Talk:Cree

This is a good short article on resources for Cree. However, like many wiki articles, it uses inappropriate hypertexting: Canada, English, French (which have no references to Cree) should be plain text. Also, saying "the current grand chief is xx" is less valuable than saying "Grand chief xx was elected in 1999". One expects articles to stay around longer than a grand chief. Incidentally, "grand chief" is the kind of word that is appropriately linked to another article that explains the traditional role and the modern election procedure.

A sample of cree written glyphs would have been an interesting teaser image.

The author/s should be congratulated on starting an excellent theme, though it does verge on promoting the website, which is contrary to wiki policy.

fjb, Toronto

Written Language Like every other indigenous culture group in N. America at the time of initial European exploration, the Cree did not have a writen language. I believe it was in the mid-late 1800's that a Missionary in the area of Norway House, Manitoba developed the current set of "Cree Syllabics", which is a set of symbols that represent all the vowel and consonant sounds of the Cree Language. I'll have to do more research on it to refresh my memory, and toss it into the article.

Cree Syllabics do not include any sounds not present in the language itself. Cree has no sound for "J", therefore, when a name like James or John is spoken by a Cree person, it usually comes out as "Che-miss" and "Chon". I'll pull all this into the article as well.

Weaponofmassinstruction, Lynn Lake, MB

Zygosity??

Could someone please explain further what this Zygosity thing is?? thx Torzsmokus 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cree word for Cree

An interesting and important addition to the first few paragraphs would be the Cree word for Cree. See the Anishinaabe page as an example. (someone did this and was apparently flagged as dubious. I also know for a fact that the word Cree is a word that does not exist in Cree itself, the prairie people call themselves Nehiyaw, as the article states - i am not sure about the cree people in quebec though.

216.59.253.119 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the source used for the word Cree in Cree, I think it was nehilawe in the article, anyway This is not accurate. There are many dictionaries of Cree out there, modern ones at that. The modern word is Nehiyâw for prairies Cree people. Can someone please change this. Even the prairie Cree dictionary made by Albert Lacombe in 1874 has Nehiyaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.98.33 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

link does not work

"The Plains Cree..." link does not work properly.

BC Cree?

Category:Cree is included in "First Nations in British Columbia." Does BC really encroach on Cree territory, or was that a mistake? Thanks - TheMightyQuill 08:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cree is not a "misnomer"

In the English language "Cree" (from the French "Cristinaux") refers to a specific ethnic-cultural group found from Quebec to British Columbia. This is based on both cultural and linguistic affinities. Different words for the group exist in Aboriginal languages, but the designation "Cree" is standard in Canadian English, and the English language generally. As this is the English language version of wikipedia this is the correct designation (commonly used by First Nations English speakers as well as non-Aboriginals). Whats more I've never heard Cree referred to a misnomer, please cite sources for this POV characterization if you intend to use it. This article in its current state has many problems and needs significant improvements. - Wyldkat, March 21, 2008.

In response to the paragraph above - until recently Anishnabe people had to be called Ojibwe, Algonquin, Ottawa, etc... These words were all words that have no meaning to the Anishnabe people and were in fact divisive in that they were each applied to subgroups of the anishnabe without any justification. The word Anishnabe is now becoming more recognized and rightly so, considering that it is the correct word for these people. The same can be said about the word Cree. This word means nothing in their languages. It was first quoted in the relations des jesuit as (kiristinon) in the 1600`s as a people south of James Bay. We have no idea who these are but the word eventually was shortened to Cree and applied to Nehiyaw people first. It was then applied to the peoples - and I say peopleS - inhabiting the JAmes Bay area because it was observed that their language was similar to Nehiyaw. This is not only wrong but insulting, imagine calling spanish people FRENCH just because their language resembled French! The people east of James bay call themselves Iyyu and Iynu (you can check an online dictionary here www.eastcree.org). The people west of James Bay I m not sure about. Also, languages within what we call CREE are not mutually understandable. The word CREE, therefore, despite being a standard English word, is therefore a misnomer applied to various native peoples who might be related but who do not share the same identity. The aim of wikipedia is to inform and provide facts - not definitions in a dictionary style. This is fact, call cree people across the country and ask them what they call themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.73.89 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Quebec but in Saskatchewan I know some people personally who self-identify as "Cree" in English, even though this isn't the "Cree" term. You can also look at the numbered treaties if you want an example in law which refer to the "Cree". Presumably they took no offence. If you are a wikipedian please sign your contributions, and please provide valid sources for your assertions about Quebec (I don't deny what you're saying but you need to back it up for others to see for themselves). If you look at many "Cree" first nations websites in Saskatchewan (James Smith, Muskoday, Beardys) you will note they use the term "Cree" to identify their nation in the English language. I'm aware of the distinction in naming between Anishnabee, Saulteaux, Ojibway, (or Sioux, Dakota, Lakota Etc.) and the like and think to be NPOV it is worth noting that several names in this instance exist. The honus is not on me to "call cree people across the country" (which would be a violation of the no original research policy in any case!) the honus is on editors (especially those who significantly change articles) to comply with wikipedia policies and give citable proof for their "facts" and assertions, as well as provide all of those points from a neutral point of view. - Wyldkat, March 21, 2008.

The fact that Cree is a standard English term has never been disputed - and i dont think people would dispute that "Cree" people speak standard English and therefore use the word Cree (justr like Ojibwe people who use the word ojibwe) however, just like the Anishnabe, many "Cree" people have also went through residential schools and lost their language - therefore resorting to the common english term for them. Also, Treaties are not a good source for what the people actually called themselves or to find out whether or not the people signing the treaty were actually offended at the use of the word. Chances are the natives signing the historical treaties had limited knowledge of english and were unaware that the English were calling them "Cree". I have observed this with "cree" elders who are monoliongual in their native language. After asking them if they ever heard or understand the word cree the answer is Negative. The fact that monolingual speakers of these nationalities refuse the word Cree is a sign that the word should not be used - it is a misnomer. People can keep using it all they want but if the ones who have not lost their language refuse the term or ignore it it isnt correct. ANd alink was provided as proof of the quebec "cree" - a link to a dictionary of their language where the word CREE is translated as Iynu. Considering the fact that wikiupedia, as mentioned above, is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia, i see no problem with establishing the facts as their are - are we afraid that people might one day know the real names of these peoples? Why are you insisting about keeping people in the dark. YOu dont need a quote to proove that a they call themselves that! We are in Canada, all one has to do is call a speaker of these languages and ask them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.46.120 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on keeping people in the dark. I'm saying if Cree is a misnomer it wouldn't be used as a self identifier by Cree nations in the English language. Any alternative names in other languages used in English should also be provided WITH proper citations. You're completely ignoring my arguements (other than the Treaty reference). I know several Cree speakers and they have no problem with the designation Cree. Please provide sources for your assertions in compliance with Wikipedia editing policy. Wyldkat, March 22, 2008.

Cree is recognised in A-level geography in the UK syllabus. "Global Challenge" by Alistair McNaught and Michael Witherick ISBN 0-582-42980-3 directly refers to the 'Cree Nation' including '12,000 aboriginal people, an organised society that has lived, hunted, fished, trapped and harvested in the James Bay area for over 4,000 years. 30% of Crees continue to live primarily from what the land provides...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.42.8 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "misnomer" to "exonym"; the latter seems to more accurately reflect the concern of the 24.212.x poster that "Cree" is not the Cree word for the Cree. The situation is of course somewhat complicated if the word is exogeneous but now recognized and used by many Cree, but "exonym" still seems more appropriate than "misnomer" since "Cree" does not seem to me to be inaccurate or incorrect as a standard English name for this group. Paalexan (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Exonym" works for me. I'm removing the neutrality tag as I believe my concerns have been fully addressed. Thank you. Wyldkat June 16, 2008.

Classical Divisions of the Cree People

This article does not take into account the classic divisions between the Cree based on cultural area and traditional lifestyle: Woods Cree, Plains Cree, Swampy Cree, Oji-Cree, etc. This ethno-cultural group is of high significance in Canada as the most geographically and one of the most politically significant, and therefore deserves a much more systematic, objective, and detailed article than what has been presented here. - Wyldkat, March 21, 2008.

WELCOME

This page is by invitation only ..so WELCOME

Ask questions , comment and/or add what you know .--Nokum asini watichew (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Mary

No, the page is open to anyone who wants to contribute. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Text removed from article

The following paragraph was recently added to the article by Otansimaw:

Upon analysis of the previous statement it is unlikely so many people (i.e Swampy Cree, Plains Cree etc.) all took this name from the village where it alleges they all lived. They were from many different places with different languages/dialects (i.e. Y dialect, N dialect). People of the same place would all speak the name language. The Kichi Nehiyaw explanation is more likely. During the time of colonization the priests had to figure out a way to protect the savages they had converted to Christianity from the settlers, fur traders, and other European colonists who had little regard for the original inhabitants. Thus those converted to Christianity who now had 'souls' were called "Christeneaux" "Kristenaux" and shortened to "Kri" or in English Cree. The word Cree in and of itself is the short form of the English word 'Christian' or 'Christeneaux' (Kristeneaux) in French. Similary, the Jesuit or similar missionary developed a 'uniform' adapted syllabic system for writing the common language that "Cristeneaux" would use. This is why is is stated in so many placed that the language was never written or that the Indian had only oral traditions, when in fact this is not quite true.

I've removed it for now, because it's written like original research, and no sources are cited for it. However, I agree that some more info on the derivation of the name "Cree" would be helpful, so if references can be found, it would be great to have some of this material incorporated into the article. --Miskwito (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding to the discussion. There are many things that have been hidden from history about what really happened since other than Haploid X people have been coming to Turtle Island. The words "Christopher" = Christ "Columbo" = pigeon/dove in latin. So here you have the Christ carrier pigeon with the Papal Bull coming to north america accompanied by two Moor captains. There was only one saintly ship the Santa (=Saint in Spanish/Portuguese) Maria and the other two were Nina and Pinta. The Papal Bull Inter Caetera had clear provisions in it stating that "if the land was not in the termporal possession of another Christian Lord" then they could engage in whatever endeavors they had in mind. (monstly economic)

This research is not original however you can't find it in any history written on this continent. Where you have to look is in the Latin, Spanish, Italian, Arabic, Egyptian history written in each respective heritage language. When you start reading translations of ancient Arabic transcripts and get other peoples view of what was going on 'in the day' you being to realize there is a very different picture than the one we learned in school. It is too bad that more of our people are not interested in getting off the "government" programmed learning systems and do some independent study. Sure its not easy to access history from other countries but it is well worth while in making sense of what is going on here.

So Christopher Columbus the Papal carrier pigeon had a map and was basically told to sail south until the butter melts and then turn right. He came to see what the responsibilities of Isabella and Ferdinand were under the existing trade treaties with the Moor Empire. You see they fail to tell us that Isabella (Catholic Kingdom of Castille) and Ferdinand (Catholic Kingdom of Aragon) were united when these two married. They did not acquire the area known now as Spain until 1491 - it belonged to the Moor's prior to that for 800 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otansimaw (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Say what? The above is bordering on nonsensical to me.