Talk:First Nations in Canada

message: The Canadian state has premised it's sovereignty on the erasure of Indigenous womanhood. This has been maintained through: the structured violence of  the residential school system, legislative violence found in discriminatory policy such as the Indian Act, and is reinforced by media such as mainstream news stories. Pre-contact Indigenous societies within Canada maintained equality between woman, man, child and all life forms on the planet. This equality brought harmony to Indigenous communities and there was a common belief that disruption of this harmony would bring distortion within community. Anderson (2000 58) argues that when European settlers arrived within the territory they were shocked by the power that Native women held within their socio-political systems of governance. The equality of Indigenous women with men ran in direct contrast to European patriarchal norms. European settlers recognized that in order to establish a sovereign state, they would first have to dismantle the power that Indigenous women  held within their societies. 
	An example of legislative violence against Indigenous women was found in the Indian Act. In 1977, a Maliseet Woman Sandra Lovelace, challenged the discriminatory legislation of the Indian Act. This policy stated that an Indigenous woman would lose her legal Indian status if she were to marry a non-status Indian. The loss of status was detrimental to Native women because it would no longer allow for them to reside on reserve, breaking the connection to culture and community, two imperative factors in sustaining Indigenous identity. Lovelace brought her case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where it was rejected. She then brought her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) arguing that this denial of status was an act of discrimination against her inherent rights of an Indigenous woman to maintain cultural and communal connections (ICCPR 1976). The UNHRC did find that this policy infringed upon Article 27 of the ICCPR and the Canadian state reacted by amending the Indian Act through Bill C-31. Bill C-31 now has a formula that is no less discriminating against Indigenous women and children, as it still determines who a woman can have a child with so that the child may be eligible for status.
	Furthermore, structural violence has impacted Indigenous women in detrimental ways. With the imposition of the residential school system, children were forced to leave their traditional education systems to engage in Western schooling systems. Violence and abuse were rampant in these schools and the breakdown of community and cultural roles for women occurred at rapid rates. The emotional bond between child and relative, an important factor to Indigenous communities, was loosened and this disconnection impacted Indigenous communities leading to detrimental impacts on cultural transmission (Jacobs & Williams 124).  This form of structural violence against Native women is yet another tool the state has used in an attempt to dominate the land.
	Finally, media stories have had an impact on reinforcing violence against Indigenous women. General society, rather than view these women as powerful leaders, tend to see them as worthless or sub-human. This is apparent in the way that news stories cover issues of Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women within Canada. Rather than focus on the fact that the victims of these stories are strong and prominent women, mothers, or daughters, there is discussion on the negative aspects of their lives. For example, the recent media coverage on the death of Cindy Gladue demonstrates that she was a prostitute prior to any discussion that she was a mother of three children and a woman belonging to a Cree community. This disregard reinforces to general society that Native women are worthless and that violence against them is an acceptable fact. The state does not want to acknowledge the role that it plays in the violence against these women, nor does it want to engage in alleviating the issue. To assume that the state would provide assistance to alleviate this issue would also require that the state is willing to share sovereignty over this territory as it re-empowered Indigenous women, allowing for them their inherent rights as political leaders within community and to be regarded as well-respected beings within the present nation-state of Canada.
Anderson, Kim. A Recognition of Being: Reconstructing Native Womanhood. Toronto: Second Story Press, 2000. Print.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). United Nations Human Rights.1976. Retrieved on March 12, 2014.
Jacobs, Beverly, and Williams, A. "Legacy of Residential Schools: Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women." in From Truth to Reconcilliation: Transforming the Legacy of Residential Schools. Ed. Marlene B. Castellano, Linda Archibald and Mike DeGagne. (2008) Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation. p 119-140. Print.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljaygood (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence Against Indigenous Women

message: There's a map in the article that links to articles about First Nation groups in various provinces, and there are links for most provinces, yet there's no link for Nova Scotia (The NS initial appears on the correct geography, but doesn't link to anything). There are a number of bands from the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia. Someone should add this link. 142.68.203.123 (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above critique.  I have found a link for Nova Scotian First Nation groups as well that you might find beneficial to the article []Laurenbreadner (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nova Scotia First Nations

message: Unclear explanations as to what the socially constructed term of "First Nations" means in regards to a group of people. With all the so called politically correct terms, it seems as though there is not one officially used term. 
Each reference is supported by a source but not all seem to be reliable as there are many oppositions to which truth carries the most significance. 
There is a lot of information relating to the topic of First Nations. However, I do not feel everything is relatable. I find many sub-headings to be distracting. Crimes and incarceration, suicides, murdering of men and women.. to name a few. The caucasian race and black people pages on wikipedia do not include such headings so why bring these topics to life? Sure there have been issues in regards to this, just as it has for other races. 
The viewpoint of Contemporary Issues is underrepresented, and it focuses on only problems regarding first nations people. More positive insight should be added. Contemporary issues should not be constructed as strictly negative comments. 
Information to be added is necessary. Sport is not listed anywhere in this article. First Nations people participate in many different sports such as: Sliding game, To Wepi Cikan, Tossing the Ball, Tewaarathon, Runners, Akraurak or Aqijut. 
AdamDangelo (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unnecessary French translation of First Nations in the beginning, as it is an English article.  As noted previously, I would have liked to see a more consistent definition of "First Nations" used in the article as well.  There were some terms in the terminology section of the article that were not properly referenced.  The quote, "the term "Aboriginal" was first defined in the 1982 Constitution Act.  "Aboriginal Identity" was not in use until 1996.  In Canada, both "Aboriginal" and "First Nations" have "specific definitions" and as a result they are NOT interchangeable part as in the article." This quote seems irrelevant as it fails to explain what Aboriginal Identity is, and it brings up the question of the First Nation definition again as it compares it to the term "Aboriginal".  Just a little confusing.  There is a lot of negative opinion on Canadian First Nations presented in this article.  It would be nice to see a more neutral standpoint, as like Adam stated, it seems that they are underrepresented.Laurenbreadner (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Nations Article Critique  

message: Is there anything missing that could be added?
A section about sports could be added to the article. There have been numerous First Nations sportspeople who have been recognized within their sport from receiving awards and accolades. So, the sports section could be added under the Culture section within the article.
In addition, the Missing and murdered women section could be updated as The Government of Canada has announced an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.
Is each fact referenced?
Throughout the article, there are a few facts with missing citations. For example, the First and Second World Wars section is not cited, so I am unaware of the sources used for these facts. Secondly, the fourth paragraph in the Colonization and Integration section is not cited regarding the different percentages of churches that ran schools.Ebasterf (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation of the First Nations Article 

message: The article Native American mascot controversy has a link to this article and some content on the issue in Canada. Should there be a subsection in "Contemporary issues" that has a summary and link to that article?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to related article 

message: It is stated throughout the article that the Metis and Inuit are not indigenous, this is not only disingenuous but factually wrong. The terms "first nations" and "aboriginal" have their own definitions, "indigenous" is a seperate term with an alternate meaning and definition. 70.69.140.126 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "First Nations (French: Premières Nations) is a term used to identify those Indigenous Canadian peoples who are neither Inuit nor Métis" Moxy- 12:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to classification of Indigenous ethnicities 

message: Within Canada, the term First Nations has come into general use for Indigenous peoples other than Inuit and Métis. Individuals using the term outside Canada include Indigenous Australians, U.S. tribes within the Pacific Northwest, as well as supporters of the Cascadian independence movement. The singular, commonly used on culturally politicized reserves[citation needed], is the term First Nations person[citation needed] (when gender-specific, First Nations man or First Nations woman). Since the late 20th century, members of various nations more frequently identify by their tribal or national identity only, e.g., "I'm Haida", or "We're Kwantlens", in recognition of the distinct First Nations. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph is horrendous and needs to be rewritten. I would do it myself, but I have no idea what it's even trying to say. 

message: I understand that First Nations is both the official name and pretty much the common name for Canadian Native Americans (or whatever, and fine. Not suggesting we change anything much in the article, maybe add a couple sentences. 
Because, just as a point of fact, they're not first anything. They replaced -- slaughtered for all we know, but more likely just took their women or interbred or whatever -- people who were there first Paleo-Indians, who themselves had various waves I would suppose. 
I was thinking of adding the following paragraph, or something like it, to the end of the "Terminology" section:
There're refs for this, or most if it, altho I haven't set them down and don't want to take the trouble if the paragraph is a no-go on political grounds. And a lot of the refs are books which I can't read.
I think it's worthwhile to point out to the reader that the terms "First Nations" is (probably) not actually descriptively accurate. Depending on how you define your terms anyway. In fact the members of these peoples are actually the next-to-last-nations (to the state of Canada) I think, and for all we know slaughtered the previous inhabitants.
But, I don't want to be, I don't know, considered a racist or something, so I'm asking for comments first. Herostratus (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a paragraph re inhabitants preceding the First Nations people?