just going to keep on calling them "Indians" elsewhere, because you assume, for the many, that they do not mind, and it is okay for you to do as you see fit, because some appear to not mind?
It's not difficult for me. When people tell me they dont appreciate being labelled something that doesnt apply to them in either a geographical or historically accurate sense, I can understand why.
Who speaks for the "people"? In America, there is a clear difference of opinion among indigenous Americans regarding the term "Indian". There is no "people" saying, in anything approximating a unified voice, that one term(s) is preferred and another term(s) is to be avoided because it's offensive.
When some indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me as being 'American Indian'", when other indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me as being 'Native American'", and yet other indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me by my particular band/tribal name (e.g., Mdewakanton Sioux)", and so forth, then what are the "people" saying?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
As I was saying before, there is simply no choice on US government forms for indigenous people segregated on reserves when applying for blood money.
How about, dirty Yanqui imperialist gringo? How's that for a cultural dig aimed directly at you, Sven? I'm sure I could find someone in America who would admit to it being an accurate label for Americans in general.
How about, dirty Yanqui imperialist gringo?
From you, I'll take that as a compliment.
That being said, what on Earth does that have to do with an aboriginal American saying (and not on a "government form"), "I want to be referred to as an 'American Indian'"?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
By the way, I agree that the word "Indian", without any qualification, when used to describe American Indians (or Native Americans or FN or etc.) is confusing, at best. For that reason alone, I avoid using "Indian" by itself.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
What do European-Americans like to be called?
It's not difficult for me. When people tell me they dont appreciate being labelled something that doesnt apply to them in either a geographical or historically accurate sense, I can understand why.
Who speaks for the "people"? In America, there is a clear difference of opinion among indigenous Americans regarding the term "Indian". There is no "people" saying, in anything approximating a unified voice, that one term(s) is preferred and another term(s) is to be avoided because it's offensive.
When some indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me as being 'American Indian'", when other indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me as being 'Native American'", and yet other indigenous Americans say, "I want people to refer to me by my particular band/tribal name (e.g., Mdewakanton Sioux)", and so forth, then what are the "people" saying?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Your source link doesnt quote anyone saying that they want to be referred to as an American Indian. An educated impression might lead the typical non-Yanqui imperialist gringo to believe you were referring to a former national of the Asian country of India who now lives in America. But a gut instinct might tell them it is a dirty Yanqui imperialist gringo term still widely used in a country infamous for its racist history and neocolonial foreign policies.
Your source link doesnt quote anyone saying that they want to be referred to as an American Indian.
Please re-read the thirteen words immediately preceding the parenthetical which includes the words "Mdewakanton Sioux". It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but this is a count-example to the use of the word "American Indian".
And, that is precisely my point: There is a broad range of examples across a wide spectrum. There is no "preferred" or "correct" term that is univerally accepted.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
There is no one answer to that question. Just like any other group of people, all European-Americans do not think alike. Personally, I prefer to simply be called an American.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Why do you think they refer to themselves as Mdewakanton Sioux?
Is that code for "I want to be referred to by my designated guvmint handle instead of waging war all over again with the gringo bureaucracy"?
Or can we simply refer to them by their chosen tribal name out of the deepest respect for them and theirs? Or does this open up a window of opportunity for indigenous land claims and recognition for independence from the gringo state? Threat to national security maybe?
Why do you think they refer to themselves as Mdewakanton Sioux?
[snip]Or can we simply refer to them by their chosen tribal name out of the deepest respect for them and theirs?
Truth be told, there are some in that tribe don't like the name "Sioux" and prefer, instead, "Dakota" or "Lakota".
So, in this instance, should a person not refer to the "Mdewakanton Sioux", even though that is the tribal name (as shown on their official website), because some members don't like the term "Sioux"?
But, you never did answer my question: What do you say to an aboriginal American who says: "I prefer to be called an 'American Indian'"? Do you say, "No, I will not refer to you as an 'American Indian' because it's offensive"?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Specifically, Fidel, what would you say to Russell Means who said:
I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleutes, the original Hawaiians and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.
I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins. The word Indian is an English bastardization of two Spanish words, En Dio, which correctly translated means in with God. As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity.
At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian. We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.
Finally, I will not allow a government, any government, to define who I am. Besides anyone born in the Western hemisphere is a Native American.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I'd say Russell Means has a case of learned helplessness. And it's no wonder in the USSA.
excerpt from Political Repression in the United States
Apparently they needed curing of their communist tendencies in the United semi-Socialist States of America
As to the question of "Why do we still call it the 'Indian Act'?"
I think this is what it comes down to: Sure, we could pass a bill today and decide that all references to "Indian" in the laws of Canada will become "aboriginal", or "First Nations", or whatever other term. But think of the implications. Decades of Canadian governments have done absolutely nothing substantial for aboriginal people within these borders, and then one day they pass a bill which shuffles some vocabulary around.
Passing such a bill would only serve to highlight the hypocrisy. It's a red herring because it does very little to help people. An injustice by any other name is still an injustice.
There is no one answer to that question. Just like any other group of people, all European-Americans do not think alike. Personally, I prefer to simply be called an American.
Well, precisely. And you have that option, as a member of the most powerful group in a structurally racist society.
I'd say Russell Means has a case of learned helplessness. And it's no wonder in the USSA.
You've got to be kidding me Fidel. A BS and paternalistic statement if I ever read one. I've actually met and spent time talking to the guy. "Learned helplessness' is probably the furtherest from an actual description of him and what he's all about. I can think of other things to be critical about him but this sure ain't one of them.
Thanks though, you made me snort my tea with laughter when I read that. LOL. Too funny.
Actaully neither. If I am around someone who is FN and they are a close friend I might have a discussion around what they think of the word because we have a relationship of trust built up and they know my intentions in asking.
If I am with people who I am not as close with I let them take the lead, I listen. Do they use the word, do they not use the word? If they do use it what is the context or caunotaions they associate with it? When they are with people who are not FN do they accept them using the word or do they seem uncomfortable. People will reveal a lot in their conversations about what they think. If I were to use the word after watching and listening quite awhile and I use the word how do they react? If I made a mistake in using it I will apologize, I don't have to be right all the time and do make mistakes.
This is a very complicated issue and I would never assume that it was okay and just say the word. But I would also never assume that it wasn't okay. I let them take the lead.
Actaully this is the easy part. When I am talking with people not of the group that I am speaking about I refer to them by their proper name - Haudenoshaunee, Anishnawbe, Algonquin, whatever term they use to refer to themselves.
I'd say Russell Means has a case of learned helplessness. And it's no wonder in the USSA.
You've got to be kidding me Fidel. A BS and paternalistic statement if I ever read one. I've actually met and spent time talking to the guy. "Learned helplessness' is probably the furtherest from an actual description of him and what he's all about. I can think of other things to be critical about him but this sure ain't one of them.
Thanks though, you made me snort my tea with laughter when I read that. LOL. Too funny.
Looks like you were thinking the same thing I was thinking at the same time!
Thankyou for commenting on Russell Means from direct experience.
Does Russel Means live in Canada or the USSA? We are talking about a TorStar article not anything to do with Yanqui Land. Doh!
So because he happens to live across the colonial borders imposed onto Turtle Island that gives you some sort of justification for making paternalistic BS characterizations about what was quoted in order to dismiss him?
Why didn't you just say he's USSAian in the first place, it's not relevent to me instead of that crap. That's what I was responding to, the crap, because unfortunately that type of thing is used just as much up here in the Great White North to dismiss people.
I dont think you can get much more paternalistic than the BS in the USSA. Our colonial administrators here at least have an excuse - they're spineless wimps and incapable of independent thought never mind made in Canada policies. The USSA is vicious empire central. They dont feel the need to explain themselves or their repressive and genocidal policies toward natives over the years to anyone.
What about the term "Autochthonous American" (or "Autochthonous Canadian")?
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Interesting thread.
I think context has much to do with it and respecting what people wish to be called is everything. The fact is once you get to know someone well enough to know what they want to be called chances are you know their name and you can call them that. lol
Here on the prairies most of my contacts have been with the Cree, but in the broader sense I use First Nations, Aboriginal doesn't seem right, it seems borrowed from Australia and of course there is the confusion about the term Indian and the fact that it has been used as a weapon taints it.
I don't think the people of the land we call India called themselves Indians, I believe it was the Brits who called them that. It is a colonialist term historically but it has become more complicated than that and if First Nations communities wish to claim it they have every right to.
I really appreciated what Russell Means had to say and Fidel, shame on you for disrespecting him
This absolutely depends on the context of the word 'Indian' and how it is used. Obviously, making a slanted racial and political statement such as "Get a job, you filthy Indians" demonstrates the harm of the word. The word "savage" is much more racially hurtful and demeaning than "Indian"; I should know, I have been referred to as both in negative contexts here in Regina, Sk. Nevertheless, I happen to know and have spoken to people from India and there are nearly 1 billion Indians (contrary to what people say there has never been such a thing as "East Indian"). The proper context of the word Indian is when it refers to people from India. To refer to an individual from India as anything else than Indian would be absurd.
Here is my point I am Cree and Saulteaux in ancestry. I am not Indian, I am not Aboriginal, I am not Native (not that I have a problem with the terms Aboriginal or Native). I am Cree and Saulteaux and I understand this as my ethnic and ancestral reality. This is same as saying I am English and Irish. Obviously the term "Indian" has been applied to the masses of Indigenous peoples throughout North America and this is unfortunate. Nevertheless, Indian is often used in today's slang to refer to an Indigenous person. Therefore, when someone that is non-Indigenous refers to myself as "Indian" I understand, as do they, that they are intentionally making a racialized and incorrect remark about my heritage; because I am not an "Indian". In this context the word is meant to hurt, as is the 'N' word and other derogatory remarks. This is a fact of my existence but I do not let the word "Indian" harm me, it is only a word. The word is incorrect in the context of Indigenous peoples in North America but is correct when referring to people from India, plain and simple.
I've only ever heard the term Indian used by white people in a derogatory context or in ways that are usually historically, geographically, or grammatically incorrect.
An Indian Act
A response to an attempt of genocide
by STEWART STEINHAUER
Artist Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun publicly protested after his painting 'Red Man Watching White Men Trying To Fix A Hole In The Sky' was purchased by the National Art Gallery to be shown in their 'Indian Room.' He didn't want his work to be associated with the notional concept of 'Indians.' Earlier in his career, he had been charged with desecrating an official document when he showed, in one of his professional exhibitions, a photographic series of himself firing a high-powered rifle into a target-mounted official copy of Canada's 'Indian Act.' The photographic series was titled 'An Indian Act.'
Indian. There is no such word in any language indigenous to Turtle Island. In fact, there's no such word in any language indigenous to India. Back when Columbus made his historic voyage, the nation we now call India was called Hindustan, and the people there, because of their all-day-every-day spiritual practice, were characterized by the Spaniards as living in God, "in dios."
'The Admiral of the Ocean Seas' - the name given to Columbus by the Spanish Court for only being half a planet off course -- encountered what is now Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Folks there were living in God too. They weren't white folks either and they just happened to be where the flat-Earth mentality folks thought Hindustan must be. Columbus called them Indians, too.
....
'Indians' and Europe's international system of wardship came together in Canada as "An Act For The Gradual Civilization Of Indians," an official copy of which Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun was charged for desecrating. This act of Parliament is still in effect; we now know it by its short name, the Indian Act.
As my uncle, Mike Steinhauer, likes to point out, all you need to know about the Indian Act is that it says, "The minister may...." The Indian Act gives the minister sweeping discretionary powers unheard of in modern democracies.
The basic notion behind modern democracy is that the people freely give fully informed consent to be ruled and choose representatives to form the government that decides the what, where, when, why and how of those rules. It's called the 'rule of law.'
Although the version of the Indian Act Canada currently uses dates back to 1876, that version was a rolled together collection of legal notions stemming from the 1550 Council of the Indies. In 1876, the people whose lives would become subject to the discretionary powers of the minister were not Canadian citizens, nor were they consulted, nor did they freely give fully informed consent to be ruled by the Indian Act. In fact, the people so ruled did not become citizens of the nation exercising this rule until March 10, 1960, and became so without being consulted, never mind freely giving fully informed consent. A lot of important events occurred before 1876 and a lot of important events have occurred since 1960, but let's narrow down our focus to the 84-year period when peoples not of the Canadian citizenry -- notionally called Indians -- were ruled by an act of a foreign parliament giving foreign persons dictatorial powers over their day-to-day lives in their own homelands.
Let's start with property rights. Indigenous views of property rights are not the same as European views of property rights, but a concept of property rights did, and still does, exist for indigenous peoples. Under the Indian Act, both original indigenous property rights and property rights as constituted under Canadian law were prohibited. This is still in effect.
...
In her 1980 'From Colonialism to Economic Imperialism: The Experience of the Canadian Indian,' sociologist Gail Kellough likened the effects of the Indian Act to a forced march through European history because it created a feudal relationship on every reserve in Canada. Writing in 1970, Robertson notes:
"The Indian Affairs Branch is the lord of the manor. The Indian agent is the local manager. The lord has total control over the lives of his serfs, who neither own their land nor rent it. They are "crofters" permitted to live on the land and farm it but not for their own individual benefit. The lord or manager tells them what to plant and when to sow or harvest; he provides the equipment; he tells them when to sell the crop, and at what price."
What Kellough and other well-meaning Canadians looking sympathetically at Canada's "Indian Problem" don't mention is the intentional destruction of the national characteristics of indigenous peoples. Raphael Lemkin, who originated the concept of genocide, called this its stage one. Economy, governance, language, spiritual practice and customary law were all abolished by decree of the Indian Act. During that 84-year period: Indian Act Chief and Councils were established and traditional governance systems suppressed; John A Macdonald ordered forced starvation as collective punishment for the North-West Rebellion; the pass law controlling movement outside of reserves was implemented; and Duncan Campbell Scott's 'kill the Indian and spare the man' residential schools removed up to five generations of children from family homes, leaving the children thus 'schooled' in a mental/emotional state modern psychologists call 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.'
Dominionpaper.ca
a concept of property rights did, and still does, exist for indigenous peoples.
Colonialised thoughs still guide what we-think we think. What I've come to realize is that there was no historical concept/"Law" of property, at least to the Nakawe people. Certainly our ancestors had obligations based relationships with the gifts they used. Really, the only way property/capitalism would have been allowed is if "spirit" ownership were possible. In the western lexicon... "exclusive use for contractual obligations" would be a better way to look at it.
Sorry for the thread drift... responding to a pet peave.
I should comment on the topic. The term "Indian" doesn't belong to me and I don't identify with it. It's simply a legal term to me, when used here in Canada. I think that the more important point is the underlying intent of the other person or party, and how one is addressed. Are you being respecful to me or not. If I'm being disrespected, then of course I may attach some emotion to the dialogue.
Oh no....two Fidels..
Thanks for your thoughts, sknguy II.
I need to close this now for length, but if anyone wants please start another thread, or continue in a part 2.