Western Expresso

[vid]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Are you saying indigenous people want to call themselves indigenous?

Some of them do and some of them don't. I've discussed this on here before and it's one of the few areas where I'm generally willing to offend aborindigenatindians: they have too much disagreement over what to call themselves. But unlike a lot of people I do understand the reason why.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If so, maybe I just haven't paid enough attention, and admittedly my sample size is small. And if so, why do you predict another term to become preferred soon?

Because the answer to the question of "who are we, the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America, as a group; what is our identity" is in constant flux, and which demonym they prefer or which aspect of that demonym they prefer varies significantly not just between communities but between individuals, and that is why we have native people who hate the term native and call themselves Indians, Indians who complain that that term Indian is racist and they should be called aboriginals, aboriginals who decry the term aboriginal as a colonial definition and prefer indigenous, indigenous people who find the whole argument too absurd and prefer to just be called native and then there are those who never use any of those terms because they're all English words and instead call themselves by their endonym, which in my family's case is Anishnawbe.

The problem is really that we're trying to take dozens of cultures, many of which are wildly different from the others (there are few similarities between the Miqmac and the Squamish and the Inuit) and address them all collectively as a bloc. There will never be nationwide agreement on anything among aborindigenatindians because there are over 600 communities of them and they have several dozen different cultures. The best we could have done was to do what Europeans, Asians and Africans have done and call them Americans but we can't actually do that because a single country expropriated that term!

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Thing is that native and indigenous mean the same thing. Only difference is one is half the length.

The difference is the degree of ambiguity. "Native Canadian" can be interpreted as meaning anyone born here. An Asian-Canadian, born to Asian parents in Canada, can be considered "native" because they were born here. (The word "native" comes from the Latin "nativus" or "of this place by birth"). The term indigenous, on the other hand, has no ambiguity. It means descendants of the people who have centuries old connections to this land. Ojibwe are Indigenous to North America; Tibetans are Indigenous to Asia; Bretons are Indigenous to Europe. An African can be "native born" in Breton but he can't be Indigenous there.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Thing is that native and indigenous mean the same thing. Only difference is one is half the length.

Exactly – that is just semantics and preference/political correctness. Aboriginal is only one type of native/indigenous person, and people often incorrectly use it to describe all native people. It'd be like calling all Africans Nigerians, or all Asians Chinese.

The holiday was changed to Indigenous because calling it Aboriginal Peoples' Day excluded Inuit, Metis, etc.

[vid]

Aboriginal does include Inuit and Metis. The term First Nation is the one that excludes those two.

[Acajack]

I always use respectful terminology (I never say "Indian" obviously) and don't even mind being corrected in a friendly way, but I'll be damned if I am going to be treated like a racist if I use "aboriginal" instead of "indigenous". Which is definitely within the realm of possibility these days.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I still use native people. It was what I was taught in school and trying to change those habits is hard, not to mention that "indigenous" is cumbersome. Also most of my native acquaintances refer to themselves as native. Seems weird to passive aggressively "correct" them by using a different term.

If we're being honest, it's also not uncommon for some indigenous people to still refer to themselves as "Indians" (or "Indiens" or Amérindiens" in French) these days. The last occurrence of this I've personally witnessed was not that long ago at all. As in the past year.

[Stormer]

I have a Cree friend who is highly educated and refers to himself as an Indian all the time. Many Bands still call themselves, legally and colloquially, Indian Bands. they could change their names if they found it offensive. I think it is just personal to the individual. Some people are very sensitive to specific labels others could care less. I guess if you are not of a specific ethnic group or race, it is just good etiquette to try not to offend people, but without having to be hyper vigilant about the latest PC trends.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by vid

Some of them do and some of them don't. I've discussed this on here before and it's one of the few areas where I'm generally willing to offend aborindigenatindians: they have too much disagreement over what to call themselves. But unlike a lot of people I do understand the reason why.



Because the answer to the question of "who are we, the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America, as a group; what is our identity" is in constant flux, and which demonym they prefer or which aspect of that demonym they prefer varies significantly not just between communities but between individuals, and that is why we have native people who hate the term native and call themselves Indians, Indians who complain that that term Indian is racist and they should be called aboriginals, aboriginals who decry the term aboriginal as a colonial definition and prefer indigenous, indigenous people who find the whole argument too absurd and prefer to just be called native and then there are those who never use any of those terms because they're all English words and instead call themselves by their endonym, which in my family's case is Anishnawbe.

The problem is really that we're trying to take dozens of cultures, many of which are wildly different from the others (there are few similarities between the Miqmac and the Squamish and the Inuit) and address them all collectively as a bloc. There will never be nationwide agreement on anything among aborindigenatindians because there are over 600 communities of them and they have several dozen different cultures. The best we could have done was to do what Europeans, Asians and Africans have done and call them Americans but we can't actually do that because a single country expropriated that term!



The difference is the degree of ambiguity. "Native Canadian" can be interpreted as meaning anyone born here. An Asian-Canadian, born to Asian parents in Canada, can be considered "native" because they were born here. (The word "native" comes from the Latin "nativus" or "of this place by birth"). The term indigenous, on the other hand, has no ambiguity. It means descendants of the people who have centuries old connections to this land. Ojibwe are Indigenous to North America; Tibetans are Indigenous to Asia; Bretons are Indigenous to Europe. An African can be "native born" in Breton but he can't be Indigenous there.

I definitely acknowledge the problems with trying to take all the different groups of indigenous people and forcing them into one term, but I don't think it's avoidable either. They do still have lots in common (like being indigenous to North America for example!), and I don't think the government distinguishes between Cree and Ojibwe people when crafting policy, nor do I think store managers distinguish between them when they follow them around.

And yeah, I can see your point about Native being difficult in that sense. I guess through context I've attributed it to mean exclusively people that are indigenous to North America, but that's definitely not what it actually is. Actually, there have been a few times where I've been speaking to immigrants and they've referred to me as native, which supports that too. It actually makes me laugh cause I wasn't born here either, but that's besides the point.

But then, Indian is obviously flawed. I heard an indigenous man on the radio say he didn't like "aboriginal" because it reminds him of a negative suffix, like in "abnormal." I personally don't like indigenous because it's too far detached from the North American context, and groups them even further with indigenous people around the world. But I get that's not my call to make.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If we're being honest, it's also not uncommon for some indigenous people to still refer to themselves as "Indians" (or "Indiens" or Amérindiens" in French) these days. The last occurrence of this I've personally witnessed was not that long ago at all. As in the past year.

Originally Posted by Stormer

I have a Cree friend who is highly educated and refers to himself as an Indian all the time. Many Bands still call themselves, legally and colloquially, Indian Bands. they could change their names if they found it offensive. I think it is just personal to the individual. Some people are very sensitive to specific labels others could care less. I guess if you are not of a specific ethnic group or race, it is just good etiquette to try not to offend people, but without having to be hyper vigilant about the latest PC trends.

I know one indigenous guy who refers to himself as Indian too, and I also worked on a project for the "Williams Lake Indian Band" as well. I agree, using the term the person you're speaking with is most comfortable with makes the most sense. It's not like it's something that comes up a whole lot anyway. And if you're in an entirely non-indigenous group, I think the term matters a lot less than the message you're using it in.

[Wpg_Guy]

The Hidden Gems of Manitoba Are Just a Road Trip Away | National Geographic
• Video Link

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Tacheguy]

Kate Fenske new ceo of downtown biz. Hope she is good.

[buzzg]

Who is she? What’s her background?

[Tacheguy]

Originally Posted by buzzg

Who is she? What’s her background?

CN public relations. Pretty extensive media experience and involved with chamber of commerce.

[BuildUpWpg]

Activity at the St James Hotel this morning after many month of nothing happening. The signage was being taken down from the building. I'm wondering if it's not going reopen after all?

[BuildUpWpg]

For those of you that like the curved walls of Tower 1 of TNS, check Telus Sky under construction in Calgary. I took these pics when I was there 2 weeks ago.

[Jets4Life]

It's amazing in terms of contrast, walking in Downtown Calgary is to walking in Downtown Winnipeg. Calgary's downtown is far more vibrant, and filled with people at all hours. Well maybe it's filled with undesirables between 12 and 5 AM, but still, it is quite impressive. You do not even notice new buildings going up. After the Bow was competed, every thing else seemed like an afterthought.

The new tallest building in Calgary is bland, and I barely even notice it. Even the new Telus Sky tower isn't very noticeable. Compare that with TNS in Winnipeg, which is much smaller in height, but looks like it will play a major part of the skyline of Winnipeg. I do not mind it. Winnipeg is what it is. If more people came to live in Downtown, it could really give the city a shot in the arm, and encourage more development.

I still wish there was some kind of grocery store within the downtown area. A Sobey's would be great for the area.

[windypeg]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

It's amazing in terms of contrast, walking in Downtown Calgary is to walking in Downtown Winnipeg. Calgary's downtown is far more vibrant, and filled with people at all hours. Well maybe it's filled with undesirables between 12 and 5 AM, but still, it is quite impressive. You do not even notice new buildings going up. After the Bow was competed, every thing else seemed like an afterthought.

The new tallest building in Calgary is bland, and I barely even notice it. Even the new Telus Sky tower isn't very noticeable. Compare that with TNS in Winnipeg, which is much smaller in height, but looks like it will play a major part of the skyline of Winnipeg. I do not mind it. Winnipeg is what it is. If more people came to live in Downtown, it could really give the city a shot in the arm, and encourage more development.

I still wish there was some kind of grocery store within the downtown area. A Sobey's would be great for the area.

Calgary has an absolutely insane amount of downtown office vacancy right now, over 25%. It will be interesting to see how things play out with the market still being pretty weak and these huge new towers coming online.

[BuildUpWpg]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

It's amazing in terms of contrast, walking in Downtown Calgary is to walking in Downtown Winnipeg. Calgary's downtown is far more vibrant, and filled with people at all hours. Well maybe it's filled with undesirables between 12 and 5 AM, but still, it is quite impressive. You do not even notice new buildings going up. After the Bow was competed, every thing else seemed like an afterthought.

The new tallest building in Calgary is bland, and I barely even notice it. Even the new Telus Sky tower isn't very noticeable. Compare that with TNS in Winnipeg, which is much smaller in height, but looks like it will play a major part of the skyline of Winnipeg. I do not mind it. Winnipeg is what it is. If more people came to live in Downtown, it could really give the city a shot in the arm, and encourage more development.

I still wish there was some kind of grocery store within the downtown area. A Sobey's would be great for the area.

Oh Telus Sky is VERY noticeable! Another thing noticeable in downtown Calgary is the large number of high end restaurants. We have Hy's and that's pretty much it?