233 replies to this topic

[Moderation]

What gives you the right to tell me what I can think an acceptable excuse is or isn’t?

Are you deciding what fits into the box of permissible excuses for other people? Not appropriate.

I asked  questions. No answer from you.

 

I only told you what I was thinking and what I thought was appropriate.

Where did I tell you what to think or put you in a box?

 

Can you answer my questions?

 

Just out of interest in checking things out I found that once I was defined as a settler.

When I arrived in Canada as an immigrant I met the Border Services definition of a settler with respect to custom tariff; Goods imported by settlers for the settler's household or personal use.................

[Moderation]

You are bringing up racist terms that others are using ,rubbing salt in open wounds . What’s your  agenda ?

NParker brought up the term In an earlier exchange........ What about settler?.........It is a new use context and meaning to me.

 

I am continuing to learn here and by doing web searches about the different ways and contexts it is used and how it is perceived by different people.

[Love the rock]

NParker brought up the term In an earlier exchange........ What about settler?.........It is a new use context and meaning to me.

 

I am continuing to learn here and by doing web searches about the different ways and contexts it is used and how it is perceived by different people.

Not buying what your throwing down . I’m finished with this subject.

[m3m]

Do y'all take issues with the land acknowledgments that are prevalent now?

 

Like this one from the District of Oak Bay: https://www.oakbay.c...community/about

[Benezet]

Do y'all take issues with the land acknowledgments that are prevalent now?

Like this one from the District of Oak Bay: https://www.oakbay.c...community/about

I’m fine with them, however flawed any or all of them may be.

To paraphrase Harold Johnson – if nothing else, they show that you might actually give a s***.

[A Girl is No one]

If it was suggested to me that I should introduce myself as a settler I would refuse and if it was written in any policy I would challenge that policy.

And risk sabotaging your career or maybe even lose your job ?

[On the Level]

I have never been asked to introduce myself that way. A Girl is No one made the comment. I responded what I would do under that circumstance.
 

 

You make this about you without thinking about the message.

[A Girl is No one]

Do y'all take issues with the land acknowledgments that are prevalent now?

Like this one from the District of Oak Bay: https://www.oakbay.c...community/about

That one is pretty good actually. I have a problem with the ones where I “have to thank them for ALLOWING me to work, live and play on their lands”.

[Moderation]

And risk sabotaging your career or maybe even lose your job ?

Anyone requiring you to introduce yourself as a settler does not have a leg to stand on. 

If they suggest intimidation then they are in even more trouble

 

When the time comes you could introduce yourself as you feel appropriate to the situation....... name, position for example. See what response or feedback you get.

An inappropriate request needs to be questioned if not challenged.......and yes I have refused superiors when inappropriate requests were made.

[A Girl is No one]

I don’t know your circumstances but you can’t assume that everyone has the latitude/freedom to refuse what is being asked of them. Most people have bills to pay, can be single income family etc.

I think the original point was that the use of the word settler carries a negative connotation meant to make people feel bad about themselves. And it is commonly used this way.

[spanky123]

That one is pretty good actually. I have a problem with the ones where I “have to thank them for ALLOWING me to work, live and play on their lands”.

 

What gets me is that many of the people who are quick to make a land acknowledgement every chance they get in public are the same ones who are happy to denigrate FN in private.

[Moderation]

What gets me is that many of the people who are quick to make a land acknowledgement every chance they get in public are the same ones who are happy to denigrate FN in private.

I find some seem to be doing the acknowledgement without conviction or because they see it as convention 

 

If that has been your experience of not only the speaker lacking conviction but also being two-faced as a FN person aware of this I would not want to trust those people and certainly be wary of the statements of many others.

[Moderation]

I think the original point was that the use of the word settler carries a negative connotation meant to make people feel bad about themselves. And it is commonly used this way.

I have been learning about the term settler. Starting here I am paraphrasing a number of different perspectives  and contexts around the use of the term settler..

 

It does not make sense to use the term settler, it is a looking back. In the spirit of reconciliation it would be better to come up with a term/expression that does not make people uncomfortable.

 

When you call me a settler you are blaming me for  everything I did not do. Right away we are at odds.

 

Debates around the term settler are a distraction and a waste of time.

 

We all need terms to use, or we can not have a discussion. Terms are needed, not offensive labels. I want some common ground. but not by pretending our differences are irrelevant. When I use the term settler I am not trying to be deliberately provocative and I mean no disrespect. The term itself is not inherently bad. It is a way to say that our histories and experiences are different.

 

What terms are currently best to be used for Indigenous people and others in discussions related to both historic and current situations? Some terms that have been used......... Indian. native. aboriginal.......colonist, white, newcomers......

Can this be done without making people uncomfortable?

[Midnightly]

What terms are currently best to be used for Indigenous people and others in discussions related to both historic and current situations? Some terms that have been used......... Indian. native. aboriginal.......colonist, white, newcomers......

Can this be done without making people uncomfortable?

i'm all for acknowledging first nations as first nations (i think the word indian is inappropriate unless your speaking of someone from India), as a Canadian i would like to be seen as a Canadian.. not as a colonist (as i am not), not just as "white" because that is a colour(or shade) which doesn't have a place attached to it and i am not a newcomer (this is a term that could be used for immigrants to this country) I am born here, i was raised here, my parents were born here... for that i see myself as Canadian

[lanforod]

I find some seem to be doing the acknowledgement without conviction or because they see it as convention 

 

If that has been your experience of not only the speaker lacking conviction but also being two-faced as a FN person aware of this I would not want to trust those people and certainly be wary of the statements of many others.

 

Thats the thing. Every larger and public organization is doing land acknowledgements now. Pretty much all of the local ones follow that structure of the one linked earlier from Oak Bay. Whether you like it or not, it IS a convention now. There isn't really a way to distinguish between when it was done with conviction or as a convention over time, any more than doing the pledge of allegiance in the US is.

Edited by lanforod, 01 February 2022 - 08:37 PM.

[On the Level]

When you call me a settler you are blaming me for  everything I did not do. Right away we are at odds.

 

What terms are currently best to be used for Indigenous people and others in discussions related to both historic and current situations? Some terms that have been used......... Indian. native. aboriginal.......colonist, white, newcomers......

Can this be done without making people uncomfortable?

 

Depends on the purpose of creating the label.  If it is to create a division between natives and non-natives, then it separates.

 

Reconciliation is a good example.  Its definition is:

• the restoration of friendly relations.
• the action of making one view or belief compatible with another.

Does burning churches, tearing down statues and destroying museums aid in "reconciliation"?

 

Labeling someone as a settler is done with ill intent and shuts down the discussion.

[Moderation]

i'm all for acknowledging first nations as first nations (i think the word indian is inappropriate unless your speaking of someone from India), as a Canadian i would like to be seen as a Canadian.. not as a colonist (as i am not), not just as "white" because that is a colour(or shade) which doesn't have a place attached to it and i am not a newcomer (this is a term that could be used for immigrants to this country) I am born here, i was raised here, my parents were born here... for that i see myself as Canadian

Using the term First Nations has been positive. Describing non aboriginal people as Canadians is a term many find positive and acceptable.

From my readings I am paraphrasing related comments and information  around this issue of what to call non indigenous people.

 

- Words can represent something more than just a word. Especially when the word or name has not  been picked by the individual or group themselves. A word can be used to divide us. We are still Indians..

 

- For hundreds of years we were incorrectly called Indians. Still today we are legally defined under the Indian Act and further divided as Status Indians and Non - Status Indians.

 

- In 1960 the Government of Canada was still using the term Indian and Eskimo in legal amendments.

 

- most indigenous people associate the term Indian and Eskimo with Government regulations imposed on them and a history of colonization and it continues today under the Indian Act

 

- First Nations people are Canadian Citizens and therefor Canadians.

 

- Some but not all  indigenous people do not consider themselves Canadian. To say that we are you,( Canadian ) is to say we are the same. Then we have been assimilated. Assimilation was one of the goals of residential schools and to say we are you would ignore and disrespect our history and experiences we have had and continue to have under the Indian Act.

 

If Canadian may not be an acceptable name to call non indigenous people because  according to the Government  it includes both FN and Non FN peoples. are there other good alternatives?

[A Girl is No one]

I was born in Canada, this makes me indigenous of Canada.

[Moderation]

I was born in Canada, this makes me indigenous of Canada.

Interesting suggestion.

 

It is respectful to address groups of people and individuals by the names they wish to be called or the names they call themselves. Here is some information and background on the use of  indigenous and aboriginal. 

 

- the term indigenous was chosen by indigenous leaders in the 1970's to identify and unite diverse communities around the world and represent them in global political arenas including the United Nations.

 

- The term aboriginal was introduced by the Government in the 1982 as part of the Canadian Constitution. It is used as an umbrella to include First Nations, Inuit, (Metis?) Replacing in some Government documents the term Indian and Eskimo.

 

- 2016 the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples changed their name to the the Indigenous People's Assembly of Canada.

 

- Some FN people do not accept the use of the term Aboriginal. Aboriginal has a variety of definitions. One is that 'ab' is a Latin root for " away from " or " not " if that interpretation is accepted Aboriginal can mean "not from here ".

 

It is respectful to ask people how they would like to be called. Who would accept being called indigenous or aboriginal rather than settler? If not what other alternatives do you suggest.

[Moderation]

Depends on the purpose of creating the label.  If it is to create a division between natives and non-natives, then it separates.

 

Reconciliation is a good example.  Its definition is:

• the restoration of friendly relations.
• the action of making one view or belief compatible with another.

Does burning churches, tearing down statues and destroying museums aid in "reconciliation"?

 

Labeling someone as a settler is done with ill intent and shuts down the discussion.

Violence in action or words does not aid in Reconciliation. One FN writer indicated the need for a label (word) that recognizes that the historical current lived experiences of indigenous peoples are dramatically different from long time Canadians and new immigrants. Here are some examples of what he might mean by these differences.......

 

- I want the name on my Birth Certificate to be the name my family gave me not the name that the Indian agent, Residential School Principal or Catholic priest gave me. ( This is addressed in item 7 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report.)

-starting in 1941 Inuit (Eskimo) persons were assigned a disc number that had to be worn at all times or sewn in the clothing.

- any FN person who earned a university degree automatically lost their Indian Status as did Status women who married a non; status man.

-until 1941 FN people were only permitted to leave the reserve if they had signed permission of the local Indian agent.

- a FN person living on the reserve can only hold a certificate which gives the right of occupancy of a house. They do not have the right to sell, transfer or mortgage the house.

- No settler group, long past immigrant or newcomer to Canada is subject to such scrutiny and control by the state as indigenous people.

 

Here are some reactions I have found to the use of the term settler.

- My family has been here for five generations. I am not a settler.

- The term settler blames some people not for what they did but for what somebody like them did. Or somebody unlike them in the case of many new Canadians.

 

Some FN peoples see the term settler as encompassing the historical and current lived experiences of non-indigenous people.

- early settlers were involved in an ongoing process of occupying, taking and holding indigenous lands to the exclusion of indigenous people. Later generations continue to hold it for their exclusive use and benefit of their children.

- Settler ( colonization ) is a structure not an event. It is not something you did or did not do. Think of it like a house. You can move in, renovate, die in place, pass it down to your descendants but the structure remains. It does not matter if you built it, or you arrived yesterday. If you are living in it ( Canada ) you are still benefitting from how those settlers built it.

 

 It is a sign of respect to call someone by the name they call themselves or the name they wish to be called.

How should we be called?

Edited by Moderation, 04 February 2022 - 09:55 AM.