From: The Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples/Aboriginals: Introduction/J.r. Miller
Much of the language used in relation to aboriginal peoples is as likely to obscure as to clarify what and whom is under discussion. For a long time, most of these peoples were known as Indians or Eskimos, even though the former term was a misnomer and the latter an epithet used by opponents. “Indian” was adopted because Columbus thought that he had reached south Asia; “Eskimo” derived from an Algonquian description of a northern enemy who were dismissed as “eaters of raw meat.” Currently, the latter are usually referred to by the term they use themselves, Inuit (singular Inuk), which means “the people.” Further confusion is found in the terminology for people of mixed aboriginal and European ancestry. Originally, “Metis” and “halfbreed” were used to distinguish between those of French or British and native background, but “halfbreed” is now considered offensive and unacceptable. More common in academic circles is the use of “country-born” to describe those whose parentage was Scottish or English and native. In this entry, as in Olive P. Dickason essay that follows, the word “Metis” refers to both francophone and anglophone mixed-blood populations.
Selecting appropriate nomenclature for those previously known as “Indians” is also difficult. For some time, the federal government has preferred to refer to them as aboriginal peoples, but the explicit definition of aboriginal peoples in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes status Indians (those recognized as Indian under various pieces of federal legislation), nonstatus Indians, Metis, and Inuit. On the whole, “First Nations” (as in the Assembly of First Nations) is the preferred form for peoples who used to be described as status Indians, this stylization serving to distinguish them from mixed-blood communities. Whatever term one uses, there will almost certainly be someone who takes exception to it. In this entry, the terms aboriginal peoples, indigenous peoples, and natives are inclusive of Indians, Metis, and, depending on context, Inuit. Where possible, more specific terminology is employed to minimize confusion.
More specific terminology for aboriginal peoples is of two types: ethnic group or nation, and linguistic grouping or family. This entry organizes the subject matter along linguistic lines, the approach long taken by anthropologists. Accordingly, what follows will deal with the Algonquian (subdivided into Eastern Woodlands, Subarctic, and Plains), Iroquoian, Siouan, Ktunaxa (Kutenai), Salish, Wakashan, Tsimshian, and Na-Dene linguistic families, along with the Inuit and Metis. In reality, most of these groupings contain within them many collectivities that are often regarded – and frequently see themselves – as distinctive nations. Patrick Moore points out that the Na Dene linguistic family includes at least forty Athabaskan or Dene languages. Similarly, the Algonquian linguistic family embraces the Maliseet, Cree, and Blackfoot; the Iroquoian encompasses the Iroquois Confederacy, the Huron (Wendat), and the Neutral; the Wakashan includes the Nootka or Nuu-chah-nulth and Kwagiulth; and the Na-Dene consists of the Haida, Tlingit, Tagish, Tutchone, Carrier, Chilcotin, and more. Although to some degree these linguistic groupings are artificial constructs crafted by academic researchers, they nonetheless reflect actual language patterns and often comprise peoples with similar economies and social organizations. The more specific terms of the particular groups, such as Ojibwa or Metis, are used in this entry to provide as much precision as possible without rendering the overall portrait incomprehensible because of its immense detail.
