Alberta , what's in a name?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

crazyheart

Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
What's in a name? Plenty for Alberta First Nations seeking heritage recognition

The Canadian Press
John Cotter
November 13, 2017
4:02 AM EST

Last Updated
November 13, 2017
11:52 AM EST





If a group of First Nations get their wish, Calgary will be renamed Wichispa Oyade — Stoney Nakoda terms that roughly translate to mean elbow town.

The Stoney Nakoda have applied to have a long list of well-known places across southern Alberta changed to reflect traditional names given by their people.

Their application letter to the Alberta government also includes Canmore, the Bow River, Mount Allan and dozens of other sites that they consider to be part of their territory.

“The Stoney Nakoda people are the original occupants of the land and place names should be changed to their traditional Stoney Nakoda names in order to allow the culture and history of these lands to become more known and respected,” reads the letter.

The First Nations argue that the English or Cree names many of these places have fail to reflect their specific Indigenous history.

“This lack of recognition contributes to an increasing threat that Stoney Nakoda heritage will be overrun.”

The Stoney Nations, descendants of the Sioux, include three bands with the largest reserve located west of Calgary.

They have been suing the province and the federal government over their aboriginal and treaty rights, including land and resources, in a complex case that was originally filed in 2003.

The claim covers a big part of southern Alberta and the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains.

Douglas Rae, a lawyer for the First Nations, said the name change application is not part of the lawsuit, but an attempt by the bands to prove their ties to the land.

“The Stoneys are asserting their rights, and good evidence of these claims is to formally ask for recognition of the Stoney Nakoda names,” Rae said.

Some of the proposed name changes are fairly literal translations.

Elder Wallace Ear said the word for Bow River is Ijathibe Wapta, a place where people made bows out of saskatoon saplings.

They are also suggesting Mini Thni Wapta as an alternative, which means cold river, a description that won’t surprise anyone who has ever tipped a canoe in the Bow.

The proposal for Canmore — Chuwapchipchiyan Kude Bi — has no direct connection to its existing moniker. The town was named Canmore in the 1880s by a railway official after an ancient king of Scotland.

Elder Frank Powderface said the Stoney name reflects a hunter who fooled himself by shooting at what he thought was a wolf in the willows, but there was no animal, only willows.

Alberta’s Geographical Names Program has never before dealt with such an extensive list of requested changes.

Ron Kelland, program co-ordinator, said the application will be evaluated in a process that will include public consultations. Researchers will look at old maps and historical documents.

“We are in the early stages of looking at it and we are very much looking forward to engaging the Stoney Nakoda on these names,” he said.

Final decisions on naming natural geographical features are made by the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation and the government.

Changing community names is up to the province, but requests that involve First Nations must be presented to Ottawa.

Kelland said it’s possible for a natural location to have both an official and a traditional name.

In 1984, the province changed the name of Mount Laurie west of Calgary to also include its Stoney Nakoda traditional name Iyamnathka, which means flat-surfaced rock or mountain.










 
Last edited:
I am interested to know why we have to change names of cities, roads, buildings etc.

Changing names does not change history. There must be a better way.

What are your thoughts?
 
I am interested to know why we have to change names of cities, roads, buildings etc.

Changing names does not change history. There must be a better way.

What are your thoughts?

Just to prove that untraditional, is traditionally changing ... a parallel to death and taxes ... in death ... life has alternate meaning ... taxes they extend and expand! Yet the po' they are always there ... some idealist stated that some time ago ...

One may have to figure out the redacted metaphors ... they shift with time ... we don't know why ...
 
I am interested to know why we have to change names of cities, roads, buildings etc.

Changing names does not change history. There must be a better way.

What are your thoughts?
I think in many cases, it's not going to happen. Changing the name of the Edmonton Eskimos might occur (although I hope they don't become the green golds), I would be really surprised if Calgary's name is changed. An additional name being tacked on might happen, but I don't really see that making a difference, as few will use it.
 
It won't happen if the new name is hard to remember or pronounce. An installation near here had the name changed officially many years ago. Lots of people still use the old name, but less every year.
 
I'm not in favour of changing names, unless there are good reasons for that. Besides, linguistically speaking, if we were to change the name of Calgary, it should be changed to "Elbowtown", because all these native people speak English as their mother tongue, unfortunately.

What can be done? I don't know for sure, but I don't think that two wrongs make it a right anyway. The "white man" (which may be of African or Asian origin by the way) bulldozed the first occupants, so I think what needs to be done is to look deeply into traditional native cultures and integrate good elements in mainstream culture. For example :
  • Language: Easier to do in some parts of the country than in others, but at least the living languages like Cree, Inuktituk and Attikameck (sp) should be taught in school and made as official languages of the provinces where they are present, and maybe for the entire country.
    Not sure about other "almost dead" languages like Mohawk or Wendake which have no speaker using it as their mother tongue and very few people knowing any vocabulary at all.

  • Society management: Things like common properties, crisis management (talk circles and the like), etc.
    These are concepts that should not apply to "indian reserves", but to the entire country.

  • Once we decide – we being first and foremost the First Nations – how we want to live in this country, compensation measures (financial, educational, etc.) to put everyone on the same status. Right now we spend less on children education in reserves than in the rest of the country. We probably need to spend even more in reserves to give the same chances to all Canadians.

  • Rewrite history. But only a bit. It is true, for example, that the British won over the French in Québec City in 1759. But it is biased to say that "reason prevailed" or that "civilization landed" with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. We generally don't say that nowadays (it used to be said in some Ontario school books a century ago); yet, I have seen phrases like that regarding our relationships with the Natives. Native children in school should learn that they have lost wars, but not that they have lost all their pride! And they should learn that they will shape the 21st century.
So I am not attached to symbols, mostly because it's a way to get rid of the appearance of a problem rather than solve the issues. But a true solution is much more than symbolism.
 
I'm not in favour of changing names, unless there are good reasons for that. Besides, linguistically speaking, if we were to change the name of Calgary, it should be changed to "Elbowtown", because all these native people speak English as their mother tongue, unfortunately.

What can be done? I don't know for sure, but I don't think that two wrongs make it a right anyway. The "white man" (which may be of African or Asian origin by the way) bulldozed the first occupants, so I think what needs to be done is to look deeply into traditional native cultures and integrate good elements in mainstream culture. For example :
  • Language: Easier to do in some parts of the country than in others, but at least the living languages like Cree, Inuktituk and Attikameck (sp) should be taught in school and made as official languages of the provinces where they are present, and maybe for the entire country.
    Not sure about other "almost dead" languages like Mohawk or Wendake which have no speaker using it as their mother tongue and very few people knowing any vocabulary at all.

  • Society management: Things like common properties, crisis management (talk circles and the like), etc.
    These are concepts that should not apply to "indian reserves", but to the entire country.

  • Once we decide – we being first and foremost the First Nations – how we want to live in this country, compensation measures (financial, educational, etc.) to put everyone on the same status. Right now we spend less on children education in reserves than in the rest of the country. We probably need to spend even more in reserves to give the same chances to all Canadians.

  • Rewrite history. But only a bit. It is true, for example, that the British won over the French in Québec City in 1759. But it is biased to say that "reason prevailed" or that "civilization landed" with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. We generally don't say that nowadays (it used to be said in some Ontario school books a century ago); yet, I have seen phrases like that regarding our relationships with the Natives. Native children in school should learn that they have lost wars, but not that they have lost all their pride! And they should learn that they will shape the 21st century.
So I am not attached to symbols, mostly because it's a way to get rid of the appearance of a problem rather than solve the issues. But a true solution is much more than symbolism.

What is the meaning of 'I'? Can something be attached like a Shakespearean shift ... a mon in long robes ...
 
Back
Top