>> So the Beacon Metis also have this very strong kind of cultural foundation to their identity. And so part of that understanding of the culture is, is use of like the Michif language residency in particular, identifiable Metis communities. And in the Powley case in 2003, where they talked about how to establish a, a test for whether someone is a Metis person they looked at whether had a tie to a recognized Metis community. So it, it's through a, a line of distinct communities, whereas the native counsel and then the, subsequently, the Congress of Aboriginal People were just talking about blood, and heritage, and there like that there was, there was an Indian ancestor. And, and usually if, if they're advocating that way it's because there's not a status recognition. So they're, they're advocating as, they're Metis, but non-status Indians. First Nation, I want to address this word, First Nation,[COUGH] because it is synonymous with Indian, like status Indian. But it's also kind of used more, it can be used more generally, like, to, to be associated with native. But it, I, I think I need to talk about where it arose from, okay? So in the 1960s, there was a lot of talk coming up to the centennial of Canada in 1967, right, about the founding nations, of the English and the French. And so, you know, aboriginal people were saying, well what about the first nations? And George Manuel from BC was you know, used this term, because it, it had a lot of cache as a public relations tool, really, to start talking about First Nation. Put it all into this really simple term, which kind of showed the importance of bringing indigenous people to the understanding of Canada's founding, and to the table in any sort of policies and, and rights discussions. So First Nation became kind of a, of, a very politically charged way of insinuating indigenous voice onto the national affairs stage, which was dominated by English and French. And they could say, well, think about the First Nations. And it demonstrated an importance to that aspect of prior occupancy. And then it also became a politically correct term to replace Indian in a lot of regions. I would say that in Saskatchawan, you still see a lot of people favoring the word Indian, they still like that. And there's, there's this joke I always hear out on the plains, where someone says, you know, what's an indigenous person? It's an Indian who went to college. But First Nation is kind of that, that thing too, as it's a way of replacing that word Indian with something that is seen as less offensive. Now, an interesting thing happened with the federal government is that they started calling bands and reserve communities First Nations. And I think that's lead to some confusion. Because like a band council and a, like a band, and, and, and those communities,they, they have like a, they are legal and, kind of corporate entities. All right. So the, the bands are legal and corporate entities. To start calling them each like a First Nation because it was seen as like a, a politically correct thing to do has actually splintered some of the national characteristics of the, the cultural groups, so that each reserve now kind of being called a first nation or a first nations community doesn't see themselves as part of this, well they do but their treated almost like the entities onto themselves, like they are the first nation, they're like the sovereign First Nation. But really It's a, it's the, the shared culture and language of all these communities together, that is the Nation. So we have like the Nishnavik Nation or the, you know, the Neeya Plains Cree Nation. Each of their communities, although they're called First Nation, are not separate nations. But that's one of the, the kind of lingering confusions of, of that, that federal renaming of all the different communities. I think it's important to also address the terms American Indian and Native American, because when we start reading sources and material that, that are produced in the United States, we see these terms come up. An American Indian is, is, one that's used to describe what here we would call Indian, or First Nation. It's describing the descendants of original peoples in North America. It's not commonly used here to add the American aspect. Native American is often used to collectively refer to the First Nation's people in the United States. It's also kind of in some places, again, it's kind of regionally specific preferred to American-Indian. So the, in the same way that people are problematizing Indian for it's origins as a term American Indian was falling out of favor because in, with native American instead. There's still some confusion though. People born in United States of America will, will then consider themselves native American because they're born within the borders of the USA. So, there is our confusion that occurs. The Inuit, I wanted to talk a bit about that group as well, because they are included in the aboriginal they're included in the constitution as one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. But they certainly see themselves as distinct from the First Nations and Indian people of the South. So, how then, did they get to be treated the same as Indians for the purposes of the Constitution? Well, it happened when Quebec you know, was moving north, and seeking to develop lands in those territories and conveniently said, well, you know, if we, when we deal with, the indigenous people there, they're Indians, and therefore a Federal responsibility. And Canada was taking the view that, well they're not really Indians, because they see themselves as something else. So, then Quebec, you guys have to deal with it. So there was, like, a clarification before the Supreme Court of Canada, to trying to define are Inuit Indians, for the purposes of, you know, the, the BNA Act? And um,[LAUGH], I don't think any Inuit participated in this, this discussion, this finding. And the,the Supreme Court ruled that in fact they were going to be seen as Indians for the purposes of the Constitution. And, like I say, this is something that's, you know, it's this kind of notion is happening right as we speak. Just hours ago, the Metian non-status Indians are now going to be treated as Indians for the purposes of policy and you know, they, they, they're going to be treated in that way. So this is the Daniels' decision that just came out hours ago. And so we won't know what the implications of this are for some time but I, I have a sense that it's going to it's going, it's going to continue to be murky because we still haven't sorted out exactly what protections are there under section 35 of the, of the Canadian constitution. And the Metis, Metis, have been represented by kind of two different factions, two different, advocacy groups. And both the federal and provincial governments have been using this against the Metis for many years. They've said if, until you guys figure out who really represents you, we're not going to deal with, with these issues. So not dealing with aboriginal rights until, putting it on them saying, until you guys know which is your real representative. And so its, its led to kind of political infighting, which is used, really, to kind of, avoid making a decision about how to how to create policy that is Meti-specific. They're basically treated like other Canadian citizens, and they can access programs and services on that basis. But given the, the federal court's ruling today, they will now be able to access status Indian services and policies that are available. So it is, it's going to change things. It's going to effect about 600,000, people who identify currently as Metis and non-status Indian. And we'll probably also see a number of other people kind of, come out of the woodwork recognizing or acknowledging, an Indian heritage that, perhaps, they downplayed before. Or, that they're inventing for certain purposes. [laugh]. This, this will happen when someone sees that there's, there's opportunities for rights. But there's a lot of legitimate people who, and, and a lot of racism that has caused people to hide those identities. And this might be something that enables them to kind of reclaim, or claim those identities more proudly because they now see some benefit to it. And I, I really don't think that there's a problem with that at all.
