(This is the [slightly modified] second chapter of Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis & Inuit Issues In Canada. With blessings from my publisher, Portage & Main Press, I have chosen to republish it here in full, because I am finding myself being drawn into debates around the term “settler”, and I think that it’s both a distraction and a bit of a waste of time, given that I’ve explored it in the book. So here you go, I hope it explains some things, and maybe saves you some labour!)
Indigenous Writes is very much about relationships – historical, contemporary, and future relationships. Unfortunately, the historical and contemporary relationships between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada have, at times, been very strained. In order to form healthier and more positive relationships into the future, there needs to be dialogue between all peoples living on these lands.
Dialogue requires terminology we can use to name one another, so we can recognize how certain events impacted/impact us differently, as well as what we have in common as diverse peoples. The book chapter before this was all about the multitude of terms and names that are used to speak about Indigenous peoples. Those terms shift and change over time, and will continue to do so, but it seems obvious having a vocabulary we can use is absolutely necessary if we wish to have a discussion about Indigenous issues.
There are terms to choose from when speaking of the wide range of non-European peoples who have immigrated to Canada over successive generations; terms that have official status, as well as terms preferred by these communities themselves. Terms related to identity among non-European populations have shifted and changed with time and also require checking to find out which terms are acceptable right now. [1]
There are really no sanctioned and widely accepted terms with which to refer to “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority” in a generalized sense comparable to the term Indigenous peoples or any of the generalized labels for other non-Indigenous peoples. In great part, this is due to the fact that the majority tends to have the power to sanction and widely accept terms, and does not really have much cause to refer to itself.
When I cast about for a term to use to refer to “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority,” I do so because it makes no sense to ignore the fact that these peoples exist. Naming these peoples is just as important as naming Indigenous peoples if we are going to talk about how the past informs the present.
Can you sense my hesitancy here to pick a name? Perhaps this will help to clarify why that hesitation exists; take a gander at some of the terms that do get used to name “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority”:
- white
- non-Native, non-Aboriginal, non-Indigenous
- European
- settler, settler colonials
First off, there aren’t many terms to choose from, and the second bullet lists terms that are based entirely on a “not-this” dichotomy, which almost always rubs people the wrong way as they are inherently exclusionary.
It is fairly easy to come up with reasons why all of these terms fail to be properly descriptive. I once had someone explain it to me like this: she said, “When I try to find a word to refer to you with, I’m just naming you. When you call me white, or a non-Native settler, you’re blaming me for something I didn’t do. Right away we’re at odds.”
I get that. I really do. However, I’m not actually trying to put us at odds, and using a term is not inherently about blame. What I’m trying to do is talk about us in a wider context than the first person and second person singular. We all need terms to use, or we cannot have a discussion. Terms are what I’m looking for, not offensive labels.
Unfortunately, when I ask for terms preferred by “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority,” I almost always receive names that blend these peoples in with everyone else. Now, that is perfectly fine in many situations, but when specificity is required, it is unhelpful.
For example, I’ve been asked to just say “Canadian,” but Canadian is a category of citizenship and is so general as to be useless when we’re trying to understand the history of this country. Canadian as a national identity did not exist until hundreds of years after contact. While this term works for contemporary discussions of all non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada, it does not help us discuss the particular situation of those who are descended from the original European settlers here. [2] While some people do argue that people living today have no connection to those first Europeans in the 15th and 16th centuries, we cannot escape our history so easily. The social and political systems that currently exist in Canada are a direct result of the European-based cultures that first arrived in the Americas all those centuries ago.
Some people do prefer non-Native, non-Aboriginal, or non-Indigenous, but again these terms include everyone who is not-us. This can be useful when centring the conversation on Indigenous peoples, and these terms will show up at times throughout this book. However, sometimes we need to talk about our history and our present in ways that highlight how the differences between the many groups of peoples living in Canada have actual impacts on our lives. I mean, really, having that discussion is the whole reason I’ve written this book. I want to find some common ground, but not by pretending our differences are irrelevant.
For the most part, when I do need to refer specifically to “the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority,” I use the term settler. I feel it is the most accurate relational term.
The history of the category of “white” is a powerful and complex one, and although it is still very much officially recognized, it seems to invite more argument than any other term. [3] I do not in any way agree that white is a pejorative term or that it can be equated with racist terms for other groups because, frankly, there is no history of systemic oppression that has been enforced against people included in the category of white in Canadian history. However, once again I am trying to highlight a relationship, and “settler” does a lot of that work. This is not an attempt to avoid naming whiteness as a system of power and privilege; I do that often, and will continue to do so.
I pointed out that settler is a relational term, rather than a racial category, which is another way in which it is more useful. Since I have chosen this term, I suppose I do need to explain what it means, or at least what I am using it to mean. It is a shortened version of settler colonials. Settler colonialism is a concept that has recently begun to be explored in-depth, and it essentially refers to the deliberate physical occupation of land as a method of asserting ownership over land and resources. [4] [5] The original settlers were of various European origins, and they brought with them their laws and customs, which they then applied to Indigenous peoples and later to all peoples who have come to Canada from non-settler backgrounds. This does not refer only to those European people with sociopolitical power, but also to those of lower classes who settled here to seek economic opportunity.
The term settler has also been used to refer to people who continue to move to Canada and settle here. This is often done to highlight the fact that settlement, as a facet of colonialism, continues. In that way, it is a useful term, but it also obscures the way in which colonialism outside of Canada has created conditions that have given many peoples little choice but to seek homes elsewhere – including in Canada. Like European-descended peoples of the lower classes, who were more pawns than power-brokers in the early years of colonization in Canada and the United States, non-European peoples displaced by colonization in their own lands are folded into the settlement process when they arrive here – even as they are often denied equal social privileges. However, non-European migrants do not have the power to bring with them their laws and customs, which they then apply to the rest of the peoples living in Canada – no matter what some alarmists like to claim. The dominant sociopolitical structures in place remain European in origin and, as Indigenous peoples are well aware, they are not so easy to change.
While a strong argument can be made that non-European-descended peoples who come to live in Canada are also settlers, I am going to eschew the term here in favour of non-Black people of colour. This term will not be completely satisfactory either, because some non-European peoples are also able to access whiteness, but it is a heck of a lot better than the term newcomers, which completely erases the history of communities that have existed in Canada for hundreds of years.
I want to be very clear that the term settler does not, and can never, refer to the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and sold into chattel slavery. [6] Black people, removed and cut off from their own Indigenous lands – literally stripped of their humanity and redefined legally as property – could not be agents of settlement. The fact that slavery has been abolished does not change this history. Although Black people are not all Indigenous to the Americas (because some are!), the Americas are home to all the descendants of enslaved African peoples. [7]
We are left with three broad, unsatisfactory, but possibly usable categories: settlers (the non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada who form the European-descended sociopolitical majority), non-Black persons of colour (hereafter, non-Black POC), and Black people. These categories will be used when necessary to point out the different ways in which peoples experience power and/or oppression in Canada. When I am referring to all peoples who are non-Indigenous to the Americas, of any background living in these lands today, I will use the term Canadians. However, the fact that Indigenous Writes focuses most of its attention on colonial structures of power means we don’t get to explore Indigenous/Black/non-Black POC relationships in great detail.
If this is boring the pants off you and you’re reading this in public, please put them back on, and be comforted by the fact that this conversation is going to get more interesting soon. I promise. I just want to make one more point before moving on to more excellent discussions.
Frank Wilderson III points out that it is too simplistic to think of oppression in binaries: settler versus Indigenous, settler versus Black, or settler versus everyone else. [8] The complexities involved become more obvious when one considers that Indigenous is not really a racial category; there are many mixed-race Indians.
These oppressions can overlap, and this is important to understand in the context of settler colonialism. Just as it is true that Indigenous peoples can participate in anti-Black racism, and reinforce oppressive structures based on that racism, it is also true that other non-Indigenous peoples can buy into and reinforce settler colonialism by supporting the occupation of land and exploitation of resources as a method to achieving greater civil and social equality. Reinforcing anti- Black racism or settler colonialism does not undo the marginalization faced in other aspects of life, but the complexity of the relationships between all peoples living here is something we cannot lose sight of.
The point is it’s messy, complicated, and I’m not going to solve it in this chapter; all I want is to highlight the fact that just as terms are needed to refer to Indigenous peoples, terms are also needed to refer to settlers. I’m not trying to be a jerk here; I just can’t keep using really long descriptive sentences to dance around calling people “settlers.” I do have a lot to say about power, names, and who gets to decide who is called what, but to be honest, even I’m bored at this point. The only reason I brought up this unsatisfying conversation was to reiterate what I said in the Introduction of Indigenous Writes: I am not trying to be deliberately provocative, and I mean no disrespect when I use the term settler. I cannot prove this to be true, so it has to be taken on faith, and read in that light. I mean honestly, I could call you a chair, and mean it disrespectfully and have you know it, so the term itself is not inherently bad.
I decided I wanted to round this section out with something much more interesting: terms Indigenous peoples have in their own languages for non-Indigenous peoples! I’ll say it over and over but any mistakes, any misunderstandings are all mine! If folks want to correct me in the comments, add terms etc, that would be awesome.
Not all Indigenous peoples have names for Black and non-Black POC. It seems to depend on how much contact there was between these groups before serious language decline began. Some of the names that do exist replicate 19th-century racial essentialism, referring to skin colour (such as the Cree word kaskitêwiyâs or the Lakota term hásapa, both of which mean “black flesh/skin”). In Otoe, the word for Black person is wą’shithewe, which literally translates as “black person.” [9] In Hupa, the term is mining’-łiwhin, which means “black faces.”
In the eastern Arctic, Inuit describe Black people as “portagee” or “portugee,” which one linguist believes is a variation of Portuguese, so used because of contact between Inuit and whalers from Cape Verde. [10] Other names are more traditionally descriptive, referring to observed characteristics. Where I am from in Alberta, a Chinese person is called “sêkipatwâw,” which means “s/he has braids.” This gives you a fairly good idea of when this name began to be applied to describe the appearance of early male Chinese migrants. [11] Another name is apihkês, which actually means “spider.” I have been told this refers to weaving skill. Southeast Asians are sometimes referred to as “nêhiyahkân,” which means “Cree-like” or “almost Cree.”
Indigenous languages, like all living languages, are capable of growth and change. Radmilla Cody is Black and Indigenous, and a former Miss Navajo Nation winner. [12] The Diné (Navajo) word for a Black person is Nakai ?izhinii, which like previous terms listed here, basically just translates to “black.” Radmilla has often discussed how this name was used to tease her when she was growing up. [13] She sought out a fluent speaker to find a name for Black people that would be more respectful. That speaker used the word Naahilii/Nahilii, and its meaning is broken down like this: “Na(a) – Those who have come across; hil – dark, calm, have overcome, persevered, and we have come to like; ii – oneness.” [14]
Some might question why another word is needed, if one already exists. As Jihan Gearon puts it: [15]
In contrast, every Indigenous person has a name, and sometimes a few different names, for settlers. After all, contact with European-descended peoples is something we have all experienced. These names tend to be descriptive of some trait or characteristic witnessed by Indigenous peoples back around contact. Sometimes, people can’t really remember the actual etymology of the word, or have created a folk etymology that makes sense now and is widely understood as its origin, but may not be. Sometimes, an already existing word from a language used by Europeans has been Creecized or Anishinaabecized.
Years ago I did a roundup on Twitter asking for Indigenous names for settlers. Many of these words I had heard before, but hadn’t heard all their understood meanings before. Any misunderstanding of what was shared with me is my own; I apologize if I have made any mistakes with spelling or translation. I obviously do not speak all of these languages, and this is all anecdotal.
I’ll start with one of my traditional languages, which is Plains Cree (nêhiyawêwin). On the Plains, we often call settlers “môniyaw.” The origin of this term is hotly contested. Some believe it is a Creecization of the French pronunciation of Montreal, where so many Europeans were travelling from. Others believe it is a way of saying “not me” or “not Cree” in our language. These are not the only theories. I am not going to pretend to have the authority to claim any theory above another.
The Cree on the Plains also use the word wêmistikosiw to refer to French people specifically, and it describes the big wooden boats they came on. The Cree farther east often use this term for all settlers – French or not.
Where I’m from, people from the United States are generally called “kihcimôhkomân,” which means “great knives” and refers to the sabres that soldiers used to wear. It probably would have been a name for the British originally, and some Cree might still use it that way.
Our cousins, the Anishinaabe, have a language very related to Cree and have words similar to the ones above. One of the most common terms I’ve seen them use though is Zhaaganaash. It has been explained to me that this word refers to people of dubious character, while another explanation I’ve seen is that it has the same root as an Anishinaabemowin word meaning “to put something outside”; so it means “outsider,” without any negative shading. I’ve seen many other explorations of this term, but I’ll let the Anishinaabe tell you about it!
Interestingly enough, some Cree people use the word sâkênâs, which, despite the different spelling, sounds very similar to Zhaaganaash when spoken. It also does not have the nicest connotation. A number of times I have heard people say that this word originally comes from sassenach in Gaelic (possibly Scottish Gaelic brought over by Orcadians). It is said that this word may have been a name for the Saxon, and was later applied to the English, developing an unsavoury connotation.
Jumping to the West Coast, I was told the Nl’kapamux, who are part of the Interior Salish, say “sheme,” which is the colour of a drowned person. The Halq’eméylem (Stó:lō) say “xwelitem,” which means “hungry people,” while the Sechelt use a similar word, xwa’lat’en, to refer to White people. Again, I cannot be sure of the true etymology of these words, only what people believe them to mean.
I was told that among the Inuit of Ikaluktutiak (Cambridge Bay) kapluunak or kabloonak is used to mean “bushy eyebrows,” but I am very uncertain of the correct spelling. In Nunavut and Nunavik (northern Quebec), the word qallunaat is generally used to refer to non-Inuit. Sheila Watt-Cloutier explains that this term is derived from qallunaq, and that it “describes the bones on which the eyebrows sit, which protrude more on white people than on Inuit.” [16]
In Nimiipuutimpt (Nez Pierce), settlers are called “soyapos,” which was translated to mean “the crowned ones” because of the hats they wore.
The Blackfoot have a cultural hero named “Napi,” and I was told that because he is a bit wild and unpredictable, settlers became known as “napikwan.”
The Lakota called cavalry soldiers “míla hanska,” which means “long knives.” This seems like a pretty common description among Indigenous peoples! Another term is wašicu, often translated as “takes all the fat” or greedy, and has variations of use among the Lakota/Dakota/Nakota.
Of course, this is only a tiny slice of the many terms for Black, non-Black POC, and settlers, both neutral and not-so-neutral, that exist in our languages. If none of the English terms I listed above are suitable to you, I would certainly invite you to find out whose Indigenous territory you live in, in order to identify a word in their language that feels more appropriate. You will learn a lot about the meaning of the words, and how those meanings are wrapped up the history of these lands. I am not an expert on these terms! Do not use what I’ve written here to try to argue with Indigenous people about the meaning of these words!
As well, it is always good to remember our languages are not frozen in time, and new terms can be created.
Although this entire section is focused on terminology, I have no desire to get overly hung up on specific words, because there are much more interesting topics to explore. You can do that by reading Indigenous Writes or some of the other pieces here, or by listening to Indigenous people.
[1] To reiterate what I said in chapter 1, when I use the term non- Indigenous in this book, I mean people who are not Indigenous to what is now called Canada. I think it is incredibly important to recognize that many people currently living in Canada are Indigenous to other areas.
34 Comments
laurajanerinaldi · February 28, 2020 at 7:11 pm
Love your book, which is how I found your blog, and it is good to read again about these words.
Steffen Knippel · February 28, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Love your book, which is how I found your book. When it came out, I bought a bunch and gave them away to people who needed them. It should be required reading.
Steffen Knippel · February 28, 2020 at 7:54 pm
Dammit. Meant “Love your blog…”
Paula Rosenquist · April 29, 2021 at 2:09 pm
Hello Steffen, Just found your comments on this site. I’ll have to read more on this topic. It is a very complicated issue with many different tangents. Education is never ending! Paula Rosenquist
Molly Brown · February 28, 2020 at 8:11 pm
Settler. Brilliant.
SJackson · February 28, 2020 at 9:40 pm
This is really interesting. You can call us what ever you want, of course, but Settler, to me brings visions of covered wagons, long skirts, bonnets and log cabins. Besides, not all “Settlers” especially in this day and age are white. What about “Second Nations?” I am going to read this again, when I am not in a hurry 🙂
Gabrielle Cordella-Chew · February 29, 2020 at 12:06 pm
Love your blog. I didn’t lose my pants at all through this post! Lol. Next, I need to buy and read your book.
Grateful for your work.
David McLaren · February 29, 2020 at 12:15 pm
This calls for a story or two …
When I was working with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) I got a reputation for dealing with the racism that plagued the FN’s assertion of rights and claims. Other FNs would sometimes invite me to talk to them about the ways we worked at SON. Back then “non-Native” was used a lot to refer to anyone not Indigenous. During a presentation at Curve Lake a Black woman strongly objected to my use of that term, saying “I’m not a Native but I’m not a colonialist either.” The response came from the Band members in the room: “OK, pigmentally challenged then.” And “People of Pallor”. And more. It was hilarious.
In another setting I led a small group of local white men in a discussion of First Nations and their rights and claims. It was just us white folk and I invited them to tell me what they really thought. Together we worked trough a lot of crap, straight up and without prejudice or rancour. When we were done, they thanked me. But if I had started off the conversation by saying we were all ‘settlers’, we wouldn’t have got anywhere. “Sorry” they would have said. “We settled long ago and we ain’t goin’ nowhere.”
So now I say ‘Canadians’ (as opposed to First Nations). but I make sure my audience knows that the colonial project started before Canada was a nation and is still going on.
By the way, I like the word shoganosh (in the dialect of Neyaashiinigmiing). My step-father Don Keeshig always said it referred to the hats we Canadians liked to wear, even in the hottest weather.
Regards
David
Lori Pearson · February 29, 2020 at 11:09 pm
Thank you for posting this. I immediately ordered your book and look forward to reading it.
Jared Milne · March 4, 2020 at 7:54 pm
I first read this article in Indigenous Writes and it raised a couple of questions for me that I was hoping you could clear up.
I get the distinction about black people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves from Africa, but what about African immigrants who came here of their own choice? And how could somebody like me tell the difference without asking very personal questions that would be none of my business? And if I were to marry a black woman and start a family with her, would our children be settlers?
I hope these aren’t stupid or loaded questions, and I apologize if they are. They’re just things that reading this article the first time left me wondering about, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on them.
âpihtawikosisân · March 5, 2020 at 3:59 pm
First, folks are way too invested in divesting from the term, everyone wants to split hairs until the categories become meaningless and that’s not the point. As I explain, none of this is cut and dry, and various groups have different access to different sets of privileges that can be weaponized against others, and vice versa. We should be examining this in a relational sense, not trying to find rigid categories.
Why would you need to think up a scenario in which you’d interrogate a Black person about their ancestry to determine their “status” as settler or not? In this article, I don’t use the term settler for non-Black people of colour either, so yes, Black people who have migrated here recently, whose ancestors were not necessarily brought here against their well, are also included as “not-settlers” for the purposes of understanding these relationships.
And no, we’re not going to start applying blood quantum to settlerhood! The point is, there is an obligation on the part of those who are set up to most benefit from ongoing colonialism, to do something about it. To change the relationship. Proximity to whiteness is a huge part of this, but not the only part. We need terms we can use to talk about this, but the terms will never be static or perfect.
Jared Milne · March 5, 2020 at 6:26 pm
Thank you very much for your reply. Once again, I appreciate it-and I should have remembered what you already mentioned not only here but in your “Nationhood is a Verb” article from several years ago. You are, of course, quite right about the terms we need to use to discuss the issue and that we need to get away from the good/bad binary (something I still have problems with). I also realized that I still have hangups about the term ‘settler’, and I need to work on that.
Peyak · July 24, 2020 at 12:19 pm
I don’t like the term “settlers” myself. I think it works to minimize and mask the role encroachment and immigration has in genocide and displacement. You can’t have a viable colonial state withouit masses of compliant bodies, after all.
In my opinion, colonization hasn’t ended and every new immigrant who arrives on indigenous homelands adds to the overall project of genocidal erasure and displacement.
I support BLM and will always support any antiIracism action and decolonization project, yet one cannot help but notice the differential response Canada has for BLM as opposed for indigenous anti-racism and anti-colonial movements.
As such, I was pleasantly shocked to see that kijiji made a statement against racism and expressed solidarity with both black and indigenous communities; that is the direction to go. Solidarity across communities in the common goal of leveling the playing field for everyone (that’s equity).
The only way to mitigate the damage colonization does is to become aware of how one’s existence on ancestral tribal homelands impacts quality of life and genocidal outcomes for indigenous peoples and to take action to minimize one’s colonial footprint by investing politically and socially in reparations and supporting indigenous nation building.
What this looks like is not necessarily more money (though I would love to see FN communities fully funded) but in non-indigenous bodies and voices advocating for racial justice.
FN people have been doing it in various ways since the British and French decided FN were “wasting” the land and didn’t deserve it, but for some reason their voices and efforts keep getting swept under the bus.
Minimizing one’s colonial footprint also includes being honest about colonization (what it is and the indigenous lives it has destroyed and continues to destroy) and colonial identity (how canada and whiteness are both built on notions of white superiority), as well as having the integrity, morality, and courage to name racism (which canada, quite frankly, has been actively fighting to avoid – classic systemic racism and white fragility).
The original plan (from the indigenous perspective at any rate) was miyowihkotowin and wetaskiwin (good relations and living in mutual peace)…..where everyone got what they needed for their people to thrive in a good way.
From the European perspective land has always been about power, wealth, class systems and domination. Warm commoner and peasant bodies have simply been seen as a means to an end in that project.
More recent newcomers come to canada with the expectation of benefiting financially and socially, often with a distorted perspective of what canada is and often being shocked by the profound levels of racism in canada.
Many come with no knowledge of FN and others come with more knowledge than the average white canadian while others come with stereotypes intact.
Any term used to describe non-indigenous newcomers (and ALL non-indigenous people are newcomers compared to the easily 15 thousand plus years indigenous peoples have been around) should be one that takes into account all of these complexities and dynamics……something English can’t do.
P · March 5, 2022 at 6:35 am
So are immigrants the devil then?
âpihtawikosisân · March 8, 2022 at 8:44 pm
Please read Hetereopatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy: https://icadvinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/heteropatriarchy-and-the-three-pillars-of-white-supremacy.pdf
Also refrain from creating ridiculous strawmen and actually engage with these ideas.
Kingohats · May 11, 2021 at 7:12 am
I want to ask for some clarification on the terms you settled on for Non-Indigenous peoples living in Canada.
You say there are three categories, and all European-descended persons fall under “settlers”. You say it refers to those who were able to exert socio-political power in Canada, but also those of lower-classes who couldn’t and settled for economic opportunity. This is then contradicted by the next paragraph where you point out “it also obscures the way in which colonialism outside of Canada has created conditions that have given many peoples little choice but to seek homes elsewhere”, which is very true for Europeans as much as it is true for Non-Europeans. You specifically draw a comparison to Europeans of lower classes being pawns of the system of those in power.
My question is, does Settler get applied to European-descendants because they’re European and the buck stops there, or does it get applied because their ancestry happens to align with those in power and they benefit from the socio-political system of today regardless of the circumstances of their ancestors fleeing Europe (meaning their ancestors may not necessarily be considered Settlers themselves, while the modern-day descendants would)?
âpihtawikosisân · May 11, 2021 at 1:49 pm
Folks want very badly to find bright-line terms they can wiggle out of when it comes to settler colonialism, and this is really problematic. Europeans colonized almost the entire world, and that damage is what I reference when I said “the way in which colonialism outside of Canada has created conditions that have given many peoples little choice but to seek homes elsewhere.” Ongoing neo-colonial efforts by former European empires and their former settler colonies (Canada, the U.S., Australia etc) continue to force people out of their homelands. “Fleeing Europe” to go live in a colony does not make those ancestors not settlers, good lord they are the original settlers in fact in the most literal sense of the word. Europeans’ homelands are not under the control of foreign powers either directly or indirectly, so no. This statement does not apply.
It is possible to be two things at once. Europeans who experienced oppression at the hands of other Europeans can also be oppressors themselves.
NoThanks · October 6, 2021 at 2:26 pm
refugee = settler?
Does my grandparents fleeing two world wars make them settlers?
âpihtawikosisân · October 6, 2021 at 8:49 pm
Yes.
That they were fleeing conditions elsewhere does not change the fact that their relationship to these lands are based on settler colonialism. Individual, even communal privation, does not erase settler colonialism.
P · March 5, 2022 at 6:39 am
And if they were fleeing horrific human rights abuses by white people? What then?
âpihtawikosisân · March 8, 2022 at 8:42 pm
Please read Decolonization is Not A Metaphor, by Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang. Specifically see their section on Colonial Equivocation.
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554
DaughterOfCanada · January 5, 2022 at 5:38 am
In regards to who initially ‘settled’ Canada (as opposed to roamed or had non permanent settlements) it was hundreds of years ago so what you really mean is ‘settler descendants’ and early settlers such as the Acadians inter married so many of those traced back to early ‘settlers’ such as myself have native maternal lines and British or European paternal lines. Calling people ‘settlers’ or ‘colonials’ is derogatory- in England when they hear a Canadian accent they say ‘go back to Canada you *** colonial!’ A modern immigrant is someone who personally moved to Canada from elsewhere, they are not ‘settlers’ as they didn’t ‘settle’ the country in the way ‘settlers’ who first colonized did. Of course, immigrants aren’t a specific race. It sounds like you just want a word for white people who are the descendants of those who colonized. Why? Also when you see a white person and label them as a non-native Canadian, you actually have no idea how much native they have in their family tree, they themselves might not even be aware of it. Maybe we stop over labelling people as it only fragments people and is more divisive and breeds hate and an ‘us vs them’ mentality.
âpihtawikosisân · January 5, 2022 at 5:57 pm
Don’t presume to have the knowledge to tell me what I really mean. Frank Wilderson does an amazing job of tracing the way that the term “settler” was specifically created within white civil society to hide the violence of colonization, and to distinguish Anglo-colonization from the savagery of the Spanish. It rests on a false contrast, as English colonization has been equally as brutal, so if you’d like to claim the more accurate term “colonizer,” feel free. It would be more honest.
Patrick Wolfe points out that settler colonialism is a structure, not an event. It isn’t something you personally did, or didn’t do, thus you cannot claim innocence. Think of it as an actual structure, perhaps a house. You can move in, add new furniture, repurpose the rooms, even knock some walls down, renovate. You can move out, move in, die in place, pass it down to your descendants, but the structure remains and it doesn’t matter if you built it or if you arrived yesterday and started cooking a meal in the kitchen. That house is built on the enslavement of Black people, and the genocide of Indigenous people, and it wasn’t meant to house people who are not accepted as “white” though they can perhaps linger for a time in the foyer.
What you are doing is gesturing towards moves to innocence identified by Tuck and Yang, specifically you invoke settler nativism by raising the possibility of some distant ancestor with Indian blood, to name a person blameless in the attempted eradication of Indigenous peoples. Having some distant ancestry does not make you Indigenous – and even if it did, your responsibility then would be to deconstruct settler colonialism, not excuse it. You invoke the move to innocence Tuck and Yang label “free your mind and the rest will follow,” as if you could simply “avoid labels” as a stand in for the more uncomfortable task of relinquishing stolen land. Your most basic claim however, is that passing time washes away the privilege you continue to benefit from on these lands, as the inheritor of the structure that required the commodification of human beings as property, the ecocide of animal nations, and the genocide and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
In this piece you are responding to, I specifically quote Tuck and Yang, and I’ll repeat that quote: “Settlers are not immigrants. Immigrants are beholden to the Indigenous laws and espistemologies of the lands they migrate to. Settlers become the law, supplanting Indigenous laws and epistemologies. Therefore, settler nations are not immigrant nations.” The way in which each person on these lands relates to settler colonialism is in fact, complex. Rather than addressing that complexity, you attempt to flatten it. This demonstrates both that you do not understand the topic, and that you are unwilling to examine your own complicity, neither of which bode well for the future.
You will not be successful in fading into the background here. If you are not actively trying to understand and undo settler colonialism then you are actively perpetuating it. However, it is clear you did not actually engage with the chapter you are responding to, so I think I’ll end it there – meeting your lack of effort with a bit more on my part, but I do have limits.
One last thing. You say these things happened hundreds of years ago, once again highlighting your ignorance of ongoing settler colonialism and how it is manifested. At the same time, you invoke length of time to claim that you cannot be named or held responsible for events that occurred before your birth. This passage of time apparently grants you some sort of legitimacy, and legitimizes the presence of Canada. If time is a factor, then you cannot ignore the thousands of years of Indigenous priority on these lands. So which is it?
Never mind – it’s clear you haven’t thought this through.
Tez · December 24, 2022 at 6:12 pm
I am not a settler, nor a colonist. I am the product of two very stupid people having sex. I spawned, through no choice of my own, in Edmonton Alberta.
I fully acknowledge that the land belongs to Indigenous peoples across Canada or Australia (I’ve lived in both). But particularly in Canada, as I was born there.
Settling and colonising or colonisation are actions taken, and I took no action. In fact, if I could go back in time and tell my own mother to abort me (she should have, I was a very unwanted pregnancy) I very much would. We get no choice in being born where we are born, so I really can’t get behind any argument to use the term ‘settler’ or ‘coloniser’ on anyone born at this stage in history, or a few generations past.
My education is in philosophy, so maybe I’m looking at this too abstractly or literally and I do not want to exclude the massive historical and white supremacist context that may make sense for Indigenous people to use these terms to describe non-Indigenous inhabitants of Canada, but at the same time…I also specialise in communications, ethics and media – and I can find no benefit to calling modern by these terms.
Landback movements are necessary, and we should return land, people like myself…maybe we should be returned to where our ancestors came from (I have met Indigenous folks in Canada who strongly would prefer to have everyone leave Canada if that were somehow possible) but ultimately I don’t think calling me a settler is going to get us any closer to reparations and a path forward. I can look at it objectively, but too many people, including non-white immigrants, will reject it outright as well.
âpihtawikosisân · January 5, 2023 at 10:47 am
As Patrick Wolfe puts it, “colonization is a structure, not an event.” Think of it like a house that was built before you were born. You can paint the walls different colours, you can have roommates that move in at different times – maybe some get the master bedroom and some sleep in the broom closet – you can even tear out some walls if you’d like. But the structure remains, and it is bigger than your individual story, and beyond your individual efforts to alter it. Colonization is not about something you have personally done, nor is it about something someone long ago personally did – it is about the structure that we all now operate within, and the words we use to describe our positionality towards that structure are very, very useful indeed.
I would suggest you read Tuck and Yang’s “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” to get a little more context that might help you understand why these terms are being used. Here it is: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554
Robert · May 3, 2023 at 12:40 pm
I like the term New Canadians or as was suggested earlier Second Nation. Unfortunately Settlers has became a derogatory word that can offend some.
Reality · September 29, 2023 at 1:45 pm
This discussion attempts to put all people who would be considered part of long-distant european settlement as being ‘colonizers’, ‘settlers’ or otherwise individuals foreign to the land. Fact is, many Canadians were concieved, born and died here for generations and may be members of a broad intersection of backgrounds and cultures rather than a monolithic “White Euro Majority”. This is inaccurate. Scandinavia, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, Russia all have socioeconomic and sociopolitical drivers that precipitated emigration which is not unlike todays mass migration of humans from one place on the earth to another. These individuals some of whom have family histories on North American soil for half a millenia, or even some degree of indigenous ancestry should not be lumped into the dogmatic re-education and revisionist history telling currently filling every aspect of society. LARPing as indigenous ‘warriors’ while othering anyone else based on the colour of their skin (which is what this long dissertation is essentially about) we have learned from history is not a good way to approach things. Recognize, yes. Reconcile, sure. Acknowledge that it is not 1765, and that humanity has evolved since then (and it is a slow process) before attempting to recreate guilt, tiers of entitlement, and tiers of who is more aggrieved than another.
âpihtawikosisân · October 2, 2023 at 9:33 am
It’s always interesting when settlers attempt to invoke duration of presence as though this somehow legitimates the theft of lands and resources, and the ongoing displacement of Indigenous Peoples that those living today continue to benefit from. Meanwhile the vast Indigenous priority on these lands is waved away as irrelevant, so much so that settlers insist they not be named because they “belong” here now. Oh gosh, some colonizer families have been here for a half a millenia! Wow! Impressive. Lol. Meanwhile you’ve got archeological evidence of Indigenous settlement just 300 years after the birth of the Thomson River (that’s nearly 10,000 years ago btw).
Struggle all you want to undo Indigenous priority in order to make some possessive claims to these lands, and to the “right” to not be named because you believe you are the centre, the norm, and that your experiences are comparable to those of Indigenous Peoples because blah blah blah. But just remember you got really sad and angry about having any term at all applied to you – do I for a second think you’re going to look at today’s society and acknowledge ongoing white supremacist settler colonial oppression? You don’t have the range. Bye.
Heidi · November 14, 2023 at 2:29 pm
I’m mostly white, and look white and I don’t have a problem with the term settler. What else could I be? I think no matter how or why you came here, or were brought here, unless you are indigenous you are a settler. The word is simple, self explanatory, and appropriate.
Jenn · November 26, 2023 at 12:37 pm
To be of somewhere, from somewhere, I feel can be quite important to a human psyche and the term settler is purposely un-anchoring. It says, you aren’t really from here, you don’t truly belong and you never will. Doesn’t it? I’m from Britain and was moved here unwillingly by a parent. Maybe being taken from my home I loved makes me sympathetic to how important the feeling of belonging to the land is. I actually don’t feel like I belong here. I’m now embedded and can’t move back to the land of my ancestors. One reason is my youngest son especially loves Canada and being in nature. He’d never come with me! His father’s side goes back 200 years in Canada. I know, not that long. Yet he, if a settler, isn’t therefore of this land as much as an indigenous kid his same age is. I would not call a south Asian person say in the UK a settler. It would be hurtful and kinda racist. Is the settler term ok because of the terrible history of colonialism? E.g. if we are white European, we deserve a somewhat derogatory name? Do we? I have worked on reconciliation projects, and also equity and inclusion. I support reparation. Just saying the term settler to me says “you don’t truly belong”. I’m just philosophizing, I could very well be wrong. I found this blog because I wanted some perspective on it. I’ve read some of the posts and will read again and try and see if I can be swayed.
âpihtawikosisân · November 27, 2023 at 5:05 pm
“Settler” should unsettle claims to ownership over Indigenous lands, resources, and Peoples. Why does Canada assert this ownership? Why does the creation of Canada, and the violent imposition of white supremacist settler colonialism, rooted in slavery and genocide, give individuals the “right” to be part of those ownership claims?
Belonging to the land comes with responsibilities, reciprocal obligations, rather than rights – rights that are then exercised to justify rapacious extraction, environmental degradation, and the abuse of entire Peoples. The term isn’t the problem – the structure the term relates to, settler colonialism, is. Therefore addressing the discomfort you mention requires you to address that structure. Changing the name, refusing it, accepting it, whatever, is not really the point.
Mary · January 20, 2024 at 8:55 pm
I don’t like settler or colonizer because it is too similar to referring to people of color as foreign even if their families have lived here for generation. I think Euro-Canadians or Euro-Americans should be fine but “Soyapo” makes sense too. It’s not derogatory but it does nod to the inherent privilege we white people have in society. I am not a settler in the Americas, I was born in the USA and frankly wish I had not been as I do not fit in with the values most USAmericans, ie most white people here, embrace. But I am “crowned” with white privilege so it’s appropriate for me.
âpihtawikosisân · February 5, 2024 at 11:29 am
It doesn’t matter if you like the term or not, it accurately describes your position within the structure of settler colonialism. You are indeed a settler in the Americas, regardless of being born here.
Jenn · June 12, 2024 at 1:51 pm
Looking at the comments here, and you are being asked to do so much work to explain things to people who are feeling defensive. Thank you for your clarity in both the original post and in your replies. Indigenous refusal is good too. =)
We do need language to talk about who we are and how we are in relation. But, as you suggest, pre-given, inflexible, bright-line definitions cannot do the work for us of enabling respectful relationships with each other based on recognizing truths about how settlers (myself included) continue to benefit from colonization.
On a different note, I’ve heard Zhaaganaash translated as “people who came out of the mist.” But I have not authority or ability to evaluate that translation. Thanks for the thoughtful post.