"First Nations"

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
"First Nations"



Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this should be in this section of the board, or the Aboriginal Issues section, but since "FN" gets tossed around in here so much, I thought this section would be fitting.

From my understanding, "First Nations" is in fact a fairly ignorant or at least misleading term. It smacks of "status Indians" and "non-status Indians" or the more sinister, "good Indians" and "bad Indians." The inception of the word was to drive a further wedge between "Indians," "halfbreed," and / or Metis.

It also paints a progressive-type sentiment, which is anything but the case when it comes to the Canadian government / ruling classes treatment / attacks in Indigenous sovereignty / rights.

The ministry of Indian Affairs has always been thought of as the all out sedative on radicalized and / or militant Aboriginal responses to systemic racism and colonial oppression and the new front for the old colonizer mindset. This along with the creation of "band councils," "government-solicited-chiefs" and the illusion of "multiculturalism" in general, in this country, has me convinced that using 'First Nations," is more about continuing a fallacy, and less about being respectful.

Feelings? Am I "over-analyzing" again, or do others on this board question the usage of the term.



What? Are you speaking? This FN person isn't listening.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The Mйtis are also a first nation, aren't they?

[ 25 June 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]


Yes they are, but according to SLD, to identify as FN is continuing a fallacy.


Since SLd has been banned, let's close this, since it started out with acrimony - and if we want to have a discussion about this, someone can start a new thread where the opening few posts can be more thoughtful instead of angry.

Topic locked