Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:11:59 PM
Not having much contact with Canada, I was unaware of a specifically Canadian foolishness. The Canadians have dubbed those we misleadingly call "Native Americans", excluding the Inuit and a few other groups, as "First Nations".
Now, I understand the thinking behind this. These people were here before Europeans, so we will call them the first nations. But just as "Native American" understood literally makes nonsense of the name, "First Nations" is similarly misleading, and makes a mockery of history as well.
There have been human habitations in the Americas since the time of the Clovis culture about 12,000-13,000 years ago. Now I know many of the tribes of Canada have an ancient provenance, but I seriously doubt any can trace their founding back 120 centuries. And as they cannot do so, to call them "first nations" is just absurd. They may predate Europeans, but that does not make them first. There were surely cultures which preceded them.
Actually, this term is somewhat insulting to the people it tries to elevate. No one would think of claiming Germany or Poland was "an original European nation" as we know the history and know much came before. By dubbing these most recent tribes "first nations" we are essentially saying "your history doesn't matter, one tribe is the same as another, so we'll just call all of you first nations". It seems quite condescending to lump together all the many tribes of varying antiquity and claim they all are first nations.
But I have come to expect stupidity in the naming of the people of the Americas. Admittedly Indian was a strange name, based as it was on a mistake. On the other hand, there was nothing insulting about it, and, excluding the occasional confusing with the Asiatic peoples of the same name, it didn't lead to the same absurd confusions as the current naming. On the other hand, "Native American" is just absurd. Taken literally, it applies to everyone born in the Americas. "First nations" I have discussed above. And the final option "aboriginal people" is a bit wrong as well, as these people were not in the Americas from the start of time, only for about 12,000 years, making aboriginal a bit misleading. About the only name which works at all is "indigenous people", as it amounts to nothing more than a recognition that they predate the European settlers.
As I have said before, the best choice is to avoid all these aggregating terms entirely, and refer to the people by their tribal or national designation. If that is impossible, or if the need exists to refer to them as a group, then I think Indian works as well as anything else, and has 500 years of history in its favor. I know it upsets some, but why should that mean we have to change the name? I don't like being called an "Anglo-American", especially as my ancestry is only 10% English at most, but I had no choice in the matter. And, even if I did, I recognize that a name is somewhat irrelevant, and to get upset over such trifles is a waste of time.
However, as we live in the age of chronically aggrieved, and as names are the easiest symbolic change to make, I am sure we will not see this end anytime soon. Rather than simply pick a neutral name and stick with it, I am sure we will go through many iterations of PC names for each and every group, leading to endless confusion and countless inappropriate names.
Don't we have anything better to do with our time?
DISCLOSURE
According to family myth I am some small percentage Cherokee. I can say I personally find nothing offensive in the term Indian. In fact I still don't know why it was abandoned for the silliness of "Native American". I think it is more of a status symbol than anything else. When a minority can force a name change it proves they have arrived and are now officially a pressure group. At least that is my theory.