News & Events
Use of word "Aboriginal" often confusing
April 19, 2010
By Grand Chief Morris J. Swan Shannacappo
Use and misuse of the word Aboriginal has hurt First Nations people more than the term Indian. At least when people call me an Indian, I know who they are referring to. We are the brown skinned people Christopher Columbus saw when he finally landed after getting lost at sea.
I know that some First Nations people hate the word Indian. The term is rooted in Columbus's confusion and since that time the word has been used in more than 500 years of racial slurs. We must remember, though, the problem wasn't the word; it was the hate inside of the people who hurled insults.
I prefer be called Anishinaabe, which is the correct word for Ojibway. However, Treaty 4, which our leaders agreed to nearly 140 years ago, identifies my people as Indians.
So, call me a Treaty Indian, but don't refer to me as Aboriginal. The term is too imprecise and confusing. The word has been used wrongly and carelessly too many times by government and media. Many First Nations people feel this way and I am sure some Metis and Inuit feel the same.
This month there were two prominent examples of misapplication based on the term Aboriginal. One was the Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study. The other was a report on differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal incomes.
Aboriginal should only be used when referring to First Nations, Inuit and Metis people as a group. We don't say "North Americans" when referring to only Mexicans, so why does the media or public use phrases like Aboriginal communities when describing only First Nations.
There are two main reasons for misuse of the term Aboriginal.
Some people and the media, feel that the term Indian is unacceptable so they grope for a word which they believe is inoffensive. They think Aboriginal is OK.
The second reason is more sinister and comes from governments. They want to confuse and muddle issues. They want to create the impression they are doing something for all Aboriginal people when addressing issues affecting only one element of the Indigenous population.
In terms of legal standing, Metis have more in common with the Canadians in general than with First Nations. Canada's obligations to First Nations are distinct and very different from those of Metis people. It is wrong to think that a one-size-fits-all approach can be used when analyzing or proposing solutions to Aboriginal issues.
The differences between First Nations and Metis are fundamental to Treaties, both historic Treaties and those being negotiated.
Our Treaties are sacred. The failure of governments to honor these agreements is a huge grievance that will be settled eventually in Canadian or international court.
The federal government wants to erase the distinctions between native groups. This will let them pick and choose, play divide and conquer among Aboriginal peoples, and provide Canadians in general with a distorted picture of progress that is being made, or not being made.
For instance, what does it mean when Aboriginal job quotas show improvement? If a significant portion of this change is achieved because existing workers are self-declaring as Metis, this improvement is an illusion.
Also, the blurring of identity helps governments use approaches that are needs-based rather than rights-based. They want us to forget the Treaties and put our faith in government programs. Governments pretend Canada spends voluntarily, not because of legal obligations and fiduciary responsibility. Obligations are absolute and forever; programs can be withdrawn by government.
The Metis and Inuit each have a proud heritage. First Nations and Metis share a lot socially and culturally. Some people classed as Metis or non-status are First Nations people whose ancestors were cheated out of their status by government. Some are getting their status back and others will begin a process in the future. I wish them success.
I also wish the Metis success as they press governments with their concerns and legal issues. In some instances we can work together; in other instances we must take separate courses.
The key term is "work together." We can be separate groups that join forces, but we should not to be classified as single group with interests that are indistinguishable.
Finally, one last thing about the word Indian. I was at a conference in Mexico where the speaker said the word can be traced to the Latin term "indios" which meant God's free-spirited people. That is the definition I like.