You can call me Al or you can call me...

Page 19

MEDIUM RARE

The other day, I caught the tail-end of an interview on CBC Radio. The host of The Current, Anna Maria Tremonti, was interviewing someone about a study on Aboriginal health or maybe urban reserves. The subject was riveting. The interview was superb (Tremonti is a fantastic interviewer), but something grated. That's why the details of the interview slid into oblivion, at least for me.

The person interviewed used the term "Aboriginals." It probably wouldn't bother most people, but for me it's like the sound of finger nails dragged slowly across a blackboard.

Besides, the subject was clearly about status Indians. It wasn't about Metis or Inuit. This person, perhaps out of habit, perhaps out of ignorance, used the all-encompassing term that includes all three groups when he or she really meant only one.

Then there are people who say "our Aboriginals" or "our Natives;" as in, "we treat our Natives better than they do." I can't help it. My sphincter muscles tighten the instant I hear those possessive phrases. I know other people feel the same because I've heard them mutter, "I ain't nobody's Native." I won't begin to describe what happens when people shorten "Aboriginals" to "Abos."

What's wrong with these terms? I think it can be just as insulting as words like "nigger." You'd never find any journalist writing or talking about "our blacks" or "our gays." Yet, pick up almost any newspaper or listen to most newscasts and you'll find "Natives;" as in, "our Natives are restless again."

A friend heard someone call me as a "Native." She asked why I didn't do serious physical harm to that person. You see, to her, "Native" is an insult. The word carries serious negative connotations that stretch back to the days of colonial Africa. In fact, most Indigenous peoples around the world consider "Native" a pejorative term.

However, a search of online newspapers in Canada results in hundreds of references to this keyword. The Globe and Mail site has 61 references to "Native;" mostly in sports as in "native-born" or "Winnipeg native" and most have nothing to do with Aboriginal peoples.

Canada.com, the Web site for CanWest Global News, turns up 106 references, including one that can't seem to make up its mind about which words to use.

"N.B. to discuss logging with Aboriginals: New Brunswick's government is planning to meet with Native leaders to discuss the regulation of wood harvesting. A court recently upheld the treaty right of Natives to harvest trees on Crown land."

As is, the story is vague and confusing. It takes place in New Brunswick so the story is likely about Mi'kmaq or Maliseet treaty rights. Shouldn't that be specified? Does the story include Metis or Inuit, Ojibway or Haisla? No. By not providing national or tribal affiliation, the story leaves out context because it deals with specific treaty rights for a certain group or nation.

So why do so many reporters and editors misuse terms like "Aboriginals" or "Natives?" Don't they care about accuracy? Don't they even read their own style guides? What do these style guides advise anyway?

Here's what the style guide of the Montreal Gazette says about "Aboriginals?" It's one of the few newspapers that even publishes an online style guide.

aboriginal. Use aboriginals (not natives) when an all-encompassing collective term is needed. Use Indian when a collective term is needed for status and non-status Indians.

Use the more informative nation, band or tribal designation (Haida, Mohawk, Cree) when referring to a specific group. Use Inuit (never Eskimo) for northern aboriginals in Canada.

In Canada, there are four categories of aboriginal or semiaboriginal peoples: Inuit, status (or reserve) Indians, nonstatus Indians (living outside reserves) and Metis (people of mixed white and aboriginal origin)... "Native people" is the generally accepted term in Canada for the collective. "Indian" is still the only practical and accepted term to distinguish Indiansfrom other native peoples.

"Aboriginal peoples" is preferred by many in the community but this term technically excludes Metis.

Well, that didn't help. "Semiaboriginal?" Is that even a word? Use "Aboriginals." Don't use "Natives." Use "Native peoples" instead. Worse than the contradictory advice it provides, it's also dead wrong when it says the umbrella phrase "Aboriginal peoples" doesn't include Metis.

At least they got a couple of things right. Be specific. Avoid generic terms. If the person, the community or the nation is Ojibway, Mohawk or Mi'kmaq, use it. These are perfectly good words and much more descriptive. Why on earth refer to anybody as "Aboriginals" or "Natives?" Even when describing a mass of people from various parts of the country, why not use "Aboriginal peoples" instead of just plain "Aboriginals." It's just one more word and a lot more respectful.

Note that the Gazette doesn't bother with terms like "First Nation" or "First Nations person." Is there a more clunky, clumsy or bizarre way for anybody to describe themselves? Call me Mohawk. If you need to, call me an "Aboriginal person." But, please, don't ever call me a "First Nations person."

Now take a look at what the Native American Journalists Association does on this one, with a slightly American bent.

American Indian: Synonymous with "Native American." Some indigenous people in the United States prefer "American Indian" over "Native American." Best to ask individual preference. When possible, use national affiliation such as Navajo, Hopi, Cherokee. Use "native-born" to describe someone who is born in the United States, but isn't American Indian.

This explanation is short and simple. No convoluted, contradictory information. Would it be so hard for Canadian journalists, including Aboriginal journalists, to agree upon and follow similar guidelines on terminology in this country? Wouldn't the news be a much less confusing place?