{"id":93,"date":"2018-03-03T16:37:29","date_gmt":"2018-03-03T16:37:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/?post_type=chapter&p=93"},"modified":"2018-08-30T18:01:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T18:01:43","slug":"historical-interpretation-3-luby-et-al-renaming-and-decolonizing-the-indigenous-peoples-of-north-america-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/chapter\/historical-interpretation-3-luby-et-al-renaming-and-decolonizing-the-indigenous-peoples-of-north-america-part-ii\/","title":{"raw":"Interpretation 3: Luby et al., \"(Re)naming and (De)colonizing the (I?)ndigenous People(s) of North America - Part II\"","rendered":"Interpretation 3: Luby et al., “(Re)naming and (De)colonizing the (I?)ndigenous People(s) of North America – Part II”"},"content":{"raw":"

Source:\u00a0<\/strong>Brittany Luby, Kathryn Labelle, and Alison Norman, \"(Re)naming and (De)colonizing the (I?)ndigenous People(s) of North America - Part II,\"\u00a0ActiveHistory.ca<\/em>, 8 Nov. 2016.<\/a><\/h4>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\nThe term \u201cIndigenous\u201d is not new to Canadians. \u201cIndigenous peoples\u201d was used by anthropologists and ethnographers in the 19th<\/sup> century to describe a people united by culture, traditions, and kinship; who have a common language and beliefs; and generally are politically organized. By the 1970s and 80s, the term began to be used specifically to describe groups affected by colonization, and it was a self-descriptor. Indigenous peoples from around the world began working together to demand recognition at the United Nations, and in 1982, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations<\/a> was established.\u00a0They began drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/a>, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. UNDRIP sets out the collective and individual rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, as well as their rights to culture, language, health, and identity. Canada only recently committed to fully implementing UNDRIP, and exactly how it will do so remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is clear that the use of the term by international activists has influenced activists and academics in Canada. The term \u201cIndigenous\u201d is trending in Canada right now.\r\n\r\nOn November 4, 2015, Carolyn Bennett was sworn in as the new minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and it marked a significant departure from the previous federal government who used the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d to describe Canada\u2019s Indigenous people, in both the name of the federal department, and in all of their communications. The Assembly of First Nations approved<\/a> of the new terminology, suggesting it is the more \u201cpreferred and accepted\u201d term.\r\n\r\nIn May, 2016, Ontario changed the name of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation<\/a>, as part of Ontario\u2019s Response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.\u00a0Public servants see using \u201cIndigenous\u201d as a step towards reconciliation, and in reconciling relationships with Indigenous peoples (a slew of new programs and funds is also associated with reconciliation by administrators). Both the provincial and federal government still use the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d when talking about Aboriginal rights because those are protected and recognized by the Canadian Constitution Act (1982), and so the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d will not go away. But it seems to be on its way out, as more and more governments, organizations, and groups change their name and their language.\r\n\r\nOutside of governments, other Canadian institutions have implemented similar decisions. Recently, CBC Aboriginal became CBC Indigenous, after consulting with Indigenous staff, and recognizing the trend that was taking place. They say \u201cwhile we understand that there is no truly all-encompassing term, Indigenous is fast becoming the preferred way to refer to First Nations, Inuit and M\u00e9tis peoples.\u201d Their website features a short video \u201cWhat\u2019s in a name? From redskin to Indigenous<\/a>.\u201d\r\n\r\nUniversities have also changed their Aboriginal and Native Studies departments and programs to \u201cIndigenous\u201d Studies. The University of Saskatchewan and University of Toronto<\/a>\u00a0have both done this in the last year. Commenting on the change at U of S, Dr. Sarah Nickel<\/a> (Assistant Professor, Indigenous Studies Department), explains that although \u201cthe shift has historical and political motivations that obviously aren't consistent or entirely agreed upon within the discipline (and elsewhere)\u2026 the shift to Indigenous allowed greater international inclusivity - something that \"Aboriginal\" lacks, and more importantly, from an Indigenous sovereigntist\u00a0perspective,\u00a0sidesteps a\u00a0problematic constitutional straightjacket. Aboriginal, while specific and clearly defined, is set within settler-colonial frameworks of political recognition, whereas Indigenous draws meaning internally\u00a0from Indigenous understandings and categories.\u201d\r\n\r\nTellingly, even The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the most recent \u201cnational\u201d report on what we would have once called \u201cNative-Newcomer\u201d relation in Canada, uses both Indigenous and Aboriginal in its Calls to Action<\/a>. According to the TRC, \u201cIndigenous\u201d (capitalized) refers to Indigenous lands, peoples, law, spirituality, Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous history, Indigenous artists etc., while \u201cAboriginal rights\u201d refers to Aboriginal children, Aboriginal Canadians, Aboriginal families. The message is confusing to say the least.\r\n\r\nCapitalization is also an issue when it comes to using the term Indigenous. Although the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (and the general reference for journal editors) maintains that indigenous should not<\/em> be capitalized, academic journals such as, the Canadian Journal of Native <\/em>Studies<\/em> and the Canadian Journal of History<\/em> have revised their guidelines to incorporate the capitalized Indigenous. Rilla Friesen, managing editor of the CJH, explains the journal\u2019s decision in the following way: \u201cSince working on our special issue on Indigenous history, we have updated our internal style guide so that we capitalize Indigenous, Native, Aboriginal, Indian, First Nations, and M\u00e9tis. While a shift in capitalization may seem like a minor thing, a capital c in Canadian makes it clear this is an official designation\u2026We want to honor and respect the nationhood of Aboriginal peoples.\u201d Capital \u201cI\u201d is important because it suggests that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are on equal footing with Canadians. It is a formatting demand for equality \u2013 it allots similar space on the page to both groups\r\n\r\nThe printed word holds considerable power in a society that tends to privilege literary over oral traditions. Students, teachers and the general public will incorporate the terminologies they know. Textbooks and university courses offer another point of contact for this debate. \u201cAboriginal\u201d is still the most widely used term in Canadian history textbooks (see Geoff Read and Kristin Burnett\u2019s excellent book Aboriginal History: A Reader<\/em><\/a>), and history courses often reflect the terminology from when they were first created. Trent University, for instance, still offers a course on the \u201cHistory of Indians of Canada,\u201d and PhD students at the University of Saskatchewan can complete a Comprehensive Field in \u201cNative-Newcomer North America.\u201d\r\n\r\nFrench terminology does not seem to be experiencing the same transition. \u201cAutochtone\u201d or \u201cAboriginal\u201d is still the most popular term. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in Ontario, for instance, remains the Minist\u00e8re des Relations avec les Autochtones et de la R\u00e9conciliation. Likewise, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, is still \u201cAffaires autochtones et du Nord Canada.\u201d The University of Ottawa has kept its \u201cAboriginal Studies\/etudes autochtones\u201d and the University of Laval offers a certificate in \u00e9tudes autochtones. This difference may rest in the meaning of the cultural distinctions of French translation of Indigenous (Indig\u00e8nes). In France, the connotation is more derogatory and insinuates \u201csavage\u201d and \u201cwild\u201d characteristics. Am\u00e9rindiens, which combines \u201cIndiens\u201d with \u201cAmerique,\u201d is another option. The term is more widely used abroad than it is in Canada.","rendered":"

Source:\u00a0<\/strong>Brittany Luby, Kathryn Labelle, and Alison Norman, “(Re)naming and (De)colonizing the (I?)ndigenous People(s) of North America – Part II,”\u00a0ActiveHistory.ca<\/em>, 8 Nov. 2016.<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n

The term \u201cIndigenous\u201d is not new to Canadians. \u201cIndigenous peoples\u201d was used by anthropologists and ethnographers in the 19th<\/sup> century to describe a people united by culture, traditions, and kinship; who have a common language and beliefs; and generally are politically organized. By the 1970s and 80s, the term began to be used specifically to describe groups affected by colonization, and it was a self-descriptor. Indigenous peoples from around the world began working together to demand recognition at the United Nations, and in 1982, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations<\/a> was established.\u00a0They began drafting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/a>, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. UNDRIP sets out the collective and individual rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, as well as their rights to culture, language, health, and identity. Canada only recently committed to fully implementing UNDRIP, and exactly how it will do so remains to be seen. Nonetheless, it is clear that the use of the term by international activists has influenced activists and academics in Canada. The term \u201cIndigenous\u201d is trending in Canada right now.<\/p>\n

On November 4, 2015, Carolyn Bennett was sworn in as the new minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and it marked a significant departure from the previous federal government who used the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d to describe Canada\u2019s Indigenous people, in both the name of the federal department, and in all of their communications. The Assembly of First Nations approved<\/a> of the new terminology, suggesting it is the more \u201cpreferred and accepted\u201d term.<\/p>\n

In May, 2016, Ontario changed the name of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation<\/a>, as part of Ontario\u2019s Response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.\u00a0Public servants see using \u201cIndigenous\u201d as a step towards reconciliation, and in reconciling relationships with Indigenous peoples (a slew of new programs and funds is also associated with reconciliation by administrators). Both the provincial and federal government still use the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d when talking about Aboriginal rights because those are protected and recognized by the Canadian Constitution Act (1982), and so the term \u201cAboriginal\u201d will not go away. But it seems to be on its way out, as more and more governments, organizations, and groups change their name and their language.<\/p>\n

Outside of governments, other Canadian institutions have implemented similar decisions. Recently, CBC Aboriginal became CBC Indigenous, after consulting with Indigenous staff, and recognizing the trend that was taking place. They say \u201cwhile we understand that there is no truly all-encompassing term, Indigenous is fast becoming the preferred way to refer to First Nations, Inuit and M\u00e9tis peoples.\u201d Their website features a short video \u201cWhat\u2019s in a name? From redskin to Indigenous<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Universities have also changed their Aboriginal and Native Studies departments and programs to \u201cIndigenous\u201d Studies. The University of Saskatchewan and University of Toronto<\/a>\u00a0have both done this in the last year. Commenting on the change at U of S, Dr. Sarah Nickel<\/a> (Assistant Professor, Indigenous Studies Department), explains that although \u201cthe shift has historical and political motivations that obviously aren’t consistent or entirely agreed upon within the discipline (and elsewhere)\u2026 the shift to Indigenous allowed greater international inclusivity – something that “Aboriginal” lacks, and more importantly, from an Indigenous sovereigntist\u00a0perspective,\u00a0sidesteps a\u00a0problematic constitutional straightjacket. Aboriginal, while specific and clearly defined, is set within settler-colonial frameworks of political recognition, whereas Indigenous draws meaning internally\u00a0from Indigenous understandings and categories.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tellingly, even The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the most recent \u201cnational\u201d report on what we would have once called \u201cNative-Newcomer\u201d relation in Canada, uses both Indigenous and Aboriginal in its Calls to Action<\/a>. According to the TRC, \u201cIndigenous\u201d (capitalized) refers to Indigenous lands, peoples, law, spirituality, Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous history, Indigenous artists etc., while \u201cAboriginal rights\u201d refers to Aboriginal children, Aboriginal Canadians, Aboriginal families. The message is confusing to say the least.<\/p>\n

Capitalization is also an issue when it comes to using the term Indigenous. Although the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (and the general reference for journal editors) maintains that indigenous should not<\/em> be capitalized, academic journals such as, the Canadian Journal of Native <\/em>Studies<\/em> and the Canadian Journal of History<\/em> have revised their guidelines to incorporate the capitalized Indigenous. Rilla Friesen, managing editor of the CJH, explains the journal\u2019s decision in the following way: \u201cSince working on our special issue on Indigenous history, we have updated our internal style guide so that we capitalize Indigenous, Native, Aboriginal, Indian, First Nations, and M\u00e9tis. While a shift in capitalization may seem like a minor thing, a capital c in Canadian makes it clear this is an official designation\u2026We want to honor and respect the nationhood of Aboriginal peoples.\u201d Capital \u201cI\u201d is important because it suggests that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are on equal footing with Canadians. It is a formatting demand for equality \u2013 it allots similar space on the page to both groups<\/p>\n

The printed word holds considerable power in a society that tends to privilege literary over oral traditions. Students, teachers and the general public will incorporate the terminologies they know. Textbooks and university courses offer another point of contact for this debate. \u201cAboriginal\u201d is still the most widely used term in Canadian history textbooks (see Geoff Read and Kristin Burnett\u2019s excellent book Aboriginal History: A Reader<\/em><\/a>), and history courses often reflect the terminology from when they were first created. Trent University, for instance, still offers a course on the \u201cHistory of Indians of Canada,\u201d and PhD students at the University of Saskatchewan can complete a Comprehensive Field in \u201cNative-Newcomer North America.\u201d<\/p>\n

French terminology does not seem to be experiencing the same transition. \u201cAutochtone\u201d or \u201cAboriginal\u201d is still the most popular term. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in Ontario, for instance, remains the Minist\u00e8re des Relations avec les Autochtones et de la R\u00e9conciliation. Likewise, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, is still \u201cAffaires autochtones et du Nord Canada.\u201d The University of Ottawa has kept its \u201cAboriginal Studies\/etudes autochtones\u201d and the University of Laval offers a certificate in \u00e9tudes autochtones. This difference may rest in the meaning of the cultural distinctions of French translation of Indigenous (Indig\u00e8nes). In France, the connotation is more derogatory and insinuates \u201csavage\u201d and \u201cwild\u201d characteristics. Am\u00e9rindiens, which combines \u201cIndiens\u201d with \u201cAmerique,\u201d is another option. The term is more widely used abroad than it is in Canada.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"menu_order":4,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[48],"contributor":[],"license":[],"part":86,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":977,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/revisions\/977"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/86"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=93"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=93"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/openhistoryseminar.com\/canadianhistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=93"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}