Jessica Yee at Racialicious: Racist Names, Racist Places

Maysie
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 9938
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Finally, an informed and intelligent piece on the issue of terminology, racism, offensiveness and the language of the colonizer. Jessica Yee rocks!

Quote:
 Savage. Squaw. Indian. Would we all agree that these are immensely derogatory names that should not be, in this day and age, still used to geographically locate places? Or even people, for that matter?

From the varying answers I've received when posing this question, it all really depends on who you ask and what it's for. Percie Sacobie from the Maliseet Nation in New Brunswick, is currently lobbying the city council of St. Mary's to change the name of "Savage Island", located seven kilometres west of Fredericton, to something less demeaning to the Wolastoqiyik people.

He went to city council with historical documentation of its origin, and the full support of the Maliseet chiefs from Oromocto, Kingsclear, Tobique, Woodstock, Madawaska and St. Mary's First Nations, only to be told that he has to submit some sort of formal application process, and maybe, just maybe, they might consider changing it.

Quote:
 Now take the word "Indian" for example. Although we're not from India, although Columbus seriously got it wrong, and although many of our communities are starting to reassert their ancestral language rights, we still use it. This is an ongoing, decades-old word battle with folks from all across Turtle Island, many who say we've got "bigger" problems to worry about than what we're being called, and that we've been using it for so long anyways, what's the problem with it? (And yes I know that "Native" is also tumultuous word territory). In Canada, we have begun to use First Nations and Aboriginal, although depending on who you ask, even this isn't cutting it, particularly the word "Aboriginal" since by government standards, it's an assimilative term used to meld First Nations, Inuit, and Métis into one Indigenous funding pot, while one of us is bound to continuously lose out on getting culturally competent services.

Quote:
 I personally don't like the word Indian myself so I try not to use it, but from an organizational perspective, this is a constant difficulty to render in "appropriateness" so people can self-determine what they want to be called (and if folks want to be called Indians - that's fine by me). But let's be clear, English itself is the language of the colonizer. While we struggle to find the words that will do us justice, in whatever context, I know that English will not always be able to do that for us, and perhaps this is where it becomes such a hardship to deal with. I often think that if I spoke my own language, Mohawk, fluently, I might be able to convey the sentiments I try so hard to come up with, since in my language, one word can have multiple meanings and connotations.

Quote:
 So while I agree that we do have so many other issues to deal with, in order to get to where we are trying to go; which is the comprehension and respect of our culture and sovereign peoples, it is important that we identify who we really are. In our Indigenous cultures, saying I'm Mohawk carries a lot more weight than just the word itself. It tells people where I come from, who my ancestors are, and the strength that I bring into my person every day because of who I am. And that's just what I can tell you in English!

Full article here.


Comments

Catchfire
moderator
Member: 5019
Joined: Apr 16 2003

I love Jessica Yee with all my heart.


RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser-supreme
Member: 15629
Joined: Oct 15 2007

One step at a time.

 

http://www.thestar.com/article/622980

 

Quote:

University of British Columbia social work professor Frank Tester, who researches Inuit social history, said the term Eskimo, which originated from the Cree language and translates as eater of raw meat, has never been an appropriate term. He said despite complaints, Eskimo Pie is still for sale and one Vancouver bagel shop shows a toothless Inuit poster to tout its soft bagels.

 

It wouldn't be a big deal to me if someone asked me to very easily change the presentation of my candy and still have the exact same product? Don't read the comments. I know the world's not ready for this stuff but why do they get so darn defensive about their privilege?  What's wrong with accomodations that do no harm, whatsoever?


Catchfire
moderator
Member: 5019
Joined: Apr 16 2003

It's a great, personal attempt to resolve the problems terminology poses to anti-racist and anti-colonialist struggles. It resonates with similar struggles across the globe, from false state boundaries that remain as sediment from colonial times like Malaysia, Iraq and Nigeria--as well as the story of South American Bolivarian nationalism and indigenous revival. In some ways, it is really encouraging because conscious, whip-smart writers like Yee and those she writes about can indentify the problem and see a way out--but on the other hand, as RP's story points out, it is absolutely outrageous that Eskimo Pies are still available to buy and that the Cleveland Indians are still a national sport franchise.


Anishinabe Nati...
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 17524
Joined: Apr 28 2009

I hate being called and Indian and I hate being called Chief.  people often suggest that I run for Chief of my reserve but why would I want to be an Indian Chief.  There are many youth who don't like the designation Indian, but we are ignored or chastized by leaders and elders.  they say that youth are important and our opinions matter, but in reality we only matter is we use the same tired old rhetoric of treaty rights, fudiciary responsibility, resource revenue sharing, blah, blah, blah....  Identity is the most important thing but the old Indians have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they will get angry if you even suggest that the names of our ancestors are more important than the name imposed by a lost Italian. 

To "Revolution Please'-  You want a revolution, well here it is: http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/10/8/2134977/UWASA%20constitution%20preamble%20name%20and%20purpose.doc


oldgoat
moderator
Member: 2130
Joined: Jul 27 2001

Noise
rabble-rouser
Member: 13603
Joined: May 16 2006

What are the thoughts on 'non-offensive' name usage?  For example, Calgary has a large number of it's streets with names of Blackfoot Trail, or Crowchild, Crowfoot, Sarcee, Metis trail...the list goes on.  Not just roads, there are communities and awards with these names as well.

 


sknguy II
rabble-rouser
Member: 17485
Joined: Apr 20 2009

I think it best to be careful about what one perceives as ‘non-offensive’. But I think that naming ‘artificial’ landmarks like roads, buildings, bridges, etc after tribal names is fine. It offers at least some recognition that we are a part of this society. I know that from a cultural perspective it isn’t the best thing to name things after people though. This has partly to do with helping the family and community properly release a person’s spirit into the spirit world (letting go, if you will). And another has to do with ‘not’ naming things in the environment after individuals. We are only human after all and the environment is its own self determining entity.

I think that the larger society is quite fixated with their own immorality though. And it irks me a little to see lakes and rivers and mountains named after individuals. It may sound over the top, but I suppose I find this just another one of the hurtful things we do to our environment.

The community I live in has cottage developments around a local lake called Crooked Lake. Named so because it’s... not straight. One of the long time cottage owners had the audacity to ask that a cottage subdivision be named after him because “they were the first ones there”. This without even a hint of thoughtfulness that my community had been living here much, much longer than they. I think that before naming anything, one should always do diligent research and investigation.

I seem to recall commenting on Ms. Yee's article a while back. It's a very good article and agreed entirely with it.


Noise
rabble-rouser
Member: 13603
Joined: May 16 2006

Thanks Sknguy...I wasn't sure if it's viewed as patronizing and is why I quoted the term 'non-offensive'


NDPP
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 16891
Joined: Dec 27 2008

I find the term "First Nation" objectionable. Especially since I was told by a former in house counsel of DIAND that it was terminology specifically formulated to evade certain international law definitions of nations. Wherever it came from, they sure have lots of people using the term.

Here's an example of both 'First Nations' and 'Indian" as in Union of BC Indian Chiefs.

http://www.vancouversun.com/First+Nations+leader+Grand+Chief+Stewart+Phi...

Speaking of which, I thought this guy was a sovereigntist. Way back in the day UBCIC used to say that "to talk to the Province is treason". Obviously things have changed a lot.


sknguy II
rabble-rouser
Member: 17485
Joined: Apr 20 2009

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

I find the term "First Nation" objectionable. Especially since I was told by a former in house counsel of DIAND that it was terminology specifically formulated to evade certain international law definitions of nations. Wherever it came from, they sure have lots of people using the term.

Just to comment on your first paragraph. So I guess rather than trying to “evade” international law I guess we should all just be good little indians and be grateful for the continued benevolence of the international rule of law. Unfortunately, the principles of international law may not necessarily be “universally” representative for all peoples. International law is there to enforce the principles and beliefs of a specific worldview. The development of which has been dominated by Eurocentric thought and practices. As in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However, I wouldn’t dispute the good intents and positive outcomes of modern international law, for the purposes of the established nation states. But to imply that the principles of what’s called international law as being “universal” in nature oppresses the possibilities that Indigenous peoples may have different, legitimate, and viable legal systems, as based upon very differing worldviews.


NDPP
rabble-rouser-for-life
Member: 16891
Joined: Dec 27 2008

My point was not that international law is benevolent but that the the bureaucracies of DIAND and Justice evidently felt it offered possibilities unacceptable to the Canadian colonizers' designs . So "Nation" has certain parameters and possibilities in international law, "First Nation" considerably and deliberately less so perhaps. Both are cages but you will know that the pursuit of international law remedies are nonetheless pursued abroad when domestic remedies are foreclosed. Mostly nothing is achieved and both international and domestic legal systems harmonize to frustrate any possibility of gains.


sknguy II
rabble-rouser
Member: 17485
Joined: Apr 20 2009

Point taken, and I appologise NDP. I get a little frosty on the topic of international law. I'd never heard your explanation of the origin of the term "First Nation" before. Interesting. But it's still about on par with being called the so-and-so "Band of Indians". I abhor both terms.

To: Anishnabe Nation (at least I think that's your name as it seems my browser is cutting off your name) We do have a looong, looong way to travel down the 'ol decolonization path.


Login or register to post comments