How is it that we know the importance of words in shaping our perceptions, but forget to examine our naming practices beyond the naming of Indigenous peoples?
Photo by Carl G. Linde, provided by Lake of the Woods District Museum, Kenora, Ontario
How is it that we perceive images like this as Indians hunting among or in the “wild” rice? What exactly presents us from reading the visual as “Crop Maitenance” or “Pest Control”?
As Indigenous historians, we debate the use of “Indian” in reference to law or colonial parlance. We know it is a misnomer, a combination of geographical error and personal folly. We suggest “First Nations” is best because it implies sovereignty and long-term presence. Specific Tribal names like Migmaq, Haundenosaunee, Nehilawe, and Anishinaabe, wow us because we think that they represent a people as they would represent themselves.
We write books about representation. We have a field called “Identity Studies.” We know what it means to be labelled and how a label, in shaping lives, becomes real. We write to create awareness and to challenge stereotypes.
And yet, we focus on the names of peoples. We neglect renaming the very things that sustain Indigenous populations. I ask you, what assumption do the names for material things, tangible things carry? I believe we need to revisit our most basic assumptions in Indigenous studies, in identity studies. We cannot create a positive image of Indigenous populations unless we create positive images for the objects that they encounter, consume, and create. Continue reading →
