5:10 Don't we have, like, actual documentation from Spanish & US records reporting the migration of the Navajo into the 4-corners area? I also know, just from my own linguistics classes, that (1) the Navajo language is an oddball, southernmost branch of the Na-Dene Language Family [which is huge and mainly in northern Canada]; (2) The Hopi language is the eccentric cousin at the northern edge of the Uto-Aztecan Language Family [also a big Language Family]. Anyone claiming Navajo and Hopi being somehow connected just because you both currently live in the same area is like those people who think Japan and China are really all the same culture, just because they're next door to each other and _one of_ Japan's writing systems came from 8th Century China.
So, I'm from an early-20th-Century Immigrant family, but I still like to keep abreast of Indigenous things. I got hooked on CBC programs about Indigenous matters and concerns, even though I'm in the US. So, that's why I instantly loved the term, "First Nations," when I first heard it on a CBC program. It can't be manipulated or mangled like, "Native American," can, and it puts the point down _sharply:_ You guys were *_here FIRST,_* and you _were and are _*_NATIONS._* Just because the white invaders didn't have the maps doesn't mean the borders didn't exist. Oh, BTW: As a "white person," I want to point something out: White people are _indirectly_ and _subconsciously_ taught to hear "primitive" before the word "tribe", any time "tribe" is used. And there's no more obvious place to the truth of this than how we whites use the word "tribe" when talking about Europe … _we _*_DON'T._* For example, the ancient Romans originall organized themselves according to what, anthropologically, are the same as tribes. But we never call them "Roman tribes" - we use the Latin word for it: "gens". Do we refer to the 5th-Century invaders of Britania as the Saxon _tribe,_ the Angle _tribe,_ and the Jute _tribe?_ *_No_* … we us any other term but "tribe", even though they were, arguably, Germanic tribes. I will 100% support you guys if/when you start demanding to be called Nations and not dengrated by being called "tribes".
@@John_Weiss there's a further dissection of the term "Nation" where its first definition is typically a political one. This usually infers the "ownership" of a land or region. In many tribal customs we typically don't see that as an accurate notion in terms of "property". The newly coined definition of referring to indigenous groups is purely political. To distinguish tribal sovereignty. I would prefer to use the term "Tribal Nations" but even then you have the idea of confederacies within cultural groups of a particular region. Haudenosaunee or "Iroquois" being an example. Anishinaabe is applied to various tribal groups, as well as being Apache. With each tribal community or reservation having their own tribal recognition status and form of government. I would also point out that in AZ we also have federal recognition of the CRIT community. Colorado River Indian Tribe, which is a conglomerate of people originally from other tribal nations. The struggle with modern adaptation is sacrificing traditional structures with modern political ones to accommodate Federal Law and recognition status.
I agree. I really wish the government changed the term indian to indigenous at least when referring to us.
5:10 Don't we have, like, actual documentation from Spanish & US records reporting the migration of the Navajo into the 4-corners area? I also know, just from my own linguistics classes, that (1) the Navajo language is an oddball, southernmost branch of the Na-Dene Language Family [which is huge and mainly in northern Canada]; (2) The Hopi language is the eccentric cousin at the northern edge of the Uto-Aztecan Language Family [also a big Language Family].
Anyone claiming Navajo and Hopi being somehow connected just because you both currently live in the same area is like those people who think Japan and China are really all the same culture, just because they're next door to each other and _one of_ Japan's writing systems came from 8th Century China.
@@John_Weiss not to mention archaeological evidence scared throughout the modern Navajo Nation.
@@samivayajd "Scared"?!?
Did you mean to write "scattered" or "sacred?"
@@John_Weiss lol scattered
So, I'm from an early-20th-Century Immigrant family, but I still like to keep abreast of Indigenous things. I got hooked on CBC programs about Indigenous matters and concerns, even though I'm in the US.
So, that's why I instantly loved the term, "First Nations," when I first heard it on a CBC program. It can't be manipulated or mangled like, "Native American," can, and it puts the point down _sharply:_ You guys were *_here FIRST,_* and you _were and are _*_NATIONS._* Just because the white invaders didn't have the maps doesn't mean the borders didn't exist.
Oh, BTW: As a "white person," I want to point something out: White people are _indirectly_ and _subconsciously_ taught to hear "primitive" before the word "tribe", any time "tribe" is used. And there's no more obvious place to the truth of this than how we whites use the word "tribe" when talking about Europe … _we _*_DON'T._* For example, the ancient Romans originall organized themselves according to what, anthropologically, are the same as tribes. But we never call them "Roman tribes" - we use the Latin word for it: "gens".
Do we refer to the 5th-Century invaders of Britania as the Saxon _tribe,_ the Angle _tribe,_ and the Jute _tribe?_ *_No_* … we us any other term but "tribe", even though they were, arguably, Germanic tribes.
I will 100% support you guys if/when you start demanding to be called Nations and not dengrated by being called "tribes".
@@John_Weiss there's a further dissection of the term "Nation" where its first definition is typically a political one. This usually infers the "ownership" of a land or region. In many tribal customs we typically don't see that as an accurate notion in terms of "property".
The newly coined definition of referring to indigenous groups is purely political. To distinguish tribal sovereignty.
I would prefer to use the term "Tribal Nations" but even then you have the idea of confederacies within cultural groups of a particular region. Haudenosaunee or "Iroquois" being an example. Anishinaabe is applied to various tribal groups, as well as being Apache. With each tribal community or reservation having their own tribal recognition status and form of government.
I would also point out that in AZ we also have federal recognition of the CRIT community. Colorado River Indian Tribe, which is a conglomerate of people originally from other tribal nations.
The struggle with modern adaptation is sacrificing traditional structures with modern political ones to accommodate Federal Law and recognition status.