[BCMA] charged semantics

[Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv]

On the subject of "traditional territory," can one describe the interior nations' hunting and gathering zones as indisputable property in the European sense?  Many of these peoples were migratory and their ability to exploit the resources of one area could be contested by an adjacent group, forcing a retreat or withdrawal.  Territorial boundaries could be fluid.  For example, the Salish were forced off Cape Mudge by the Kwakiutl, who had European firearms.  Whose traditional territory is that portion of Quadra Island?


Dr. Peter Moogk

________________________________
From: Listserv <listserv-bounces at lists.museum.bc.ca> on behalf of Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv <listserv at lists.museum.bc.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 3:11:02 PM
To: listserv at lists.museum.bc.ca
Subject: [BCMA] charged semantics

[CAUTION: Non-UBC Email]

Hi all,

I hope you are well.

Twice now, the Cranbrook History Museum has received comments on our use of the word 'traditional' when referring to 'traditions' of two separate Indigenous tribes.

This was the last comment: "It still is Ktunaxa territory, traditional is past tense and means of erasure."

Does anyone have thoughts and do you have references for them?
I will acquiesce to and am happy to receive consultation from any Indigenous leader(s) in the field.

Thank you!

Eileen






Eileen Kosasih

Visitor Experience Coordinator

Cranbrook History Centre

info at cranbrookhistorycentre.com<mailto:info at cranbrookhistorycentre.com>

(250) 489-3918


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.museum.bc.ca/pipermail/listserv-museum.bc.ca/attachments/20210616/6ad9747d/attachment.htm>