This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | History of Canada was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The History of Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada's history in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. Former colonies and territories in Canada, Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years, History of Ottawa etc. See Category:History of Canada for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Wikipedia:Article size. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Toolbox |
---|
In an effort to break the "remove-revert-remove" cycle that has developed in the past day in relation to the reference to First Nations in the lead paragraph, I thought I'd start a discussion on the Talk page. An IP editor has repeatedly removed this sentence:
Other editors have then reverted it.
The IP editor's concern is that this is treating early Indigenous peoples as extinct flora and fauna, and helping to justify the occupation of territory by the Europeans; I see the IP editor's concern as saying that this sentence is a variant of the Terra nullis theory, which historically has been used to justify European occupation.
I think the IP editor has a good point, especially given the location of this sentence in the very first paragraph of the lead, followed immediately by the sentence about the colonisation efforts that began in the late 15th century by the Europeans. It's not that the article should not be tracing the history of Indigenous peoples, and commenting on the rise and fall of different Indigenous groups, in the same way as other societies rise and fall over time. It's the juxtaposition of this sentence as a bridge to the European occupation of the continent that is the concern.
The sentence glosses over the fact that when the Europeans arrived, there were flourishing Indigenous societies throughout North America. The fact that some older Indigenous societies had disappeared (eg the Laurentian Iroquoians) does not mean that there were no Indigenous societies in North America.
That's not to say that there should be no mention at all of the historical developments of Indigenous peoples, pre-European contact. I don't think it's racist to trace the developments of paleo-Indigenous peoples, and the changes in their societies which can be uncovered through archaeological investigations, studies of Indigenous oral history, and other means of historical investigation. In fact, that sort of analysis is already in the "Pre-colonization" section, in more detail, and in the context of studies of earlier Indigenous societies. I think that's the best location for any comment about changes in earlier Indigenous societies, not in the lead paragraph. -- Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay cool, I have no idea how Wikipedia works, but I'm here now. Anyways, one of the first sentences on the page for the history of Canada does not need to reference basically ancient Indigenous societies - that really doesn't have much to do with "Canada" (which of course doesn't actually come about until 1867 anyway). It is important to reference Indigenous Peoples who make the geography now known as Canada home of course, but referencing the "faded" pre-historic Indigenous societies does more to excuse the land grab and genocide by Europeans than it does to educate anyone about "Canada". The sentence just isn't needed and we should just drop it wholesale. This is supposed to be about the history of Canada not the archaeology of the land, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.105.83 ( talk) 16:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay well if the archeological record has to be referenced what about: →"There is a long archeological record of Indigenous Peoples living with the land and waters that would eventually become “Canada”."
Yeah I agree that "Some of these cultures had collapsed by the time of European colonization and have been discovered through archeological investigations. However, there continued to be thriving Indigenous societies when Europeans first began to arrive in North America" is better, however, it still doesn't say that on the page.
More broadly, there's so much on this page that hides more than it illuminates.
I teach international students at a Canadian university and some of these students came to class this week so outraged and so angry that this country that they chose to immigrate to -- and in some cases chose to raise their children in -- has successfully hidden so much of its true history from them. Canadian history is so often obscured or hidden behind benign or "neutral" language that continues to protect colonizing forces. My students are angry that even when they tried to learn about the history of this country before immigrating here, (they're now realizing that) they were shown a fantasy. Where they learned about Indigenous Peoples at all, they encountered the often repeated fantasy of European explorers "discovering" these lands, and of Indigenous Peoples "making room" for colonizers and their "superior" technologies, or worse yet that Indigenous Peoples are merely a footnote in an archeological record. They're angry that the true history of this country is hidden and is shaped by people who continue to benefit from the dispossession of Indigenous Communities from these lands and waters and continue to deny the existence of thriving Indigenous communities here.
I came to this page to see what my students had been reading. I came to this page and decided to make a small edit last night to try to improve what I found. And while I do appreciate the help of some of you to actually improve the page, this process has been confusing and there are high barriers to entry in actually making the changes that need to be made. This page is still riddled with problems and I want to help make corrections. I want my students and others like them to be able to go to a source like Wikipedia and be able to learn the true history of Canada. If any one Wikipedia entry is going to tell the history of Canada, the archeological record is not where we should start. We can start with 1867 but no introduction to Canada is complete without a mention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report release in 2008. Whatever Canada wants to be (or whatever Canadians want others to think it is), we are a country undergoing reconciliation processes; we are a country with a pending reckoning that SHOULD change the way the world sees us. A Wikipedia entry is a strange place to have this reckoning, but after my conversations with students this week, I realize it might be the right place.
Whether you think it is advocacy or whatever, that first paragraph is badly written. It is trying to say that indigenous peoples have been here for millennia before European colonization, and the settling of Canada, but reads as though the indigenous peoples were gone by then. There were many people present in North America by the time Cabot arrived. As for the oldest groups, the paragraph should also should say something like 'including ancient cultures no longer present.' Alaney2k ( talk) 23:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
"Time to seek more input"? Okay, how? Who is supposedly the arbiter of the history of Canada? This is such a funny little world you've built for yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.105.83 ( talk) 22:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
As I'm typing this, the article contains the sentence "France ceded nearly all its North American possessions to the United Kingdom in 1763 at the Treaty of Paris after the Seven Years' War". I don't think that's correct. I think France ceded these lands to GREAT BRITAIN in 1763. My belief is that the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland) didn't exist until the early 1800s. 2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 ( talk) 19:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson