The First Peoples Project- What's in a name? [closed]

Question

For a while now there have been discussions about the various Indigenous people’s projects on WikiTree. There are many, scattered over many countries.

These projects appear in geographic regions or governmental boundaries in which these native peoples find themselves. However, many groups straddle modern political borders. Many groups have a traditional understanding of their borders.

For example the Inuits spread across the northern hemisphere from Alaska to Greenland. The San people in Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and South Africa. The Sami across Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The Yupik and the Aleut in Russia and the US. The Kumeyaay in the US and Mexico. The Anishinaabe, Ojibwe, Haudenosaunee, Wabanaki, and others spread across parts of the US and Canada. In many traditions the whole the North American continent is Turtle Island and was this way before the US and Canada. This is the reason for the Jay Treaty and the rights of First Nations and Native Americans to cross the US/Canadian border.

Recognizing that these Tribal or First Nations boundaries carry over current nation or state or provincial boundaries is an important facet of running any of WikiTree’s Native, Indigenous and First Nations projects.

Since these projects are not restricted to a specific Nation the thought has been put forward that WikiTree have a top level project for them, these First Peoples, which does not place them in any other political boundaries.

- This is First Peoples Centric thinking.

The Native Americans, Pueblos Indígenas de México (Indigenous Mexico), The Maya, First Nations, The Inuit, the First Peoples of Australia, The First Peoples of Canada, The Inuit of Greenland, the Polynesians of Hawaii, the Sami of Lapland and all first peoples who recognize their own boundaries before any other governmental boundaries now have that top level project which recognizes their individuality from a First Peoples Centric Perspective.

The issue that needs to be addressed is what to call the top level project? The name chosen is The First Peoples Project. This is a name that is being suggested by First Nations, Indigenous and Native American members, as well as others who identify as First Peoples.

A suggestion was made that a conflict might exist with the Canadian Government term ‘First Peoples’. No one has suggested it might also conflict with Australian First Peoples. One reply I got from a Native American was, “I consider myself First Peoples and I am not Canadian”. Here is a blog post, Indigenous Peoples terminology guidelines for usage, that shows all the acceptable and unacceptable names and usage and also shows how flexible the usages can be.

Here is the First Peoples Project Page – a work in progress. Take a look at it and mull this over – is it ok for the Top-Level Project be the First Peoples Project?

Below you will find a YES answer and a NO answer. Vote up the one you agree with. If No make a suggestion for a good name in another answer.

Thanks Mags

The First Peoples sub-projects will also be listed as sub projects of the geographical areas they appear in as well, for example – The First Peoples Sub-Project, The Native Americans Project, is also a Sub-Project of the US Southern Colonies Project, The Westward Ho Project as well as others
 

Comments

Thanks for bringing this to G2G, Mags.

My uneducated thoughts, to take or leave: I associated the term "First Peoples" with Canadian indigenous people. In the US, I still hear "Native American," not that I'm up on what's PC. In Latin America, I've heard various forms of "Indigenous."

If you're saying that "First Peoples" is widely preferred or at least understood by indigenous people across North, Central and South America, that would be a strong mark in favor of it, especially if it's also preferred and understood elsewhere in the world.

If the term "First Peoples" isn't universal, I would think "Native Peoples" or "Indigenous Peoples" might be less controversial. Some people will interpret "first" in a way broader than what's intended, i.e. as an assertive claim that some group was first.

But again, those are just off-the-cuff thoughts. My thoughts here shouldn't be given any weight.

---

First Peoples is a very broadly used term not just Canadian or Australian. The First Peoples in Canada is a Canadian Government construct - It's First Nations, Metis and Inuit in Canada.

Mags

Answer 1

YES

First Peoples Project

Comments

By all means, have a "First Peoples Project" for those who identify with that term, but PLEASE do not make binding rules and establish a "Wiki Standard" to be policed by enthusiastic wikitree monitors.

I know we are talking about an inherited gene pool and I am aware that "First Peoples" is a term accepted by those who see themselves in that situation in areas of the world other than the US, but  I am very aware that this concept can be destabilising politically and must be treated with great care.

I believe the term "first Peoples" arrived in a resurgence against the experience of European colonialism, a phase of world history already consigned to history. The term simply describes the ethnicity of those in possession of a territory before the arrival of Europeans and does not take into account the previous ethnic history of that territory which may have been overrun several times.

---

I think we should acknowledge that there is no universal name that is already accepted by all the groups it might apply to, so we are really paving a trail here.  First Peoples seems as good as any, and better than most.  You are not going to find a perfect word here, so we need to go with whatever is the best option available and I personally think First Peoples is it.

From the perspective of the mechanics of categorization, high level categories are relatively easy to fix.  If tomorrow the decision is made to call this "XYZ People" instead,  you create the new category, attach 10 or 20 subcategories that already exist to it, and retire the old.  It's when you need to recategorize something that has 100 profiles already attached to it that you've created a headache.  So it's the lower level categories that really require the greatest care in creation.

---

I agree with Jack - I think "First Peoples" is a term generally understood and accepted these days, even if not used by all communities.

Make each category and sub-category page an important resource for those who identify together other in a way that differs from their current geographic/political category.

---

Yes, First Peoples Project works as the higher level Category.  It is the sub-project and lower levels that will be difficult.  There are so many different alternatives, many names are understood differently by people from different geographic areas.  Trying to balance historic truths with modern interpretations and governance models is really challenging.

Answer 2

NO

Other suggestions - please post in a separate answer.

Comments

They refer to their tribal names. Consider they shoild not be just lumped together but be kept separate to dignify their tribal name preference.

---

Terri, it's to name a Top-Level Project. If we let pride and preferences dictate the hierarchy of regional projects we'll be sucked into quicksand.

---

True. But at the same time,. We have the Cherokee Nation here and it's only here. I guess I don't understand why it's not on par with United States or Canada? They have their own government, charge taxes etc.

I guess I see the Cherokees as being different. Like they are on the same level as United States.

I'll support whatever decision is made.

---

That is the point Terri. The First Peoples Project is a top level project for these Projects that is NOT associated with any other Goverment.

---

I guess I didn't explain well enough my thoughts. The Cherokees have their own Government and they charge their people taxes, just like the United States, Canada and Mexico does.

I believe the Cherokee Nation should be categorized the same way the United States, Canada and Mexico are categorized. These people are not like the Apache, Chocktaw, Creek, Shawnee, Blackfoot etc. They do identify with a government; their own.

This one "tribe" is a full blown Nation.

---

Terri we are discussing the name of a TOP level WikiTree Project. Not the sovereignty of a tribe or people.

Mags

---

Yes, I realize that. I was trying to explain that I don't believe the Cherokee belong in the project. That being stated, I realize it's a lost cause, but felt honor bound to try and stand up for them. Cause it doesn't seem like anyone else is.

Now for the name of the Project.... what about "Indiginous Tribes"? Or "Indinginous People"?
 Or How about "Legendary People of the Land"?

---

Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

I say "Indigenous Peoples"

---

I would like to support the term indigenous "originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native" but all that really means, is that those descended from the latest wave of migration are excluded in the category named.

---

Don't the UN use the term Indigenous nations / Indigenous peoples to discuss globally, and then each nation / peoples will have their own preferred identity. So that may be the most widely understood term.

From what I learnt in class this is a really controversial issue, and your never going to get a perfect solution on terminology, or who (individually or as groups) are Indigenous nations/peoples

Answer 3

I don't believe 'The First Peoples of Australia' is actually a term that is used here in Australia.   We use the term 'Indigenous Australians'' which includes both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.  Sometimes First Australians might be used but I don't think that is the official term.

I had a look and we don't seem to have a project on Wikitree at present, but I think we probably should have.  If I was suggesting a name I would think I would call it Indigenous Australians. However,  I'm not sure how culturally appropriate a project would be given the cultural views of avoiding speaking about the dead.

Having said that if you are talking about a top level project name with individual and sub project names beneath that, I can't see a problem.  We might end up having something like:

First Peoples Project

>Indigenous Australians

>>Aboriginal Peoples

>>>Tribe Names

>>Torres Strait Islander Peoples

>>>Tribe Names

I would suggest that the Australia Project needs to have a separate discussion on this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians

http://www.indigenous.gov.au

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_avoidance_practices#Avoidance_of_naming_the_dead

Comments

In New Zealand the term "Native" is still seen in in the context of its original meaning, Maori were native to New Zealand, other more recent incomers were native to Ireland, England etc.

There are some in NZ who identify with the First Peoples movement, finding strength and support in the brotherhood of shared experience.

---

The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples is a group for Aboriginal and Torres Islanders.

http://nationalcongress.com.au/

---

The First Peoples term is used by other organizations in Australia. It is also used more generally. Like PBS's First Peoples series.  The First Peoples Australia episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf6mqttBQXc

---

The Indigenous Australians Project Page is at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Indigenous_Australians

You're welcome to add your name to the list of Volunteers, and also have a look at the Task list to see what you can do to make Indigenous people visible on Wikitree with high quality Profiles.

Perhaps you can add some resource suggestions to the list near the bottom of the page?