Local place names - First Nations vs. later names
#101
Posted 21 May 2013 - 02:23 PM
#102
Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:37 PM
I would advise anyone interested in the matter of the "Douglas Treaties" to read ethnographer Wilson Duff's 1969 article "The Fort Victoria Treaties." He not only notes that the different tribes gathered at Fort Victoria to sign the treaties, but he also states that his Saanich informants gave the name Pkols to MOUNT TOLMIE.
Here's a link to this very interesting article:
http://ojs.library.u...le/view/607/651
And here's the quote about PKOLS:
'38. Pkaals (p'q'als) was given by SM and NW as the name of Mount Tolmie. JF gave the same name for "a beach outside Cadboro Bay."'
[SM and NW are identified as 'two of the oldest Songhees residents' on p.27.]
#103
Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:01 PM
We are not allowed to wish each other Merry Christmas anymore either.
Victoria is Victoria. Let the First Nations call it anything they want.
Victoria Day is Victoria Day
June 21 is Aboriginal Peoples Day. Let the Feds make it a National Holiday.
Land Claims were supposed to settle all this BS.
Why is it no one is EVER satisfied.
Maggie Atwood and Lizzy May and anyone else including Isitt can Stick it.
Very disappointed in Lizzy May.
I think they should change their names to the above and their birthdays should be offered up as Aboriginal Peoples Day.
The next thing you know we won't be allowed to wish each other Happy Birthday or Happy Easter or Happy Halloween or or or
#104
Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:23 AM
How many of us in BC are first or second generation, even third generation Canadians who had nothing to do with the indiscretions of the past?
BC people are living off the avails of the indiscretions of the past.
And while restitution seems to some like political correctness run amok, it is in fact based on centuries old British property law, i.e., land belongs to the people on it, until you buy it from them. Which, except for the Douglas Treaties, never occurred in BC.
#105
Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:34 AM
BC people are living off the avails of the indiscretions of the past.
And while restitution seems to some like political correctness run amok, it is in fact based on centuries old British property law, i.e., land belongs to the people on it, until you buy it from them. Which, except for the Douglas Treaties, never occurred in BC.
Kikadee, I don't think many oppose the treaty process. Land claims need to be resolved. The slow process is economically holding back many aboriginal bands.
It's these targeted erosions of our shared culture's history that I have an issue with. Changing the name of Victoria to Camosack has nothing to do with restitution and everything to do with political correctness.
#106
Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:36 AM
And while restitution seems to some like political correctness run amok, it is in fact based on centuries old British property law
I'm not sure that the centuries old property law applies here in Canada.
#107
Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:39 AM
I don't think most people even realize how violent the history of Cascadia was prior to the arrival of European settlers.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#108
Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:04 AM
Nothing wrong with being aware of our past but where do you draw the line? I for one am tired of paying in time, monies, and land for events that in most cases happened hundreds of years ago. Times change and what was accptable then is not aceptable now, I get that, but how long does one go doing penance? If you think that this constant need to give more and recognize past mistakes is ever going to end then you don't understand the people and the economics behind that whole process. We in BC are shamed most often not just because we made the most mistakes but because we allow ourselves to feel guilty and give in time and time again.
I don't feel guilty at all.
I agree, its impossible to right all wrongs, and no matter what one does someone will complain that they were left out. What I think we need to do is move on, let the past be, and build a future together. We all live here now and are made up of many cultures. I am a third generation Canadian and I will not be responsible for the actions of my ancestors.
#109
Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:08 AM
Kikadee, I don't think many oppose the treaty process. Land claims need to be resolved. The slow process is economically holding back many aboriginal bands.
It's these targeted erosions of our shared culture's history that I have an issue with. Changing the name of Victoria to Camosack has nothing to do with restitution and everything to do with political correctness.
Here here!!
#110
Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:32 AM
I agree, its impossible to right all wrongs, and no matter what one does someone will complain that they were left out. What I think we need to do is move on, let the past be, and build a future together. We all live here now and are made up of many cultures. I am a third generation Canadian and I will not be responsible for the actions of my ancestors.
I like.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#111
Posted 22 May 2013 - 05:08 PM
The existing stone.
The new sign
Tsawout First Nation chief Eric Pelkey
#112
Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:02 PM
#113
Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:01 PM
I'm all for the First Nations people rebuilding their culture and searching for reparation. I don't like being called "settler people" though. It has a derogatory tone to it. So, we need to come up with a better term for ourselves. I propose Second Nations people....
I propose Victor.
#114
Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:15 PM
I don't like being called "settler people" though. It has a derogatory tone to it.
Yes, it does. I am not a "settler person" and neither are any living Victorians. This sort of reference to non-aboriginals is obtuse.
Just out of curiosity, did the group climb the mountain or walk up the paved road?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#115
Posted 23 May 2013 - 03:38 AM
Just out of curiosity, did the group climb the mountain or walk up the paved road?
Most people walked up, but there were some that were shuttled up in cars and busses.
#116
Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:06 AM
This bus shuttled a full load to the top while others walked in front of it and behind it.
The bus is owned by the Sociacoast and is called the community action bus.
Here is a link to their website http://socialcoast.org/
And here is the bus
#117
Posted 23 May 2013 - 06:56 AM
Now correct me if I'm wrong but did we not determine Pkols is actually Mt. Tolmie? Or was that an older reference made in error?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#118
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:07 AM
Mount Douglas is only a beginning, Pelkey said in an interview.
The next renaming and reclaiming steps are likely to affect Mount Newton and Sidney Spit, he said.
http://www.timescolo...oclaim-1.228920
#119
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:08 AM
#120
Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:59 AM
"The Oral History of the 1852 Saanich Douglas Treaty: A Treaty for Peace"
http://web.uvic.ca/i...P Aug. 2004.pdf
According to this report, a Tsartlip fellow named John Elliott Sr. told Knighton that it was his understanding that when the time came to sign the treaty with Governor Douglas, they brought him up to Mount Douglas, which Elliott said was called Pkols, and made the agreement (pg. 22).
And from there, it seems we have the foundation of yesterday's march to "reclaim" Pkols . . . .
What this completely overlooks (and as I've pointed out before) is the ethnographic documentation of the name Pkols with reference to Mount Tolmie (and/or a beach near Cadboro Bay). This was information provided to Wilson Duff by Songhees elders over fifty years ago (BC Studies 3:1969)
I've learned from first-hand experience that you never f**k with oral history. You can have a manuscript diary entry from an HBC clerk saying that a certain event happened at his trading post on such-and-such a day in 1824, and the First Nation's representative says that his grandmother told him it took place 500 years before that, and you'd better damn well not tell him that his grandmother was wrong. I can't tell you how often I encounter this sort of situation.
Legally, oral history is accorded a lot of weight in court, because First Nations are at an understandable disadvantage in terms of their perspectives being on record.
So, while this contradicts that oral history, it must be said that there is absolutely no evidence Governor Douglas went to the top of "Cedar Hill" (as it was known then) or Pkols, or whatever you want to call it, and signed a treaty with the Saanich at its peak. It had no road to the top. It was miles and miles away from his home at the inner harbour, on a forested track, easily requiring a day to get there and back. It was also unnecessary, because the natives were constantly visiting Fort Victoria to trade and socialize. Most of the other treaties were explicitly signed and dated at Fort Victoria. Colonial officials were simply NOT that accommodating . . . .
But now the horse has fled the barn. All those hundreds of people who marched on Mount Douglas will henceforth believe that the treaty was signed there, and that it was known to their native ancestors as Pkols, and good luck ever convincing them that it may be otherwise.
This "settler person" is in favour of restoring aboriginal place-names, or at least educating people about them. That carved Pkols sign is gorgeous and they put a lot of work into it. But it's shameful that all that effort may be entirely misdirected, and it does a disservice to their own people that no one bothered to dig deeper.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users