This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I remember reading in Thomas King's book A Native Narrative, published as part of the Massey Lectures series, that the definition of a status Indian was such that over time, over a few generations, no one would qualify under the definition. Does anyone know more about this? - Tubby
Yes - when status Indians have children with non-Indians, those children can only pass on Indian status if they have children with an Indian. If they have children with a non-Indian, those children will not be eligible for Indian status. As Status Indian marry or have children with non-Indians, their eligibility for status is "diluted". Over time (100 years or so) this will lead to a decline in the Indian population.
Todd Colson my uncle gorge came colson Todd colson ( talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Everything added in
this SIX YEAR OLD EDIT is, a) still in the article, and b) POV garbage. Nobody in Canada has a "right to bear arms", let alone are there degrees of such a "right"; in reality, there are accommodations in the law for indigenous people who can't read English or French, for those who don't personally own a firearm, and for children under 12 years of age engaged in traditional hunting with their families. "Extended hunting season" is similarly flawed and incorrect.
The fact that this editor deigned to use well-trod far-right dog whistles like "freedom", "taxes" and "government interference" in ignorant, incorrect and inflammatory ways seems to show that they were trying to elicit a certain kind of reaction from readers, perhaps in furtherance of a political agenda. If another editor could rewrite the lede less, er, let's say mendaciously, that would be great. Thanks.
Suggested resources:
2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7414:3905:BE68:16E5 ( talk) 01:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I remember reading in Thomas King's book A Native Narrative, published as part of the Massey Lectures series, that the definition of a status Indian was such that over time, over a few generations, no one would qualify under the definition. Does anyone know more about this? - Tubby
Yes - when status Indians have children with non-Indians, those children can only pass on Indian status if they have children with an Indian. If they have children with a non-Indian, those children will not be eligible for Indian status. As Status Indian marry or have children with non-Indians, their eligibility for status is "diluted". Over time (100 years or so) this will lead to a decline in the Indian population.
Todd Colson my uncle gorge came colson Todd colson ( talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Everything added in
this SIX YEAR OLD EDIT is, a) still in the article, and b) POV garbage. Nobody in Canada has a "right to bear arms", let alone are there degrees of such a "right"; in reality, there are accommodations in the law for indigenous people who can't read English or French, for those who don't personally own a firearm, and for children under 12 years of age engaged in traditional hunting with their families. "Extended hunting season" is similarly flawed and incorrect.
The fact that this editor deigned to use well-trod far-right dog whistles like "freedom", "taxes" and "government interference" in ignorant, incorrect and inflammatory ways seems to show that they were trying to elicit a certain kind of reaction from readers, perhaps in furtherance of a political agenda. If another editor could rewrite the lede less, er, let's say mendaciously, that would be great. Thanks.
Suggested resources:
2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7414:3905:BE68:16E5 ( talk) 01:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)