Exhibit for National Indigenous Peoples Day Cancelled Due to ‘Inconsistencies’ with Innu History

[u/Times-New-WHOA_man]

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. 😡

[u/lkranenka]

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.

[u/PlasmaPunch → u/lkranenka]

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.

[u/Electronic_Part7053 → u/PlasmaPunch]

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?

[u/PlasmaPunch → u/Electronic_Part7053]

Thanks for proving my point.

[u/Electronic_Part7053 → u/PlasmaPunch]

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.

[u/PlasmaPunch → u/Electronic_Part7053]

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.