now i'm 3/4 way through "Unsettling Canada" and the recent sketched out conversation in another thread about how everyone in Canada is Indigenous if they were born here i've come to the opinion the forum name needs to be changed.
and the 'issues" word removed from it too.
i think it trivializes what's really going on.
Yeah, good call.
..agreed quizzical
It still hasn't been changed to "Indigenous". Aboriginal was the most-used term when the forum was created over 15 years ago; now First Peoples are using "Indigenous", the term in the UNDRIP, though APTN hasn't changed its name, for example - it would be rather hard to do so, given the name recognition.
As for that individualist definition of "Indigenous", it is simply bullshit. It is the reverse coin of saying all are immigrants, even Indigenous peoples.
I agree. We have limited tech support these days but I'll do my best to see it changed.
Thanks quizzical, and Meg!
thanks Meg.
Kewl!
It is important to note how difficult it is to change something that sometimes seems to be so simple. As I work in communications I often am urged to very simplistic solutions that require a lot of work to achieve. It is good to see the intent and important for people to be patient with changes like this.
To be fair, it shouldn't be difficult at all to change the title of a forum. Just a quick edit in Notepad, or whatever.
If there's any "difficulty", it's not the HTML, it's the memos that need to be sent, the approval that needs to be granted, etc., etc.
To be fair, it shouldn't be difficult at all to change the title of a forum. Just a quick edit in Notepad, or whatever.
If there's any "difficulty", it's not the HTML, it's the memos that need to be sent, the approval that needs to be granted, etc., etc.
That can depend on the database and links.
That said they could change what it says to visitors and leave the addresses alone.
That said they could change what it says to visitors and leave the addresses alone.
Yes. Links within that forum do not point to (say) rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal_forum/post142
The forum is simply rabble.ca/forum/216
My guess is that the forum title would only need to be changed in ONE place.
Same with the now-outdated descriptions of some of those forums, including forum 216.
What would you want to change "issues" to? It can't only be Indigenous culture(s). And it isn't only "actions" or protests.
"issues" is only trivial if it is taken in the colloquial sense of "having issues" with something. CBC cals the relevant section simply "Indigenous", Radio-Canada uses "Espaces autochtones".
Of course APTN uses simply "News" or "National News", obviously from an Indigenous perspective.
simply Indigenous forum would be good
simply Indigenous forum would be good
It is often true that simplicity in communications is the most effective.
Would Metis be included in the category 'indigenous'?
If you need something formal I'd say the Supreme Court decision recognizing them as "Indian" under Section 91 of the constitution (and that they were already recognized as "Aboriginal" in section 35) establishes them as Indigenous.
But even without that legal recognition, yes. Of course they are.
I know that in academic, non-governmental and most governments, the move towards using "Indigenous" has been widespread. I personally like the move but I have yet to get any read on whether my FN clients prefer it or not. Our clients are also locked into agreements that use "Aboriginal" frequently to describe specific programs and processes and it's not considered a priority to amend those agreements so the word "Aboriginal" continues on.
From 6079_Smith_W:
If you need something formal I'd say the Supreme Court decision recognizing them as "Indian" under Section 91 of the constitution (and that they were already recognized as "Aboriginal" in section 35) establishes them as Indigenous.
But even without that legal recognition, yes. Of course they are.
Now, would that indigenousness extend beyond that first step. In other words, would if a metis had a child with a non-aboriginal partner, would the still be indigenous?
Maybe to make it easier, how far down the line would that indigenousness go? Back in the day, in the USA, one sixteenth part black was enough to make you black.
What I want to know is what percentage indigenous does it take to be indigenous?
No, not everyone who has an ancestor from 150 years ago is Indigenous. That would be a good portion of western Canada.
The Powley ruling set a few points to determine whether someone is Métis, so far as it concerns Canada's legal responsibility, anyway:
- self-identification as a Métis individual;
- ancestral connection to an historic Métis community; and
- acceptance by a Métis community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Powley
But there are differences of opinion about what makes someone Métis, especially between those in eastern Canada, and those out west, and while the government is recognizing a broader definition that includes eastern Métis, there are some claiming that status who may not meet the criteria:
Back in the day, in the USA, one sixteenth part black was enough to make you black.
What I want to know is what percentage indigenous does it take to be indigenous?
Glad to see that after years of requests, the name of the forum has been changed.
But what does this have to do with Rev Pesky's questions?
I will disclose the answer after babblers tell me what percentage it takes to be Black, White, Anglo-Saxon, Jewish, and Asian. And male or female.
Well it is a weird (and in some ways insulting) concept, and it wouldn't be as important except that it relates to responsibilities and rights that our government signed on to when the rest of us moved in - in the specific case of the Métis when Manitoba was brought into confederation. And more general things like appropriation when non-Indigenous people start to sell knockoffs of real art.
As for Pesky's question, I'm not sure why he is asking it. One doesn't have to do too much research to see that yes, of course Métis are Indigenous people who existed as a nation before Canada did.
Back in the day, in the USA, one sixteenth part black was enough to make you black.
These days, it can be as little as zero sixteenths.
Absolutely. It certainly doesn't mean everyone who has European and Indigenous descent (very common in Québec). And it doesn't depend primarily on "blood quantum" but on historical and cultural ties. I'm fine with "Indigenous" forum.
I will disclose the answer after babblers tell me what percentage it takes to be Black, White, Anglo-Saxon, Jewish, and Asian. And male or female.
OK, in the interest of moving this along, I'll take a stab.
1. Black: apparently, if you feel black, you're black (so, as little as 0%). See post #23 for an illustrative picture.
2. White: I think you need to have ancestors on the Mayflower for that one (so, 101%).
3. Anglo-Saxon: like white, except you need to live in Europe, and speak in Runes (maybe about 15%? Population-wise?).
4. Jewish: if they'd take Sammy Davis Jr., then who of us is ineligible, unless we're unwilling to be circumcised? So, anywhere from 0%-100%, depending on how motivated you are.
5. Asian: we can probably trust anyone who says they're Asian because nobody in the history of ever has tried to pretend they're Asian in order to get a perk.
Male: you just have to say you feel it.
Female: you just have to say you feel it and wait in line behind thousands of others who say they feel it.
From 6079_Smith_W:
As for Pesky's question, I'm not sure why he is asking it. One doesn't have to do too much research to see that yes, of course Métis are Indigenous people who existed as a nation before Canada did.
Lots of words, but you failed to answer the second question, that is, what percentage of 'idigneous' blood does it take to be considered indigenous.
My daily coffee partner is Metis, married to a Filipino by whom has a son. Is that son 'indigenous'?
You may wonder why the question, but there are legal consequences, just as there were back in the ol' south. I just finished reading 'Unsettling Canada' by Arthur Manuel and the word 'Metis' doesn't come up at all. I don't know whether that's because they automatically consider Metis to be indigenous, or whether they don't consider them to be indigenous at all.
What I do know, is that if there is ever to be some settlements, the issue of who's indigenous and who's not is going to come up. In fact it already has, in that many indigenous bands didn't recognize indigenous women who married non-indigenous persons as being part of the band.
What will happen when someone with one indigenous great-grandparent comes along and wants his or her share? Will the 'colonial' courts be allowed to rule on that? Apparently, because as has been noted, they already have in the case of a person with 50% indigenous blood.
Lots of words, but you failed to answer the second question, that is, what percentage of 'idigneous' blood does it take to be considered indigenous.
Maybe that is because you are asking an irrelevant question. This isn't the U.S. where there are quarter blood, half blood and one drop rules.
And "failed"? Do your own research. Or better still, think about what it means that what you are fishing for isn't in the answer.
From 6079_Smith_W:
Maybe that is because you are asking an irrelevant question.
Hardly irrelevant given Canada has signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately the UN forgot to include a declaration of what they meant by 'indigenous'. I guess we'll be left to determine that on our own. Which is why I ask the question.
BC Court Rules American Indigenous Man Has Right To Hunt In Canada
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-court-rules-american-indigenous-man-ha...
From 6079_Smith_W:
Maybe that is because you are asking an irrelevant question.
Hardly irrelevant given Canada has signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unfortunately the UN forgot to include a declaration of what they meant by 'indigenous'. I guess we'll be left to determine that on our own. Which is why I ask the question.
You're assuming that this forum would have to define "Indigenous" precisely as the Canadian, U.S. or other settler state governments might define it.
For our purposes, I'd suggest that we should define Indigenous as people of full or partial ancestral connection to the original population(s) of North America.
This is simply a discussion forum on a website. There is no need for the participants in this forum to be stickers on the question of who and who does not "count" as Indigenous.
Rev, you simply haven't established that any greater good would be served with staying with the word "aboriginal" instead of "Indigenous". No one is excluded by the name change.
Actually, "Indigenous" encompasses ALL "original peoples", however that is defined, but mostly those who have been marginalised. A prominent rabble contributor is of Saami origin. But I think the thrust of this forum should be clear. And it is not only about "problems" but also achievements.
And it goes without saying that this forum isn't betraying the Metis' by changing from "aboriginal" to "Indigenous". There's nothing in the word "aboriginal" that is in any way more inclusive of Metis' than the word "Indigenous".
Unfortunately the UN forgot to include a declaration of what they meant by 'indigenous'.
I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable question. But if there's an answer, there should be two. What does our government mean by 'indigenous' and what do the indigenous nations of Canada mean by 'indigenous'?
Just guessing, I would expect that First Nations might look at family history (e.g. do you have only one fully indigenous ancestor, four generations back? -- that actually describes ME) and social connection (have you and your family always identified as indigenous? Do other indigenous people accept you as indigenous? -- that doesn't describe me at all).
The government is another story, though. If I identify as a woman, the government will treat me as a woman, no questions asked. And will, to some degree, mandate that employers and hospitals and schools and such do the same. Whether "cis" women agree with me and accept my womanhood has nothing to do with it.
What if I identify as indigenous? Am I eligible for that scholarship now? Should employers make a good faith attempt to hire me? Or else what makes it any different, from a simple legal/governmental point of view?
OK, in the interest of moving this along, I'll take a stab.
1. Black: apparently, if you feel black, you're black (so, as little as 0%). See post #23 for an illustrative picture.
2. White: I think you need to have ancestors on the Mayflower for that one (so, 101%).
3. Anglo-Saxon: like white, except you need to live in Europe, and speak in Runes (maybe about 15%? Population-wise?).
4. Jewish: if they'd take Sammy Davis Jr., then who of us is ineligible, unless we're unwilling to be circumcised? So, anywhere from 0%-100%, depending on how motivated you are.
5. Asian: we can probably trust anyone who says they're Asian because nobody in the history of ever has tried to pretend they're Asian in order to get a perk.
Male: you just have to say you feel it.
Female: you just have to say you feel it and wait in line behind thousands of others who say they feel it.
1. When a word usualy reserved for a color becomes a word to identify a peoples, humans have hit a new low!(edited to add, I'm just as bad as the next person in using a color to describe a peoples, not a bad habit easy to break!)
2. See number 1
3. A word/phrase used to describe people who have roots from the British Isles
4. Sammy may have been accepted, but not all.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/07/why-ethiopian-jews-israel-face-discri...
5. Asia is the largest continent on Earth and has the greatest population accounting for 60% of the world population 4.5 billion. Ya I think we can trust Asians.
And as far as orientation goes, looks like you need to do some reading
Canada[edit]
In June 2016, the government of the province of Ontario announced changes to the way gender will be displayed on health cards and driver's licenses. Starting June 13, the Ontario health card no longer displays a sex designation. In early 2017, Ontario drivers will have the option to display "X" as a gender identifier on their driver's licenses.[85]
In April 2017, a baby born in British Columbia, Searyl Atli Dotl, became the first in the world known to be issued a health card with a gender-neutral "U" sex marker. The parent, Kori Doty, who is non-binary transgender, wanted to give their child the opportunity to discover their own gender identity.[86][87] The province has refused to issue a birth certificate to the child without specifying a gender; Doty has filed a legal challenge.[87][88] Doty and seven other transgender and intersex people have filed a human rights complaint against the province, alleging that publishing gender markers on birth certificates is discriminatory.[88]
In July 2017, the Northwest Territories began allowing "X" as a non-binary option on birth certificates.[89]
On August 31, 2017, Canada began allowing a non-binary "X" gender designation on passports and immigration documents.[90][91]
And as far as orientation goes, looks like you need to do some reading
I already said you just have to feel it. The only new thing I learned from your quote was that it's evidently enough if your parents "feel it" on your behalf. And that's super! With religion on the decline, parents need a new way to mess up their property.
And as far as orientation goes, looks like you need to do some readingI already said you just have to feel it. The only new thing I learned from your quote was that it's evidently enough if your parents "feel it" on your behalf. And that's super! With religion on the decline, parents need a new way to mess up their property.
Then you're not very good at reading judging from your response. The point I made emphasized with the link is a third gender inditification or "none of the above", neither male nor female. The link even goes on describing 4+ different sexual orientations as noted from different cultures and peoples! Very interesting read actually. Well worth the time! What you seem to be describing in the original comment I replied to is identifying as male OR female.
Then you're not very good at reading judging from your response.
I just re-read everything you posted, and saw nothing about that.
Or were you assuming I would also click on all 16 links you were too lazy to remove when you copied/pasted this from Wikipedia?
Ya actually I pasted the relevant part and the link I took it from I posted it at the end. Not to mention the fact that not identifying yourself as male or female is more than just a concept for many years. Just bringing it to your attention.
•
Not to mention the fact that not identifying yourself as male or female is more than just a concept for many years.
Biologically, being neither male nor female -- at least among higher mammals -- is actually 100% a concept. Notwithstanding the ridiculously small percentage of bona fide hermaphrodites who seem to have their moment in discussions like this, as proof of something.
From Ken Burch:
You're assuming that this forum would have to define "indigenous" precisely as the Canadian, U.S. or other settler state governments might define it.
What I'm assuming is that if someone uses a word, and I ask them what the word means, they will be able to tell me.
From lagatta4:
Actually, "Indigenous" encompasses ALL "original peoples", however that is defined, but mostly those who have been marginalised.
Pardon me for saying, but his isn't helpful at all. You end up with a "I am indigenous because I was marginalised because I was indigenous". In any case trying to create a legal definition of 'marginalised' will likely prove pretty tricky.
From Mr. Magoo:
I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable question. But if there's an answer, there should be two. What does our government mean by 'indigenous' and what do the indigenous nations of Canada mean by 'indigenous'?
And that is another can of worms just waiting for the lawyers. Who gets to decide who is and who ain't? And that's where all the questions of ancestry will come in. How many indigenous ancestors do you need, to yourself be considered indigenous? One parent, one grandparent, one great-grandparent, one great-great-grandparent?
I doubt marginalisation will come into it. If it did, you could quite literally have children who were indigenous while there parents weren't.
It will come to that because having signed the UNDRIP, the government of Canada is obligated to treat 'indigneous' people in a certain way. So someone will have to decide who is indigenous.
And by the way, original peoples won't really work either, because most native americans (for lack of a better term at the moment) are descendants of the Clovis people who inhabited North America back when. But there is increasing evidence that Clovis were not the first, leaving room to speculate that Clovis peoples decimated the populations that were here when they got here. Time and DNA will tell us more.
Now here's another question for your perusal.
I have seen the word 'settler' bandied about here. What does that mean?
I have seen the word 'settler' bandied about here. What does that mean?
It means you and I.
If you have to ask, you are one.
And that is another can of worms just waiting for the lawyers.
Considering the highest court has already settled a lot of it, I am not sure that it is, except in some people's imagination.
But if we are turning this (and the question of other people's identity that we are musing about) into a numbers game, It is interesting how small a percentage there has to be before those of us in the dominant society think it is an issue of critical importance to us.
To follow on what I said to Unionist before, it is insulting enough that Indigenous people have for years not had control over who is part of their society, and it has instead been something controlled and dictated by white government. And it is doubly insulting that we are still using words like "indian" because they are part of these laws. And that this is all being decided by our court system, not by them.
Who is and isn't Indigenous is really a matter primarily for those nations, and secondarily between them and the government of Canada. As for the rest of us settlers, it has nothing to do with us, and is really none of our business.
Just to correct a few errors I'm seeing in posts.
Please remember to capitalize "Indigenous" where appropriate.
Magoo, you misunderstand how rabble is organized. It is not a bureaucracy as you see it. We do not exchange memos, nor do we have to run around gaining permissions. Nor is it a matter of technical complexity. It's a matter of internal constraints on resources. That's why it takes a while for changes to be made.
The term "Indigenous" is the most recent and preferred term. That is my explicit understanding. First Nations exclude Metis, Inuit and Innu, who are not organized as nations. Indigenous does not.
While rabble does have a number of Indigenous contributors, babble no longer has their meaningful input as, over the years, Indigenous babblers have left due to the well-meaning ignorance and outright racism of some of our non-Indigenous babblers. Thanks for that.
And finally, it seems the height of arrogance and privilege to presume that non-Indigenous people can decide who is Indigenous and who isn't. Comparing that discussion with identity politics is deeply offensive, as is the claim that all who are born here are Indigenous.
This is not an all-white private social club, though it seems increasingly to feel that way. If you don't understand the nuanced issues then, by all means, educate yourselves. Talk to Indigenous people. They know who they are.
To those who don't presume to know the hows and whys of things outside your experience, thank you for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.
Thank you, MegB-and I'm going to go back and check to see if I capitalized Indigenous or not-will correct if I didn't(on edit, it turned out I didn't quite a lot-sorry. I didn't realize it required capitalization. My bad).
It goes without saying that no definition of the word Indigenous accepted as a term of art on any Babble forum would ever, under any circumstances, exclude Metis.
Yes, in this sense, referring to people or peoples, it takes caps. "Indigenous flora" might not.
I have several Indigenous relatives, but I'm not Indigenous.
I'm now up to speed on that.
From MegB:
And finally, it seems the height of arrogance and privilege to presume that non-Indigenous people can decide who is Indigenous and who isn't.
I'm good with that, but don't we have to have a clear definition of 'Indigenous' first (just so we know who is doing the deciding)?
Here's some required reading for this thread, a story on mixed ethnicity and race in today's Globe & Mail.
As multi-ethnic populations rise
In the last 20 years in Canada, the multi-ethnic population has grown by almost 4 million people – almost double the overall population growth rate – to make up 41 per cent of the country's total population.
...The Indigenous population and those who identified as having European origins – the people with the longest histories in the country – had much higher rates of mixed ethnicity: 69 per cent and 66 per cent respectively.
...in 2016, a Supreme Court decision that made the Métis the responsibility of the federal government prompted a surge in the the population claiming Métis identity, which grew by 51 per cent between 2006 and 2016.
...one of the first vocal proponents of ethnic mixing in Canada: Samuel de Champlain. In 1633, he told his Indigenous allies, "Our young men will marry your daughters, and we shall become one people." Since then, many have taken Métis to simply mean what its French translation suggests: "mixed." In a paper, Dr. Gaudry and Dr. Leroux write, "The major problem with using a mixed-raced understanding of 'Métis' is that it finds 'Métis' everywhere and in so doing denies the more explicit peoplehood of the Métis Nation."
From unionist:
It means you and I.
If you have to ask, you are one.
Not much one can say to this. It is such a misuse of the word settler that it defies reason.
Here is what a 'settler' is, and has been for a long time:
Settler: Meaning "a person who moves into a new country" is from the 1690's
I was born into this country, I did not settle here. If I was to be sent back to where I came from that would be Chilliwack, BC. In fact if you define me as a 'settler', you'd also have to define everyone in Canada as a settler, because all of the people who live in this country came from somewhere else, or are the descendants of people who came from somewhere else.
My father was in fact a settler, coming to this country from Eastern Europe when he was three years old. My mother's family lived in this country for quite a few generations, and given the intermingling that has gone on over the years, there is a reasonable chance that I could find some "Indigenous" blood in the family tree.
And as far as the caps used as above, what do you do when you start a sentence with Indigenous? How is the reader to know whether you mean Indigenous or indigenous?
And as far as the caps used as above, what do you do when you start a sentence with Indigenous? How is the reader to know whether you mean Indigenous or indigenous?
I guess, the same as we would with any other word used to start a sentence. We can go on context, or trust our gut feeling, or maybe even just get it totally wrong (which, in this case, is to say probably hardly wrong at all).
Personally, I'm terrible at this. I'm always capitalizing Proper Nouns when i shouldn't, and forgetting to capitalize them when I should. Unless anyone asks, I won't go back and fix the errors of my past, though, because that would just keep bumping this thread all the livelong day.
