What’s in a word;First Nation(s) versus Aboriginal
February 12, 2009 by Dirk
Well plenty particularly in regards to the use of the term First Nation.
Take Gordon Gibson’s latest book ,’A New Look at Indian Policy‘.The entire first chapter is about semantics,why certain words & terms are used as opposed to other.
In this case “Indian” & “aboriginal” as opposed to “First Nation(s)”.Gibson writes…
The choice of “Indian” in the title is not casual. [...] Gibson rejects “first nation” as a term that implies a particular political agenda of “nation-to-nation” treaties. He has no objection to “aboriginal”, the common term in Canada for all those who identify with their indigenous ancestry. [ @ ]
So there you have it, the crux of the problem, the elephant in the room…
The chasm that separates indigenous peoples understanding as to the nature of the/their relationship with the Canadian state,as opposed to how the government and many non-indigenous people,academics,writers,politicians(whether Liberal,Conservative or NDP) etc….understand this relationship.
Hence Gibson’s intentional choice of words,i.e Indian over First Nations. Like the majority of non-Indigenous people,through ignorance or self-serving justifications, Gibson refuses to admit that, Indigenous Peoples are and where Nations.
Pretty much in-line with the historical reality and backed up by the indisputable existence of Treaties.
The very existence of Treaties, by definition and intention, implies a recognition on part of the crown that indeed indigenous peoples are/were nations. Therefore the foundational relationships forged are based on a nation to nation basis ,for as long as the sun shines,the grass grows,& the rivers flow. Unless of course indigenous peoples/First Nations ,freely and of their own accord,chose to dissolve or amend this relationship.
This is fact,this is truth,this can not be denied.
That Mr Gibson chooses not to see it this way,is immaterial. These treaties are legitimate in fact they are consistent with international law & protocols,of which Canada is not only a signatory but abides by,First Nations relationships being the exception of course.
As for the remainder of Gibson’s book I have no interest in promoting it or even discussing it further. After all this is not a book seeking to understand or inform,rather it is a political statement by another “whiteman” pushing and justifying the same-ol assimilation agenda,while at the same ignoring the historical & legal reality.
The more things change the more they stay the same…yawn.
Back to the matter at hand,for more on the use of words and the meanings behind them read the ‘Cnd Journal of Native Studies‘ :
What’s in a Name ? The Politics of Laballing and Native Identity Construction
Update; “Anishinabek are not Aboriginal,Indian,or Native”
These terms have been used to label First Nation peoples for decades and many have found them to be offensive and inappropriate
The Anishinabek are no different and have recently launched a campaign to abolish the term ‘Aboriginal.’
According to a recent news release, chiefs of the 42-member communities of the Anishinabek Nation endorsed a resolution that characterized the word as “another means of assimilation through the displacement of our First Nations-specific inherent and treaty rights.”
The resolution states “there are no Aboriginal bands, aboriginal reserves, or aboriginal chiefs,” and the reference to “Aboriginal rights” referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada “was never meant to assimilate First Nations, Metis, and Inuit into a homogeneous group.”
“It’s actually offensive to hear that term used in reference to First Nation citizens,” said Grand Council Chief John Beaucage. “Our chiefs are giving us direction to inform government agencies, NGOs, educators and media organizations that they should discontinue using inappropriate terminology when they are referring to the Anishinabek. We respect the cultures and traditions of our Metis and Inuit brothers and sisters, but their issues are different from ours.”
Chief Patrick Madahbee of Aundeck Omni Kaning stated: “Referring to ourselves as Anishinabek is the natural thing to do because that is who we are. We are not Indians, Natives, or Aboriginal. We are, always have been and always will be, Anishinabek.” [ @ ]
Thanks for that link to the article.
First Nations is an easy short cut. Imagine if the feds and provincial governments, and media, actually used each Nation’s proper name as we tend to do with sovereign nations in general. Perhaps our public wouldn’t be so ignorant of the underlying treaties that define relationships between parties.
I can understand the use when referring to part or whole collective of First Nations but I find it lazy and disrespectful to read captions of “First Nation votes for…”, “First Nation barricades…”, “First Nation leadership accused of…”, “First Nation demands…”, “First Nation grieving over…”, etc. In all those cases, the FN’s proper name should have been used.
Ok, Dirk, you’ve managed to confuse me, which is easy to do.
My understanding is that not all aboriginal peoples are, in fact, members of (officially recognized by themselves or by Canada) First Nations. In fact, I got that from someone who is in that situation. So what am I missing?
Or am I confusing Six Nations with First Nations – which might make more sense, come to think of it.
Chrystal…not quite sure of your meaning.
Perhaps you are speaking of the “differences” between “status-Indians” and “non-status Indians”.
Both terms are racial/blood quantum constructs of the ‘Indian Act’. An act which was imposed on First Nations peoples,as part of the governments over all assimilation strategy and agenda.
An indigenous person is an indigenous person regardless of what the Cnd government,using the criteria articulated and imposed on F.N peoples through the use of ‘Indian Act’,might say or not say.
Also some “Indian Act Chiefs” and Band Councils use the criteria,again as set out in the ‘Indian Act’, to deny membership to some people ,who are otherwise obviously indigenous,or who happen to be married to a member of a particular F.N , for their own political purposes and or as a way of imposing their power & control(with the government’s blessing).
But again this does not change who is or who is not indigenous.
The intention on part of the government has always been to assimilate indigenous peoples.Denying status or using the racist blood quantum notion is but one of the tools used,i.e the government uses these ridiculous social constructs in an absurdly and racial motivated attempt to reduce the number of who is or not First Nations(as they the gov defines F.N).Seeing as the gov can not just shoot em all,well then they(the Gov)tries to legislate F.N peoples out of existence.Settler society covets ALL of F.N lands,therefore they must legitimize their claim while de-legitimizing F.N’s.
As if the gov/settler society has a right to decide or impose a criteria on F.N peoples as to who is or who is not indigenous.Unfortunately there are some indigenous peoples who play the “whiteman’s” games,collaborate,and act/play the role that was once played by government appointed “Indian agents”.
As for your question on Six Nations.
The ‘Six Nations’ consists of the Mohawk,Oneida,Seneca,Onondaga,Tuscarora and Cayuga,together they formed the Iroquois Confederacy.
Beijing York…you said,”First Nations is an easy short cut”…
Not necessarily,when one is talking in general terms it is very appropriate.Also “First Nations” is a term that indigenous peoples coined,because of its political meaning and to clearly state that they are not just another ethnic minority within Canada,but Nations.
Although if one is talking about a specific issue related to a specific F.N I agree,one should use the appropriate name e.g Nisga Nation, Mohawk Nation,etc
Dirk, I meant in the case of specific First Nation. If you’re reporting an even in France, Germany or Spain, the caption doesn’t read, “European nation…”