Talk:Innu

message: Someone wrote:
"As a consequence of this they are not registered under the Indian Act and the government does not afford them the same protection, tax-breaks and benefits as other First Nations."
But the Innu of Quebec are registered under the Indian Act. I do not know if it is also the case in Labrador, but since the sentence is false in this actual way, I removed it.
This article is full of errors. The Naskapi are a completely different people, related to the Davis Inlet people, and do not mind being called "Naskapi", which is actually a native word meaning "the people beyond the horizon". The Naskapi have a second languages of English, first coming into contact with English-speaking fur traders on the Northern shores of Quebec.
~Benjamin Jancewicz
The Naskapi are definitely not a completely different people. The main differences that are used to account for labelling them a different people are a result of colonization. Besides that they basically have the same culture, speak a dialect of the same language, and are genetically related to the rest of the Innu, Iynu (East Cree). In fact, the way the reservations were set up separated peoples of the same family into what is now different nations as recognized by Indian Affairs. If we quit using all these exonyms such as Cree, Naskapi, and Montagnais we could get a clearer picture of the issues. They are all the same people who identify themselves using the same modern dialectical version of the proto-Algonquian word Iliniw. So one dialect pronounces or writes it Innu, another Ilnu, another Iyyu, another Iynu... these are all the same people. Even their myths are the same, pointing to a common world view. There is no basis besides the decision by the Indian Affairs to separate these peoples that could support the claim that they are different peoples. Claims concerning the fact that Innu people and "Naskapi" people considered themselves different all stem from the higher status that Innu people held within the whole nation  because of their earlier contact with  white traders. There is a book written about this....shouldnt be hard to find since there arent that many books written about Innu people! hahaha. Either way, as an Iynu person myself I find it preposterous when people claim that Naskapis, Montagnais, and East Cree people are different. When one speaks to the elder monolingual speakers they clearly have no idea that people are dividing what they always saw as identical. A person from Waswanipi will confortably call people from Mashteuiatsh Piekwâkamîu-Iynu...no distinction in terms of nationality is made! However, this same person will clearly make a distinction when he talks about an Anishinabe person! These are not called Iynu in any of the dialects. 
-Kevin Brousseau
The original article was based on the Survival International study of 1999 on the two Innu communities of Labrador, including Davis Inlet. In footnote 4 of the study, the authors proclaim "Although our fieldwork was carried out in two Innu
communities in Labrador, most of our findings apply equally to
the Innu currently settled in Quebec." Totally false, although high suicide rates are found in all isolated communities in Canada. - Joseph B.
Contributors
Need more contributors!
There is a lot more to add to this. There is a lot of information on the CBC website and elsewhere. Someone has to skewer as much info as possible and post it here.
--J (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't know why Iynu redirects to Innu. It should be clarified that Innu is used in two sense, to represent the political union of Ilnu (speakers of Western Montagnais) and Innu (Eastern Montagnais) people. Iynu only refers to speakers of Southern East Cree and Iyyu refers to speakers of Northern East Cree and western Naskapi. The later term is often used (mispelled eeyou) as a cover term for the union between northern and southern east cree speakers. Each of these four terms should have specific pages that describe the dialects as well as the present political pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.192.193 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The overall treatment of of Canada's Native population should be represented within each article. If this article doesn't reflect that then fix it using proper sourcing. Of course your vomiting remark is a little hard to believe when it turns out that you think the Innu and Inuit are related. They are different and it's just one of those things that the names are similar and come from the same root. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think you'll find too many people contributing here who would disagree that Canada's treatment of aboriginal people has been absolutely shameful, on the whole — but Wikipedia isn't here to be a debating forum or a soapbox. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iynu, Innu, Ilnu, and Iyyu 

message: What do Mushuanu and Maskuanu mean? 
My name is Mushorn but I translate it as Marsh Corner so I find this to be very interesting...  Is this similar to Muskeg - "Marsh Cake"?  email me at jmushorn@yahoo.com24.25.237.226 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do Maskuanu and Mushuanu mean?  

message: The Passenger Pigeon is mentioned as a food source.  I wonder if they ate Eskimo Curlew, as well.  Before they were slaughtered to extinction,  Eskimo Curlews migrated south down the eastern coast of North America.  Aliotra (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: I have tagged the following – unsourced – statement as dubious:
Although their languages vary in origin, the word derives from the same root, meaning "people".
While :de:Innu indicates (however, again without a source) that the name indeed means "people", and inuit means the same, the implication that the root is identical is dubious: the resemblance could well be fortuitous. What makes me doubt the connection is the fact that, as is well known, inuit is simply the plural of inuk "person" in Inuit, which derives from the (reconstructed) ancestral word *iŋuɣ in the Eskimo parent language (Proto-Eskimo, which was apparently spoken in Alaska ca. 1000 AD; see the table at Eskimo–Aleut languages).
As for Innu, the relevant articles indicate that this has a variant form ilnu or ilniw, which seems to be the older form of this word. The cognate form in the Naskapi language is iiyuu or iyiyiw if I understand correctly. This article itself mentions the East Cree variants (northern/coastal) īyiyū and (southern/inland) īnū. While it is not clear to me what the oldest reconstructible form of this word is, the resemblance is far less obvious, taking these cognate forms in account, and most importantly, the word is old in both language families (though it is not clear to me how old exactly the Algonquian word is within Algonquian), which rules out a common origin, even in the form of a loanword borrowed from Algonquian into Inuit, or from Inuit into Algonquian (if the word is reconstructible to Proto-Algonquian, the possibility of a borrowing into Algonquian can be ruled out as completely as the other direction). Eskimo(–Aleut) and Algonquian are two separate language families which have never been spoken close to each other in the more distant but recoverable past: Proto-Eskimo in Alaska – or around the Bering Sea in any case – by ca. 1000 AD, and Proto-Algonquian somewhere along the USA–Canada border by about 500 or 1000 BC, so there is no likelihood of prehistoric contact, either.
What we have here is, by all appearances, no more than a remarkable coincidence: that two ethnic groups who both called themselves something like inu(Vt) (inuit vs. innuat), simply meaning "people" (an unremarkable self-designation), with a similar plural suffix, ended up encountering each other in Eastern Canada in the early 2nd millennium AD after long migrations from more western ancestral locations, but lacking any recoverable deep relations. What we have here is, then, unless I have missed something crucial in this argument, a sound-alike, a tempting but false cognate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this website also states: Though the Innu and Inuit are neighbors, the similarity between their names is coincidental--their languages are not at all related and have no more in common with each other than with English. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Innu/ilnu is indeed the word for "human", and as far as I can tell you're right that it goes back to Proto-Algonquian (the source would be *erenyiwa, "man") (though unfortunately the Handbook of North American Indians, in its synonymy for "Montagnais-Naskapi", p. 186 of vol. 6, doesn't explicitly state this, and I don't know the correspondences involved to be sure if the match is actually good). It's probably cognate with similar words in other Cree varieties (iyiniw, iriniw, etc.). Either way, if the original claim was unsourced, and there's good reason not to trust it, there's no reason it should be in the article. So I agree with you --Miskwito (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! Do you think native-languages.org is a reliable enough source to cite for an explicit denial of any connection between the two ethnonyms? I'm sure non-specialised readers, who will likely wonder about this, or may even confuse Innu(at) and Inuit (Roger Ebert certainly did seem slightly confused in this review, calling Innuat an "Eskimo word" and failing to realise that the Innuat are not a purely mythological but a real and even still existing group of people), would appreciate a clear statement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Neither snowshoes nor removed antlers have any particular natural orientation. If you can find a reliable reference clearly showing the correct orientation of the flag, post it here and I (or someone else) will fix it. Please end your Talk page entries with four tildes (~~~~). David Spector (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innu and Inuit 

message: Substituted at 05:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Innu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930123457/http://www.innu-aimun.ca/modules.php?name=InnuHome&lang=english to http://www.innu-aimun.ca/modules.php?name=InnuHome&lang=english
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325113240/http://www.legislativegazette.com/back_issues/09-3-16_for_web.pdf to http://www.legislativegazette.com/back_issues/09-3-16_for_web.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030906081838/http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9501/0103.html to http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9501/0103.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ridiculous. To look up the first Nation, to see its name. To see Wikipedia go along with this crap. The first statement on the Wikipedia page for the first Nation states " not to be confused with Inuit".  You guys need to go away so that freethinkers can continue to figure s*** out. They have everything to do with each other, that is, the first Nation and Inuit, the so-called North Alaskan native American.  Let us not forget Japan and the Ainu.  Seems like history's history has a narrative more to do with 'People of Earth' than any kind of natives of America. Simply put, the world was one.  I can prove it. 
 Our most ancient of ancestors, the architects of all, were otherwise known as (the unified) People of Earth, and are a fact.  Forget the foolishness of evolution. Except the truth that humanity is an ancient of races. The People were once running this planet. People were of color. It's obvious that those people devoid of color (the controlling faction plaguing the world today) were the ones who:
stole 
pillaged 50.238.239.222 (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing changes.