Okay, so I want to get into terminology. Okay so first of all, you all have access to the sabar.ca key terms and this is where I would recommend you go if you ever have any questions about the, the correct use of terminology regarding indigenous people and all of. The, you know, the, the, the legal meaning behind Indian the cultural meanings behind some of these names. I'm going to through to try and kind of make, make a, make it clear how they're similar and also how they're different, and there's difference between kind of legal uses as well as popular usage. So I'm going to try and, and sort this out. An, and it's, it's complicated, and I hope not too boring, but it helps us to discuss this stuff with clarity. So first of all, I want you to be, kind of be aware that there is the broadest terms, the most inclusive terms at the top of this diagram. And then what is meant by this very broad, inclusive term? Are these, these, the three boxes you see under it? And this kind of comes from the Constitution Act of 1982 that defines aboriginal. And, in the Constitution Act, aboriginal is defined as Indians, Inuit, and Metis. But, you know, under Indian and first nation, which are synonymous, are these, different categories of status Indian, non-status Indian and treaty Indian. Now, what's really interesting in, in speaking to you, you know, at, at, on January eighth of 2013 is that this notion is changing. Non-status Indians will be legally, Or rather, for policy purposes, seen as the same as Indians. This is what happened with the Inuit in the 30s. So, there's a landmark ruling of the federal court today, and that's going to change this. So these are all the different kind of First Nations that, that are included. If you want to get real specific, these are some of the names. So I want to start with indigenous though, that's at the top. So indigenous really just means native to an area. And it means a people who have occupied a territory since time immemorial. Like longer than anyone can remember. They, they are the people who have been Associated with that land. The term gained prominence as a, as a term to describe aboriginal peoples in a international context. So a lot of times when people say indigenous, there's kind of a, a notion that you're talking about globally. But you know it's In the past 10 years or so indigenous within Canada I think is has supplanting aboriginal. Some consider indigenous the very most inclusive term of all. Because it includes all of these different peoples from all across the world. Not regarding national boundaries, or local conventions. However, because indigenous has a meaning with the United Nations, it's a bit contentious there. Because, it, in order to make a distinction between the indigenous peoples who would come to the UN forum. Versus some of the other nations who are at the United Nations. They, they kind of define indigenous people in relation to their colonizers. So there's a notion of indigenous as being in, in your lands but there's been another power superimposed over you. So. If a, a first nation ever kind of decolonizes. Or doesn't have that, that same power over structure. Does that mean they're no longer an indigenous people? The, the United Nations definition seems to include the victimhood as part of that, identity. And that's what some people find contentious. Still, it's a very inclusive term and it's one that a lot of people use and a lot of people prefer. You'll find a lot of these terms, there isn't one that everyone loves, okay. And the way I used to talk about the term aboriginal is, I would say, it's the least offensive term to the most people. But there are some people that really hate it. There's some elders out there who say you know, in, in relation to normal, what does abnormal mean? So it, it with aboriginal, is, does that mean I'm not an original person? But, you know That's not really the root term of it, for Aborigine. In Canada, Aboriginal, since at least since the, the 1980s, has been the most inclusive term because of it's, use in the Canadian constitution, 1982. So it actually has like a, a legal meaning. It's in the highest law of the land. People can then say, you know, I'm aboriginal. It has that meaning, it protects certain, rights through the, the constitution. In the constitution it says Aboriginal people, like further, it further defines it as Indians Inuit and Metis. So then who's an Indian? Now, I don't think we have the time, we'd probably need like a, an entire course just to define who an Indian is. Especially the way that its, its been changed over time with Various iterations of the Indian act. And then prior to Canada's confederation, there were all these protection acts, and civilization acts that all defined who an Indian was. And the, the very simple thing to say, is, like. Indians are indigenous people to an area. And it collectively describes all of the different indigenous peoples In Canada who are not Inuit or Metis. So Indian people are one of those three cultural groups recognized. And one of the things that we have to remember is the, the, as much as Indian is being, falling out of favor in certain regions of Canada. As kind of a, like a racist term because of its association with the way Columbus used the word Indian to incorrectly talk about where he was. You know we always joke that it's a good thing he wasn't looking for Turkey. But he was looking for India and so we were seen as Indians when he came to the Carribean. And then that name was applied across the whole. So, there's, there's a lot of reason people want to reject the term. But it's enshrined in the Constitution now. It's part of the Indian Act. So it has a legal meaning, and we still need to use it, at times. So the, the Indian Act is a piece of legislation that's been with us since 1876, and really it's just A combination of all these prior acts that defined who an Indian was and what an Indian could do. But it's a very restrictive piece of legislation, and it's quite incredible. I think it's pretty unique. In the world, as a piece of legislation that really governs and dictates what an entire people can do. And in this way it kind of restricts, first of all, our own understanding of membership and citizenship. It restricts, economic activity. It restricts residence where we can live. It, it used to restrict to some extent mobility. Although, a lot of people equate the pass system, which is where you had to get a, a pass from the Indian agent who. Leave the reserve and go into the town or to the city. With the Indian Act, the, it actually wasn't part of the Indian Act, but, the power granted to the Indian agent came, the authority came with the Indian Act. So there's that, that legacy as well. Schooling and education dictated. By the Indian Act so it''s it's quite an incredible you know, colonial artifact and yet the reason we still have it is because its one of the only pieces of legislation that the, that the government recognizes About its, its obligation to indigenous people. So if you took the Indian Act away, then you might not actually have any of the relationship that, that Canada does recognize, because through the Indian Act there's, there's this fiduciary responsibility. For caring for Indian people, patronizing, but that's also a part of the Indian Act. So a lot of the, the characterization of world view of the 1870s is encoded in the Act and continues today, that is, the social Darwinism of the time Is still kind of represented in the act. The sexism and hetero sexism of the act continues. They've attempted to address the sexism in a number of ways. Most notably in 1985 when they did away with the provision that defined who could have Indian status You know, it used to only go through the male line. So if an Indian woman married a non-Indian man, then her descendants, were not recognized as Indians by the state. And so they, they did away with that provision, but in its place is this kind of You're always two generations away from possible loss of status. And it's getting to a point where it's so that intermarriage is happening is such a rate in certain regions. Like in southern Ontario. There's going to be a number of reserves that won't have status Indians if things continue as they're going. By 2050, 2070, there will be no more status Indians left there. So basically what is a status Indian is someone who's registered as an Indian under this Indian Act. And the Act sets out the requirements for doing this. It's, it's kind of arbitrary, there's all, all, all sort of examples historically of families being. Missed when the register was being assembled. So, if, if the, if the negotiator was moving through the, the territory and the family wasn't there at the time. And no one spoke up for them, they might be missed. Sometimes those people writing up the register Actually neglected to put people on because they didn't look Indian to them. And so there, there are whole lines of people who were left off because of the, the arbitrariness of who the state recognizes as, as Indians, status Indians. For a long, long time. The distinction of a person with an indigenous background but who wasn't recognized by the state as Indian would be termed a non-status Indian. So for a very long time that's how we talked about someone who you know who perhaps lost their status. As being the descendant of, of an Indian woman who married a non Indian man. They're a non status Indian. And for many years, they would advocate as non status Indians to say. I should be accorded the same rights as status Indians. You know, my grandfather and grandmother are the same people who, other descendants are recognized. So. We're, we're all, we're all Indian for this reason. Then when the constitution was negotiated, the, the provisions for aboriginal peoples and protections with Metis being named in the Constitution. A lot of the non-status Indians decided to advocate on that basis. So we are Metis. And one of the reasons is there's a lot of recognition through things like the Manitoba Act and the Dominion Lands Act. That recognized Metis as, as having an aboriginal right to lands. And so your, your chances of advocating as Metis because they're named in the, in the Constitution. Were better than advocating as non-status Indian. But Metis, a non-status Indian. Have often been lumped together and, and have advocated together as groups. And, then also split on that basis by those who identify with their Metis cultural roots and the non-status Indians who they're more trying to address the fact that they ought to have status right. So, there's been splits. Within political representative, representative organizations around the Metis status association. One of the notable splits happened in the lead up to the, the 1982 Constitution. And when it split it also created this other kind of category of You know for lack of a better word the big m Metis and the small m Metis, okay? So those who could kind of trace their ancestry to the Red River Valley, and had those protections in the Manitoba Act or the, Dominion Lands Act. They would, associate with the Metis nation. Big M. Matey nation. And be represented by the Matey National Council and its various provincial affiliates. For those who were advocating as non-status Indians, like they had a mixed heritage. But part of that mixed heritage was an indigenous Indian heritage. They went with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Well, prior to that, it was the Native Council of Canada. It changed its name to Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. So they were identifying as natives. And, so, that's an important term to, to make clear here as well. That native kind of meant Indian and Metis regardless of status. So a lot of people would identify as native. It was an open and inclusive Category to define oneself with. But it, it excludes Inuit. Ok, so aboriginal is more inclusive than native because it includes Inuit. Native was this Indian regardless of status and Metis.
