Talk:Band government

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Title re Wiki name conventions

This is an important article which I didn't know existed, but in fact recently made comments that it should; one reason being to distinguish or describe the difference between Indian Act-derived governments and structures and traditional governments (see dab lines at Squamish Nation and Skwxwu7mesh, and those articles' respective talkpages and those linked off them. It never occurred to me to look for a title with "(Canada)" in it, as "First Nations" is entirely a Canadian term to start with so the "{Canada)" part isn't really needed IMO. Other than that, Wiki article naming conventions would seem to indicate that the title here should be small-g, i.e. First Nations government or First Nations governments, as there is no one "First Nations Government", which would mandate/validate a capital-G. So I recommend this page be retitled, or rather turned into a redirect - no normal move procedure is required because there are only six pages which link to this page. So far, that is. In the opening line of the many BC First Nations government and tribal council stubs I've been creating/revising this last week, I've used the phrase "Such-and-so Nation is a First Nations government in the Canadian province of British Columbia", and have been linking only "First Nations" rather than "First Nations government", which I would have preferred to do if I knew there'd been an article by that title, or close to it anyway; as there's also a category Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia this seems more than appropriate; and it may also be in that/this article where the distinction between Indian Act-derived govenrments and traditional govenrments can be discussed; for now the idea is that the non-government articles (e.g. Skwxwu7mesh) which are history/ethno/people/culture articles will discuss the traditional government, while the ones bearing "Nation" and "First Nation" in their titles would be for Indian Act-derived governments; often they're the same thing, de facto if not de jure, but the distinction is an important one for various reasons to lengthy to go into here. Point is this article, under any title, should be a "core" article in terms of explaining FN government, and also core within the BC and Canada Wikiprojects; gut it is especially important in order to explain the varying usage of "First Nation(s)" to non-Canadians, i.e. on the one hand as a generic ethnic term equivalent to Native American, and on the other to describe an individual group of people, and somewhat separately, the band government (or in some cases, the tribal council government). It's also important as a way of clarifying the distinction between the system imposed, and the system inherited and/or strived towards...More on this later after I read the article and make any wiki formatting and such that needs doing, and also to find out what's in it....Skookum1 09:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This will be tricky because is "Government" and "governance" the same thing? Is "Government" only related to colonial settler governments imposed on the people. Is the hereditary clan chieftainship system a "government" by settler standards. Either way, "First Nations Government" is redundant. "First Nations governments" would be better with information about the Indian Act institution, and that kind of stuff. (Although the Indian Act page should be fixed up too.) OldManRivers 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Indian Act-derived governments are the only ones in Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia; I didn't place Chiefs Nicola or Maquinna or Hunter Jack there, for instance, and in each of their cases "governance" is definitely the operative term, even if "chief" isn't right either, in techincal native-culture terms. This is why I've been painfully aware of distinguishing the Indian Act governments in that opening line of the new stubs as well as from the non-Indian Act aspect of natives societies and the communities the band governments are only legal reflections/fictions of; that I understand, which is why the separate ethno/history/people articles vs. the band-council/institutional context of the ones with "Nation" or "First Nation" in the title, and Category:First Nations governments in British Columbia. And it's not like there's one formula for non-Indian Act governance either, and your comments about "ownership" elsewhere, while agreeably the standard generalization, don't match up in all cases, as with some St'at'imc land customs I know of. Anyway, the point of the First Nations governments in British Columbia article proposal, is to document/describe the means the Indian Act governments came into being, including the non-ceded status and the whole rest of it, and this would be apposite to the native/aboriginal perspectives; that's why the line "First Nations government" was included; so the whole of it could be redlinked to the "FN govts in BC" article. Because people looking up a First Nations community who aren't from Canada need to have it explained, and it's a fairly complicated issue, as well as a detailed history (the Indian Act, the anti-potlatch laws, the nature of the Indian Agent - nb I'll be doing an article on Gold Commissioner, often synonymous with Indian Agent). Anyway, further point was that the article in question was written from a Canada-wide basis; but here in BC it's a different constitutional/historical situation entirely, so deserves special treatment; adapting what's there in the "Canada" article is needed, but the page needs retitling and, if BC isn't more split off, more discussion of the particular non-treatied situation and the reserve commissions (Vowell, O'Reilly etc).Skookum1 06:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember back during the Vancouver Peace Movement's heyday in the early-90s, there was a younger First Nations woman - Kwakwaka'wakw I think - at one gathering (one of endless small colloquiums that lay behind the big marches) who spoke very eloquently about self-government, that that was the real and necessary meaning of "self government". Likewise self-determination. That was the only meaningful government, and once governing the self was found in each of us, natural self-determination of the community follows. I wish I was eloquent about it as she had been, but you would have had to hear her. The idea she stressed was that self-government ultimately wasn't about independence in the usual political sense, but a community peace reached when we learn to govern each of us ourselves. This all said in the context of the peace-movement climate of "building a new world" (it was very post-60s, those couple of years, until the bitterness of the Solidarity Crisis...).Skookum1 06:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As my understanding goes, this article is soely for the First Nations as defined by Indian Band. Indigenous governance such as the hereditary chiefs, or clanmothers, and things of that nature would not be in this article (FYI, these governances are still active and in some places are at odds with the First Nations Governments (ie. band councils). The title does need to be changes to wikify it. Also some sections including History, the Band Council, and more but I can't think of what right now. I'll come back to this article in a bit to see where I can help out but suggestions on things we need to work on would be helpful for me. OldManRivers 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Title again

Just happened to see this come up in the watchlist, and I see we never really discussed or resolved the issue. Summing up, the capital-G isn't stylistic (there is no one First Nation(s) Government") and also I'd say the qualifier for Canada is not required, as this term is only Canadian; one wonders about Native American government as a parallel article and Mexican indigenous government and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if band council should redirect here or be created on it's own article? 24.87.81.237 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

retitled and re NIB/AFN

I retitled this; capital-G "Government" in the title suggests the existence of a pan-national FN government, which of course doesn't exist. On that note, in the national orgs section overleaf the Assembly of First Nations is mentioned; but what about the Native Indian Brotherhood.....and isn't there a third organization? Also somewhere out there is an Association of Non-Status Indians, but I don't know if that's BC only or if it's Canada-wide.Skookum1 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-status re Sinixt

I amended that paragraph slightly, as the Sinixt organization is not "of British Columbia", it's "of Washington". But I'm also unsure whether or not "non-status" here even applies; according to what I've read Sinixt descendants in the US still have status rights in Canada - it was their band government, NOT their Indian status, that was revoked/extinguished. Non-status people, in the usual meaning FWIK, are those who were disinherited because of a mother's marriage to a white or other non-indigenous person, or by adoption or some other means. The heirs of the Sinixt are still status, should they choose to apply (some have AFAIK), and in point of fact they are also status in Washington/the US, and so their status stateside by default/treaty operates on the Canadian side of the border as it does for all status Indians....as with much info put forward by the modern Sinixt, I think there's some holes in the facts to be dealt with.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re disambig

Why does this article need "(Canada)" as a disambig in its title? Surely there's no other country that "First Nations government" would apply to?Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-Status again

Among other provincial/territorial orgs, there's at least the BC Association of Non-Status Indians; here's a parag about who they include:

The B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians estimates that there are 60,000 non-status Indians in British Columbia. They define a nonstatus Indian as "a person who, although genetically and culturally an Indian, is not registered as such by the Department of Indian Affairs of the Federal Government. The Canadian government, through the Indian Act, has laid down certain definite rules for defining who is, and who is not, an Indian. This ‘race by legislation’ act has given rise to many strange cases whereby a person with no Indian blood, whatever, may legally be classed as an Indian; whereas a full-blooded Indian may legally be classed as white. . . . Membership in the (Association) is open to any person of one-quarter or more Indian blood, who is not a registered member of an Indian Band." Journal of American Indian Education (U.Arizona) Volume 12 Number 3, May 1973.Skookum1 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Municipal" nix

The use of this term has constitutional/settlement implications relative to the niceties of the BC Treaty Process and the position not only of bands inside that process (30% of BC bands) and entirely rejected by the others (70% or so, represented by the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. IRs and bands are not municipal in any way, and are creatures of the Indian Act and DINA, not any Municipal Act; they are not constituted but rather still technically local committee/councils whose mandate comes from the Indian Act and Ottawa; to say otherwise is entirely misleading, and the Black's definition provided does not encompass the status or condition of band governments. They do not have municipal powers or, strictly speaking (if in law if no longer in practice, as was once the case), any kind of legal independence; all their actions and votes must still be approved by the ministry, though of late that's something like viceregal assent, where it's always accepted; but not always and in such a way and prccedure as to be a vexation and seen as a continuation of white paternalism, which is why it's a treaty issue; the BC government would like to convert them all to municipal or para-municipal governments, as was done in the case of Sechelt and which was attemptecd with the now-rejected Tsawwaseen Treaty; the Nisga'a Lisims Government, established by the Nisga'a treaty, is likewise not a municipality; its status is more like a subordinate province-within-a-province, almost a micronation but not quite. Summing up, saying that band governments are "municipal" in any way is highly POV-charged.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Traditional governments/governance

There's only a few of these extant.....the haudenosaunee for example, or the council of the Gitxsan-Wet'su-we'ten Confederacy whatever it's called.......some bands have somehow integrated the two concepts. the Nuxalk for instance. But the distinction between an "Indian Act government" and traditional government needs not only to be made clear but also maybe separate articles; with this one, about band government, being moved back to that title; I see I'm the one who first moved it, I think, back in 2008, but given current discussions about "nations" vs "First Nations", meaning band governments (which the first term does not, not in a useful way anyway) the term "First Nations governments", which when de-PC'ified is "[Indian] governments" it can mean a lot more than just Indian Act-defined/mandated bodies, and in local terms it usually does, in fact. Given the strain over the CfRs I'm in no mood to try a Requested Move here, and would want more aboriginal editors involved. User:Phaedriel is sadly no longer with us, she would be a great help on this, even though she's not a Canadian fn person.`Skookum1 (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Title again

There is currently a discussion being held on WP:CA about the article's title. Interested parties may participate in the discussion here. - Sweet Nightmares 14:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

voting system in lead

It says "elected by the bands, in which has one vote," which doesn't seem to make sense to me grammatically. I propose to change this to "elected by the chiefs of the bands" or "elected by the bands, one chief from each of which has one vote,"; I prefer the first one as being shorter. Any comments or other ideas? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)