5.4.2 Background learning

The proper use of collective nouns is essential when discussing Indigenous peoples. In Canada, the term “Indigenous” is generally preferred over “Aboriginal”. Both terms can encompass three groups: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. The term “Indigenous” can also be used as a general term when referring to Indigenous people in countries outside of Canada.

In Canada, “First Nations” refers to Indigenous peoples who are neither Métis nor Inuit. This term gained prominence in the 1970s and ’80s, largely replacing the term “Indian”, even though it lacks a legal definition, unlike the term “Indian” within the Indian Act. While “First Nations” denotes ethnicity, its singular form can denote a band, a reserve-based community, or a broader grouping, encompassing members who have “Indian status” as defined by Canadian law. Archivists should only refer to status when this is directly relevant to the records’ content or when asked to do so by the individual being described.

The following definitions present the three broad categories of Indigenous people, as outlined both by Canadian legislation, as well as through some of the larger organizations representing these Indigenous groups. The colonial definitions1 included here do not always encompass the collective or community-held understanding of each group, however they have frequently served as the foundation for identifying communities in many archival repositories’ descriptions and records themselves. Archivists must be attentive to the context of a term’s use within the records as well as how this might differ from a community or individual’s own terms. Discovery should forefront community terminology and reference colonial terms when necessary to reflect colonial context and / or substantially improve discoverability.

First Nations

First Nations is a term officially used by the Canadian government since the late 1970s to replace the term Indian band in referring to groups of Indians with common government and language. First Nations hold reserve lands, but members of a First Nation may live both on and off these reserves. In its most restricted sense, the term can exclude non-status Indians, Inuit, Métis, and those who have Indigenous ancestry, but a less clear identification with a particular community. Additionally, the term sometimes reflects a political divide. For example, the Assembly of First Nations, the largest and most established Indigenous political organization in Canada, is made up of elected chiefs from First Nations and does not directly represent any of the previously mentioned groups. First Nations should be used as a general term, as community members are more likely to define themselves as members of a specific nation or community within those nations (e.g., a member of the Anishinabek Nation)2.

Métis/métis

“Métis” refers to people of the Métis Nation, one of three federally recognized “aboriginal peoples of Canada” with existing aboriginal and treaty rights affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982. Métis became a distinct political entity in the 19th century, with its influence spreading from the Red River Settlement including their own unique culture, traditions, language (Michif), way of life, collective consciousness, and nationhood. Under the Métis National Council’s (MNC) definition of Métis, “the term applies to a person who self-identifies as Métis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, and is accepted by the Métis Nation.”3

There are individuals and groups who may claim to be “Métis” from communities of mixed European and Indigenous heritage, including those in Ontario and Québec, as well as non-status settlements near First Nations reserves. However, the MNC definition does not include individuals and newly formed groups, mainly in eastern regions, who argue that having a single, distant Indigenous ancestor should suffice for Métis citizenship without a connection to the historic Métis homeland.

Archivists at UTARMS should understand the terminology used by archival creators, and when possible, note the way in which the individual understands their identity in context of the aforementioned definition. Aside from an individual’s own identification, the MNC definition of Métis will be prioritized.

Archivists will consult with the University’s Office of Indigenous Initiatives to develop a process for accurately identifying Métis people before committing to a use in a particular archival description.

Inuit (singular: Inuk)

Inuit are a group of culturally connected Indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic and subarctic regions of Greenland, Labrador, Quebec, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Alaska. Inuit speak Inuktitut, which has various regional dialects. Presently, Canadian Inuit communities reside in the “Inuit Nunangat”, their homeland, which is divided into four regions: Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Territories), Nunavik (Quebec), Nunatsiavut (Labrador), and Nunavut4. An Inuit person is known as an Inuk.

Like Métis and non-status First Nations people, Inuit are not subject to the Indian Act. Despite this, Inuit are recognized as Indigenous Peoples in Canada (with First Nations and Métis), and considered “Indians” under the Act, in the sense that, according to constitutional division of powers - funding for programs and services are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. In Canada, there is no official definition of who is (or isn’t) Inuit, and there is no such thing as “Inuit status”.

  • Further reading on terminology can be found on the University of British Columbia’s Indigenous Foundations project terminology page5.

Considering Terminology in Description

When using terminology to describe First Nations, Métis/métis, and Inuit peoples be aware of distinctions between traditional governance structures and those enforced by the Canadian Government (e.g. Band Councils).6 In instances where an individual’s identity is contested by the relevant community, UTARMS will include this information in the biographical note. E.g., “Smith self-identifies as Cherokee. In 2015, this claim was widely disputed by Cherokee leaders (citation).”

Indigenous people may identify as and refer to themselves by different terms, including “Indian.” If an individual uses this word as a form of self-identification, retain the word and make a note in the description explaining this context. The term “Indian” should only otherwise be used in the context of proper nouns, for example the Indian Act or the official names of some First Nations.

Avoid phrasing that is possessive and / or links groups with state entities within your archival descriptions. E.g., “Indigenous groups on Turtle Island” instead of “Canada’s First Nations”. Also, avoid language and phrasing that valorizes and misrepresents the activities of settlers (for example concepts of discovery, exploration, acculturation), and use specific terms for activities such as surveying, trading, specimen gathering, missionary work. Where possible, link these specific activities to their broader colonial purpose and context (i.e. missionary work conducted on behalf of the Catholic Church to convert and assimilate Indigenous peoples). Above all else, UTARMS describes individuals based on their own self-identification.

Endnotes

  1. Government of Canada definitions can be read here: https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032463/1572459644986#sec1 ↩

  2. “Glossary,” It’s Our Time: The AFN Education Toolkit, https://education.afn.ca/afntoolkit/web-modules/plain-talk-6-residential-schools/glossary/ ↩

  3. Métis National Council, “Citizenship”, https://www.metisnation.ca/about/citizenship ↩

  4. Inuit Tapariit Kanatami, “About Canadian Inuit”, https://www.itk.ca/about-canadian-inuit/ ↩

  5. “Terminology,” UBC Indigenous Foundations, accessed July 15, 2024, https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/#firstnations ↩

  6. For more information see: “Hereditary Chiefs vs. Elected Chiefs: What’s the Difference?,” Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. (blog), May 17, 2021, https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/hereditary-chiefs-vs-elected-chiefs ↩