Talk:Indian Register

Canada: Law Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian law.

Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I remember reading in Thomas King's book A Native Narrative, published as part of the Massey Lectures series, that the definition of a status Indian was such that over time, over a few generations, no one would qualify under the definition. Does anyone know more about this? -Tubby

Yes - when status Indians have children with non-Indians, those children can only pass on Indian status if they have children with an Indian. If they have children with a non-Indian, those children will not be eligible for Indian status. As Status Indian marry or have children with non-Indians, their eligibility for status is "diluted". Over time (100 years or so) this will lead to a decline in the Indian population.

You're wrong for one thing, the way it worked was if your father was Indian, you were Indian; if your mother was Indian but your father white (or whatever), you were white (or whatever). But also wrong re population decline; native birth rates are higher than non-native and despite suicide and other problems their numbers have been on the rise....and more and more people are discovering native ancestry and self-identifying as native; so rather the opposite has happened; and now in Canada as of this native numbers doubled overnight.Skookum1 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Colson my uncle gorge came colson Todd colson (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Oppose re the merge with Non-Status Indian, this is not the same subject; in fact, it is more about Status Indians than non-Status. Well, now, it seems there is no more such thing as a Non-Status Indian; there are now Status Indians who have no band affiliation....Skookum1 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OldPort - Old lies!

Everything added in this SIX YEAR OLD EDIT is, a) still in the article, and b) POV garbage. Nobody in Canada has a "right to bear arms", let alone are there degrees of such a "right"; in reality, there are accommodations in the law for indigenous people who can't read English or French, for those who don't personally own a firearm, and for children under 12 years of age engaged in traditional hunting with their families. "Extended hunting season" is similarly flawed and incorrect.

The fact that this editor deigned to use well-trod far-right dog whistles like "freedom", "taxes" and "government interference" in ignorant, incorrect and inflammatory ways seems to show that they were trying to elicit a certain kind of reaction from readers, perhaps in furtherance of a political agenda. If another editor could rewrite the lede less, er, let's say mendaciously, that would be great. Thanks.
Suggested resources:

2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:7414:3905:BE68:16E5 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]