Talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Archive 1
This page is an Archive of the discussion page for Aboriginal peoples in Canada. (May 7 2005 - Aug 2009) Please Do not edit! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constitution Actindios marakos de la concha tu madrao people in Canada are Peoples recognized in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, sections 25 and 35, respectively as Indians, Métis, and Inuit. Not sure what is that... certainly wasn't here yesterday when I started studying the article! Sorry, new to Wiki and not sure how to edit/ correct that. Xiaozhuli (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Xiaozhuli Ok so here's a dealYou move all of the content from the "First Nations" article to this one and redirect. I dont really care which one has all the content, but there is no sense in two having the same content and topic. Either way, i cant help you out because i'm going to Scotland for a month. So, since "Aboriginal" is the "proper" term, please move all First Nations article content to this one and let the debate end. But whatever makes most sense to you. I just highly suggest that these two articles be merged in whatever way possible under your guidelines so that Wikipedia users will have one source for the information they will be looking for. Such a revision may mean a number of category changes as well (there is a First Nations in Canada category as well, i think). Good luck in the work.
Why the difference?I definitely respect the cultural differences between different people groups, but I do not understand why Métis and Inuit are not included as part of the term "First Nations". Were they not here before European colonization? Do what we currently call First Nations not also have cultural distinctions? I do not believe their relative size should be a factor. I don't think anyone would ever say "Russians and Europeans" or if they did (considering that much of Russia is in Asia), they would never say "Chinese and Asians". If they made a distinction, they would say "Chinese and other Asians". If we must make a distinction, why not "Métis, Inuit, and other First Nations"? Obviously, a talk page on Wikipedia has about 0% likelihood of changing terminology, and again, Wikipedia should reflect what is in use. But I still wonder: why the difference? Why are they excluded? If anyone has a good answer or a comment, feel free to leave it here, or on my talk page, where I will be far more likely to see it. On a side note, I, as a citizen of the United States and of European descent, consider the term "First Nations" vastly better than "Indian", which sounds a) like a term from the 1800s; b) offensive, derogatory, or at best disrespectful (due to the way the US sees and has seen the term, even though reactions by people to which the term is applied vary widely); and c) technically incorrect, since Indians, if not from India, are from the West Indies (another obsolete and problematic term), which makes them West Indians (though I would call them Haitians, Jamaicans, etc. or refer to them by their tribal names). Mainly, I guess, I feel the term "Indian" does not respect culture (including the culture of India and the culture of the First Nations, etc.), while terms like "Native Americans" and "First Nations", while being collective, still respect culture (like the term "Europeans" does), despite the fact that a significant percentage of Native Americans in the US call themselves Indians and another significant percentage see the term as neutral. This is why I think that the Indian Registry and other similarly-named government programs and institutions should change their names (as the US has done, though certainly not because the US has done so). Besides, a 600-year-old mistake by Columbus and company should not be perpetuated by us, nor should it decide our terminology. Accuracy, like cleanliness, is next to godliness, I think. --Cromwellt|Talk 00:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Several points to make. First, none of the First Nations people alive today were here before European settlers. Get your history straight. Second, Metis were by definition not here before the Europeans, because they are at least 1/4 European (according to current legislature). Third, why shouldn't they be called Indians. The only problem I have with it is the ambiguity. After all, we call Deutsch people Germans, but they whine about it? Indian is widely recognized as refering to the so-called "Native" people (who are no less native, technically, than anyone else born in Canada). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.197.71 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Not Helping Indigenous People By Use of the Phrase "First Nations"Look, I know people mean well, by trying to use the phrase 'First Nations' - but the phrase itself was only invented a decade or so ago, and when Aboriginal or Indigenous People or Government use it, it can do irrepairable harm to the claims of Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples to push their case for Sovereignty, and settlement of Land Claims, via the UN. 'First Nations' have no legal rights under International Law Covenants. This term "first nations' is slowly being used to replace "Indians" -- and I know that it was invented and has been used in an attempt to be less offensive to Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples, however, it's a misnomer. If anything, if I had my druther's as an Indigenous person, who belongs to an Indigenous Nation that has, as of yet not signed a Treaty with the Crown, I'd rather see the "First Nations" wiki entry moved and replaced by the Indigenous Peoples and Aboriginal Peoples entry than the other way around. It's a small but very important legal and technical distinction being made here. One that can have far reaching consequences for Aboriginal/Indigenous Peoples. For those who seek assimilation, and the extinguishment of their rights, and to become nothing more than members of a domestic ethnic minority in Canada, I take no issue with them calling themselves "First Nations" -- that's what the term was invented for. But for those of us who would like to keep our culture, our statehood, and our rights intact, and unfringed upon, we must insist on the term "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples" and the term "Tribes or Nations being used interchangeably, just like with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Thanks for your attention to this contentious issue. Somena
Further ExplanationI'm just pointing out that when, for example my Indigenous Nation takes our case to UNPO or to the UN, if we use terms like "First Nations" or "First Peoples" we will have no standing, except to be seen as "domestic ethnic minorities" under International Law. I don't know what Nation you belong to, but my Nation has never signed a Treaty, has never signed away any of it's rights, our rights as a Sovereign Entity have never been extinguished and we will not consent to any attempt by the Federal Government of Canada or Colonizers to stick us in the little box of "domestic ethnic minority". Read the Royal Proclamation of 1763, (it's available on Wiki) Look at the words used by the King to describe the people whom he was dealing with. He uses the phrase "Tribes or Nations". NOT "First Nations". As such, protections that are afforded to us under the Royal Proclamation, which is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, are only available to those of us who belong to "Tribes or Nations". "First Nations" was simply invented a decade and a half or so ago, and it holds no weight in the courts, or in the laws. Use it in common every day talk if you must. Use it in the privacy of your homes. But do not allow your Band, Nation, or Tribe to put forward any document that claims they are a "First Nation" instead of a "Tribe or Nation" or that they are "Indigenous Peoples" or "Aboriginal Peoples". The reasons for this are laid out in the Vienna Convention on Treaties, 1969, or which Canada and Great Britain are a signatory to. I don't know what you and your nation are doing to protect your rights, or to assert your sovereignty, but for those of us who are actually working to assert such rights, under International Law, NOT UNDER domestic law, we can't afford sloppy language that undermines our position in any way shape or form. I highly recommend you check out Janice Switlo's web entry, visit her site, and especially read her two articles there called "Apple Cede" as well as "Trick or Treaty". I understand why it is that my relations feel that "First Nations" is good, and I'll admit that it's slightly better than just "Indians" and "Indian Bands" -- but for extra gusto in asserting one's rights, and that of their nations Sovereignty... (not just talking about it -- actually doing it... we must be very very careful to make sure that the white, man's words are not used to "trap" us into a legal situation that we did not see coming. Switlo's articles should help you understand why I am explaining this to you. I fully understand your position, and I 100% believe that whatever Nation you belong to is a Sovereign Nation of Indigenous People. I got it. You don't need to convince me. But, collectively, we do at some point need to convince other Nations in the world to recognize this historical and legal reality, and the only way that is going to happen is under efforts made under International Laws. Feel free to chat me up more about this on my talk page. Cheers Somena 00:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
|
“ | 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. |
” |
Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"Oldest" site
I'm somewhat dubious that a single site can be indisputably claimed to be the "oldest" in Canada. See [3] pg. 45 for a number of examples of other locations that are claimed to be as old, or in some cases older, than Nanu. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Haida Gwaii or Hecate Strait is a vast area of land !!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif/350px-Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif)
This was not an island in Pleistocene times, during the end of the last ice age between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago, events resulted in very low water levels around Haida Gwaii. What is now Hecate Strait, the body of water that separates Haida Gwaii from the mainland, was for the most part dry land.... We are talking settlement in Canada, not north America and Nanu is considered the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada not the first!! Anthony Island are also known as Haida Gwaii and the town of Ninstints were made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2006.[1]
Haida Gwaii, known to the Haida as "Islands of the People", is a diverse archipelago of over 150 islands located on the Northwest coast of British Columbia, Canada. These islands are also known as the Queen Charlotte Islands. Nestled below the Alaskan Panhandle and separated from the British Columbia mainland by Hecate Strait.
The melting of the glaciers, between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago, which coincides with the Siberian big-game hunters migrating inland on foot across the Bering Land Bridge, had two other significant effects on the level of sea and land. The first was the release of all the previously locked up water, causing a dramatic rise in sea levels. The second was the simultaneous rise of the continental edge and fall of the Charlottes.[2] This rise in sea levels transformed the westernmost highlands and mountains of ancient BC into the archipelago of Haida Gwaii' and its inhabitants into the master seafarers of the West Coast.[3] map
15,000 B.C.[4]
If people did cross the land bridge they would have come across this place first... as the evidence shows they did.[5] Also known as The Bering Strait Theory or Beringia theory, Land Bridge theory has been widely accepted since the 1930s. This model of migration into the New World proposes that people migrated from Siberia into Alaska then Canada, tracking big game animal herds.
- ^ UNESCO World Heritage Site: Justification, 1981
- ^ "Early human occupation in British Columbia". By Roy L. Carlson, Luke Robert Dalla Bona PAGE 149 and 152.
- ^ Haida Gwaii: Human History and Environment from the Time of Loon to the Time .Page 52 (The coastal migration route ).
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - ^ "Some believe the Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) was first occupied about this time and they called them Xhaaidlagha Gwaayaai which means Islands at the Boundary of the World. The Islands are 90 km from the mainland and can be seen on a clear day. It is believed the Haida arrived 8,000 to 13,000 B.C. The ocean levels on the Islands fluctuated by up to 50 feet and did not stabilize until 3,000 B.C. making it difficult to find archeological evidence. It is noteworthy that Haida Gwaii was ice free during the ice age as were many of the islands of southern Alaska. Other coastal areas were ice free 12,000 to 11,000 B.C. maybe earlier. The low water levels produced great grass lands to support mammoth, mastodon and bison that were found on Haida Geaii and Quadra's Island (Vancouver Island)". CANADIAN HISTORY DIRECTORY.
- ^ "During the end of the last ice age between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago, events resulted in very low water levels around Haida Gwaii. What is now Hecate Strait, the body of water that separates Haida Gwaii from the mainland, was for the most part dry land. Throughout this area of dry land, there were lakes and small rivers draining north and south to the Pacific Ocean. Soil samples from Hecate Strait indicate that many areas were habitable in the last ice age. After 10,000 years ago, the melting glaciers contributed to a rise in the sea level that resulted in a flooding of the Northwest Coast, temporarily creating beach lines high above today's high tide marks". Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation.
- ^ "Anyways if you need more Documentation". The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System.
Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
_________________________________ Hello again Buzzzsherman, my comments below are based on the following material, which you added to the article:
[...] "The earliest evidence of human settlement in Canada is found on the archipelago of Haida Gwaii in British Columbia.The site at Nanu is dated beginning from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Ice age hunters and gathers left fluted stone tools and the remains of large butchered mammals. Nanu is unique because it is considered the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada."
I think there may be a misunderstanding of my intent here. To be clear, I am referring exclusively to locations within the present day country of Canada. Thank you for taking the time to provide the ample information that you've put forward, but I'd like to state that my objection to the present material in the article is being made in reaction to the apparently unequivocal claim(s) contained in it that the Haida Gwaii ("Queen Charlotte islands") region contains the "earliest evidence of human settlement in Canada" and is "the site of the longest continuous human occupation in Canada". I am in no way disputing the likely involvement of routes through the northwestern corner of North America in the peopling of the western hemisphere, I'm even open to the idea that the arrivals occurred earlier than the period we're discussing, by sea or by land for that matter. What I'm casting doubt on is the claim that a single (or cluster of) sites located entirely in the present day Queen Charlotte islands can be indisputably described, to the exclusion of all others, as being either the scene of the "earliest" or "longest continuous human occupation in Canada". To the best of my knowledge, that sort of claim for *any* site (or cluster) in Canada would be highly controversial. Although, it's interesting to note that the archaeology department within Parks Canada appears to be willing to 'stick out their necks' on the subject to the extent that they support similar claims for a site located within the present day Yukon Territory[4]. Other archaeologists have also put forward their support for the same Old Crow basin region as constituting the "earliest" in the country as well.[5] I'm not claiming that any of this is the final word in terms of correctness, I'm only attempting to offer counter examples to try and demonstrate that any such claim are far from a settled matter within Canadian archaeology. If I'm missing something, either in newer literature literature that I'm unaware of, or in the material you're offering as evidence for your claim, please let me know, I'm truly interested in this subject. I've examined what I presently can of the material you've posted so far, and in my opinion what you're espousing is an interesting hypothesis regarding where the "earliest" (or site of "longest continuous habitation) sites might likely be found, but I'm afraid (again in my opinion) that so far it seems to me to be based on your own extrapolation from sources and thus constitutes "original research". At least insofar as it contends that sites in the Queen Charlotte's alone unequivocally represent the earliest and longest human habitations in Canada. If possible,could you please provide a specific quote that literally and specifically supports either of these contentions, I've looked over the material you've offered and I'm unable to find an example that doesn't require an extrapolation to arrive at the conclusions that you're drawing here.
thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
________________________________ No problem ...thanks for info on Old Crow Flats. You are right much debate still...as i can now see!!!
I think leaving the [discuss] is best to let people see this discussion...I have much reading to do on this as i see that the books i have our not complete on there info.Geological methods for archaeology
Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Series Sidebar
Indigenous peoples in Canada |
---|
![]() ![]() |
It has been added to the following articles, PLEASE ADD IT TO new and old articles about the topic.. {{Indigenous Peoples of Canada}}
It is the finally addition to the new articles called Aboriginal peoples in Canada and one of the sub articles called First Nations. Pls fell free to copy edit WIKIFY or add any info that is relevant to the articles(unsourced or poorly sourced edits will be reverted immediately) Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent job expanding the series side bar. ~:-)SriMesh | talk 03:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Assessment comment
I have sorted the article to B-Class for the following reasons:
|
Last edited at 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)