Talk:History of Canada

Reference to early Indigenous peoples in lead paragraph

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:

Some of these older civilizations had long faded by the time of the first European arrivals and have been discovered through archeological investigations.

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)

Just noticed that the edits are coming from two different IP addresses, so it may be more than one person raising this issue. Whether one or two, still an important point.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Both IPs are from Vancouver so I doubt it. Anyway, we can hash out the wording here per WP:BRD. You raise some good points. I just had issue with the blanket removal of some relevant links and calling it 'racist' will not get one's point across (IP). I think the main issue the IP had was the word "faded". The body has quite a lot of info on archeology of indigenous populations so I think a short lead sentence is still warranted. Maybe we can consider: "Older civilizations that predate the time of the first European arrivals have been discovered through archeological investigations." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:26, 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)

Hi 50.64.105.83 - really appreciate you participating in this discussion here instead of edit warring further! You were editing something in the WP:LEAD of an article. This is the area where the information from the body of the article is summarized. As you can see, there is a whole section, and a long one for that matter, on "indigenous societies". The history of these societies is indeed part of the history of Canada, which includes the archeology of such land. Since this info is discussed at length in the body, the lead should also have a sentence summarizing this info. Did you read my proposed rewording above with "faded" removed? You can further try to reword it and post it here for consideration. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:10, 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”."

I see that the lead has been edited using the language from the Canada article. In still leaves the impression that Indigenous cultures had dropped away by the time of the Europeans arrivals. It uses "some", but it should also emphasise that there were still thriving Indigenous societies at the time the Europeans arrived. Otherwise, it leaves the impression that the Indigenous peoples were already in decline, supporting the terra nullius argument. How about adding another sentence, so that the first paragraph ends with

"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."

I think that gives a more accurate picture overall. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And yes, thanks for coming to the Talk page, 50.64.105.83. Wikipedia is all about discussions to continually make the articles better, so your insights are valuable and I appreciate you raising this issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

It may well be. The goal of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is to develop as accurate an on-line encyclopedia as possible, based on principles such as reliable sources. Please consider opening an account and becoming a regular contributor. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't agree to change.....or blanking. Time to seek more input. Statement is clearly covered in the article by section after section. Wikipedia not the place for advocacy work. Asking for page protection.Moxy- 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Not going to let anyone blank the history of long gone cultures. What would be best to say ...lets steer clear of an reckoning wording. In the mean time have restored longstanding wording there for years ..SEE HERE--Moxy- 00:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That restoration is an improvement. Alaney2k (talk) 03:04, 4 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)

United Kingdom? Or Great Britain?

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

You are right, thanks for the heads up! I've made the necessary changes, but if you spot any additional errors, feel free to WP:BEBOLD and make the edit! Leventio (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)