Distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, and the reason for it [on hold]
I'm having some trouble understanding the purpose of the distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. I understand that First Nations are considered "Indians" (which I know isn't proper), and that Metis and Inuit people are not. I understand that Aboriginals refers to all 3 groups. What I don't understand is why this distinction exists, and I'm hoping that someone will be able to clarify.
differences
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JJJ, Azor Ahai, Mitch, TrevorD, kiamlaluno yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – JJJ, Azor Ahai, TrevorD, kiamlaluno
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
I'm having some trouble understanding the purpose of the distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. I understand that First Nations are considered "Indians" (which I know isn't proper), and that Metis and Inuit people are not. I understand that Aboriginals refers to all 3 groups. What I don't understand is why this distinction exists, and I'm hoping that someone will be able to clarify.
differences
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JJJ, Azor Ahai, Mitch, TrevorD, kiamlaluno yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – JJJ, Azor Ahai, TrevorD, kiamlaluno
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday
add a comment |
I'm having some trouble understanding the purpose of the distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. I understand that First Nations are considered "Indians" (which I know isn't proper), and that Metis and Inuit people are not. I understand that Aboriginals refers to all 3 groups. What I don't understand is why this distinction exists, and I'm hoping that someone will be able to clarify.
differences
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm having some trouble understanding the purpose of the distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples. I understand that First Nations are considered "Indians" (which I know isn't proper), and that Metis and Inuit people are not. I understand that Aboriginals refers to all 3 groups. What I don't understand is why this distinction exists, and I'm hoping that someone will be able to clarify.
differences
differences
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
asked Apr 1 at 17:38
PaulPaul
1
1
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JJJ, Azor Ahai, Mitch, TrevorD, kiamlaluno yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – JJJ, Azor Ahai, TrevorD, kiamlaluno
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by JJJ, Azor Ahai, Mitch, TrevorD, kiamlaluno yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Please include the research you’ve done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic." – JJJ, Azor Ahai, TrevorD, kiamlaluno
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday
add a comment |
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.
The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:
The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)
Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.
First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.
These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.
The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:
The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)
Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.
First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.
These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
add a comment |
First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.
The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:
The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)
Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.
First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.
These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
add a comment |
First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.
The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:
The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)
Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.
First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.
These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.
The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:
The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)
Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.
First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.
These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
answered yesterday
JuhaszJuhasz
3,2131714
3,2131714
add a comment |
add a comment |
Hi Paul. Have you tried looking up these terms in a dictionary? If you have, can you tell us what you found and why that's confusing?
– Juhasz
Apr 1 at 17:51
I don't understand why the Inuit and Metis are excluded from the term "First Nations". I understand the definitions. All it says about First Nations is that they're generally thought to exclude the Inuit and Metis
– Paul
2 days ago
I'm going to write an answer, because I find the topic interesting, but I encourage you to look at "How do I ask a good question?" and other similar resources on this site. The key point is that in order to provide a good answer, we need to know exactly what you're asking. This generally means we need context, including your current understanding of the issue. For instance, "I found this definition of First Nations and this definition of Inuit and it appears that they overlap..."
– Juhasz
2 days ago
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on History.SE.
– Mitch
yesterday