Talk:Kwakwakaʼwakw

message: Um, I see there's a Wakashan language link; I'm always vague on the boundary bewtween Kwak'wala speaking peoples and their northern neighbours, who are also Wakashan and similar in language to Kwak'wala (moreso than Nuu-chah-nulth or Makah, which are also Wakashan); just figure they should be linked here somehow.  Ultimately Kwakiutl has to become a disambiguation page because of the other flavours of Kwakiutl than the Kwakwaka'wakw group; who are the largest, but the term has strong political/organizational associations, which is why I created Laich-kwil-tach and will get around to Kwagyulh and others when I get the chance.Skookum1 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oweeykyala link?  and Kwakiutl disambig

message: This image is actually pretty good - there is only a sliver of a Haida pole over on the right. It seems like it would be okay to include this - the house and 3 Kwakwaka'wakw poles are very prominently displayed. But, we could crop out the Haida pole completely if necessary. heqs 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image added with endnote per above discussion. heqs 12:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Totem RMBC 2.jpg]] 

message: This image is currently a featured picture candidate. Due to a large influx of new candidates there are very few votes for this image. If you have an opinion on this image please go to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kwakwaka'wakw big house and cast your vote. HighInBC 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kwakwaka'wakw big house

message: Partly re the previous discussion, I'm wondering if there's a tribal council affiliation for non-Kwakiutl District Council Kwakwaka'wakw governments; here is a listing from the "Kwakwaka'wakw First Nations, Alert Bay" item in the External links section (which is actually adspam for a tour company and should probably be removed and replaced by a listing of all Kwakwaka'wakw governments.  Redlinks following of course are not made yet, not even as stubs (which is all there is  for the bluelinked ones....): spellings may not be right/appropriate here also as the preference of the government in question should be used, if different:
*Kwagulth First Nation of Fort Rupert (aka Kwakiutl First Nation I think - ??)
*Mamalilikala First Nation of Village Island (I've seen that spelled Mamalilaculla - the usual/old English transliteration, or close to it (?), and Mamalilaqula.
*'Namgis First Nation of Cheslakees
*Tlawit'sis First Nation of Turnour Island
*A'wa'etlala First Nation of Knight Inlet (already extant as the Da'naxda'xw Awaetlatla Nation of the Kwakiutl District Council
*Da'naxda'xw First Nation of New Vancouver (already extant as the Da'naxda'xw Awaetlatla Nation of the Kwakiutl District Council
*Ma'amtagila First Nation of Etsekin 
*Dzawada'enuxw First Nation of Kingcome Inlet (already extant as the Tsawataineuk First Nation of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council 
*Kwikwasut'inux First Nation of Gilford Island (already extant as the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish First Nation of the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council 
*Gwawa'enux First Nation of Hopetown
*'Nakwaxda'xw First Nation of Blunden Harbour ("Nahwitti" in traditional English transliteration)
*Gwa'sala First Nation of Smiths Inlet (already extant as part of Gwa'Sala-'Nakwaxda'xw Nation of the Kwakiutl District Council
*Gusgimukw First Nation of Quatsino
*Gwatsinux First Nation of Winter Harbour {already extant as Quatsino First Nation of the Kwakiutl District Council)
*Tlatlasikwala First Nation of Hope Island (already extant as Tlatlasikwala Nation of the Kwakiutl District Council
*Weka'yi First Nation of Cape Mudge (currently redlinked on Kwakiutl District Council as "Cape Mudge First Nation - see Wei Wai Kai and Laich-kwil-tach"); also sp. something like Weiwakai somewhere on the web
*Wiwekam First Nation of Campbell River (currently redlinked on Kwakiutl District Council as "Campbell River First Nation (see Wei Wai Kum and Laich-kwil-tach"); also sp. Weywakum somewhere on the web...
*Also listed on Kwakiutl District Council are the K'ómoks First Nation (Comox) First Nation and Kwiakah First Nation, which with the Wei Wai Kai/Cape Mudge and Wei Wai Kum/Campbell River bands are members of the Laich-Kwil-Tach K'omoks Council of Chiefs which is a subgroup of the Kwakiutl District Council
User:OldManRivers has also observed, and I concur that  should be broken up by nation, as in ethnic group, and that the various First Nations templates (see [[:Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia}} should not be derived from Indian Act-based governmental divisions incl. Tribal Councils and Treaty Councils, but defined again according to ethnic/nation grouping; otherwise some independent/unaffiliated bands/peoples/communities do not appear on the templates, including perhaps the non-Kwakiutl District Council bands/governments listed above.  Note in all cases that the same title without "First Nation" or "Nation" or "Indian Band" attached should be history/culture articles, while those with "First Nation" etc. should be government articles (which is how I've written the stubs for the ones extant); actual village/reserver articles fall again in a different category...(see talkpage at Sto:lo and also Talk:Gitxsan.Skookum1 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thanks for your work on this. It's all rather complicated, and clear information is hard to come by. I'm with you up until your idea of dropping "nation" from history/culture articles. In North America, we tend to see the words "country" and "nation" (and even government) as synonymous, but nation refers to a people as well. Why not leave nation on the articles about the people, and attach the word Council when you want to talk about the government. That would be the clearest, no? - TheMightyQuill 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to play the wikipeida card on that... Simply: it's not neutral (haha, been waiting to use that argument).  At least, it doesn't seem neutral to me.  We're talking about the people, and although this is a "English-language-wiki", the "Dzawada'enuxw" should be that.  The article does not say "Canada Nation" or "Canada Colonial Government", although there are pages for "Canadian Senate with Senate of Canada at the top.  Although technically "nation's" in it's sense of the word, we're talking about the people that exist and have existed for thousands of years.  Although it's different between the nation-state of Canada and the Indigenous nations in BC, or otherwise, it's the cultural history, ethno article.  Canadian, Canada are directed to the same page.  'Namgis, Skwxwu7mesh, or what ever is the same as "Canada", where the villages are like Provinces, and clans are like reigions, and families are like municipalities. ((I believe this makes Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chan-nuth continents in this analogy) It's a very awful way to explain it.  (It's like describing the potlatch are a big native garage sale....aw puke]], but you get the idea.  I agree with you, they are nations, but in terms of encyclopedia format, and creating more legiable and comprehensive pages for the Indigenous people, with regards to social, economic, politics, art, intellectual and military (or warrior societies), it's should be treated similarly across the board.  For me it makes sense, but, I like how User:Skookum1 one is going with it. OldManRivers 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With OldManRivers here. I think the Nisga'a title model is a sound one, in that the tag of First Nation or 'Nation' shouldn't be used for the history/culture article titles. Like he says, we don't use 'Canada Nation' and anything less would indeed be unequal. The text within the article should properly convey the concept of the 'nation', without needing it in the title, same goes for settlements-- 'band' should never be in a settlement title, for example. Not sure if it actually is anywhere but if so, tsk tsk. As for the 'Band governments' or Councils articles, they should obviously include the appropriate/applicable reference to their status as an administrative entity.--Keefer4 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an interesting exception to this dichotomy in the case of the Nisga'a Lisims, which is now both the constitutional/legal government of the Nisga'a as well as, from what I understand, the embodiment of the traditional government.  It's like the distinction between Gingolx and Kincolith, sort of; or more between the former Kincolith First Nation and its IRs vs. the new Gingolx traditional-body (NB, Gingolx, British Columbia would still be a separate location article, under the schema...and Kincolith and the other IRs/band councils should still have articles as things that existed, rather than things that do exist....); so while there still should be an article on the now-historical Nisga'a Nation/Nisga'a First Nation, i.e. the Indian Act creation/embodiment, that's different from the Nisga'a Lisims, which is both the current government as well as the traditional one....???  There are "parallel" bodies like the K'omoks Laich-kwil-tach Council of Chiefs, which parallel traditional forms but are made up of Indian Act creations, but......damn it's complicated, huh?  But worth sorting out, and this effort might be the first time there's a coordinated representation of the whole schmeer anywhere, once it's all done....Skookum1 05:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kwakwaka'wakw Tribal Councils?

message: I humbly request if someone could help me out with pictures.  I want to get a few more pictures, perhaps a black and white photo of something to do with the potlatch.  I would also like to ask if someone could make a map of Kwakwaka'wakw territory?  If you follow this link [www.moa.ubc.ca/pdf/resource_packages/MOA_Continuity_Change.pdf], on page 5 of the pdf, there is a map of the languages.  It's most accurate for the Kwakwaka'wakw as a whole too.  I would make it myself, but I don't know how.  Thanks OldManRivers 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll pass that on to a mapmaker at the pacNW project; see near the bottom of my talkpage for a new BC basemap he's created.Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: OMR knows what this is; an important and very ancient eulachon-fishing station on teh Klinaklini River; this is an article request re t'lina (the Kwakwaka'wakw version of Eulachon grease); a list of important community/fishing/other Kwakwaka'wwakw sites here would help, i.e to give an idea what's yet needed in t he way of articles; Dzawadli just seems particularly important....Skookum1 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dzawadli]]

message: En route to the next section, just a quick note to suggest the kwak'wala worde for them.  And PS about hte capitalization of Kwak'wala, which I know isn't preferred within Kwaki'wala, is a standard in English for proper names of languages; so for consistency cap'd that even though I realize, like Skwxwu7mesh placenames etc the caps aren't correct; in those languages, but they are in English, if words/names are used in English.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobles, commoner and slaves

message: :The use of Kwak'wala declined significantly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mainly due to the assimilationist policies of the Canadian government, and above all the mandatory attendance of Kwakwa'wakw children at residential schools. 
A couple of ancillary points to pin onto that, but I don't have cites at the moment:
:....where students were beaten if caught speaking Kwak'wala or other languages, including the Chinook Jargon, which had become a secret language in the schools linking children of different linguistic backgrounds, after originally being introduced and populated by the same churches who ran them (well, Catholic schools anyway, can't say for Anglican etc).  The Jargon was once widely spoken as a second mother tongue within Kwakwaka'wakw territories - some of the only published recordings of British Columbia Chinook usage are of Mungo Martin - although it is largely forgotten now (though in some areas of BC it nearly supplanted the traditional languages altogether until its use was discouraged by language departmsnts.
That was all part of discussions at various Chinuk Lu?lu's and I think some might be found in Holton's book or in Glavin & Lillard; any more of what I might say would be OR (unless I ever publish, or someone does on certain topics).  The addition about CJ in the schools doesn't have to be as lengthy as I've just laid out; but language suppression shoudl be mentioend, as well as the pressure from CJ use in teh schools and back home.  Another suggested clause/idea:
:....[sent to residential schools], often far outside Kwakwaka'wakw territory and among school populations of widely varied linguistic backgrounds.
A similar topic, maybe more succinct; the main point there rathert han language is the removal of them from their traditional territory and the distance from parents; maybe the two items can be combined without making the ssection too long.  Also, one of the webpages out there somewhere has a list of which communities spoke which dialect, e.g. Li'kwala for hte Lekwiltok/Southern Kwakiutl and others; these should all be mentioned, and maybe listed in the tribes table.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Residential schools

message: Hi OMR; just wondering where the Kwiakah fit into the table of tribes....came across them this morning in an INAC page about the Douglas Treaties, which I hadn't realized included Kwakwaka'wakw signatories.  Douglas Treaties obviously needs an article; I guess I'll pen up stubs for the remaining Kwakwaka'wakw band governments....and I'm wondering if the table on this page shouldn't have a column for which band government the tribes listed are now in.  And still hoping for your input/explanation of the Nahwitti and "where are they now?"Skookum1 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kwiakah

message: I was looking at the large amount of negative feedback to the page Kwakiutl. Feedback Dashboard It appears many readers are looking for the more in depth coverage on this page, but aren't making it here.  Should that page be a redirect to a new section here explaining the nuances of the two names?  I see this was discussed above, we should re-start the conversation.  High-school social studies projects are suffering!  The Interior (Talk) 07:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.Skookum1 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stranded readers 

message: This is mentioned on Fort Rupert, British Columbia by historian Bill Barlee, says it's near the northern tip of Vancouver Island.  Trying to google that yields Ku Klux Klan.....wondering what another transliteration might be.....many many native village names are not in BC Names or other accessible sources.......and lots we do have names for still need articles anyway.  This I think was a major one.Skookum1 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: village of Ku-Kultz

message: I happened to look at the other article just now, it was kept so the term could be explained but it keeps on being expanded, inappropriately, for the whole group of peoples.....items on the Nakoaktok and Tanekteuk in the gallery there I just removed; people from those two groups would be offended as they are not Kwayulh.  These should have been merged long ago, but the older term was argued for being kept so long as it was an article about the term.  But nobody patrols it to keep it t hat way, instead it gets expanded.  "Just merge 'em".Skookum1 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Just stumbled upon this. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been two and a half months, so time to merge. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  mergefrom [[Kwakiutl]] 

message: In its present form, this article is, essentially, crap.  I came here looking for enlightenment.  Instead, I'm greeted with a political screed telling me that most of my (assumed) preconceptions about Kwakiutl are wrong.  This is either arrogance or ignorance masquerading as inscrutability.  It should be rewritten from the standpoint that the visitor to Wikipedia knows little or nothing about the subject and with the intention of providing knowledge, not dishing out insults.  —QuicksilverT @ 08:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this was certainly true of older versions of the page; I've tried to de-POVize it but if you'd care to specify which phrases you find "insulting" I'll endeavour to fix them; I tried for as neutral a tone as possible but the fact remains that the now-proper name for this group of peoples is Kwakwaka'wakw and that the term Kwakiutl now is used (in BC) only in reference to the Kwakiutl First Nation and the Kwakiutl District Council, which does include other bands; the Legwiltok commonly use "Southern Kwakiutl" for themselves.  It's also the standard term still used in most other languages, e.g. if you went to de:Kwakiutl or fr:Kwakiutl that's certainly the case; only in English is the p.c. form now "mandatory".  From the perspective of other Kwakwaka'wakw groups than those of those groups still using the term, it's an insult to them to call them Kwakiutl, as this refers to a specific group.Skookum1 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crap 

message: I see a note proposing that this page be merged with another using the people's own name for themselves.  This idea seems to me to show and excess of the specialist's in-group pride, or perhaps that presumptuous arrogance the beat poet Gary Snyder shows whenever he wafts his aegis over the native people of Hokkaido.
 
If there are fuller details  on a page under Kwakwaka'wakw, this already short page might be truncated to a pointer.  Most of us need such a pointer until we get here.
 
The main truncation would naturally be the elimination of the suggestion that the two pages be merged.   :-)
 
DavidLJ (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwakiutl was merged into Kwakwaka'wakw and linked to Kwagu'ł to facilitate readers finding the information they want. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger and/or Separation of Pages 

message: The second paragraph starts with "Their language, now spoken by only 3.1% of the population". The sentence is not clear on WHAT population it is talking about. 3.1% of "the population" speak their language. But which population? British Columbia, Canada, the World, ...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1640:2538:325A:3AFF:FE57:322F (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Their language, now spoken by only 3.1% of the population," 

message: This article features a number of Edward Curtis photos with captions as though they are basically documentary.  I'm wondering if the story of those photos is more complex, and if the article should reflect that.  I think some of those photos feature objects / architecture / settings that were created / recreated specifically for In the Land of the Head Hunters, Curtis's movie from 1914.  My understanding is that George Hunt was heavily involved in the production, including carvings for the sets and masks.  
This photo  is marked as showing totem pole carved by George Hunt-carved for the movie, and now in the University of British Columbia anthropology museum.  Similarly, I believe I've seen masks and other items made for the movie in the Burke Museum at UW in Seattle (though I couldn't easily find them in the collections database), including some of the masks that appear in this photo  that is used here in the Kwakwaka'wakw article, but captioned simply "Showing of masks at Kwakwaka'wakw potlach."  That photo even looks like it could actually be a production still from the movie, similar to this one  that appears to be in the same location.  
Would this article benefit from a discussion about the different layers in the way these photographs represent the culture?  See, for example, this New York Times article  discussing the issue from 2015 when the movie was re-released. W.stanovsky (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deeper discussion of Edward Curtis photos?