Stony Nakoda want to rename all the things

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If this thread is "full" of racist comments, you should quote all those posts and point out the racism. This should be easy.

And if this thread is a haven for racist posts you should report it so the mods can lock it.

Doing nothing except posting drive bys isn't accomplishing much.

Perhaps Peanut has reported those posts, I don’t believe the entire board is notified when a post is reported.

I also believe that while you’re in a good position to comment on what little drive-bye accomplish, you may not be the best poster to deliver that message to others, but that’s just my opinion.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Conversely, people could just stop [...] looking at it as us vs them.

That's just willful blindness. You have two legally distinct groups of people. Sure, you might get some win-wins every once in a while but as soon as you divide people into categories, and those categories have different interests, you're going to create a lot of zero-sum games.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Oh good. Another thread where we can come back in 5-10 years and cringe at the racist attitudes displayed by lots of posters.

“Maybe we’d use their language if it didn’t sound so dumb”?! Jesus H. Christ. I can only hope that’s sarcasm.

What an odd observation IMO.

I have read and re-read the majority of this thread, and i see nothing that would be considered racist in the current day POV. Certainly nothing "cringe-worthy"

Yeah a dumb comment about how a language sounds....but that is hardly a racist thing.

Is opposing ANYTHING someone from that a visible minority proposes or non-caucasian culture seeks.. now considered racial behaviour or something?

Is this identity politics at its finest? (or worst as the case may be)

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Why not both?

It's always been Denali. It should stay Denali. Plus, my truck is a Denali.

Calgary was never called Wichispa Oyade so it would be silly to change the name to that.

If the natives of this region wish to call the Calgary region Wichispa Oyade, that is great and I would actually encourage that. The city is called Calgary and was founded and named by the British. Officially changing the name to something native is disingenuous, IMO.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Some of us know a fair bit. I'm part native, my dad is a Metis elder, I've worked for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and lived and worked as a journalist in a native community in the North. I've read treaties, sat in on land claims negotiations, covered band elections, and taken part in a round dance under the northern lights.

And the narrative you tell is hardly the whole picture - it's just as simplistic as they're all lazy bums.



We spend billions. Canada is responsible for providing health care and education to the bands is signed treaties with for As long as the sun shines the river flows and the grass grows. That's a legal commitment all Canadians needs to recognize, and moral commitment.

However, you can't just throw money at toxic communities and expect them to become healthy. Some of the wealthiest bands in Canada have the worst drug, gang, and suicide problems.

Take native housing. Much of it is in deplorable condition. But that's owing largely to A) the extreme isolation of many communities, and the corresponding extremely high cost of construction and maintenance, and B) in the absence of private ownership there's no incentive to take care of homes, so they quickly get trashed. Suggestions to encourage private ownership of native housing are unwelcome, which is unsurprising given the power band leaders derive from allocating housing.



The problem is that there really isn't any pubic debate on native issues in Canada. The only acceptable comment any non-Native Canada is allowed to make on the subject today is that everything was the fault of the Europeans and we need to spend more money. And when we don't allow open and public debate, people get resentful and pissed off in the anonymous forums where they can express themselves.

The saddest part is you had to preface this comment with that because otherwise you'd be considered a horrible racist even though everything you said should be largely uncontroversial.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sorry, but it might be culturally insensitive, maybe, but how is that racism? Chinese names could sound silly, so could Portuguese.....this has nothing to do with anyone treating aboriginals differently.

If they want to preserve their language, by all means, go full Quebec and make everything in Cree in your nation. No one is stopping you. Just leave our sovereign lands alone.

Yeah, Ha Ling peak, what a dumb name. It should go back to C-man's Peak.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What an odd observation IMO.

I have read and re-read the majority of this thread, and i see nothing that would be considered racist in the current day POV. Certainly nothing "cringe-worthy"

Yeah a dumb comment about how a language sounds....but that is hardly a racist thing.

Is opposing ANYTHING someone from that a visible minority proposes or non-caucasian culture seeks.. now considered racial behaviour or something?

Is this identity politics at its finest? (or worst as the case may be)

The racism is covert and passive aggressive but its there under the surface if you're willing to read between the lines. It's in the attitudes of superiority and us vs them.

[OMG!WTF!]

The name is just too long. I don't mind Okotoks, Ponoka, Kelowna, Ottawa etc because they are reasonably structured and pronounced. New Canmore has like 8 syllables long. Elbow Town is 6. I can't think of too many cities in Canada with more than 3. I get that it's a traditional name but there are a few more things to consider than that.

And it mucks up our fight song...

Hit 'em again ye men of Wichispa Oyade

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by icecube

The racism is covert and passive aggressive but its there under the surface if you're willing to read between the lines. It's in the attitudes of superiority and us vs them.

Its there but you cant see it then as long as you "read between the lines?

In that case, that argument can be made anywhere, at anytime, about anything involving FN cultures.

Its a barrier to having an intellectually honest discussion about such issues, which I suspect is exactly what some want and believe.

Opposing/questioning minorities in all situations has become a scarlet letter scenario. Its absurd, accomplishes the exact opposite of stated goals, and causes more issues than it helps placate or solve.

I sure I am now a racist for saying so, but so be it.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its there but you cant see it then as long as you "read between the lines?

In that case, that argument can be made anywhere, at anytime, about anything involving FN cultures.

Its a barrier to having an intellectually honest discussion about such issues, which I suspect is exactly what some want and believe.

Opposing/questioning minorities in all situations has become a scarlet letter scenario. Its absurd, accomplishes the exact opposite of stated goals, and causes more issues than it helps placate or solve.

I sure I am now a racist for saying so, but so be it.

I suggest you re-read the thread once more. If you can't plainly see it then yeah I think there might be a problem there.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The city is called Calgary and was founded and named by the British.

Actually, Calgary was founded in 1876 by the NWMP, a Canadian police force, a number of years after confederation, not by the British.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Actually, Calgary was founded in 1876 by the NWMP, a Canadian police force, a number of years after confederation, not by the British.

Hmm.

Its not like the British of this region magically became ethnic Canadians in 1867. The people who founded Calgary were British any way you slice it.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Hmm.

Its not like the British of this region magically became ethnic Canadians in 1867. The people who founded Calgary were British any way you slice it.

No, not ethnically (and you didn't mention that you were specifically speaking of ethnicity to begin with) but they sure became Canadian citizens in 1867 and like I said, the NWMP was a Canadian police force, created in 1870. When they set up fort, they were acting on behalf of Canada, not Britain.

Wasn't looking to create an argument or weigh in on the topic at hand, was just making a correction.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Hmm.

Its not like the British of this region magically became ethnic Canadians in 1867. The people who founded Calgary were British any way you slice it.

I don't think that is fair. There probably would have been multiple ethnic groups involved at that time, Scots, Welshman, Irish, and French at a minimum. They were essentially Canadian.

Look at it another way, were the Americans who fought the "British" in 1776 British?

[dino7c]

waste of time and money...nothing is being renamed

negotiating tactic for other matters

If that opinion is racist so be it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

No, not ethnically (and you didn't mention that you were specifically speaking of ethnicity to begin with) but they sure became Canadian citizens in 1867 and like I said, the NWMP was a Canadian police force, created in 1870. When they set up fort, they were acting on behalf of Canada, not Britain.

Wasn't looking to create an argument or weigh in on the topic at hand, was just making a correction.

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't think that is fair. There probably would have been multiple ethnic groups involved at that time, Scots, Welshman, Irish, and French at a minimum. They were essentially Canadian.

Look at it another way, were the Americans who fought the "British" in 1776 British?

You two are splitting hairs. Canada was merely declared a dominion of Britain in 1867, and didn't really become a real country until 1931. It didn't gain full independence until 1982. Even to this day, our official head of state is the British Crown. To say that the British didn't found Calgary is disingenuous. Colonel Macleod was as British as they come.

Anyway, the point here is that Calgary wasn't founded by the Nakoda or any other native nation. It was founded by the European settlers and they named it Calgary. It would be silly now to change the name to something different because it never had a native name to begin with. If the native nations wish to call the region Wichispa Oyada, I think that is great. I personally think that the cultures of many of the first nations is very rich and we should celebrate it; like they do at the Stampede.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by icecube

All from 1 minute on Google. A better education on the matter than you received in all your years of schooling.

col·o·ni·za·tion

kälənəˈzāSH(ə)n/

noun

the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

the action of appropriating a place or domain for one's own use.


Colonization can be defined as some form of invasion, dispossession and subjugation of a peoples.

The invasion need not be military; it can begin—or continue—as geographical intrusion in the form of agricultural, urban or industrial encroachments. The result of such incursion is the dispossession of vast amounts of lands from the original inhabitants.

This is often legalized after the fact. Historically, First Nation peoples (defined as Status Indians by the Indian Act) lost some 98% of their original lands through various legal means such as treaties and the Indian Act. Métis Nation peoples lost some 83% of their Red River lots through the Scrip program.

The long-term result of such massive dispossession is institutionalized inequality. The colonizer/colonized relationship is by nature an unequal one that benefits the colonizer at the expense of the colonized.

What possible benefit are the "colonizers" getting from shovelling billions and billions to reserves that for the most part don't improve outcomes for First Nations people? By your own definition you're spouting hyperbole.

I wish more First Nations people were visible in cities, going to the same schools and living in the same neighbourhoods as me. Away from these terrible communities that need constant propping up from the government just to exist. By any metric, teen pregnancy, suicide, drug use, single motherhood, they're some of the worst settlements in North America, and it's clear throwing money at the problem isn't working. Please tell me how I'm colonialist, or even better, racist for thinking so.

[OMG!WTF!]

My Tsuu T'ina name is Oboomakay. It means little warrior. I got it when I used to chuck drunks out of the Powderhorn Saloon in Bragg Creek during Indian Days. You do not F with Oboomakay! Probably means something more along the lines of "keep chainsaw away from psycho kid". But I liked it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

It's always been Denali. It should stay Denali. Plus, my truck is a Denali.

Calgary was never called Wichispa Oyade so it would be silly to change the name to that.

If the natives of this region wish to call the Calgary region Wichispa Oyade, that is great and I would actually encourage that. The city is called Calgary and was founded and named by the British. Officially changing the name to something native is disingenuous, IMO.

Kinda my point. It was well known as Mt. McKinley for over 100 years in much of the continental US. If over 100 years of being called something else is not worthy of having two names than certainly a made up name for Calgary in 2017 that was hatched as an angle to play in a land claims lawsuit should be laughed out of the room and ignored instead of wasting everyone's time and civil service hours in an attempt to avoid appearing racist.

[Rubicant]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

I don't think that is fair. There probably would have been multiple ethnic groups involved at that time, Scots, Welshman, Irish, and French at a minimum. They were essentially Canadian.

Look at it another way, were the Americans who fought the "British" in 1776 British?

Yes. They were British subjects.