referring to them as Indians is no different than lumping Koreans, Vietnamese, and Filipinos as Gooks

why it hasn't been officially changed in recent decades in official names like 'Indian Affairs', I don't know, likely for convience and to save money.

But the word gook is a derogatory term Indian is not.

It looks like she grew up in a small town in western ontario. If you grew up there or saskatoon/regina/winnipeg hell anywhere outside the lower mainland near a reserve it's likely you'll have a VERY negative view towards natives.

So according to the link basically the crux of it is:

[referring to the word Indigenous]
If using interchangeably with First Nations note that some First Nations prefer not to be called Aboriginal Peoples

Still doesn't explain why the term "Aboriginal" is no longer preferred

I'm not being facetious, just curious.

because 'ab' is the latin prefix for 'not' apparently.

because no matter what you call people, someone will always find a way to be offended. call it the natural progression of narcissism
*offense can only be taken, not given

naa. they're east-indians

i think it's more like lumping them as asians. although i'm certain the term asians will become offensive some how at some point

The term Indian doesn't appear to be created out of malice but from early "modern" European explorers mistaking the similarly dark skinned, dark haired inhabitants as possibly people from India's outer territories, also unaware of the giant land mass between home and their goal. For the most part, it's continued use to this day, also doesn't appear to be out of malice.

Terms and definitions change over time, but they largely change organically. You can't force it. Which probably explains why many have been slow, or outright refuse, to adopt new terms. Especially when those new terms don't really fit either. Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nation, etc are terms that do not fit with historical/anthropological evidence. The human species did not evolve from the Americas. There is no out-of-Americas human evolution theory. These people came from Asia, and there is evidence they weren't the first but the final last wave of people from that route. There are also some theories that people from Europe may have also reached the Americas before them.

These new terms seem to defy historical fact in order to serve an agenda. This being one of attempting to establish prior ownership before European colonization. While I understand the attempt, I don't get why you would want to identify yourself using the concepts and definitions of your conquerors. They should be trying to find a word that makes them unique to the Americas.

negative view? or real view?
she served on the indian affairs commitee. she's probably just sick with seeing populations kill themselves slowly and painfully through government susbsidies.
meanwhile we worry about what to call them.
i guess that's compassion

Headline soon:

The Minister of Indian Affairs joins hands with First Nations leaders to wish a happy National Aboriginal Day to all of Canada's Indigenous citizens.

http://www.animikii.com/blog/why-we-...-of-aboriginal

Good luck with that, depending on who you talk to all of the current terms are offensive to some and preferred by others (Indian/First Nation/Aboriginal/Native American/etc) so I doubt adding another one into the mix would work any better. They're all still in use by varying tribes as well.

my point was it's a misnomer and I'm surprised it's still officially used

back on topic, i'm for a dialogue that would integrate this population with the rest of Canadians...I don't mind more symbolism of their identity around these parts but these inter-generational issues have gone on for too long

I recently ran across this great interview and it reminded me of some of the discussion in this thread.


I had no idea what transfer payments were. So I looked it up. I was astonished.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cana...nsfer_payments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments

This had my mind absolutely blown

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terr...mula_Financing

81% of Nunavut total financial resources is supplied by the government.
It is absolutely astounding the level of ignorance that this country's government has for sustainability of it's inhabitants. This is pure insanity to me.

Have you ever heard of the term use it or loose it.

In we have no one living up north what there to stop the Russians or Americans from setting up camp?

LOL, it costs about 25 dollars for a can of pop in Nunavut. I have no idea how people up there live.

Here's a documentary to give a glimpse of what it's like up there.

Angry Inuk: Modern Inuit Challenge Anti-Sealing Groups

Wow that video. I knew about equalization payments, but didn't know Quebec got so much of those payments. I thought it was mostly to Saskatchewan and the east coast.

The end of the video though, is a huge jump from a academic point of view to real world issues. Specifically how he uses the situation of a drug addict, and how easy it is to asses their situation and says just change it. I doubt he has an iota of what it's like to be in that situation, from the way he says it so casually. I agree how giving money to a population will destroy them, it's manifested across countries as he's pointed out.

Excessive political correctness of our Western society is one of the big reasons that things don't get done.

Look at the housing crisis for example. Any person who goes on record to talk about how foreign buyers have ruined our real estate market is instantly branded as a "racist" or a "bigot" or someone who hates Chinese people. Basically the only people who are allowed to say anything are other Chinese people, but even they get called "classist". So the problem never gets dealt with because people are too busy calling each other names over stupid shit.

Sometimes I wish we could be like New Zealand and Singapore and just FIX the damn thing (banning foreign buyers) instead of worrying about how "racist" their new law is.

People's views on Indigenous people no different. Personally I agree with most people here and that gov't should stop giving handouts and let Indigenous people fend for themselves and/or integrate with society. I think they get too many "perks" from the government with little result (poor living conditions on the reserves, high incarceration rate, etc.) Does that make me a racist? I don't think so but there are certainly people who would call me that.

So spend billions of dollars, with no end in sight, to make life "sustainable" on uninhabitable land in order to keep that uninhabitable land from being invaded?

Yeah that makes sense.

Honestly, I don't blame the people using these systems (Chinese in Vancouver housing/those economic dependants). In their position I'd likely do the same. Most people would.
I blame the "well intentioned" people who perpetuate the lie that these are good things.

Why I won't bother posting in the Vancouver RE thread when I see NDP proposed "solutions" to the problem.
They're one in the same. Continue to make an unsustainable situation sustainable. Standard status quo

No idea of the ages of everyone in this thread/forum, but at least when I went to highschool transfer payments were a huge discussion point in Georgraphy / History / Economics classes and a primary catalyst for the discussion of B.C. annexing from the rest of Canada since we have always been, essentially, supporting other have-not provinces.

This was also brought up, at times, when discussing Quebec separating from Canada and what a ridiculous idea it was because they'd instantly be the poorest and most insolvent country in all of the western world hahaha... as I remember my teacher at the time saying "Let them go, they'll be crawling back in 5 years time" hahaha!

As an aside, I can't imagine a teacher saying that in a class nowadays without getting fired.

I got into the biggest argument with my parents about this exact topic, they were complaining so much about Chinese this Chinese that and I told them if we had the same situation as them (ie: a crooked government that might steal our money at any point in time with no due process or legal reason) and there was another country in the world with super clean conditions and high standard of living that also had shitty laws and massive loopholes for property purchasing and investment we'd be doing the same thing! Blame the government that allowed it to happen while profiting from it massively, don't blame the people who are trying to make their life better and safer.

In addition, we get a poor sample, only the stuck up and generally inconsiderate rich assholes can afford to come do this stuff, so they look horrible from a community perspective... but you go to China and hundreds of millions of people are just like us there, frustrated that they can't buy anything in their own cities and pissed at the China millionaires... exactly the same as here if not worse, those people have NO chance of ever owning anything there... people think the wage gap is bad here, they should take a look at any major city in China lol

It does make sense.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle36223673/

Vladimir Putin visits Arctic to reaffirm Russia's claim | Russia News | Al Jazeera

A lot of Indians are now calling themselves by their territory. Here in my area they call themselves Wet'suwet'en. This is only local though. If all First Nations starting calling themselves by their home territory no one would know what to call them en masse.

Berz out.

If you look up his background, you'll see he's probably got more than an iota of experience in the matter.
I can tell you myself, it is that simple. You either do or you don't. The choice is yours.

I think part of the problem is how we view people with dependencies as victims. By doing that we only validate the dependency.
A victim has absolutely no free will to their situation.
By making a choice we also choose the consequence. And consequence is just as important as reward. But as a society we see it as negative so we try to lessen or remove consequence from that equation. You see it everywhere. The lack of humility. The fortifying of an ego. The consequence of removing consequence! Lol.

The easiest thing for a good person to do is think with their heart. But if you know the damage enabling a dependency causes, it's also the most selfish.
That's the way I see it anyways.

I don't think maintaining an artificial economy in the territories lends argument to the dictation of Canadian land and waterways

What's to stop Russia from setting up a base in the arctic?


http://www.sott.net/image/s3/78096/f...rctic_grab.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../russia.arctic

That is interesting. I see your point.
But if it's scientists, and not diplomats, who dictate the claims, what difference does spending billions of dollars to falsify an economy make?
Nunavut is not international or disputed land. It's actually supposed to be self governing