This amuses me.

No wonder 'Native American Nations' feels so odd. It's, like, something nobody would ever use to describe themselves.

Well, "Native American Nations" isn't unappropriate, it's just not a term they would all agree with. I know Native Americans (or American Indians!) who dislike the term "tribe", and only refer to it as their "nation."

I wouldn't go so far as to say, "nobody." But the problem does include the fact that there are a myriad set of terms to refer to American Indians depending on the context (like the article said, "Indian Country" is a legal term used in Federal Indian Law. Of course, so is the term, "Aboriginal Title"). First Nations is also used to describe the group as a whole.

also note, that the UCAS may call it the NAN, whereas people that live their may call it something different.

"Espana? No, now you're Spain."

Yeah, the probably call themselves Ute, PCC, Sioux, AMC, Athabaska, SSC, Tsimshian, and TPA...

Actually, the Treaty of Denver refers to them as the Native American Nations (SoNA, 10). However, the original group was SAIM, which was based on the American Indian Movement of the 1970s.

And the combined government body is called the STC (Sovereign Tribal Council). Oy.

Also recall it is the native American nations, plural, each of the sperate legal countries has a name for themselves, NAN is just a collective term for the group of countries. You don’t get a NAN ambassador or a NAN citizen so who is going to complain about the name.

Edward

It sounds to me that NAN is a term that UCASers and CASers would use to describe them. Much like the US and Europse currently calls the cradle of civilization "the Middle East", but no one from the Middle East think of themselves as a collective. Or the moniker "Russian" referring to the former states of the USSR. In other words, it's cultural laziness... We Americans can't be bothered to actually remember the differences between other nations, right?

No more than how most Americans refer to themselves by their states, but foreigners don't. Of course, that's the problem with generalizations.

The "Nations" part implies the aggregate collection of the Indian nations, kind of like the Gathering of Nations.

I've never understood all the torque over a name classification. I'm not referred to as a Sicilian American. The classification of "white" works for me for what its designed to do. There are times this issue is slightly more than laughable.

The entire concept is laughable but if they must be called something call them Indians. There is some evidence that they may not be a native as they would like us to believe.

Well, yeah. It's not like humans originated in this hemisphere.

"First Nations" and "First Nations Peoples" is the common term used by the political elite (of all colours) in Canada. "Indians" is still a slang term used. Usually it is ment in a degrogator way, but not always. Similar in many was to the current use of "nigger".

Here "natives", shortened from "Native North Americans", is likely the most common used in everyday language.

Of all of them First Nations is like the best description of them. It appears that generally their ancestors emmigrated over a period of 25,000 years ago through perhaps 6,000 thousand years ago. So they aren't a lot more "native" than a 10th generation north american who's relatives came from Europe a few hundred years back. However they certainly constituted the first "nations" built here.

EDIT: And "indian" comes from a navigational misunderstanding.

P.S. I suspect that the elite of the "natives" prefer First Nations because of the mindset it envokes. That they are not Canadians, but a separate entity. This is much more true in Canada than the US given that the relatively large percentage of Canada's population with completely "native" ancestory. It's around 5%. In the US they constitute a much, much smaller slice.

Naming any kind of people the "first" is just retarded. Reminds me of my local Indian tribe calls themselves "THE people" as if they are the only people on earth that matter. It's a double standard perpetrated by groups like the NAACP and ACLU. They should be called Indians or American Indians to deflect confusion over immigrants from the country of India.

How about "Relatively Native Americans"?

~J

I like "here before the pale guys Americans." I think it flows off the tongue well. The HBTPGA Nation stands tall and proud!

Sounds as good as any other suggestion.

That or the always popular, let them call themselves whatever the fuck they want.

i would be proud of my Let Them Call Themselves Whatever The Fuck They Want heritage.

as an american there are only mexicans, americans, canadians and "those people"

i'm going back to my swimming pool filled with 24k gold ferraris

This reminds me of a story my dad e-mailed to me a few months back. He was on a trip to Argentina. Someone asked him where he was from. He said, "America." To which they replied, "Yes, we're Americans too."

Yeah I do take issue with that also. Maybe Canada is so far to the left that they have actually convinced some people that "Indian" is a derogatory term on par with "nigger". I hardly believe that however. It's still used widely here. Slurs associated with Indians in this part of the world are much more offensive (and creative).

Well, actually...

I keep hoping we could merge the two. Into a football borg.

Canada doesn't have a slavery past to deal with. Indeed, Canada was a common destination for escaped slaves fleeing through the "underground railroad".

In contrast, we have more than our share of shameful acts toward our amerindians populations.

So, basically, Canadians will scale their degree of shame in regard to their history and associated derogative terms as they damn well please. Americans can choose to take issue with it if it makes them feel good about themselves but it is silly and really none of their business if you ask me.

EDIT : This reminds me (to a much smaller degree) about the that time when one or two bus worth of texans drove all the way to Ottawa to protest in front of the parliement where discussion about homosexual marriage were under ways. It was mind boggling, for me.

That and the longest unfortified border on this silly rock.

Then how about, because we're bigger than you and we can do whatever we want?

It's stupid and petty and childish. It's also a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.

But what this has to do with the nomenclature of the NAN is beyond me.

CFL isn't real football but it's fun to watch in it's own right. Anything that produced Doug Flutie is alright with me. However, Canada is NOT allowed to make up hysterically offensive definitions for racial descriptive terms that are in common usage with the rest of the continent.

I guess spreading democracy doesn't mean spreading freedom as well.

So... is this topic done, or what?

Canada should be a model for what we shouldn't adopt in this country. I live adjacent to a reservation (not on it thank the Lord) and I could list a couple of racial terms that would elicit a violent response, but still doesn't carry the weight of the n word.

It seems like you can't say anything without someone being offended by it. It also seems true that the only people that are allowed to use derogatory words to describe a particular race, are people of said race. Whether or not a term is derogatory is arguable.

Despite my inner eye-rolling at "issues" like this one, I would rather the "offended" people just pick a name and get over it. In the grand scheme of things, the name of a thing matters little. Its merit is another story.

Well, the problem is that in some cases the offended parties have a name for themselves, but this whole thread is about how and whether there is a collective nomenclature from the indigenous peoples from not just the US & Canada, but the entire western hemisphere. Around here they call themselves Indians, but then again around here the three major groupings each refer to their political organizations differently, and references (and especially political references) usually default back to federal nomenclature as to be as vague as possible.

Meh... There are more important things to worry about SR. Things that can, you know, be changed. The term "NAN" is probably not one of those things.