Renaming of things

[muses_nightmare]

This has been getting on my nerves for awhile now, and I know that other people are bothered by it too, but I'm really sick of First Nations wanting to rename things. They renamed The Queen Charlotte Islands are now Haida Gwaii, and they've recently wanted to rename Stanley Park in Vancouver to Xwayxway, something which thankfully didn't go through. I heard rumor that in my hometown they wanted to rename the park at the centre of town, that park was named after the founder of the town. and I'm sure there are things in other parts of the country as well.

It's just aggravating that the government even considers renaming landmarks like this.

[crashhelmet]

Reminds me of an old joke about this same topic

3Com Park and After:
Renaming California's Heritage

Cisco, California November 15, 1998 -- Well, it's over. The bizarre episode that began two years ago, when Candelstick Park, San Francisco's breezy, freezing sports stadium, was renamed 3Com Park to publicize a communications company, has come to an end.

A review of the great damage done during this brief period may serve as a warning for a forgetful future. It might even help to prevent a repetition of this folly.

Oakland was, as might be expected, the first to follow. The sportsocracy of the East Bay was afraid of a taxpayer revolt if ticket sales continued to sag despite popular enthusiasm over the return of the prodigal football Raiders. Bids were solicited for a sponsor to place its name on the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

Larry Ellison, out-maneuvered in the bidding for Candlestick Park, won easily in Oakland. Oracle Park was born. (Persistent rumors that Ellison threatened to bring the Oakland economy to a halt by inserting a secret virus into municipal databases have never been substantiated.)

Then California's notorious highway department was privatized, and the floodgates opened.

The Golden Gate Bridge went first. The three months of political maneuvering that followed were too sordid for description. Sun Microsystems prevailed in the lottery that was held when all other methods failed. Sun Gate sounded too much like an astronomical scandal, so Sun Span was chosen.

One side-effect: a reduction in the number of suicides leaping from the bridge. More than one would-be suicide has turned away from the edge, later telling police: "I couldn't bring myself to do it. Jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge had class, but Sun Span is simply too tacky. It sounds like a discount shampoo."

BACK TO BASICS
The executives of Silicon Graphics, Inc., had begun to consider a change to a corporate name that would reflect more accurately the company's increasing concentration on entertainment. This reform became more pressing when SGI bought the Great America theme park down the road and renamed it "Virtual America."

Embarrassment grew when SGI's all-digital musical, "Indigo Dreams," failed utterly on Broadway. Variety's headline: "Silicon Bomb Leaves Nothing but Gritty Taste."

So it was only natural that the company would change its name and simultaneously affix the new one to Highway 101, the battered, overcrowded freeway that passes the gates of SGI.

Highway 101 is, of course, now known as "SGI Boulevard."

In retrospect, the adverse consequences should have been anticipated. SGI sales have dropped for the first time in history. Commuters now associate their en route sufferings with SGI, not the bureaucrats in Sacramento.

A happier outcome was found for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. This awkward name, born of a political impasse more than 50 years ago, has always been ignored by those who live around the Bay. They have stubbornly referred to the bridge by the name used during its construction: "The Bay Bridge."

Bay Networks, Inc., took advantage of this preference and offered to restore the bridge's name to its original simplicity -- and pay for the reform. Popular gratitude was unprecedented, slowing for a while the upsurge of opposition to the "selling of the Bay Area."

APPLE HOOKS ITSELF
Apple was becoming increasingly frustrated as it lost out in one round of bidding after another. Then San Francisco began to auction off the names of its most popular tourist attractions.

Moving fast, Apple scraped together its last few hundred million dollars and made a pre-emptive bid to place its name on the most famous attraction of them all.

Naturally, the purchase was immediately attacked in the courts. The protracted litigation was followed daily on TV all over the world.

Then the judge ruled that, due to a defect in the intricate wording of the bidding document, Apple had paid approximately $321 million for the privilege of calling itself Fisherman's Wharf, rather than the other way around.

When the laughter subsided, the leadership of the former Apple decided to make the best of it. They accepted the new name and licensed its use back to the City and County of San Francisco for its original purposes.

Adversity may, occasionally, lead to determination. Apple had been, at best, plodding steadily downward. The reborn Fisherman's Wharf ("nothing fishy about our performance") has flourished ever since.

SHORT STREET, LONG NAME
As is its policy, IBM had procrastinated until most of the best sites had been renamed. Then it made a try for Lombard Street, which swishes picturesquely down the side of one of the City's splendid hills.

IBM won the bidding easily but encountered opposition when it proposed the new name: "IBM POWERParallel RS/6000-S/390-AIX-OS2 Way."

Even in wordy San Francisco, this was considered too cumbersome. In the arbitration that followed, IBM's lawyers argued that this was a typical IBM product designation.

Attorneys for the city won out after they proved that any sign capable of displaying the full name legibly would be wider than the street. The final compromise was: "Blue Street."

Proponents of the renaming fad noted that all this was simply innovative civic finance: revenue had been extracted from names, which had formerly been potential assets that had never paid their way.

OPPOSITION EXPLODES
Opposition was nevertheless exploding. It became tumultuous in the summer of 1997.

Intel had been watching quietly, waiting for a suitable opportunity. Then an assistant treasurer of Santa Clara County siphoned off nearly $1 billion in county funds. She was caught, but the money could not be recovered. She had frittered away much of her stake, buying Netscape at 78. The rest was lost speculating on mohair futures.

The county authorities were relieved when Intel offered to make up the shortfall. In that atmosphere, the matter of the county's name was only a detail. Hence today's Intel County, and, inevitably, Intel Valley is replacing Silicon Valley.

Another precedent had been set. Cisco, another communications company, had by that time accumulated almost as much loose cash as Intel. Cisco approached the civic authorities in San Francisco who were, as always, eager for any money they could get.

Cisco shrewdly packaged its proposal as an economy measure. It presented evidence of the savings in letterheads, printing on the five million parking tickets issued every year, signs and other expenditures that could be made by removing seven letters and one space from the name San Francisco.

PROPOSITION 666
After Cisco's proposal was approved, opposition became irresistible. Within a few weeks, enough signatures were collected to place Proposition 666, the Preservation of Historic Names initiative, on the 1998 ballot.

It was a bitter and expensive campaign. Supporters of the initiative exploited reports -- never confirmed but never denied -- that Microsoft proposed to solve the financial problems of Yosemite National Park if the Yosemite Valley were renamed "Windows Gulch."

A relentless series of TV ads showed a malignant, goggle-eyed Bill Gates reaching greedily toward Half Dome.

Proposition 666 carried by a decisive margin. In a deal with local and state authorities, the supporters of the proposition had accepted a key stipulation: names already changed would be retained until valid contracts expired.

Consequently, this article is still datelined "Cisco, California."

At least for now, however, the commercialization of names on civic monuments in California has been brought to a tardy but welcome stop.

Except for Disney's efforts to change the name of the city surrounding Disney World to "Mickey Heim." After almost two years, this proposal remains in litigation -- with no prospect of early resolution.


CH

[fireheart17]

There are a number of places in Australia which have two names, Aboriginal and the English name. A lot of places are also named after Aboriginal terms.

For instance, Victoria Square in Adelaide (we have five "squares" so to speak in the city centre, Victoria Square is dead centre) is also named Tarndanyagga (that's definitely spelled incorrectly).

One of the council districts (and I think it's the ONLY council district to do so in my state) is named after the local people's word for "women's river." There was a HUGE uproar when they attempted to shorten the name to appeal to the young people.

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

That's the area I live in which covers most of Metropolitan South Australia. There are other groups that are in my state. I do feel a little bit sorry for whoever does the indigenous welcome at any event in my area sometimes as it can be a bit of a mouthful. Most of the words are easy to pronounce and there are quite a few areas that are named after Aboriginal words.

[jackfaire]

This has been getting on my nerves for awhile now, and I know that other people are bothered by it too, but I'm really sick of First Nations wanting to rename things.

Question? Are they renaming things or changing the names back to what they were before Europeans "discovered" them?

[Exaspera]

Question? Are they renaming things or changing the names back to what they were before Europeans "discovered" them?

Or "stole" them, in other words?

[muses_nightmare]

Well since Stanley park was never a park when they were first around, it's renaming. Not sure about the other things, but I still have a problem with it since as far as I'm concerned they have no rights to that land anymore, unpopular opinion I'm aware. We have to be accepting of their culture, but they can walk all over ours without a second thought.*

I'd have no problem if they wanted to use both names, but they don't for the most part. The name is changed and everyone is expected to just use that name.

[Hobbs]

Well since Stanley park was never a park when they were first around, it's renaming. Not sure about the other things, but I still have a problem with it since as far as I'm concerned they have no rights to that land anymore, unpopular opinion I'm aware. We have to be accepting of their culture, but they can walk all over ours without a second thought.*

Maybe once they've raped, pillaged and killed your culture you can say the same thing.

-Fighting terrorists since 1519

[Hobbs]

"The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call "assimilated," bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.

We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don't want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don't want power, we don't want to be congressmen, or bankers....we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here.

The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had "freedom and justice," and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this."

-1927 Grand Council of American Indians

[muses_nightmare]

I'm of the opinion that the land was conquered, therefore they have no more rights to the land. Yeah, history sucks, yeah terrible things happened, but frankly, that's what happened. That's how the world worked. The land was not "stolen".

Also, if you lived in the places I've lived in you'd understand what I mean by what I've said. I'm aware that their culture was all but destroyed, but in todays world they have built it back up. I'm sorry, but American Natives and Canadian First nations are treated differently. They have far more opportunities for cheaper or even free education, try finding a page of scholarships for Canadian schools that isn't 3/4 "First Nations only". People are under the impression that First Nations are treated horribly here, they aren't, not even remotely. They can bitch and complain about how they are treated, but don't complain when you are given every opportunity to succeed. They aren't forced onto reserves, they aren't held back, hell, in some post-secondary programs they don't have to complete as many credits as everyone else. Tell me how that's not an advantage?

Like I said, to people who don't understand what I grew up with living in a mostly First Nations town, you won't get it. You'll think I'm intolerant, or racist or whatever, but I'm not. I personally didn't rape and pillage, so why should I have to pay for something even my own ancestors didn't do? Remember not all "white" people are descended from the same culture, so stop treating us as such.

[muses_nightmare]

Oh and about their own religion, the vast majority of First Nations I've met are Christian, or identify as so. Explain that one.

[Rebel]

Maybe once they've raped, pillaged and killed your culture you can say the same thing.

muses_nightmare! Have you been going around raping, pillaging, and killing! That's a bad muses_nightmare!

I would go into the argument about how her ancestors (or other people from the past) did that, not her personally, but that's a whole different topic all together, and you'd most probably just disregard it.

My primary school back home was renamed while I was still attending it. It went from being a generic area name (the name of the suburb it was in), to being called Yuluma, which means 'water hole' (I think) in the Nyoongar tribes language. Was pretty cool when they did that, we ended up with dot paintings everywhere on the property. But I wasn't allowed to help paint it coz I'm of Northern European ancestory :( But all the aboriginal students were able to join in, so yay!

[Hobbs]

I'm of the opinion that the land was conquered, therefore they have no more rights to the land. Yeah, history sucks, yeah terrible things happened, but frankly, that's what happened. That's how the world worked. The land was not "stolen".

"We, the great mass of the people think only of the love we have for our land, we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go, to let it go it will be like throwing away (our) mother that gave (us) birth.". - Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokees.

"The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die. That is, the Indian in us dies." - Mary Brave Bird

Also, if you lived in the places I've lived in you'd understand what I mean by what I've said. I'm aware that their culture was all but destroyed, but in todays world they have built it back up. I'm sorry, but American Natives and Canadian First nations are treated differently. They have far more opportunities for cheaper or even free education, try finding a page of scholarships for Canadian schools that isn't 3/4 "First Nations only". People are under the impression that First Nations are treated horribly here, they aren't, not even remotely. They can bitch and complain about how they are treated, but don't complain when you are given every opportunity to succeed. They aren't forced onto reserves, they aren't held back, hell, in some post-secondary programs they don't have to complete as many credits as everyone else. Tell me how that's not an advantage?

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.

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.

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!

"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

Like I said, to people who don't understand what I grew up with living in a mostly First Nations town, you won't get it. You'll think I'm intolerant, or racist or whatever, but I'm not. I personally didn't rape and pillage, so why should I have to pay for something even my own ancestors didn't do? Remember not all "white" people are descended from the same culture, so stop treating us as such.

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.

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.

Lastly, I'm supposing they're Christian because your ancestors took their children from crying mothers and placed them in white schools to kill their Indian spirit. That way, you would not have Indians to fight against you as you took more land away and killed their elders. Instead, you would have red-skinned whites.

"It's our stuff. We made it and we know best how to use it and care for it. And now we're going to get it back." - John Pretty on Top, Crow

[linguist]

I'm of the opinion that the land was conquered, therefore they have no more rights to the land.

so if someone forces you from your home, and keeps you out for some arbitrary time period while claiming it as their own, do you give up and forfeit all rights to it?

Oh and about their own religion, the vast majority of First Nations I've met are Christian, or identify as so. Explain that one.

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.

[Rebel]

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.

Thus is the way of the conquering forces. It's happened all throughout history.
Should I hate all Russians and Germans because my grandparents were forced to escape Estonia during WW2? Coz I've gotta tell ya, only a small percentage of them took part. And most of them are dead by now.
Should I hate their descendants now, despite their lack of involvement in the situation?
Damn it, if it hadn't happened, I could know the Estonian language by now.

[linguist]

Thus is the way of the conquering forces. It's happened all throughout history.
Should I hate all Russians and Germans because my grandparents were forced to escape Estonia during WW2? Coz I've gotta tell ya, only a small percentage of them took part. And most of them are dead by now.
Should I hate their descendants now, despite their lack of involvement in the situation?
Damn it, if it hadn't happened, I could know the Estonian language by now.

i don't recall saying that anyone should hate anyone. all i'm saying is that it's not unreasonable for a people to want their ancestral lands to retain their proper names.

[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/indigenous_grassy_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.:rolleyes:

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.

[Hobbs]

Just looked at the website: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/m-a2008/2-3057-eng.asp

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS TO ALL FIRST NATIONS 2-3057

Ottawa (June 18, 2008) - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, with Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, today announced that legislation extending fundamental human rights protections to all First Nations communities has received Royal Assent.

Wow. Thank you for giving them fundamental human rights by "Royal Assent." Note the date: 2008. So for the years previous to this, did they have these rights?

[jackfaire]

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

It is? What I get form the Join the crowd thing is don't expect us to give you all of the benefits of our culture but not expect any of the responsibilities. It's like the immigration debate honestly.

Yes the Native American people were here first and if they want to live the way their ancestors did more power to them.

But if they work for the companies I work for, pay the taxes I pay and are American citizens like me then they have already joined the crowd.

Whatever religion and culture they celebrate is their own deal like anyone else. If anything I have as much right to be pissed off that my ancestors left Wales or the fact that Wales isn't its own country anymore.

[Fryk]

Oh and about their own religion, the vast majority of First Nations I've met are Christian, or identify as so. Explain that one.

In many cases, it was missionaries using the most abominable tactics to convert their ancestors, and finally wearing them down into acceptance.

[infinitemonkies]

Natives:

You want to preserve your traditional beliefs, religious practices, and language?
You want the option to live off the land the way your ancestors did, and be completely free of any government involvement?
I'm all for it. Start a petition, I'll sign it. Call a referendum, I'll vote for it. Hell, escalate it to a civil war, I'll sign up on your side to fight, and if need be, die for it.
But I also think those options should be available to anyone, not just natives.

On the other hand, if you're going to be a part of western society, you should have to pay your taxes just like everyone else. You do not deserve an absolutely free university education. If you start a commercial fishing business, or logging business, you should be bound by the exact same laws as all the others.

[Hobbs]

Raps gave me the go-ahead for writing an essay on the subject. I hope that you (Muses) have the maturity to read it once I've posted it up. If anyone wants, I can post my research before I actually write.

[muses_nightmare]

I'm 23, every First Nations person I've ever met has had fundamental human rights, or at least has been treated as such since the time I went to school with an almost half native town population. Just because an article says something just happened doesn't mean they have been treated like they haven't had those rights. You can't just go by statistics and articles, which while they can be useful are not always accurate to what is happening in the actual towns/cities. What population of Native to Other races have you seen in school? I'm curious, because I grew up with at least half my school being Native, never bothered me in the slightest. I have no problem with First Nations having rights and such, what I do have a problem with, which I think you are not getting, is that First Nations are treated differently, and whether they get benefits or disadvantages it's not right. For example some law courses here don't require Natives to take all of the courses, they make it easier for them, now how is that a benefit? Less education because they're Native? That's not right. I'm sure you can agree on that one, if not, what is wrong with you?

Also, I'd like to point out that this was not the intended point of my original post. Just to be clear. I should know better than to post my opinions of these things because I repeatedly get attacked by people ignorant of my experiences, and unwilling to accept that what I've experienced is valid. You also seem to think I'm racist or intolerant when I'm not, I just have views about land ownership and history that many people don't agree with. My best friend up until Junior high is native, I'm still friends with her, I got along with pretty much everyone in my classes, and I never thought less of anyone if they are being a responsible member of society.

How dare you call my maturity into question. Obviously you can't listen to what I'm saying, yet I have yet to call yours into question. This was rude and I very nearly consider it a personal insult. I'll read your essay when you write it, but I'm sure it will just be another of many I've read on the subject. You assume I'm not well read on this subject, because of the way I am in an internet message board. Frankly, if I had the time and resources I could also write an essay on my side of the subject. Maybe I will after I'm finished school a few months from now. Do you think it would change your mind? As you seem to think yours will mine?

[Hobbs]

Well, I'm currently finishing up one class (got an 'A' yay!) and am starting another. That's the reason why I said it might take me a week or so before I can even do the research. Frankly, I'm taking time aside from my studies to do this, as it seems you feel uncompelled to do your own reading/research on the subject, and leave it solely to personal experiences. Of course if you came from an area largely populated by indigenous people you will have a different experience. As a Hispanic growing up in a largely Hispanic city, I too know there is a difference from my city and how I was raised than say...Chicago or even Dallas/Ft. Worth. You may not be racist, but I do think you are ignorant of what goes on outside of your locality, since the only references you've made are towards said locality. To use your own words, you can't just go by personal experiences because the region you live in, circumstances that arise from how/where you live are different than the rest of the country.

I questioned your immaturity with your little, pouty "I'm not gonna listen!" post you said the other day. I assume you are not well-read because you did not even offer a valid response to human rights abuses your government is being called on in respect to the First Nation people. If it was on some pro-Indian rights website I might have ignored it, but this is the UN and Amnesty Int'l we're talking about. I know, at least, Amnesty is usually on the ball about human rights abuses.

As for the law courses, I see that as something stemming not from the First Nation, but from Canadian sentiment towards the First Nation. Has the First Nation actively lobbied for easier courses in law degrees, or easier classes? If not, then why do you place the blame on those of the First Nation?

[muses_nightmare]

I've lived in three different places, I've also done a lot of reading on the subject. Yes I refer to my hometown a lot, because I grew up there, our school curriculum in social studies and a few other classes focused a lot on First Nations history and culture, I also took a couple of university level Canadian history courses. Given I'm not a history major, but I do know a thing or two about this despite what you may think.

I say that because any mention of anyone disliking anything the First Nations do results in a HUGE debate about whether they have the right or not. It's tiring. I generally don't bring these things up unless something is really bothering me, which was the intended conversation of the proposed renaming of Stanley park. Somehow we got off track of that topic.

(I'm not being as succinct with my words as I should be, I've been working through a very taxing program that requires a lot of time and energy, I'm taking 5 classes, with more than 40 hours of homework a week so I'm sorry if I'm coming across as someone who knows nothing on the subject, it's just that it's not my area of focus right now. I hope you understand. Ask me about typography or InDesign and I'd be more prepared. ;) )

Oh and now that I'm going into my second week of this quarter, I probably won't be on the boards as often as I have been.

[Hobbs]

Huh, your semesters are oddly placed to me. Anyhow, I'd like to say that it sounds as if you've taken lower-level history courses. As a historian, I can tell you that history classes get very more...involved...as you progress. That said, has each place been predominantly of a certain ethnic race? If not, have you ever been in a more "white" area, or been to the locations mentioned by Amnesty International or the UN? Did you even know that these abuses were going on?

Like I said, growing up in S. Texas, a lot of the classes I had in school focused on the Hispanic heritage of the region. I'm not condemning your experience/education, but trying to explain that, when one ethnicity dominates a region, it is somewhat expected that history lessons will focus on that ethnicity.

As an addendum, from what I've read, only a few people have voiced the want to change the name. The article I found states, *"Squamish Chief Ian Campbell said he plans to discuss the idea with council and with other aboriginal leaders before bringing a proposal to the city and to provincial and federal levels of government." From what I gather, this means the leaders of the First Nations haven't even agreed to propose the change. Are people really so reactionary to a few people stating their desire to react so negatively? (Referring to some of the offensive replies on the article page)

*http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Debate+over+renaming+Stanley+Park+raises+strong+op inions/3229218/story.html

[muses_nightmare]

Yeah I'm doing an 18 month graphic design program, so we don't really have the same semesters as university courses do. It's condensed and fast paced, learning a lot in a short amount of time, hence the lots and lots of homework.

No doubt they do, I'm not claiming that they don't. I'm not a history major, and I know that my grade school social studies (which I think may be the equivalent of History class in the US, I'm not sure) and my first year of University studies don't compare to what I'm sure you're studying I just wanted you to know that while I may not have the same amount of knowledge you do, I'm not ignorant.

I've also known people who lived on reserves, and I've been to Native cultural events, many of them in fact. My hometown has a celebration for aboriginal day every year. So knowing quite a few First Nations people I don't think my own experiences can be dismissed so easily. I have no problem allowing the same rights and privileges as everyone else, but when I see people just ignoring their culture, ignoring the benefits being extended to them (and there are benefits, you can't deny that, even if they are to "even the playing field"), I actually had a First Nations guy tell me that he repeatedly failed college on purpose because he wanted to get the money he was being given to go to school, and no, he wasn't a straight A honor roll student, I went to school with him since Primary school. It pisses me off. Yes I know that not all First Nations do this, but it's aggravating. I've worked my ass off to be in school right now, the threat of not being able to finish has been hanging over my head since day 1, if I fail one course, I don't finish because I can't afford to. Yet I'm told I'm "privileged" and should be glad I'm white and so on.

Right now I'm living in Burnaby, which is pretty diverse, but the area I live in has a lot of Eastern European people. Given, it's not like it's the same as living in a small town.

It was a pretty knee jerk reaction on my part, and quite a few others, but it is a landmark. People get touchy on these subjects. It's been all over the news here, on the front page of papers, so I think the media makes it look like it's a more people. And for the record I would be annoyed if anyone tried to rename a landmark like that, not just First Nations. But really, it only takes a few sometimes. This is pretty much the reaction I had:

"I think it's the most ridiculous idea," said Michael Robins. "This is Stanley Park — it would be like changing the name of Central Park in New York. While I absolutely respect First Nations stuff, it's an icon of Vancouver."

I think that's the problem people had. You also have to remember that this is the internet, and people are generally less closed-mouth online. Does that make sense?

[Hobbs]

A fine explanation. The human right's abuses? Any take on those?

[muses_nightmare]

From the links you posted:

The residential schools, I don't agree with those, and I think the First Nations do deserve an apology for those, as some are still affected today.

As for the First Nations women going missing and being murdered? I get that oftentimes the police don't do anything right away, or at all, but these are still the actions of individuals, not Canada itself. Every country has bigots and murderers, and Unfortunately corrupt police forces. And not all police forces do nothing, ever heard of the highway of tears? RCMP have been involved in the investigation of the disappearances along it. While it hasn't been solved, work is being done. Is this a human rights abuse?

As for the relocation, I'm not sure about that one, the wiki article seems a bit one-sided in a way to me. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt and say that they were trying to help, but went about it in the wrong way. as the article states:
"acknowledge that they understand that in planning the relocation, the government officials of the time were acting with honourable intentions in what was perceived to be in the best interests of the Inuit at that time"

What about the States? What abuses are still going on there? What benefits to the Natives there have? I'm genuinely curious.

[Hobbs]

For the most part, the last major conflict involving Indian rights was in 1973 when members of the American Indian Movement took control of the town of Wounded Knee. The seige lasted for 71 days and was in response to the lack of government response to Indian affairs. One activist, Leonard Peltier, is still imprisoned for his participation, though he denies involvement with the movement and asserts that the charges were trumped up against him. Since then, while social problems like unemployment and alchoholism affect a portion of the Indian community, there have been drastic changes in Indian Affairs and in securing their rights. Indian reservations are under the governance of their own councils, and outside of the jurisdiction of federal authority (except in certain circumstances). This sovereignty is the reason why they can legally operate casinos within their territory.

So, I got your responses to the other articles...what about the Lubicon Cree case?

[BlaqueKatt]

I still have a problem with it since as far as I'm concerned they have no rights to that land anymore, unpopular opinion I'm aware. We have to be accepting of their culture, but they can walk all over ours without a second thought.


problem is they do still have rights-you may not think so-but have you gone through archives and read leases that the tribes signed with the government-only to have the government later violate that lease? Some tribes are suing and making deals with the government-as the government has NO LEGAL STANDING-due to the legal and binding documents that were signed and later violated.

Case in point (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/11/shinnecock-tribe-hamptons-native-american)-the Shinnecock tribe has sued and won part of their native lands back-"They lost land steadily as more and more Europeans began to farm their traditional territory, eventually leading to an agreement in 1703 that saw them confined to a broad swath of land around Southampton under a 1,000-year lease. However, in 1859 the pressure of development saw that deal scrapped by the settlers and the Shinnecock reduced to their current tiny holding."

Yes the Shinnecock tribe actually has legal right to the entirety of the South hamptons-not the wealthy people who own the($12 million dollar) houses there-technically they could sue for all of it-and win-as they have the legal documentation to back it up-they are going for the South hampton hills-that were stolen and now house a golf course-it is their legal property-according to LEGAL DOCUMENTS signed by the US Government.

If someone steals your car, gets a new legal title for it and sells it-is that car still LEGALLY yours, or does it now belong to the person that bought it from the thief? You both have legal paperwork, however the thief did not have any LEGAL right to sell it. Same with Native land-usually there was a lease or other legal paperwork involved-so yes they do still have rights to the land, or other land, that was misappropriated-so in order to make a new deal-the government may say-well we'll let you rename x, y, and z parks in exchange for you not suing to take over this suburb that you legally own.

[muses_nightmare]

But not all of them have those legal titles, that's what you have to remember, a lot of them just claim that because they lived on the land they should get it all back, would you want them to? I was born in Canada and have been here my whole life, I have as much right as they do, in my opinion. The car analogy is different. Land title and rights are far more complicated than that kind of personal property. Especially when dealing with things that happened a long time ago.


and Hobbs

The Lubicon Cree case is despicable, but frankly anything to do with making money from oil tends to get that way. I absolutely don't agree with this because it was on their land, I actually don't have a problem with the government giving some lands. Unfortunately stuff like this happens all over the world, it doesn't make it right, but when oil's involved ethics and human rights seem to fly out the window, it's disgusting.

[Hobbs]

You know, I learned about the oil thing before this. A friend of mine's family owns a Canadian oil firm (he is a mix of half-Canadian, half-Japanese) and talks about all the stuff their company does. Actually, I think it's the reason why he went to law school and opened a firm in Japan.