How much do you know about the history of Indigenous people under Canadian rule?

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: chupacabra

IMO, if the Canadian gov or any of the provinces are dealing with any First Nations directly then it should only be with the elected council.  I am not down with hereditary rule whether it is a chief, king, or sultan but this is also why I believe they need to have ownership of their own land so that they can do as they please on that land.

Yeah but if elected band councils are just happy with colonial status quo sucking govt. tit and hogging all the resources then what?

Then they need to elect someone better.  If the vast majority of the people in the band are actually against this sort of thing they will be gone after a term if office.

#realpolitic dude

half of morice town

Posted by: three-sheets

Posted by: XXX_er

Posted by: three-sheets

Posted by: XXX_er

Posted by: three-sheets

Posted by: XXX_er

https://www.cfnrfm.ca/2022/01/04/legendary-gitxsan-artist-and-indigenous-rights-icon-delgamuukw-earl-muldon-passes-away/

Earl Muldon passed, he was a major voice in Delgamuukw

Wonderful man...it's a shame the supreme court of Canada has dragged its feet so long as to not complete the case before his death.

my impression is that they got Delgamuukw to where they did which took 20years and ran out of steam & money

Pretty sure the OW and GDL could pony up the resources if they really gave a shit.

the getting arrested out in the morice , the rail blockades,the highway blockades would indicate otherwise,

and a 20 yr court case IS a long time, I think you wrong on both counts, 

Northern Gatway was canceled shorthly after the Tsilcotine descision came down in 2014

But Christie Clarke  vowed to get CGL past the point of no return by dealing with the band councils who had no authority TO make a deal, she did and that ship has sailed

Sure, rights and title were established, but of exactly what, hasnt been.

The OW, Gitxsan and Carrier all have overlapping claims in the area...the big question is why none of them are pressing to settle the outstanding issues of Delg....everyone knows that one illegitimate small house group grandstanding on the morice isnt gonna solve shit

neither is ignoring that they have rights and titles and ramroding thru CGL, they were bascily told this is going thru and they said no we don't want you, its happened anyway and i don't see anyone in any hurry TO establish rights and titles of what?

Posted by: impressedbyyourwokeness

you've been gaslighted by the indian industry something awful.

So what exactly is this "indian industry" you suggests exists and how have I been gaslit by them? Does this have anything to do with your attempt at re-defining anthropological history via the reliance of work by one person which at a minimum has been soundly questioned, if not outrightly refuted? What do you base your apparent rejection of the colonization and abuse of Indigenous peoples both here in Canada and in other parts of the world. I'm assuming that your perspective is based on your location which appears to be either Australia or New Zealand.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: impressedbyyourwokeness

you've been gaslighted by the indian industry something awful.

So what exactly is this "indian industry" you suggests exists and how have I been gaslit by them? Does this have anything to do with your attempt at re-defining anthropological history via the reliance of work by one person which at a minimum has been soundly questioned, if not outrightly refuted? What do you base your apparent rejection of the colonization and abuse of Indigenous peoples both here in Canada and in other parts of the world. I'm assuming that your perspective is based on your location which appears to be either Australia or New Zealand.

oh boy the natives are some kinda' kinky down there...

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1067415394279936000

I got  a buddy in the "cultural management"  bidness, he knows all the playa's,  is a honorary FN , he  always buys the beer and write it off

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: impressedbyyourwokeness

you've been gaslighted by the indian industry something awful.

So what exactly is this "indian industry" you suggests exists and how have I been gaslit by them? Does this have anything to do with your attempt at re-defining anthropological history via the reliance of work by one person which at a minimum has been soundly questioned, if not outrightly refuted? What do you base your apparent rejection of the colonization and abuse of Indigenous peoples both here in Canada and in other parts of the world. I'm assuming that your perspective is based on your location which appears to be either Australia or New Zealand.

you're a genius and expert it's perfectly clear. the extent of your understanding of human history is more than Jared Diamond, Yuval Harari and others who've studied it, aggregated the work of hundreds of others, and written extensively about it. you are not the type to be swayed by reason, research, or empirical evidence, so i'll leave you to your smug self assurance that what you know is true and right and untouchable because it feels better that way.

Posted by: impressedbyyourwokeness

you're a genius and expert it's perfectly clear. the extent of your understanding of human history is more than Jared Diamond, Yuval Harari and others who've studied it, aggregated the work of hundreds of others, and written extensively about it. you are not the type to be swayed by reason, research, or empirical evidence, so i'll leave you to your smug self assurance that what you know is true and right and untouchable because it feels better that way.

I see. So instead of addressing my questions on an issue that you raised, you feel it's better to sidestep it with a smarmy response instead. It's ironic that you talk about research and and empirical evidence when neither Diamond's nor Harari's views represent settled science. Re the last time I responded to your Diamond post, there is plenty of credible research that shows the flaws in his thinking and that there is more credible evidence for the theory that is not his. There are plenty of people in the field that do not agree with him.  Same for Harari, although Homo Deus and Sapiens are interesting reads.

Good thread. I’m learning a lot. Thank you.

I learned about acrimony.

Fascinating episode of Ideas today on teh CBC. They dove into the history of Indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere and how the Eurocentric archeological view leaves a lot to be desired. The first link gives you a primer of the episode and the second link is to the show itself. There's lots to learn here if you're interested.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/indigenous-archaeologist-argues-humans-may-have-arrived-here-130-000-years-ago-1.6313892

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23/clip/15888973

Posted by: syncro

Fascinating episode of Ideas today on teh CBC. They dove into the history of Indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere and how the Eurocentric archeological view leaves a lot to be desired. The first link gives you a primer of the episode and the second link is to the show itself. There's lots to learn here if you're interested.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/indigenous-archaeologist-argues-humans-may-have-arrived-here-130-000-years-ago-1.6313892

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-23/clip/15888973

This is my hobby area of interest so this is a long read but it is well researched.  

The indigenous archeologist, Paulette Steeves, is making a big leap in her assumptions of what pre-Clovis means to human migration and her ancestors.  Just because there may have been people in the Americas long before the end of the ice age doesn't mean they were her people or related to today's indigenous population except in maybe small amount.  This is what archeology with an agenda looks like sorry to say.

My first experience in native politicization on archeology was with a specimen called Kennewick Man. He was found just south of here along the banks of the Columbia River and carbon dated to about 9000 years ago.  An "expert" claimed he had the skeleton of a Caucasian man before the dating was done and the controversy began.  There is a lot of pressure to preserve the narrative that today's indigenous people are the First Nations and have lived here for time immemorial because that is what they say in their oral history.  So the local bands fought to get the skeleton back so they could literally bury him without further study.  They were worried that it was not an ancestor IMO, but they lost in court since the skeleton was so old.  Fast forward a few years and tests showed he was indeed an ancestor of the local native population and they of course embraced that.  It made sense since 9000 years ago is after the last ice age and within the timeline of what we know of human migration into the Americas and the Clovis culture that defines it.

The old story of Asians crossing the land bridge is a bit deceiving.  The people that entered N America probably lived in Beringia for millennia, maybe even 10,000 years before entering the continent so it wasn't really a bridge at all, but a lost continent that was home to a lost civilization.  During this time they developed their own genetic and cultural differences from mainland NE Asia.  What seems to be clear today is that they started island hopping down the coast as the ice melted and before the ice free corridor opened, then when the corridor did open the larger mass migration began.  The ice free corridor would have coincided with Beringia being swallowed by the sea so that would have meant their entire population moved into North America taking a lot of the mega fauna as they went.  Not a lot is known about these people before the ice age ended since all the Beringia sites are now under the ocean, but it seems obvious now that they are the Clovis people that moved down through the Americas starting around 14,000 years ago.  Sites on the BC coast date back this far and these would have been people settling on the new lands as the ice receded.  All of the Clovis sites start around this date and they are wide spread as one would expect from a mass migration of this nature.  

Things get a lot different once we look at any finding that is pre-Clovis.  There is really only one finding suggesting the 100K+ age for humans in the Americas and it is circumstantial.  There are mastodon bones that have the appearance of being worked by humans, but that is it.  I think it is certainly possible it was human activity since other large animals moved into the Americas around this time, but it is also very possible that it was another type of human.  It could have been Denisovans or another species of human.  Most of the evidence that is pre-Clovis goes back about 20K and it is solid with dated human bones.  In my opinion is it pretty hard to claim that today's indigenous people have cultural connections to people that clearly were very different if they were directly related at all.  They didn't have Clovis tech and their sites are much harder to find.  The more logical assumption is that the Clovis people displaced the existing population as the ice age ended.  Of course this would be controversial since it is a story of a people living in the Americas before the indigenous people of today.  They would be the post ice age settlers.  To me this means absolutely nothing in regards to the current claims against our government but it is a sticking point in the indigenous story.  

With DNA we also have some clues that point to a story that they probably will not like.  Ancient humans interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans and it shows in our DNA today.  Most white folks will have a high level of Neanderthal DNA for example, since they dominated in Europe before Homo Sapiens.  Denisovan DNA is strong in people from Asia in the islands between Asia and Australia and we see this same DNA in indigenous Australians which makes sense from a human migration perspective.  The Beringian people that came into America didn't have this strong DNA marker as we see in their ancestors today.  Here is where it gets interesting.  There is a strong Denisovan DNA segment within some of the isolated tribes in the Amazon living today.  So how did it get there?  Using Occam's Razor the easy answer is that people came directly from around modern day Malaysia or Papua New Guinea.  These are modern humans living on the sea and we know the Polynesians were capable of sailing that far.  It also makes sense that a sea people would have stayed on the coast so most of their settlements are now under the ocean, making the evidence of their presence much harder to find.  

TL:DR - Chup thinks that the pre-Clovis people were a small population of people that sailed to South America and not people from Beringia.  This means that the indigenous archeologist that really wants to claim these people as her own is likely barking up the wrong tree.  When they say time immemorial ibn their oral history, 14K years is still a long long time so it still fits.  We 100% know that most indigenous people in Canada can only claim about 10K to 14K since Canada was covered in ice before that and they say the same thing.

Got a link?

Posted by: chupacabra

This is my hobby area of interest so this is a long read but it is well researched.  

The indigenous archeologist, Paulette Steeves, is making a big leap in her assumptions of what pre-Clovis means to human migration and her ancestors.  Just because there may have been people in the Americas long before the end of the ice age doesn't mean they were her people or related to today's indigenous population except in maybe small amount.  This is what archeology with an agenda looks like sorry to say.

....

TL:DR - Chup thinks that the pre-Clovis people were a small population of people that sailed to South America and not people from Beringia.  This means that the indigenous archeologist that really wants to claim these people as her own is likely barking up the wrong tree.  When they say time immemorial ibn their oral history, 14K years is still a long long time so it still fits.  We 100% know that most indigenous people in Canada can only claim about 10K to 14K since Canada was covered in ice before that and they say the same thing.

Good post - did you listen to the full program? Some of your concerns were dealt with in it. Like you, there were a number of points that I didn't agree with either. However, Steeves connects her ideas with paleontology as well to support her ideas. I've read about the Beringia theory before as well and how those peoples are genetically distinct from Asians, so in that context I can see where Steeves is coming from in her people being considered first peoples here in NA/SA and here much longer than 14,000 years. There is also the idea that during the ice age there were numerous coastal zones that were not covered in ice which may have allowed communities to survive. Also recall that our coastline used to extend further and it receded in the large Cascadia subduction earthquake which means early evidence may be underwater, similar to Beringia. I think one of Steeves big pushes is to separate the idea that NA Indigenous people are Asians, and that instead they are a distinct group of peoples - which is something I agree with.  She's also working against the Western dominated view of archeology. She presents good evidence that the current story as presented does not necessarily represent all the evidence that does exist. So when you mention archeology with an agenda, that cuts both ways. She talks about that specifically to illustrate how the Western view of archeology has dismissed her peoples. The lens we view things though can critically alter what we see. 

One of the things that makes Indigenous history contentious in the Western world view is the lack of written history and that knowledge and history was/is passed down orally and is intricately woven with their cultural and spiritual practices which themselves are highly integrated. As more archeological finds are made in the PNW they seem to support the oral history of PNW Indigenous peoples. While I don't fully agree with her, I do think it's good that there are people who are pushing to change the narrative of who Indigenous peoples are that was established by European colonizers. Where Western academics have a hard time is in interpreting the Indigenous view of history. Because the culture is radically different I think people have a difficult time understanding what the Indigenous view means if they do not understand the culture. I think a good analogy to this is learning another language; you can do it through a book but until you take the time to immerse yourself in that different language in the culture where it is used you can misinterpret a lot of the meaning of the language.

Posted by: syncro

Good post - did you listen to the full program? Some of your concerns were dealt with in it. Like you, there were a number of points that I didn't agree with either. However, Steeves connects her ideas with paleontology as well to support her ideas. I've read about the Beringia theory before as well and how those peoples are genetically distinct from Asians, so in that context I can see where Steeves is coming from in her people being considered first peoples here in NA/SA and here much longer than 14,000 years. There is also the idea that during the ice age there were numerous coastal zones that were not covered in ice which may have allowed communities to survive. Also recall that our coastline used to extend further and it receded in the large Cascadia subduction earthquake which means early evidence may be underwater, similar to Beringia. I think one of Steeves big pushes is to separate the idea that NA Indigenous people are Asians, and that instead they are a distinct group of peoples - which is something I agree with.  She's also working against the Western dominated view of archeology. She presents good evidence that the current story as presented does not necessarily represent all the evidence that does exist. So when you mention archeology with an agenda, that cuts both ways. She talks about that specifically to illustrate how the Western view of archeology has dismissed her peoples. The lens we view things though can critically alter what we see. 

One of the things that makes Indigenous history contentious in the Western world view is the lack of written history and that knowledge and history was/is passed down orally and is intricately woven with their cultural and spiritual practices which themselves are highly integrated. As more archeological finds are made in the PNW they seem to support the oral history of PNW Indigenous peoples. While I don't fully agree with her, I do think it's good that there are people who are pushing to change the narrative of who Indigenous peoples are that was established by European colonizers. Where Western academics have a hard time is in interpreting the Indigenous view of history. Because the culture is radically different I think people have a difficult time understanding what the Indigenous view means if they do not understand the culture. I think a good analogy to this is learning another language; you can do it through a book but until you take the time to immerse yourself in that different language in the culture where it is used you can misinterpret a lot of the meaning of the language.

I haven't had the time to listen to the program yet but I will this week.  I think the danger with Steeves' way of thinking is that if she is working to challenge the Western dominated view of archeology she shouldn't replace it with an indigenous view.  Their connection to the land and their belief that they sprang from the land itself shouldn't guide her thinking.  If we find out another people lived in the Americas before the migration out of Beringia it shouldn't be viewed as a problem either, it just adds colour to story of her people.  14,0000 to 25,000 years of separation from the rest of the Asian population makes them their own people any way you want to look at it so there is no danger in accepting what we find.

I think people in general could do well by looking at deep history as their history.  The indigenous people have a connection to the people of Asia and that should be explored and embraced.  The story of her people didn't start 14,000 years ago and a lot would have changed over that time as well including other migrations and complete changes in culture.  The cool thing is that with DNA we will be able to put together the movements of humanity with a lot more detail and certainty.