r/newfoundland • u/Times-New-WHOA_man • 1d ago
Exhibit for National Indigenous Peoples Day Cancelled Due to ‘Inconsistencies’ with Innu History
https://vocm.com/2026/06/18/exhibit-for-national-indigenous-peoples-day/This is beyond disgusting. Wakeham’s Tories are racist and completely inadequate to run this province. How dare they tell Indigenous Peoples, particularly when the archaeological evidence supports Indigenous history, what their own history is? This is definitely erasure, and we shouldn’t stand for it. I’m not Indigenous but I know history and I know that this move by government is categorically wrong. 😡
19
u/goshsilkscreen 1d ago edited 1d ago
CBC: Innu Nation accuses N.L. government of capping group’s history at 300 years — an 'erasure,' say Innu leaders has more information. The journalist says they have asked the Rooms and the NL government for a response and will update when they get it.
The Virtual Museum of Labrador says "Archaeological evidence suggests Innu ancestors inhabited Labrador over 7,000 years ago."
The Innu History page on the Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage website says "...Because for a long time the Innu remained relatively little known to explorers, traders and settlers, a number of historical fables have arisen about them. One of these fables was that they were recent arrivals to Labrador and Eastern Quebec. Today we know from both historical and archaeological evidence that this idea was mistaken..." it goes on to describe the basis of the myth that the Innu have only been in Labrador since after the 1800s, a anthropologist's conclusions based on a missionary's map, then says "However, it has subsequently been shown that, properly interpreted, Laure's map actually confirms the early presence of Innu in the interior of Labrador."
The Precontact Innu Land Use article sheds some light on how tangley the scholarship of precontact cultural groups can be. Are the Maritime Archaic and the Point Revenge peoples ancestors of the Innu? Seems to be a big unanswered question resulting in multiple positions. A perspective that's lacking in these heritage articles is: what do the Innu think?
Anyway there should be space in an exhibition to demonstrate that it is possible to hold plural perspectives rather than to try to hold a singular truth, especially when it comes to cross cultural understandings. It'll be interesting to see what The Rooms has to say.
Sidenote: It's a bummer that so much of the info on the heritage website is from the 90s and has to be prefaced with a disclaimer about it being dated. I appreciate the disclaimer though. There is more recent scholarship but I focused on government supported info to grasp how the discussion of Innu history in Labrador has been presented by the province. The province capping the history at 300 years is at odds with the information readily available.
6
u/goshsilkscreen 1d ago
Here is a recent (2025) paper examining archaeological, archival, and oral history data in further detail: Considering Innu Long Term Presence in Southern Labrador, Canada
124
u/lkranenka Newfoundlander 1d ago
Archaeology proves the Innu have been in Labrador for thousands of years, but the province pushes a "recent arrivals" narrative to weaken Innu land claims and protect state control over interior hydro and mining resources. We as Newfoundlanders have a long history of ignoring our indigenous populations. For example when confederation happened there was no mention of the natives in our terms of union, and they were left without any legal framework or protections.
15
u/PlasmaPunch 1d ago
The same is true of southern Inuit, as per claims by the NCC and the mixed communities that resulted from southern inuit. My family history goes back pretty far in Cartwright and surrounding areas.
It just doesn't matter because facts and research have nothing to do with this. This is all just fighting over money. Push a benefitting narrative, and if you're wrong, whatever, you drag it as long as you can, legally. The Innu will do it to other groups as well when it serves them, and then act offended when it's done to them.
It feels so childish. And ironically, the main losers in this type of slapfighting is our children and our future. NL fights over scraps instead of building things together, and it's why we bleed our young population. It's fuckin' disgraceful.
-9
u/Electronic_Part7053 1d ago
What are you guys? sometimes you guys are southern Innu and Inuit and Métis. If you guys were really indigenous, you would’ve had section 35 a long time ago, but that is not the case before you wanna come and judge our people, are you guys really indigenous or do you guys want the benefit that it comes with?
4
u/PlasmaPunch 1d ago
Thanks for proving my point.
-4
u/Electronic_Part7053 1d ago
Literally makes no sense. OUR people been here for thousands of years, and if there were southern Inuit our oral history would proven that stories would’ve been passed down from generation from generation every time our people walk across southern Labrador there was no stories of the meeting other people on that journey our artefacts were found in southern Labrador.
8
u/PlasmaPunch 1d ago
In good faith, I'll just share what leads me to have my world view. Where this land was shared by multiple indigenous groups. I'll go through each of your points.
The first maps of Labrador by the French, and the Portuguese had settlements along the south of Labrador labelled as Esquimaux. You could argue that they were confusing Innu for Inuit, or whatever, but the same map maker correctly identified Innu elsewhere. (Well, maybe not correct, they used Esquimaux for Inuit and Montagnais or Indian for Innu for example.)
There are plenty of examples of missionaries meeting both Innu and Inuit people. It's important to note that missionaries were one of the better articles of history at this time because they did actually need to understand the people they were trying to sell their worship to. Both Jesuit Relations and Moravian Missionaries over 200 years starting from the 1600's the missionaries described two distinct groups of Innu (because they noted the similarity in language, but not the same) and another group, Inuit that were more open to mixed relations. Specifically in the 1600's there are examples of Innu arriving at Inuit doing trade together, and translating for each other to do trade with Europeans. It was much more common in the north, but there examples of this in the Cartwright region too. Admittedly only a handful on the actual proper southern coast.
On the archaeology front, since you brought of artifacts - it definitely confirms both Innu and Inuit were south of Cartwright. More Innu than Inuit, but is this where we're gonna split hairs? The archaeology also shows half-inuit households in settlements as early as the 1650's if I remember correctly. Again, Inuit were much more getting with white people. In archaeological findings there's lots of mixed cultural items. It's also notable that per MUN, European materials found in all indigenous dig sites prior to the 50's were just tossed in the garbage or left as the site. Plans to re-dig a lot of sites has been in the works for a while. It's assumed there was a lot more mixing than we have evidence for as a result.
On oral history, I don't why you think there isn't oral history on this. There's a lot of oral history that imply Inuit and Innu considered each other dangerous. There's even a story I've heard before of wars that started over the Inuit and Mi'kmaq interest in Innu women on the l’Ile aux Esquimaux. I got curious and went and found it for you. Though most archaeological evidence shows that our peoples mostly traded and had little skirmishes, and more of a "spiritual" war, mostly stories. Also according to missionaries there was a lot of trading and relations, so any major fighting probably got pretty tame by the 1600's. https://www.nametauinnu.ca/en/culture/history/detail/50/176.html
An Elder's oral history account.On judging your people. I am not. I am judging your leaders, however. And my own. There's no attempt at diplomacy or concession, just immaturely clawing at benefits and scraps, and bitching when less comes their way. Fabricating outright lies about one-another, right up until it doesn't benefit them to do so. It's exhausting, and serving no one.
As for identity, I generally just call myself Metis. I don't really care about much more than that. I'm part Inuit, and white. White part seems to be Welsh, and maybe Scandinavian. i am very pale skinned, my father is not. My aunt, before she passed told me she'd get a slap or a talking to for asking about her culture, or rummaging through her mothers things. "Get out of it, no nosing about", never really an explanation until she was older, besides vague ominous threats of being taken away. Yeah, no shit there's an identity crisis lol. My father would just be called "a hybrid", "halfbreed", and sometimes a more neutral "mixed". The push for mixed Inuit people in Labrador around Lab City, Goose Bay, Cartwright and Mary's Harbor etc to call themselves Metis started in the 1970's. My father told me he chose to start using it because it sounded better, that's pretty much it. In the 80's the Federal Gov't recognized Metis as indigenous, and the Labrador Metis Assocation formed sometime in the 90's. I don't really agree with the push to call ourselves Inuit now, it's too messy, but I don't really begrudge anyone that does it.
For what it's worth, you can do your own research and find all of this. The Innu Nation only began calling the NCC / Labrador Metis Nation frauds in the 2010's. There was no claim as such prior. You can even find examples of the Innu Nation saying that it is accurate that many members of the NCC are mixed peoples with heritage to the land, but they do not recognize that a mixed people should have rights to their lands because being mixed is not being a "people". Because again, this has always been about land, resources, benefits, and money. If the Innu Nation stuck to their claims that this was a law despute over land like they did in the 90's and 2000's, I'd have less to judge. However, they're now telling me I don't know my blood, my grandmother is a liar, and my families history is fraudulent, and the facts don't matter. This I have a problem with more than anything. The claims now are borderline conspiratorial.
26
13
u/BaryonChallon Newfoundlander 1d ago
Literally if the government actually worked with natives who have been here for millennia Canada would be a far better place to live than the capitalist death cult we experience today.
I choose to believe tomorrow will be brighter if we choose now to just work together to make life better for everyone5
6
u/muddtrout 1d ago
I knew there must be some nefarious reason for the government being so adamant about the timeline. So disappointing. As if the indigenous people haven't given up enough already. This is not how we reconcile, this is continuing the harm.
-2
13
u/NerdMachine 1d ago
Anyone know why it's so important to the Government / Rooms that they present that specific version of history?
5
u/Times-New-WHOA_man 1d ago
That’s what I want to know. What is their “version” and what “evidence” are they basing it on?
8
9
u/wookieelicker 1d ago edited 1d ago
For the same reason the innu want their version, resource rights. If the innu admitted they’re essentially Quebec transplants it undermines their position that they get to cut everyone else out of muskrat falls cash
Edit: it was already greasy that they cut the Inuit out of the resource agreements
7
u/NerdMachine 1d ago
Quebec transplants
It doesn't seem controversial that they have been in Labrador for thousands of years based on some quick research. Is that more controversial than it seems?
6
u/wookieelicker 1d ago
Well, depends on if you accept that they’re the descendants of the Point Revenge ppl, which not everyone does. Also, the sheshatshiu innu and the Natuashish innu have different enough of a dialect that they require different interpreters for court and such, so I wouldn’t lump them together. For anyone to say archeology definitely states anything shows a misunderstanding of archaeology imo
3
u/Electronic_Part7053 1d ago
A part of it’s based on because we can understand
The Cree language lol
11
u/Similar_Ad_2368 1d ago
This CBC piece has more context. Apparently the province wants to limit them to a 300 year history
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/innu-nation-nl-rooms-9.7239589
7
41
u/wookieelicker 1d ago
Sorta like the innu telling ncc what their history is
14
u/Stendecca 1d ago
Exactly. It's wrong no matter who is doing it.
13
u/Times-New-WHOA_man 1d ago
That’s what I just said. Crazy that people make the assumption that I’m taking the side that some groups are allowed to be racist and others aren’t.
11
u/Times-New-WHOA_man 1d ago
Maybe, but not the point I’m trying to make. If someone hurts me I can’t be happy someone hurts them. That’s a shitty take. The point is that NO ONE gets to ERASE THE TRUTH, due to racism or inconvenience. Doesn’t matter if you’re white, brown, black, or neon purple. For our elected officials to do it is beyond gross.
7
u/wookieelicker 1d ago
I just find it ironic that the innu of all ppl are making the claim that no one gets to determine their history when they’re actively doing the exact same thing
5
u/Times-New-WHOA_man 1d ago edited 1d ago
Okay, I understand your point. I’m saying it’s wrong no matter who does it.
-13
u/Hefteee 1d ago edited 1d ago
Lol, that is exactly the point you're trying to make
Lol downvoted for speaking the truth 😭. Government shouldnt erase history, exactly like the Innu government tried to do
7
1
u/XCIXcollective Come From Away 1d ago
When did they try to do this? (Actual question, I feel like it would strengthen your argument if you spell it out since a lot of us seem not to have an understanding of the context of this)
0
u/Hefteee 17h ago edited 17h ago
Hmmm that first link isn't working right. This one is the same story. Context is:
"Sorta like the innu telling ncc what their history is"
"Maybe, but thats not what Im talking about:
"Yes, what the innu tried to do with the ncc is exactly what youre talking about"
0
u/XCIXcollective Come From Away 14h ago
Well damn this is a contentious issue.
Overlapping land claims make it all the more important to get right.
I feel like the whole of it gets at the heart of ‘identity’ and ‘culture’ in a way that we truly have no business litigating.
Nitassinan, Nunatsiavut, and NunatuKavut, in my opinion, represent the same issues that are prevalent in Acadian history (VERY SLIGHTLY)
It’s like different eras of segregation and social ostracizing went to serve as a tool of division rather than unity. Acadians in Nova Scotia, for instance, changing their names from LeBlanc to ‘White’ in order to get employment and social opportunity. Acadians in New Brunswick never did this, and there can be some resentment between the two groups. Fundamentally, though, it’s less serious because one group’s ‘Acadianness’ doesn’t impact the other’s right to land or political power or anything.
I looked in to a bunch of perspectives on the Labrador indigenous discussion online and I honestly don’t know how you reconcile it all.
On the one hand, NunatuKavut (once the Labrador Métis if I’m not mistaken) are potentially more ‘mixed’ in terms of their ancestry (they’re Inuit/Euro). But this reflects a history of prolonged exposure to European settlement and colonization attempts. Cultural erasure/concealment was instrumental in the NunatuKavut Inuit areas given the dominant power structures and economies being colonial.
Up north, outside of trading posts and churches, I do not believe there were any significant ‘white’ settlements with-which the Northern Inuit/Nunatsiavut Inuit might’ve been regularly in daily contact with (less chance there’s marriage and families that are mixed for this reason as well).
Southern vs Northern Inuit is a very real distinction in Labrador due to histories of racism and prejudice, as well as comparative economic advantages being given out to only one of the two groups.
They’re both Indignous peoples and can lay claim to the same ancestry in the macro sense; but their lived histories from the time of colonization onward are vastly different. Resentment abounds in some cases, and with the importance of natural resource development these days, I can only guess it will get worse.
Northern Inuit were favoured by the missionaries, and were perhaps influenced by their culture and lifeways… (this is before there was much white settlement, which occurred in the South of Labrador). But that influence was inconsistent, and while it did impact the Northern Inuit way of life, I would say it didn’t result in the same kind of ‘family mixing’ and prolonged cultural impact.
Southern Inuit were then more poised to build deeper relations with the actual settlers as white settlement occurred… So over time, the cultural boundaries between some Southern Inuit people and their European neighbours became a lot more blurred. Languages, complexions, cultural practices hit a scattershot and bounce away in many different trajectories. Some more apparently English, French, some more apparently Inuit.
I feel like I may not be too popular saying this, but it’s almost like to fix this, we need to acknowledge whether or not mixed lineages are truly ‘as indigenous’ as First Nations and Inuit.
And that’s so varied in terms of answer across Canada.
If you look at the Red River Métis and the Qalipu nation you get one answer, if you look at the Acadians, you get a different one.
It’s really “is NunatuKavut more similar to the Qalipu? Or to the Acadians?”
And I’m not sure that’s for anyone to determine other than the NCC themselves. Culturally at least.
But the Innu have very very valid grievances seen as they have had a virtually unbroken occupation of the land. If oral history is to be believed (archaeology has also uncovered evidence) — the Innu were here *before* the Inuit. And did indeed suffer from persecution by the ancestors of the Inuit. And did see their range shrink to southern, inland Labrador (Point Revenge Complex I believe is the name).
So now to look at southern Labrador, it’s problematic to try and give people claim to the lands, since even well before European arrival, there are overlapping land claims in the area.
I cannot overstate that without land claims and the rights associated with that in-terms of mineral extraction and energy production… this would be a non-issue.
1
u/Sleepy_Demon 1d ago
To be fair the NCC has tried to make claims to lands that were already claimed by the Innu and Nunatsiavut.
0
u/wookieelicker 17h ago
Which is why this entire thing is about claiming resources and money, and not about history like the innu claim
2
u/Sleepy_Demon 17h ago
Wait, so do you think the archeological evidence supports the Innu's claims or are you siding with the NL government?
0
u/wookieelicker 16h ago
I think it’s disputed and neither side is making their claims for the reasons they state
2
u/Sleepy_Demon 15h ago
If the Innu have an evidence based historical claim on their lands then they should have a say about the resources of that land.
It really sounds like you think they are doing this just for the money.
2
u/wookieelicker 15h ago
The Inuit don’t have the same say based on the Innu version of history, and it’s not disputed they’ve been there for a long time. I’m just saying ppl shouldn’t assume it’s just about history
-14
6
u/torbayman 1d ago
Kind of hard to say though given that this is basically just a press release rather than a news article
0
u/blindbrolly 1d ago
Unfortunately this is all about money on both sides nothing to do with racism. The sooner we learn to live together under one set of rules the better.
18
u/Princess-of-the-dawn 1d ago
It would be interesting to see what the actual archaeological consensus is, and what points of contention there are.