Talk:Squamish Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents of former page Talk:Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw[edit]

Major edit here for changing the name. The name change was for political correctness. Kwagiutl was switched to Kwakwaka'wakw and such. I will be adding more to the page overall. The information to do with Pauline Johnson is incorrect. Pauline Johnson was known to romanticize her stories about the Skwxwu7mesh peoples. OldManRivers

That doesn't mean you can freely delete it like that; it's a historical item concerning the Squamish (she was, after all, a guest of Joe Matthias and he approved her writings, even if other elders might not like what "came off"). You could have just commented on it instead of deleting it/ignoring it; they are the easiest-access Squamish stories that non-Squamish can find; if you'd rather there be others, or if there are others, you can add them to "further reading". But deleting material without discussion "in the name of political correctness" is just CENSORSHIP. Which really is what political correctness is about. I wonder - shouldn't the article use the name Halkemeylem as the primary name for the group of languages/dialects of the Straits/Sto:lo/Musqueam instead of Sḵ'emin'em??? Likewise with the correct name - in their language of those you describe only as the Xwsa7k (Nooksack). Political correctness requires that you get their names correct in their languages, too doesn't it?? I hope you can find a non-colonialist alphabet sometime, too....Skookum1 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about meaning of terms[edit]

the Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw is an amalgamation of various Skwxwu7mesh snichem speaking villages into one political unit: Sḵwx̱wú7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw (the Squamish Nation).

Just checking - I think understand the reason for the sentence, which won't be clear to many people not familiar with local history and peoples: is the difference between and , i.e. the -ulh, distinguish between the people and the organization/institution? Just trying to understand so as to maybe make the sentence clearer for casual visitors; one reason I'm asking is that the emerging standards within the Indigenous Peoples of North America WikiProject call for separate ethno/people, language and political/organization articles, ultimately at least three for each people, more if reserves or reservations are multi-tribal (as happens a lot in the US). Also just trying to the terms straight for my own sake; I'm more familiar with basic St'at'imc.

Thanks for the correction. Skwxwu7mesh-ulh best translates to "Our Skwxwu7mesh People" which differs from "Skwxwu7mesh" which is more directly related to the land. e.g. Canada vs. Canadian OldManRivers

Correction with spelling of villages[edit]

I changed the spelling of the proper place names in the skwxwu7mesh snichem. I know this is hard to prove, but my source is the Language Department from this First Nation's Band Office. OldManRivers

Squamish orthography isn't IPA, which now with the foreign orthographic system Wiki standards "require". I'm not equipped to provide the IPA. What there will have to be is (maybe a table of) the official reserve/IR name, the Squamish form, then the IPA of how to pronounce the Squamish form.Skookum1 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit new to this. What is "IPA"? OldManRivers 11:56 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Is the IPA just for people to understand how to pronounce, or to actualy change the spelling of the language in subject?

IPA is the International Phonetic Alphabet, which is a theoretically "absolute" transcription of spoken sounds; not variable from language to language, as is the case with Skwxwu7mesh snichim, St'at'imcets or Halkomeylem (which all have different adaptations of the Latin alphabet - the "bastardized and colonalized" alphabet which has allowed these languages to become literate. IPA is the standard in linguistics, and in Wiki; indigenous ortographies can be included, but the IPA is what those unfamiliar with the variables in a localized orthography will/can use to determine how something is to be pronounced. e.g. /t'/ in St'at'imcets is a "tl" or "lh" (somewhere in between), while in Chinookan and Chinuk-wawa and some other Oregonian languages it's a plosive-t (sort of exploded or "spat"). In IPA those two sounds would have completely different characters.Skookum1 07:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy for articles is to give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. The English language often mangles the words it absorbs from other languages, and I agree that "Squamish First Nation" can be described as "the colonial and bastardized version of the historical name." However, article naming policy is intended for usability, not for solving the problems caused by colonialism and racism.

Myself, raised around natives, I think that's a pretentious, revanchist justification/argument and more bleat than substance; demanding that English incorporate words/names into it to appease resentment against "colonialism" obscures the relevant fact that "Squamish" is an approximation of Skwxwu7mesh. Given that the latter has sounds in it (that glottal stop 7, for intance) which are not relevant in English orthograpy (though actually used in English, just never written separately); a truly colonialist name would have been something like Burrard Redskins or Howe Sound swampies or something deliberately derisive or patronizing, which "Squamish" plainly isn't); and is the Skwxwu7mesh snichim name for English a "bastardized" version? But let's put this another way - sould the Skwxwu7mesh snichim name for the Musqueam or Lil'wat - equally an approximation - also be considered "bastardized" (especially because in the Lil'wat case they were a commonly-enslaved people?). Similarly in one of the two native-named articles the Skwxwu7mesh snichim names for the Sto:lo/Musqueam/Cowichan and Nooksack were given in Skwxwu7mesh snichim; the latter resembles "Nooksack" while the former - Sḵ'emin'em is not anywhere near similar to any of those First Nations names for themselves. So, in other words, a double standard can't apply here. To me the "bastardized and colonialized" thing is just puerile chest-thumping over something that can't and won't be changed in English. Sto:lo, Nuxalk and certain other indigenous names have been incorporated into regional English, and in the press we're now used to seeing Nlaka'pamux and Nuu-chah-nulth. But I challenge you to pronounce Nlaka'pamux properly, and still expect anyone who doesn't know how to understand you. BTW one ting missing from te Skwxwu7mesh articles is mention of their migration into what had been Musqueam/Tsleil-wau-tuth territory - their own relatively recent colonialism and imperialism, albeit on a smaller scale. Similarly with the Laich-kwil-tach and their reign of terror over the Fraser and Straits peoples (even the Kwantlens and Chilliwacks), or the Thompson and Shuswap and Chilcotin brutalities upon the Lillooet and in the case of the Thompson and Shuswap their generations-long occupation of Lillooet territory. The pretense is that only white culture abused native cultures; the reality is that native cultures are just like all other human cultures (violent, treacherous, hypocritical, as well as prone to sanitize their own histories in order to make someone else sound worse).Skookum1 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, we have to give this article an English name. What is the most commonly understood English name for this group? I imagine it is either "Squamish Nation" or "Squamish First Nation." I think "Squamish Nation" is more common. I will put in a request at Wikipedia:Requested_moves in a couple of days. Kla'quot 06:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, given that the Squamish Nation uses that very name on its own website, I think the answer is pretty clear...(and if they're content to use a "bastardized and colonliazed" form of their name, then OldManRivers should just deal with it.Skookum1 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Skookum1, no need to bite the newbie. Kla'quot 07:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Kla'quot —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManRivers (talkcontribs) . 20:58 30 September 2006
Sorry, OldManRivers; polemic is a bit my own style and I always "lay into" p.c.-ism in a tough-guy kind of way; nothing personal meant - I was just tub-thumping my case loudly and clearly; not meant to intimidate/alienate. It's just that if your standard was applied, the Spain article would be Espana, the name "America" could not be used, etc etc.Skookum1 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand what some of you are saying but what about changing Kwakwaka'wakw back to Kwagiutl or Nuu-chah-nulth back to Nootka or Heiltsuk back to Northern Kwagiutl or Southren Tsimshian like the text books mention. Skwxwu7mesh Uxwumixw is the same thing. Or am I wrong? Although, there are two seperate pages for Kwakwaka'wakw and Kwagiutl, so maybe having two pages would be better? I understand this is a English wiki, but is political correctness more important cultural incorrectness. OldManRivers 12:11, 29 September 2006
Political correctness is the same as cultural incorrectness; political correctness is the imposition of an ideology on culture, and is therefore inherently incorrect. And no, political correctness is not important - only in its own mirror-gazing self-justifications; everyone else is nauseated by it.Skookum1 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the simple number of Google hits, Kwakiutl is much more commmon than Kwakwaka'wakw (653,000 versus 47,800 search results). Nootka is also much more common than Nuu-chah-nulth (933,000 versus 131,000 search results). So yes, these should probably be changed as well. There is currently a proposal to merge the Kwakiutl and Kwakwaka'wakw articles, which sounds like a good idea to me as the subject of both articles is the same.
complicated issue with that is that the Fort Rupert (Namgis and Campbell River/Quadra Island (Laich-kwil-tach groups of Kwakiutl do not use the term Kwakawka'wakw; granted the latter simply means "speakers of Kwak'wala", which the Namgis and Euclataws definitely are, but the name Kwakawka'wakw has become used for the political affiliation of the other Kwak'wala speaking groups in between (which were historic enemies of the other two).Skookum1 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia used the regional language for titles of region-specific articles, most articles on language and geography would have to be renamed. "France" would be named "République française," "Japanese language" would be named "Nihongo," etc.
The Wikipedia policies on naming articles are designed to help readers find and understand articles. Once they're in the article, readers can be educated about history, culture, language, and all that good stuff. Kla'quot 07:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Is the title supposed to look like "Sḵwxwú7mesh-ulh Uxwumixw"? In my browser (IE 5.5, windows NT) the second character is rendered as a square. Markussep 09:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
it's a subscript k, and an obvious example of why indigenous adaptations of Latin orthography are not relevant to English-language articles.Skookum1 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of native orthography vs "bastardized" Latin-English adaptations: we've all gotten use to seeing Nisga'a (meaning "people of the Nass"), but it's still pronounced Nishga (the "bastardized and colonialized" version). But the same latinization (Nisga'a) if pronounced according to the rules for the Hawaiian language (to pick an example out of thin air) would sound entirely different.Skookum1 07:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To me the arguments presented by OldManRivers and others on other pages represent the colonization of English. Stick that in your political correctness cap and give it a think (especially given the rationalizations for derisive terms for whites/Europeans, e.g. hwelitum/hwunitum (the hungry people) in Straits/Fraser Salish or Gweilo in Chinese (see Talk:Gweilo.Skookum1 07:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't have much of an opinion on whether "Squamish" is a bastardized term; I only said that it can be described that way, in reference to the edit summary associated with the page move. My point is that article naming is a usability issue and not a moral one. Since I clarified WP's policy regarding article titles, nobody has said that it should not be moved back to Squamish Nation. It sounds like so far we're all OK with naming the article Squamish Nation. Kla'quot 07:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with it being changed back now. I didn't understand how wiki worked before, but I'm starting to understand. If everyone believe's it's true, it's the truth. Gotcha OldManRivers

Squamish Nation vs. Skwxwu7mesh[edit]

I thought I would post something here first before I start making haste-like changes. In terms of wikipedia and an encyclopedia format, I move to use Squamish Nation as the page for the Indian Act-Band Council government. Things treaty, business, economic development, related, and other news pertaining to the nation, not the people. The government is still a colonial government in the traditional territories of the Skwxwu7mesh. The Skwxwu7mesh page could then be used for culture, community, and history. Things of the stories, culture, spirituality and religion, could then be added for that page, (also creating more articles for stories, places, language, etc). There is a bit of a problem with the other page, but see the Talk:Skwxwu7mesh for that one. Anyone majority object to this? OldManRivers 10:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good idea to carry through with the rest of the Indigenous peoples in BC. Seperating First Nations Indian Act governments, to the peoples. OldManRivers 10:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I went and did it. OldManRivers 03:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I take it you mean Skwxwu7mesh/Squamish Nation only, not all BC aboriginal articles, right? ;-) The division as described is the point of the separate article system that evolved within the {{NorthAmNative}} WikiProject; eventually "across the board" when time and knowledge permits. I checked Nuxalk, which still redirects to Nuxalk Nation, to check if you meant the whole shebang (woulda been a lotta work in two days.....); anyway your artifcles can stand as a model or paradigm for others writing the separated articles in other areas; good work....Skookum1 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mixed Bloods[edit]

The article gives no indication about who is considered a member (citizen) of the Squamish Nation, what the rules governing this are, the demographics of the nation today, etc. Tmangray (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A delicate subject, perhaps OMR will elaborate, but you might as well read this. It is esimated there are about as many people again who identify as native who do not have status, not including Metis (who are "mixed blood", a bit of an awkard term but it's what their name means in French). Metis are aboriginal, but are not "status Indians" as laid out in the Register.Skookum1 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I would gladly elaborate. =). For the Squamish Nation, it has their own custom membership codes. It's blood quantum. I don't know technical terms so I'll go with what I no. If both of your parents are registered "Squamish Nation Member", then you are a "full" Squamish Nation member. If you are a full member, your children and grand children can apply for status also, but not your great grand children. This includes marring another native with status. If you are half status, and marry a half status, but both are registered Squamish Nation members, your children will be full. Obviously non-status women who marry Squamish men do not take status, although there are a number of women who currently hold Squamish status but they have no Squamish, nor native ancestry. If your native and marry a Squamish, you can take status after a certain period, I think. (Don't hold me on that one). This is the Squamish Nation who follow Indian Act guidelines and such, but the membership did vote on custom membership codes.
For the Skwxwu7mesh people, historically was different. Indigenous peoples never identified their people by "blood quantum". Blood quantum was a racist tactic by colonial governments to dimish the rights of indigenous over time. Especially consering previous laws with women marring outside of their ethnicity and women who married native men. But that's another story. Historically the Skwxwu7mesh were patrilineal, meaning you took your fathers side. If your mother was from a neighboring nation, and she moved to her husbands village, you would be Skwxwu7mesh, irregardless. You would have connection and visit your relatives over there, but you would still be raised Skwxwu7mesh. There were instances of men going and moving in with the wifes village, but this was frowned upon and seen as "un-manly" When early colonization began in the area, there were many White men who married skwxwu7mesh women and became apart of the people, as well as some white women who married squamish men and same happened. But in those it was specific scenarios of their character, not really their race. The race stuff didn't get really heated until the gov't and society got heated on it. Hope that answers your question OldManRivers (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

INAC census info[edit]

huh, interesting. OldManRivers (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Financial statements[edit]

I went to the Squamish Nation's website looking for finanical information; didn't see any.

Does anyone know where I can find the Nation's audited financial statements and any value-for-money audits?

Jacques A55 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't. Because they are a private "sovereign" nation, they can keep their finances secret to everyone except themselves.

Error: at least one area specification must be given

03:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talkcontribs)
The Squamish Nation doesn’t release its financial audited statements publicly. Information related to their federal funds can be obtained here though. Close to $11 million comes from government funding (housing, education, health, etc.). But the majority is "own source revenue" from their businesses, leases, and investments. The federal gov’t is considering a bill that put into law certain requirements of bands for financial transparency and accountability, but it’s still in committee. OldManRivers (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Squamish Nation/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very briefly: this is not an objective article. It uses highly subjective language that is clearly open to debate. I'm not taking sides, I just think that objectivity should be sought and/or imposed to give this resource credibility. The credibility of this article is diluted due to its unobjective and ideological language.

Last edited at 20:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)