The word, "Aboriginal"

I believe it's more important to consider what's at stake with the term 'Indian' than to abandon it completely. While it's usually offensive to use the term as an ethnic identifier in relation to FN people, it's usually bourgeois liberals (guilty!) who consternate over using the term, and not FN (or Indians) themselves (and probably rightly so!)

As far as I'm aware, 'Indian' is an economic identifier, not an ethnic one, that the government invented. (Of course, the 'Indian' was always a cultural invention.) Since its inception, White Europeans (usually women) could be 'Indians' and not all FN citizens were necessarily 'Indians' either. When used carefully, 'Indian' is no more offensive than 'aboriginal.' It distinguishes some First Peoples from Mйtis or Inuit, and announces status. Many FN use the word, even self-identify as Indian, so it's not so easy to simply dismiss the term.

Of course, this nuance is usually quashed by the ignorant, if not racist use of the term. At any rate, the article is dead on that such umbrella terms simply absolve the ROC from learning the difference between the Iroquois and the Mic'mac. We no longer use the word 'oriental' to describe people (well, I can dream, can't I?) so why should we use the word 'Aboriginal'? In this light, it could be argued that Aboriginal is actually [i]more[/i] offensive than 'Indian' because of the clarification and use of the latter.

Hi Michelle and everyone,

I am participating as per Michelle's request. =)

Thanks for the words about my article. My intention to write came from my thoughts and feelings around my identity as an Indigenous person having spent time with Inuit peoples, and what that really means in Canada.

I personally am somewhat offended by the term Indian, especially when it comes from an non-Indigenous person. It is factually inaccurate, outdated, and extremely racist. However everyone has their own feelings on how they are referred to, and I do not think it's a good idea to say "well I think FN people think this or feel that". That is part of how we got into this problem in the first place, and we really need to be advocating people speaking up for themselves and creating the spaces FOR people to speak up for themselves, especially by those who hold the power and privilege.

My feelings around Aboriginal come down to this: we need to be careful how we are using it. How much are Inuit really included? I think it's easier to have a term to reference First Peoples, but with the respect and honour of just that, that we are First Peoples, welcomed the settlers on our land, and now we are working to restructure and reclaim who we are.

So should this forum be renamed "Indigenous Peoples' Issues and Politics" or something?

The term "Indigenous Peoples" gives space for Indigenous Peoples to name themselves. The UN Declaration talks re-affirmed the fact that "only Indigenous Peoples can define Indigenous Peoples".

This would also avoid the use of Aboriginal, which is problematic for a number of reasons. (Not the least of which is that it is a legal term that is used in the Canadian Constitution)

It would also re-center the discourse (pardon the critical theory jargon) so as not to focus it on Canada and Canada's laws, borders, terms, maps, and myths.

quote:

---

Most don't even know that there is a difference between the Inuit, Inuvialuit and the First Nations.

---

Most people don't even know the name of the people whose territory they live on.

A friend of mine thought that the Feds should pay for signs along the Trans Canada saying "You are now entering the traditional territory of ..." to try to get Canadians thinking about the many nations across the continent. Good idea but it might be a political nightmare.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Actually it wouldn't be that hard to do.[/b]

---

i do not think so either, no different from having forest district signage, or for that matter town names.

quote:

---

[b]It's a long story. [/b]

---

shorten it to "divide and conquer"

quote:

---

[b]I think it would be an excellent idea to have the signs. It would teach people. tourist info place could have the information on all the nations. It would be great.[/b]

---

So do I, and I think the NDP should get on it.

yeah divide and conquer would be the possible political fallout as the Feds decide where to put the signs.

From my limited knowledge traditional territories are mapped with oral history, land marks, and treaties, not GPS. When the government starts drawing lines they will be doing so based on their interpretations of the above, history has shown us that their interpretations often serve their interests.

But I also really like the idea of the signs. The other stuff just came up in conversation while we were talking about the idea.

[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Imagine if we did do that....there would be signs everywhere. Now wouldn't that show Canadians just how little land we, First Peoples actually have gotten? That's probably why the gov't will never allow that to happen.

*note to self: you, 1234567, really are the queen of thread drifts!

[ 25 March 2008: Message edited by: 1234567 ]

So, should this forum be re-named?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
[b]That's a good idea. How about "Rightful Inhabitants" or "Survivors of the Original Holocaust?"[/b]

---

I don't think the Anishnabek would be able to call themselves "Rightful Inhabitants", besides the fact that other societies have had dibbs on that one for the past few hundred years or so, we would be ussurping that one from the natural world. And as for "Survivors of the Original Holocaust"? Well, there again, that ones be done thousands of times over throughout the history of mankind (I use the term mankind loosely). Well gosh, there's just so little left these days to which the Anishanbek could lay claim to.

I don't have a problem with the forum being referred to as Aboriginal. I don't identify with the word, but for the moment it'll do.

I'm glad that dialogue has been going on.

The purpose of me writing was not to ban the word Aboriginal all together and I think sometimes we jump a little too quickly, as I was really just suggesting we RETHINK how we are using it and MAKE SURE it's an inclusive term for what it is supposed to represent. When it's not being fairly representative of all 3 "groups" is it really fair to keep using it and what do we do to change that? I can't say enough how much we don't include, reference, or really speak to the Inuit. Also not to forget to respect our Nationhood.

So in that case, we may not need to rename the thread or whatever else, just keep these important discussions in mind!

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Jessica Yee ]

I think I was being too blase about the reference to the use of the term Aboriginal. That was a very good article Ms. Yee, and I enjoyed reading it very much. In reference to what zazzo posted: what we allow ourselves to be called is important. Resolving the things that make us unique remains, I think, our most important undertaking. We have yet to resolve for ourselves what it means to be Anishnabek. Do we continue the European practice of identifying ourselves racially? Or do we want an identity that reflects our cultural or linguistic uniqueness? Do we want to be a measure of our thoughts, or a measure of our genetics?

What do I really think of the word Aboriginal? The word reminds me of a racial identity. I does not reflect the Spiritual things that make us who we are. You know, we haven’t even scratched the surface of what it means to revive our traditions and values. We haven’t even thought about what impact this will have on our present beliefs. We haven’t resolved for ourselves our own immediate differences and commonalities.

The Nakawe people I belong to relate heavily, these days, to plains culture. Teepee and horse culture. Where, just prior to the signing of the treaties, we weren’t plains culture. We were Ojibwe. But as a modern culture my community identifies with so many things that are not historically symbolic of who the Nakawe people were. Our identity had been taken away from us and it’s extremely important to figure out, and filter out, who we’re not.

These days we're so caught up in things that are damaging to our identity. We need to be careful about what messages we're sending to the younger generations. For the purpose of the Canadian Legal system I’m an Aboriginal/Indian. But for myself, I’m Nakawe. And this is what I'll be reminding the younger people in my community. That we're Nakawe.

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: sknguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessica Yee:
[b]On the way back from the PowWow, he asked the two youth he was travelling with what they would like to be called ... And they both replied "I want people to know that I'm Ihanktonwan Dakota and if they don't know what that means, I'll explain it to them".[/b]

---

Frankly, this worries me a little. It is a wonderful thing that our people, especially the younger people feel so connected to their 'roots' that they speak with pride of their nations, and connect that to their identities. However what worries me, is that when groups of First Nations or other Aboriginal people get together, we end up with a competition to demonstrate legitimacy. For me, I could not prove, within the Canadian governmental system or within my band, my connection to my ancestors until I was in my late twenties, due to issues around adoption (read - kidnapping). Prior to that, I was terribly insecure, as I am still in many ways.

One Cree gentleman I was conversant with, spoke of a time when he went to meetings, and people would announce their nation and clan before continuing. When it was his turn, he chose to speak of the 'mosquito' clan, in an ironic and contrary way to demonstrate his disdain for narrow identity classifications.

Of course, he was fortunate enough to know of his clan and nation, but it offended his sense of pan-aboriginal solidarity to see people so divided.

I have known a couple of FN people who are neither connected with clan nor nation. These movements towards particular identity have been hurtful and diminishing for them. They carry with them the shame of having been stolen by the dominant culture, and the lack of specific identity is painful enough without having to deal with the shame and loneliness of rising at a meeting and say, I am 'x' of no nation and no clan.

After these hundreds of years of colonization, should we not do everything we can to embrace those of lost generations?

While I am fortunate enough, as it were, to at least know who my ancestors were and who my relations are, we must recognize that not all our people are so fortunate, and we must take extra care to ensure that they are not excluded.

The words aboriginal and indigenous (or Indian) can be used to bring together communities, and nations for the purpose of uniting to achieve common goals.

The Union of Ontario Indians, a political organization, now known as the Anishinabek Nation, was once a union of all the Indian bands in Ontario. Then some of the Anishinabek, or Nishnawbe as they call themselves in Ontario’s North, separated as a group of communities that had signed a treaty with the governments of Canada and Ontario. They formed the Grand Council of Treaty Nine, which evolved into what is now called the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation or NAN. The Grand Council of Treaty 3, another group that separated, is still known by that name. Other bands who were once a part of the Union of Ontario Indians, have separated themselves, and are now known as independent bands. There are now only 43 bands associated with the Union of Ontario Indians.

How much stronger would we be if all the different nations, or even the ones that share a similar language and culture, such as the Anishinabek, the Nishnawbe, and the Cree peoples were united. That appears to be something that each nation, now separated into a numerous First Nations (or bands as they were formerly called), appear unable or unwilling to do. The governments of Canada and Ontario would not want to see such unity.

What would be these common goals? They could be: sharing of resources, support for each other in land claims, a common education that recognizes our history and worldview, economic development, environmental stewardship, friendship treaties with other nations….

As indigenous nations, we are alike as well as different from each other. The national organization now known as the Assembly of First Nations, was once called the National Indian Brotherhood. I especially like the word, brotherhood. This was a way of emphasizing unity in the face of terrible socio-economic conditions that are still a part of our communities, even today.

We need to know our history, as well as retaining and regaining our language and culture. I also believe that the Anishinabek peoples, the Six Nations peoples, and the Inuit peoples, the Haida peoples, the Salish peoples, the Dene peoples, …share a common worldview: that Mother Earth be protected as we cannot exist without her, that respect for the plants and animals is essential, that respect and love for each other is essential to living a good life, that we need to think of the future of our grandchildren, that you must not take without giving back. These fundamental principles are what should unite us as indigenous peoples.

The word, anishinabek, translates as good people, in our language, and that should be how we act towards ourselves and towards others.

They are Inuit and Innu because Eskimo is a derogatory term meaning "eaters of raw meat" and I don't know what the other means. Also Inuit and Innu are not the same. Innu are First Nation, Inuit are not First Nation.