Indigenous peoples are incredibly diverse; there are all sorts of internal arguments about which terms are best, what they actually mean, why people should reject this and that, and so on. What I’m okay with you calling me might really annoy someone else. If you were hoping this chapter was going to help you avoid that completely, I want to be upfront with the fact that you will leave disappointed. Be aware: no matter how safe you think a term is, someone somewhere might get upset if you call them that. No one can give you a magical pass so you never have to re-examine the terms you are using – not even your Native friend.
Be prepared to listen to what people have to say about the term you use, and to respect what they suggest you call them instead. This is surprisingly easy to do, and goes a very long way in keeping the dialogue useful. I mean, it would be a bit off to deliberately keep calling someone “Susie” when she’s asked you to call her “Susan,” right?
Here are some of the names in use:
Indian
NDN
Aboriginal
Indigenous
Native
First Nations
Inuit
Métis
Native American (more in the United States than in Canada)
the name of a particular nation (Cree, Ojibway, Chipewyan, and so on)
the name of a particular nation in that nation’s original language (nêhiyaw,2 Anishinaabe, Dene sųłiné, and so on)
Notice that I always capitalize the various terms used to describe Indigenous peoples. This is deliberate; the terms are proper nouns and adjectives referring to specific groups. “To capitalize or not to capitalize” ends up being a heated debate at times, but I feel it is a measure of respect to always capitalize our names when writing in English. This is my rule of thumb: if I can swap out “Indigenous” with “Canadian” (which is always capitalized), then I use the big I. I also capitalize names for non-Indigenous peoples throughout this book.
The term Indian is probably the most contentious. There are a couple of theories about where the term originated,3 but that’s not the point. In Canada, Indian continues to have legal connotations, and there is still an Indian Act4; so you’ll see it used officially, as well as colloquially. There is also a long history of this term being used pejoratively – two good reasons why it doesn’t sit well with everyone.
However, it is also a term that is often used internally. Please note this does not mean it’s always okay for others to use the term. I tend to suggest that avoiding this term is probably for the best, unless someone is specifically referencing the Indian Act. There is a level of sarcasm and challenge often associated with its internal use that is easy to miss, and most likely cannot be replicated. If you are interested in avoiding giving offence, this term is one you might want to drop from your vocabulary.
NDN is a term of more recent origin, in heavy use via social media. This shorthand term has no official meaning and is very informal. If you say it aloud it just sounds like Indian, so its use really only makes sense in text-based situations. NDN is more of a self-identifier than anything.
I know Native American is very popular in the U.S., and it is still in use as a way of self-identifying among some older people here in Canada. It’s a weird thing to hear in our Canadian context, though; and Native Canadian is just silly.5 American Indian is another term that is very rarely used in Canada outside of references to the American Indian Movement (AIM).
Aboriginal (never aborigine) is a term of fairly recent origin, being adopted officially in the Constitution Act, 1982, to refer generally to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.6 It has become the most common official term used here in Canada. I now tend to use this term only within its legal context because, although it is not offensive per se, its use is incredibly generic and made increasingly obnoxious by overuse – once again, like a hit song you can no longer stand to hear. If you use this term, please try to remember it is not a proper noun. Do not, for example, refer to people as Aboriginals, but rather as Aboriginal peoples. Also, please avoid the possessive. Referring to Indigenous peoples as Canada’s Aboriginals is likely to cause an embarrassed silence.
Indigenous tends to have international connotations, referring to Indigenous peoples throughout the world rather than being country-specific.7 It can be both a legal and colloquial term; like Aboriginal, it includes First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. At this moment, it is my favourite term to use and will be my go-to throughout this book. It is possible that in five years I will look back at my use of this term with shame, but future me can just hush because present me doesn’t really have a better word. An added bonus is that it is almost impossible to accidentally use this term as a proper noun. Indigenouses doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
Throughout this book, I use the term Indigenous to refer specifically to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit living in what is now called Canada. By using it this way, I do not intend to deny indigeneity to those who are indigenous to other places in the world. When I say non-Indigenous in this book, I mean only “not-Indigenous-to-this-place-called-Canada.”
You might also wonder why I keep saying Indigenous peoples instead of Indigenous people; after all, isn’t people already plural? Many epic nonphysical battles were fought for the inclusion of that s on the end of people, and I’m going to honour the sweat and tears that put it there. It speaks to the incredible diversity of Indigenous peoples as hundreds of culturally and linguistically distinct groups, rather than one homogenous whole. It also speaks to the kind of pedantry I will not be successful in confining to this chapter – my apologies in advance.
Native is another tricky term. For some people it refers only to First Nations, and for others (myself included) it’s another catchall term, but a much more informal one than Aboriginal or Indigenous. I don’t want to suggest this is an internal term that can never be used by non-Indigenous peoples, but it does have some historically pejorative connotations that you may wish to avoid (e.g., going native). Many people also contest this use of the term because they want to employ it as well (e.g., native of Alberta, native to Canada). Many Indigenous peoples use the term and are okay with it, but it’s a bit like Indian in that you are more likely to step on toes if you go throwing it around.
Now for some more specific, yet still quite general, terms. First Nations refers to that group of people officially known as Indians under the Indian Act, and does not include Inuit or Métis peoples. Because many First Nations people share similar issues – related to reserves, status, and so forth – it’s a good general term for a very diverse group of Indigenous peoples.
Inuit has pretty well replaced Eskimo in regular parlance here in Canada, and using Eskimo here is probably going to get you dirty looks. Eskimo is still a term used in Alaska, however, because it includes both Iñupiat and Yupik peoples while Inuit does not. Thus, Eskimo did not make it onto my “never say this” list. Just make sure you’re in Alaska when you’re saying it.
Métis is a term that is not as common in the U.S. as it is in Canada, although there are absolutely Métis people there. In terms of official recognition, however, it is a uniquely Canadian name. There is a chapter in this book that delves into Métis identity in great detail; but, for now, just be aware the Métis are also an Indigenous people.
These are some of the terms being used right now, so pick your poison.
Notice I did not suggest the term Canadian at any point. This is a deliberate exclusion. Many Indigenous peoples do not identify as Canadian because, at no point, did they or their ancestors consent to becoming Canadian. The issue is much more complex than this, of course, but it is important to be aware of the situation. Some Indigenous peoples have no problem identifying as Canadian, so this is not an across-the-board rejection of the term; just something to think about.
If you want to move beyond general terms, and I definitely encourage that, the learning curve can be a bit steep at first. Over the years, various groups of Europeans used thei
r own names for Indigenous peoples; sometimes, a single group of people can be known by two, or three, or more different names! If you aren’t aware that a number of different terms refer to the same group of people, it can be incredibly difficult to sort out. If you were to sit down and make a list of all the different names every Indigenous group in Canada has been given by Europeans (sometimes based on bastardized versions of the names other Indigenous peoples called them), you would have a substantial and basically unusable document.
For example, the Algonquin are an Anishinaabe people related to the Odawa and Ojibwe. Over the years, they have been called Attenkins,8 Algoumequins,9 Alinconguins,10 and at least a dozen other variations that are not immediately recognizable as referring to the same people. To muddy the waters even further, Indigenous peoples are sometimes grouped linguistically (according to languages). For example, the Algonquin are classed by linguists as being part of the Algonquian language group that includes about 30 languages, such as Blackfoot, Cree, and Mi’kmaq! Such a slight spelling difference, but beware these linguistic groupings because they collapse extremely different cultures into one linguistic category.
Then, you have names that sound similar but refer to very different peoples, like the Chipewyan (Dene sųłiné) and the Chippewa (another name for Ojibwe), which are two very distinct groups.
There are often multiple names in use. One person can call herself Assiniboine, Stoney, Nakota Sioux, Stone Sioux, Asinipwât, Nakoda or Nakota, and Îyârhe Nakoda – all names that have been used for the same group of people. In addition to the group name, people will also identify themselves by which community they come from; in this case, it could be the Alexis Nakota-Sioux Nation in Alberta. Many of our communities have undergone name changes, too; so, depending on what generation you are in, you may use different names for the same community!
The names are going to continue to change. Many Indigenous communities have discarded their European-language names for Indigenous place names. The eastern James Bay Cree communities in Quebec were each known by an English and a French name, and have officially renamed almost all of their communities in Cree. One community, now Whapmagoostui in Cree, is still known by many as Great Whale River or Poste-de-la-Baleine. There is a sizeable Inuit population there, as well, so the community is also named Kuujjuaraapik. You can see how this can quickly get confusing for people who are not familiar with the history of the area.
Do not despair! No one can be expected to know all of the different names for every single people and community across Canada. A really powerful and beautiful start would be to simply learn the names in use, both historic and contemporary, for the Indigenous peoples in the area where you live. Much as place names are changing (or reverting), the names we call ourselves are changing, as well, and the trend is to use the name we originally called ourselves in our languages. If you get confused, don’t be scared to ask! You just might get an interesting history lesson of the area you are in, because names are so inextricably linked to that history.
I hope this helps. My intention is not to simplify the issue, but rather to make people more aware of how complex and, sometimes, confusing names can be. More important, we now have some terms we can work with as we explore these issues together.
NOTES
1.Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Basic Books, 1980; New York: Vintage Books, 1980), http://www76.pair.com/keithlim/jabberwocky/poem/hofstadter.html. I could spend hours discussing how a successful translation of Lewis Carroll’s nonsense poem, Jabberwocky, into an Indigenous language would herald a kind of linguistic health I aspire to. On the difficulties of translating this poem into other languages, see Hofstadter.
2.I will not be capitalizing Cree words throughout this book. I used a standardized written Cree and, within this system, words are never capitalized. Although this book is in English, I want to respect nêhiyawêwin conventions as much as possible.
3.Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, “The Straight Dope: Does ‘Indian’ Derive from Columbus’s Description of Native Americans as ‘una Gente in Dios’?” The Straight Dope, last modified October 25, 2001, accessed December 2, 2013, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1966/does-indian-derive-from-columbuss-description-of-native-americans-as-una-gente-in-dios. Here, you will find a great discussion of the various possible origins of the term Indian.
4.Indian Act, RSC. 1985, c.I-5.
5.Robert Sawyer, Hominids (New York: Tor, 2003). I think Robert Sawyer uses the term Native Canadians in all his books because it is more familiar to his readers in the United States than First Nations would be. Don’t worry, Robert, I’m still a fan!
6.Constitution Act, 1982, schedule B of Canada Act, 1982 (UK), c 11, s 35.
7.United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, October 2, 2007, A/RES/61/295, accessed December 1, 2012, http://www.refworld.org/docid/471355a82.html.
8.Clinton, Vol. 6 in New York Documents of Colonial History (1855), 276.
9.Samuel de Champlain, chap. 2 in Oeuvres (1870), 8.
10.Nicolls, Vol. 2 in New York Documents of Colonial History (1853), 147.
2
Settling on a Name
Names for Non-Indigenous Canadians
This book is very much about relationships – historical, contemporary, and future relationships. Unfortunately, the historical and contemporary relationships between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada have, at times, been very strained. In order to form healthier and more positive relationships into the future, there needs to be dialogue between all peoples living on these lands.
Dialogue requires terminology we can use to name one another, so we can recognize how certain events impacted/impact us differently, as well as what we have in common as diverse peoples. The previous chapter was all about the multitude of terms and names that are used to speak about Indigenous peoples. Those terms shift and change over time, and will continue to do so, but it seems obvious having a vocabulary we can use is absolutely necessary if we wish to have a discussion about Indigenous issues.
There are terms to choose from when speaking of the wide range of non-European peoples who have immigrated to Canada over successive generations; terms that have official status, as well as terms preferred by these communities themselves. Terms related to identity among non-European populations have shifted and changed with time and also require checking to find out which terms are acceptable right now.1
There are really no sanctioned and widely accepted terms with which to refer to “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority” in a generalized sense comparable to the term Indigenous peoples or any of the generalized labels for other non-Indigenous peoples. In great part, this is due to the fact that the majority tends to have the power to sanction and widely accept terms, and does not really have much cause to refer to itself.
When I cast about for a term to use to refer to “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority,” I do so because it makes no sense to ignore the fact that these peoples exist. Naming these peoples is just as important as naming Indigenous peoples if we are going to talk about how the past informs the present.
Can you sense my hesitancy here to pick a name? Perhaps this will help to clarify why that hesitation exists; take a gander at some of the terms that do get used to name “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority”:
White
non-Native, non-Aboriginal, non-Indigenous
European
settler, settler colonials
First off, there aren’t many terms to choose from, and the second bullet lists terms that are based entirely on a “not-this” dichotomy, which almost always rubs people the wrong way as they are inherently exclusionary.
It is fairly easy to come up with r
easons why all of these terms fail to be properly descriptive and shouldn’t be used. I once had someone explain it to me like this: she said, “When I try to find a word to refer to you with, I’m just naming you. When you call me White, or a non-Native settler, you’re blaming me for something I didn’t do. Right away we’re at odds.”
I get that. I really do. However, I’m not actually trying to put us at odds, and using a term is not inherently about blame. What I’m trying to do is talk about us in a wider context than the first person and second person singular. We all need terms to use, or we cannot have a discussion. Terms are what I’m looking for, not offensive labels.
Unfortunately, when I ask for terms preferred by “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority,” I almost always receive names that blend these peoples in with everyone else. Now, that is perfectly fine in many situations, but when specificity is required, it is unhelpful.
For example, I’ve been asked to just say “Canadian,” but Canadian is a category of citizenship and is so general as to be useless when we’re trying to understand the history of this country. Canadian as a national identity did not exist until hundreds of years after contact. While this term works for contemporary discussions of all non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada, it does not help us discuss the particular situation of those who are descended from the original European settlers here.2 While some people do argue that people living today have no connection to those first Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, we cannot escape our history so easily. The social and political systems that currently exist in Canada are a direct result of the European-based cultures that first arrived in the Americas all those centuries ago.
Some people do prefer non-Native, non-Aboriginal, or non-Indigenous, but again these terms include everyone who is not-us. This can be useful when centring the conversation on Indigenous peoples, and these terms will show up at times throughout this book. However, sometimes we need to talk about our history and our present in ways that highlight how the differences between the many groups of peoples living in Canada have actual impacts on our lives. I mean, really, having that discussion is the whole reason I’ve written this book. I want to find some common ground, but not by pretending our differences are irrelevant.
Indigenous Writes Page 2