Renaming of things

[Rebel]

Rebel, no offense, but it's a bit offensive if you were to do that. I know you don't mean to, but it is, in a way, mocking our culture.

I'm sorry if you viewed it that way, as it was not my intention at all. So I do apologise for that.

The point I was trying to make, was that muses_nightmare, myself, or anyone else in our particular genetic race can be held accountable for the travesties that our ancestors committed. Society changes over time, so does the people in power. When America, Canada, Australia, Africa, etc were conquered, it was in a time of different thinking and public outlooks and attitudes.

Societies, nations, cultures, religions overtook others. Just the way the world was run. Been happening since the dawn of mankind.

When locations are dominated, the lands and the conquered people are changed to reflect the culture currently in charge.

Stanley Park was one such transformation. It wasn't always a park. It was created when that area was overtaken and named to reflect that culture. The First Nation people only had as much of a claim to the lands of the park that the government in charge of the country would allow. And it wasn't enough to allow a name change.

I don't want to sound cruel, I'm just stating how it is.

There is still a good chance any country these days could be conquered by a more dominant country.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Not to be nationalist or anything but probably going to be Russia if anyone doing the conquering, seeing as they don't seem too shy about it.

[Rebel]

Not to be nationalist or anything but probably going to be Russia if anyone doing the conquering, seeing as they don't seem too shy about it.

I was going to predict China or Japan.

[Hobbs]

The point I was trying to make, was that muses_nightmare, myself, or anyone else in our particular genetic race can be held accountable for the travesties that our ancestors committed. .

This is exactly our point.

[linguist]

When locations are dominated, the lands and the conquered people are changed to reflect the culture currently in charge.

this is true, but my point is that when a conquered people are assimilated into the conquerors' society and given full rights as citizens, it's pointless to complain about them exercising those rights.

in this case, the people of the first nations are exercising their rights as citizens of canada to petition the government for what is only natural for them to want, in this case the names of locations changed to reflect their ancestral names. they aren't forcing anyone to do anything, they aren't trying to drive out the white man, they are only asking for a name. if the government chooses to grant them such a change, then any complaints should be directed toward the government.

[McDreidel09]

So which white are you; the ones who stole or the ones who killed?

Ummm. Not all white people had ancestors that killed Native Americans or stole from them. Just kinda want to point that out. For instance, I am third generation American. My great grandparents came here from Italy to find a place to hide. They had NO part in conquering the Natives. As for my dad's side, they came after all of that.

[AdminAssistant]

It's interesting because here in the States, many places do have names based on Native American words or phrases. Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Kansas, etc. etc. and so on. Granted, many times these names are French/English/Spanish mispronunciations of the original words.

The problem with renaming something is that people will probably still call it by its old name. To make an extreme example, if they decided to rename the Grand Canyon to what the Native Americans called it.....most people would still call it the Grand Canyon. It's a semantic move, and semantics have importance, but it isn't going to change how people feel about Native American/First Nations people. I mean, it would have greater meaning if we went to the Black Hills with several tons of plaster to cover up the damage done to sacred land when we created Mt. Rushmore.

Since several people have brought this up....making special concessions for people because of their ancestry is unfair...both to us and to them. Creating a rule that says, "Oh, well, you're First Nations, so we don't expect you to be able to do the same amount of work as others." That's condescending and does significantly more harm than good.

[muses_nightmare]

In my own research, I found that Canadian Native Americans were generally treated worse than their American counterparts. Only the Native Americans of New Spain and Central/South America were treated worse.

In the past sure, but have you looked at how they're treated now? Which is what I was referring to. Do the Native Americans in the States have all of the advantages that The First Nations of Canada do? I'm curious.

Built it back up? I don't know how you can possibly say that, considering that the Native American population (on both continents) has never been able to recover from colonization.

And? That's what happens when nations conquer other nations.

Conquered pretty much means that the land was taken forcefully. When you take something from someone that wasn't yours, what do you call it? Oh yeah, theft!

Nope not theft. Conquering nations did what they did, no one can change that today, That's just the fact of the matter.

"When a white army battles Indians and wins, it is called a great victory, but if they lose it is called a massacre." - Chiksika, Shawnee

What wisdom is this? look at any side of a battle, this is the mindset, of course if you win a battle is a victory, and of course when you lose and have lots of casualties it's a massacre. Seriously, this isn't even "wise".

many of these people's ancestor's were converted at gunpoint. forced conversions were continued through the generations until the practitioners of the original religions all but died out and christianity is all they've ever known.

Yes but why when they're complaining about how they are being forced to be part of "white" culture today why are they still taking on the Religion of their "oppressors"? I've known First Nations who actually do practice their own faith, so it wasn't all lost.

So which white are you; the ones who stole or the ones who killed? And I think perhaps that, living in such a community, you did become intolerant. Hell, I see the same thing with the whites that live in my city. They sound like you, saying, "Oh, we're not intolerant..." yet at the same time look down on us.

Do you know nothing of history? Seriously. I'm Croatian. My grandfather didn't even come to Canada until he was 7, which was 80 years ago. How exactly am I part of anything to do with that history now? Thanks for painting a collection of varied and rich heritages with one brush, now who's intolerant? What it's okay to dump on the "white" girl?

I'm not intolerant, because I do tolerate this stuff. Being tolerant doesn't mean I have to like everything that happens or that I have to keep my mouth shut about it. I also know many First Nations people who would agree with me, and who think that things would be better if First Nations were just treated like everyone else, which they aren't. When I say everyone else I'm not just referring to "white" people either. I don't look down on anyone for their race. I don't think that they are lower than me, or anything of the sort, I actually think they're treated far better than I or anyone else in this country is treated, and a lot of them throw it away, I'm sorry but no one is to blame but themselves. Don't want to go to school? That's your own fault, would rather buy a huge truck than feed and clothe your kids, that's your own fault. Stop blaming everything on what happened to ancestors you've never met. Same goes for any other race/culture out there. Take responsibility for yourself.

[Hobbs]

Do you know nothing of history?

Well, I'm a history major, if that's what you mean. And I've surely studied the Native American history more than it seems you have. You seem to think that the Indigenous people should be content, take what is given to them and be grateful. After all, since they no longer control the land or the way they are governed, it could be easily taken away, correct? You forget, and ignore the words I have supplied, that the Native American, at his root, has defied the way they have been made to assimilate into the western culture. What they want is self-determination. As Thomas Franck, a professor in international law states;

"Self-determination is the oldest aspect of the democratic entitlement... Self-determination postulates the right of a people in an established territory to determine its collective political destiny in a democratic fashion and is therefore at the core of the democratic entitlement."
-Dalee Sambo Dorough, "STATE OF THE WORLD’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLES." United Nations. January, 2010.

Yes, conquering is theft! This isn't debatable. This is what happened. My God, do you know nothing of history?! I can't believe you're just throwing away the fact that 95% of the Indigenous population died so that the land could be "conquered" from them. That you can ignore the blatant human rights abuses that took place since then.


Well, since I am a historian, I did a little research. The first is an apology from the Canadian government. Perhaps the reason for the apology is the reason why the First Nation people are so reluctant to trust whites. The other articles and quotes all come from Amnesty International.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1133678620080611

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
On Canada:

Holding Canadian officials responsible
The Canadian government has told the United Nations that the situation of Indigenous peoples is “the most pressing human rights issue facing Canadians.” Yet the Canadian government has repeatedly failed to implement UN the recommendations of UN human rights bodies concerning the protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Canada. Amnesty International’s work in Canada has included the land rights of the Lubicon Cree, the police shooting of Dudley George, and violence against Indigenous women.

Canada: Justice overdue for the Lubicon Cree
Thirty years of unchecked oil and gas development has had a devastating impact on the lives of the Lubicon Cree in northern Alberta. No other human rights case in Canada has been so often condemned by the United Nations

-Taken from: http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/indigenous_overview.php
Full article: http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/


Another article, this time from Ontario: http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/indigen...sy_narrows.php

http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/sisters_overview.php

This last one is from Wiki. I know it's not the most reliable, but it's past 1am and I have class tomorrow (today?). Canada has yet to apologize for this one, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation

Yeah, that looks like a dream world for Indigenous peoples.

PS, if you really want me to, I wouldn't mind giving an essay on the subject. Just remember that I'm currently in summer courses, so it may take some time for me to research and write it.

[infinitemonkies]

I have a lot of problems with Native's Rights.

Let's start with unlimited year round fishing rights: If you're in a birchbark canoe you made yourself, spearfishing to feed your family, I'm all for it. When you're in a 9 million dollar trawler with 15 miles of nets and the most sophisticated sonar money can buy, just like all the other commercial fishermen, then I'm against it.

You want some land where you can live your traditional way of life, with no government interference? Amen, I think everyone should have that option.
Oh, you also want electricity, plumbing, and cable? That's where I have an issue.

My ancestors were Vikings on one side, and Highlanders on the other. Either way, my traditional way of life is to carry a huge sword or axe, and kill the French and British. But ya know what? Times have changed. As much as I may want to, it's frowned on now.

Yes, your people got screwed over. I'm fairly certain that throughout history every culture got screwed over by another. Things move on. If you don't want to be a part of the rest of society, I don't mind, and I don't blame you one bit. But you don't get to pick and choose. You want land, but you don't want taxes. You want infrastructure, but you don't want government. You want things to be the way they used to be, but you also want all the modern conveniences. You want your tradition way of life, as long as it includes tv, cars, and fast food.

Y'now what? So does everyone else. Welcome to the rest of us, join the crowd.

[Hobbs]

We will not "join the crowd" and such talk is so offensive, I won't even humor you with a response other than this.

[fireheart17]

The problem with renaming something is that people will probably still call it by its old name.

Too true.

Example in Australia: Uluru/Ayers Rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uluru

The original Aboriginal name for it is Uluru. When it was discovered, it was renamed to Ayers Rock. Now it goes by both names officially: Uluru/Ayers Rock.

There are quite a number of restrictions on the rock for cultural reasons: the local groups have requested people don't climb the rock (it's being considered federally) due to a Dreamtime track running through it and people aren't allowed to take photos of certain areas. Oddly enough, while it is for cultural reasons, the actual intention is that the areas are sacred sites for "secret mens" or "secret womens" business and they don't want the other sex to see the areas in the "outside" world.

Me? I tend to refer to it by its Aboriginal name, unless one of my international friends uses Ayers Rock first.

[jackfaire]

I am a direct descendant from Puritans. I am a gay Buddhist who goes on vision quests. I am pretty sure that is a giant screw you to my ancestors.

Honestly I was asking an innocent question because I do know somethings are renamed and then changed back to the original name in which case it's not renaming if the park was not originally in an area named that or the islands weren't originally called that then yes it is renaming regardless of their ancestors.

I personally believe in the now. If I beat the shit out of you in high school and took your lunch money then yes you have every right to hold a grudge but if some relative I never met did something horrific to some relative you never met then your complaint is as ridiculous to me as someone who says, "I am Scottish because my great grandfather was from Scotland even though I have never even been there."

You are what you are now and what you choose to be. Your culture and your faith and your way of life is not set at birth or even by the people you come from.

You can be whatever you want whatever you believe in. The idea that you are trapped into a way of life by the color of your skin is abhorrent to me. Thus I will continue to believe as I feel right and not going around telling people I am a puritan because some ancestors of mine identified as such.

[muses_nightmare]

Yes, conquering is theft! This isn't debatable. This is what happened. My God, do you know nothing of history?! I can't believe you're just throwing away the fact that 95% of the Indigenous population died so that the land could be "conquered" from them. That you can ignore the blatant human rights abuses that took place since then.

Semantics. So should every nation that conquered anything apologize? This is what happened in the past. The Europeans came had better weapons and they won, that's what happened.

I have actually learned a great deal about First Nations history, all the way through school. From Primary school onward. It doesn't change my opinion.

Also, do you have any idea what benefits Natives receive in BC today? At all? Do you live here and see it on a daily basis?

And like Jackfaire said, If they were wanting to hunt/fish/live in their traditional way on the land they've been given I'd be fine, but they aren't. They now want to hunt eagles in order to harvest their feathers. I'm doubting they'd do it in a traditional way all the time. Just one example. Times have changed, certain species are endangered or protected.

But you know what, I'm not having this argument anymore. Any american I've talked to about this doesn't get it because the situation down there is different. Their culture isn't as celebrated all over as it is here. And yes, it is. Did you watch the Olympics? Ever actually been to BC, especially northern BC? You know what I don't have a problem with their culture being celebrated, what I do have a problem with is the air of entitlement around them. I'm sorry, but I don't owe them anything, neither does anyone else. They have had every opportunity to celebrate and practice their culture for a long time now, but the world is the way it is, Canada is the way it is now, they are part of the country and should be treated exactly as everyone else.

[Hobbs]

I see you completely ignored me and prompted the whole "walking away from the argument" (that you started btw) once I pointed out Canadian human rights abuses. Don't you, as a Canadian, have any input on that? Or is it simply that Amnesty Int'l "doesn't get it" and only you know what's-what in your country?

Seriously, I will do research if that's what you want me to do, and present it in an academic manner just to show that your perspective doesn't mean you're right.