Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 November 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 17

First CofE church?

Does anyone know which was the first church in England and Wales to be purpose-built as a "Church of England" church (i.e. a new building, not simply a former Catholic church taken over by the Anglicans)? St Paul's, Covent Garden (1633) is suggested by this blog as "the first Protestant church in England", but I can't believe nothing was built before then after the split from Rome. Any thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 00:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Very few churches were built in England in the hundred years or so after the establishment of the Church of England. See this page. According to this source, however, St John's in Groombridge, Kent, predates St Paul's Covent Garden by a few years. Also, St Peter's Church in Brooke, Rutland, was substantially rebuilt even earlier, in 1580. Marco polo (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Marco polo appears to correct. But I must add, the first Anglican churches were not "former Catholic church[es] taken over by the Anglicans". The entire English church severed ties with Rome, there was no 'breaking away' as such; no group of 'Anglicans' snatching churches from the Catholic Church - See History of the Church of England. -Peter (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

To say that there was "no breaking away as such", "no group of Anglicans snatching churches from the Catholic Church" suggests a strange narrative of what happened. If our article really supports that, it is seriously in need to work. It's not like everyone just decided they would now be Anglican, separate from Rome, and there was no resistance, although I know my English state secondary school gave the impression that 'the people' decided they didn't want to be Catholic any more and just became Protestant en masse. Dissolution of the monasteries, St Thomas More, English Martyrs, Pilgrimage of Grace, all barely touched upon or mentioned in my school, and perhaps in yours, Peter. Let alone the stories of parishes that stood up to the iconoclasts to protect their statues and fonts, or secret Masses with smuggled priests, or the use of priest holes, etc. Of course, some place the serious break as taking place under Edward VI, and it is under his reign that the Catholic Church believes the Church of England lost Apostolic Succession. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

European culture Muslims

Parties like Danish People's Party, British National Party, Sweden Democrats, Party for Freedom and other far-right parties want that non-western immigrants to integrate into the society of these nations but Muslims immigrants think that integrate means eating pork, drinking wine and marrying non-Muslims. Is this true? Is this true that don't want to integrate into the society but want to maintain their culture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.150.51 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Integration" means so many different things to so many different people that it's kind of impossible to answer your question. However, for some members of these parties, I suspect that a call for unlikely degrees of integration is really a smokescreen for racism. That is, for some people, in for example the Danish People's Party, even if a Muslim immigrant converted to Danish Lutheranism, attended church regularly and had pork and beer for supper with other church members, and even if that person supported his daughter's marriage to a Dane with centuries of family history in Denmark, those people would still not want that person in Denmark because of his skin color. They wouldn't want their son marrying his daughter. Of course, it is possible that not all party members are racist, and maybe some would accept such a person, but it really varies by individual. Likewise, immigrants' attitudes toward integration vary widely as well. No doubt some do eat pork and drink wine. Others avoid those things and maintain their Muslim religion but otherwise adopt the lifestyle and values of their new country (including democratic values and tolerance of others). How important is it really if a person doesn't consume pork or wine and celebrates weddings and funerals at a mosque instead of a church? Others may not adopt a local lifestyle but do accept the new country's legal and political system. What is integration and how much is required? There are probably as many answers as there people concerned about the issue. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I could not help noticing. Marco polo, you seem to be suggesting that democratic values and tolerance of others are not values of countries with Muslim majority. That is a very bold and more than likely wrong assumption, unless I have misunderstood you, especially after commenting on a not-so-tolerant party such as Danish People's Party. Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly was not making such a blanket assertion. Those values exist to an extent in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, and to a lesser extent (at least when it comes to Kurds) in Turkey. However, some Muslim immigrants to Europe do not have those values. Of course, some do have those values. Marco polo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bold assumption. Only a handful of Muslim countries have anything remotely resembling a democracy: Tunisia, Turkey, Iran, Libya, and Egypt. Before Arab Spring, 3 of those countries were dictatorships, and to this day neither Libya nor Egypt has held an election. Virtually no Muslim country, with the possible exception of Tunisia, has reasonable freedom of speech or freedom of the press; in Turkey, one of the more progressive countries, citizens are routinely jailed for recognizing the Armenian genocide. Religious freedom is uncommon, and minorities are treated like second-class citizens. You probably heard about the Iranian pastor facing execution for refusing to renounce his faith, or the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. --140.180.3.244 (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that's one of those "Muslim - Towelhead" posts. Have you heard of Indonesia? It's the country with the biggest Muslim population in the world. It's a democracy. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What is a Muslim-Towelhead post? Anyways, I forgot about Indonesia; I was focusing on the Middle East. I also forgot Pakistan, which is a somewhat democratic country, but used to sponsor the Taliban, still covertly sponsors terrorists, turns a blind eye to honor killings, and ignores abuses against minorities whenever it's convenient to do so. It's undeniable that Muslim countries are less democratic and tolerant than Western Europe, so I'm not sure why we're even having a debate about this. In fact, I suspect Muslims in Muslim countries would be the first to agree with me, considering the events of Arab Spring and continuing protests in the Middle East (especially Syria). --140.180.3.244 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Indonesian occupation of East Timor was hardly a shining beacon of tolerence towards Christians. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked to

The Portuguese language was banned in East Timor and Indonesian was made the language of government, education and public commerce, and the Indonesian school curriculum was implemented. The official Indonesian national ideology, Pancasila, was applied to East Timor and government jobs were restricted to those holding certification in Pancasila training. East Timorese animist belief systems did not fit with Indonesia's constitutional monotheism, resulting in mass conversions to Christianity. Portuguese clergy were replaced with Indonesian priests and Latin and Portuguese mass was replaced by Indonesian mass.[115] Before the invasion, less than 30 percent of East Timorese were Roman Catholics, and by the 1980s, 80 percent were registered as Catholics.[115] With a 90 percent Catholic population, East Timor is currently one of the most densely Catholic countries in the world.[116]

Or Religion in East Timor?

The number of Protestants and Muslims declined significantly after September 1999 because these groups were disproportionately represented among supporters of integration with Indonesia and among the Indonesian civil servants assigned to work in the province from other parts of Indonesia, many of whom left the country in 1999.[1] The Indonesian military forces formerly stationed in the country included a significant number of Protestants, who played a major role in establishing Protestant churches in the territory.[1] Fewer than half of those congregations existed after September 1999, and many Protestants were among those who remained in West Timor.[1] The Assemblies of God is the largest and most active of the Protestant denominations.[1]

The occupation and sometimes brutal repression that followed was not much about any desire to harm Christianity or hate of Christians but much more to do with a desire to control as much territory as possible around the borders. Sure there was violence towards Christians, sometimes because they were Christians but it's hardly clear cut intolerence when you've gone from 30% to 90% Roman Catholic partially because the government preferred them to be Catholic then their traditional animist religions and when churches were established and expanded by those brought (or encourage to migrate) in to try to control the population and give some degree of pro-Indonesian dominance. As Christianity in Indonesia makes clear, a far better example would be the Maluku sectarian conflict.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Point taken - I should learn not to make quick posts. Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From a UK perspective there are several different waves of Muslim immigration to consider, but your question seems to come down to how one might define integration.

As already highlighted most of the organisations you identify use "integration" as a veil for their own prejudice. In the UK most work around integration is related to interaction and economic contribution. By and large the system isn't too worried what one eats and who one marries, notwithstanding the perennial debate around same sex relationships.

Attitudes within the immigrant community vary, and to a large extent depends on which wave one is discussing, and indeed which generation. Many of the current issues are related to third generation descendants of the partition related immigration wave.

ALR (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

65.92.150.51 -- In the U.K. at least, there has been a pattern among certain sub-groups where parents insist that their children must bring spouses over from the "old country" (who often know little English or have relatively small direct familiarity with British customs), rather than marrying someone who was also born in Britain. And in some parts of Europe, there has been a pattern of mosques hiring imams from the middle east or south Asia who have an impeccable traditional training in classical Islamic religious-legal interpretation, but who have had very little experience or knowledge of European societies before they suddenly find themselves in Europe (in some cases, they can't even speak the local European language), and who give advice to their parishioners which sometimes goes against the accepted cultural norms of European societies (in certain semi-notorious incidents, even in violation of the laws of European countries). I'm not too sure what "integration" as an abstract lofty goal would mean in concrete practical terms, or how integration could be very meaningfully measured, but it's such things which have sometimes caused friction and affected perceptions... AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sake Dean Mahomed, a Muslim by upbringing, brought Europe the Indian restaurant and shampoo bath. Not a bad contribution from just one person, and many other migrants have brought other cultural innovations. Do we (= people who stay put) actually want newcomers to become just like ourselves, or do we want them to introduce new elements into our culture? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to be able to cosmopolitanly draw on the best from around the world to enrich one's own country -- but it's not so nice if there is a substantial bloc of residents within your country who are happy to accept social services from the government, but predominantly reject the values of your country's society, and in fact pretty much regard the country which they live in with overall contempt and despising. The 1970's style of multiculturalist policies in Europe -- which in many cases effectively allowed immigrants to mistreat women without repercussions etc. etc. -- was a false consensus imposed from the top down by an elite of politicians, and some so-called "social scientists" who were far more interested in political advocacy than dispassionately and objectively studying social conditions. This artificial synthetic multiculturalism imposed by fiat from above was really not sustainable over the long term, and when it finally broke down, it unleashed more societal turbulence and bad feelings than would have been the case if people had been allowed to openly and honestly discuss the issues in the public arena all along...

As for Muslims vs. non-Muslims, I don't know how one would go about measuring degree of "integration" in any meaningful or accurate way, but it's noticeable that on average non-Muslim immigrants and children of non-Muslim immigrants from the Subcontinent to the UK are doing better than Muslim immigrants and children of Muslim immigrants from the Subcontinent, to the degree that the term "British Asian" is now semi-meaningless, since there are a significant number of British Hindus etc. who really do not want to be indiscriminately lumped together with Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As an American, I have to observe that this is much more of an issue in Europe than it is in the United States. There are substantial Muslim immigrant communities in some parts of the United States, and much larger immigrant communities of people such as Latin Americans who also have "foreign" cultures, but we do not have entire influential political parties focused mainly on opposition to immigration. There are at least two things that I think account for the differences in European and American attitudes toward immigration. 1) Americans are an immigrant nation, and many Americans (with some vocal exceptions) accept that one can be American without having the same religious beliefs or cultural practices as one's neighbors. People can be accepted as Americans merely by growing up here and speaking with an American accent, regardless of their beliefs or skin color (though racism certainly exists, but somewhat independently of questions about "Americanness"). Even those with foreign accents can be accepted as Americans if it is clear that they are committed to making their lives here and following the basic rules. Because of the possibility of acceptance, integration, to the minimal degree expected in the United States, is fairly easy for immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. They are not asked to give up their religion or the language they speak at home. 2) European societies have until recently been much more homogeneous. During my time living in Germany, I was shocked at the refusal of many Germans to accept people as German, even if their parents were born in Germany, they had never lived anywhere else, and they spoke German with the local accent, merely because their grandparents had come from Turkey and because they did not "look like" Germans. In that kind of environment, and I think it exists in other European countries besides Germany, where immigrants cannot hope for acceptance by natives, almost no matter what they do, is it any surprise that immigrants give up on integration and form autonomous communities? Marco polo (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I like what you say Marco, although the Americans did at one point pioneer some very dodgy ideas - eugenics, I mean - in a moral panic about immigrants. I would like to take issue with AnonMoos on some points he makes.

"Happy to take social services". British Muslims come largely from two groups. 1) Mirpuris from Pakistan, who were brought into the northern industrial towns to work in the cotton mills and 2) Sylhetis from ex East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, who came first as lascars and later to run and staff "Indian" restaurants and takeaways. Both groups have been extremely hard-working as long as economic conditions have permitted. Neither group was accepted by the white majority, instead they were subjected to outright discrimination that was perfectly legal in the immediate post-war period. That must be taken into account when noticing that people have "kept themselves to themselves" - which is supposed to be an English virtue anyway.

Action against poor treatment of women in those communities was mainly set in train by activists from the communities, who were treated as weird extremists for their pains.

In education, a key factor is the family commitment to achievement through education, which is strongly influenced by experience pre-migration. This was brought home for me when I helped a teenager of Bangladeshi origin revise for GCSE maths. We covered, from scratch, all the Pythagoras and trig in under 2 hours. Six weeks work in my grammar school, where maths was brilliantly taught. Turned out that her mother was a headteacher in Bangladesh. On migration people often drop a level of status, but they trust that their children will regain the previous level of status.

Open discussion about the issue, hmm, how can that happen when the knee-jerk response has for so long been "if they're black, send them back". Don't say that wasn't the case. I lived and worked in east London/south Essex through most of the 1970s and 1980s. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A form of Eugenics-lite certainly became fairly respectable and widespread in the United States in the 1920's (the most "scientifically" racist decade in all of U.S. history), but I'm afraid that Eugenics was pioneered more in Britain than in the United States...

In case I didn't make myself clear earlier, I in fact despise the non-Muslim and mostly lily-white social engineers of the 1970s far more than I do the European Muslims themselves (who until recent years were mostly just continuing with their customary way of life). During much of the 1970s to 1990s, in some countries there was kind of an elite consensus which slapped a smiley-face on multiculturalist policies, which were considered to be de facto off-limits for respectable public discussion (except by sociologists with degrees, who published articles full of professional jargon in scholarly journals), so that anyone who even sought to raise the issue of possible problems with the way that immigration was working out in European societies was automatically branded a new Enoch Powell or vicious racist of the lowest order. The predictable result was that when concerns over results of immigration finally boiled over and became public in a way that could no longer be ignored (partly as a result of 9/11, partly due to other factors), those expressing such concerns often ended up allied with far-right-wing political movements, while the word "multiculturalism" itself is currently widely regarded with disdain across a number of European societies. The creators of this type of false consensus imposed from the top-down really have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that their failed social engineering experiment imploded spectacularly, with negative political results. The spectacular rise of figures such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali really would not have been possible except for the fact that earlier anyone who had sought to raise issues such as female genital mutilation in an open public way (as opposed to in obscure academic journals) would have been shouted down as a "racist" or worse. This kind of de facto ban on any open public discussion of certain subjects allowed issues to fester without being addressed, and ended up promoting bad feelings more than good relations, and really did not end up being in the interests of the immigrant/minority groups themselves over the long term...

In any case, only the last paragraph of my "13:27, 18 November 2011" comment above was specifically about the U.K. The only British Bangladeshi I ever met was certainly willing to work harder than I was at the time, so I can't fault what you say on that count. However, the fact remains that a number of prominent British political figures have pointed out that insisting that your children always marry spouses from the old country (instead of other people born in the UK) is not integration, and has more negatives than positives from a number of viewpoints... AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WWII bombing mission commander

Watching the TV show Twelve O'Clock High got me to wondering, did generals routinely lead such missions? If not, what rank would be expected to? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

With the caveat I am not a military expert, old chap, as I understand it the highest rank that can normally be expected to be exposed to direct combat situations is a Colonel or equivalent thereof. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr. was a Lt. General (posthumously promoted to General), and killed by Japanese artillery in Okinawa. Another Lt. General, Lesley J. McNair was also killed in WW2, when the USAAF dropped bombs on his position, killing him in his foxhole in France. Together with Frank Maxwell Andrews (also a Lt. General, who died in a plane crash), they hold the record for the highest ranking US officers killed in WW2. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a small number of examples of high ranking officers taking part in air raids. These officers only flew when they needed to boost the morale of the men under their command or to get a first hand view of how the raids were being conducted (generally as part of settling in after assuming command). After they departed raids were generally commanded by mid-level officers who didn't usually deviate much from the plans set by more senior officers for the raid. See, for example Pathfinder (RAF)#Master bomber. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Korean War Major-General William F. Dean, knocked out an enemy tank with a hand grenade, directed the fire of bazooka teams and personally organized the withdrawal of his division's rearguard. He became sepreated from the rest of his forces and got lost in the mountains for a month. When he was finally captured, he tried to fight off the North Koreans with his pistol. Brave but not very effective as a general. Alansplodge (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. No wonder the general was so Savage. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksgiving greetings cards

Is it common in the US for people to send one another Thanksgiving day cards, as you would Christmas or birthday cards? 86.150.22.255 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Some people may do so, but it's not at all common. - Nunh-huh 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Greeting card manufacturers would like you to believe that it is. See Hallmark holiday. Gx872op (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its supposed to be the same thing. Same routine, I guess. :D HyperStudent (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I've never heard of anybody sending them. I've certainly never got one.

I don't doubt that Hallmark prints some, they've got cards for everything, but it's certainly not common at all.

Thanksgiving is basically just a feast. APL (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark's Thanksgiving card selection. — Michael J 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Listen with Mother

Can anyone recommend a good book of short stories for reading aloud to a 4 year old? This 4 year old loves the Dorothy Edwards My Naughty Little Sister stories, and enjoys occasionally snuggling up for a read-aloud story like that rather than a picture book. You used to be able to buy collections of stories for under-5s, but all now seem to be out of print, and as it's a present I really think I need to buy a new or like-new copy. I considered Paddington Bear, but those stories are too long and involved at the moment: he's a few months away from those, at least. I'd very much like to get him a modern collection of something like the old Listen with Mother stories, with short enjoyable stories aimed at a very young audience, but it looks like people just aren't selling to that market anymore. Can you suggest something likely to be in print in the UK? 86.163.1.168 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Approach it in this way [1]. Before you ask why – Wikipedia needs future editors! Hurry, the Councils are closing libraries right left and centre.--Aspro (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, but that doesn't get him a present that his parents will read to him, and it doesn't give me leads for this sort of book. I've found a 'Little book of bedtime stories' that fits the bill (it looks like 'bedtime stories' is code for 'short wordy stories for small children'), but I'm still interested in suggestions in this category. As I said, he loves the 'My Naughty Little Sister' stories, and it seems like there should be other books like them. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The get him an Amazon Kindle, he can then show mum and dad how to download books for themselves as well.--Aspro (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Try: The best children's books: 2-4 year-olds and maybe next year: The best children's books: 5-7 year-olds. Alansplodge (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Also Top 10 Best Books For Young Children Aged 3 to 4 Years. I used to love Dr Suess - he must have been the latest thing back then! This list, Books for four-year-old children seems to be from the US but includes The House at Pooh Corner, if your four year old deserves to be imbued with Englishness at an early age; "Being enchanted, its floor was not like the floor of the Forest, gorse and bracken and heather, but close-set grass, quiet and smooth and green. It was the only place in the Forest where you could sit down carelessly, without getting up again almost at once and looking for somewhere else. Sitting there they could see the whole world spread out until it reached the sky, and whatever there was all around the world over was with them in Galleons Lap." Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Last one for tonight: 100 books every child should read - Pt 1. Alansplodge (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Two recommendations: My Father's Dragon by Ruth Stiles Gannett; "Cautionary Tales for Children" (often bound with The Bad Child's Book of Beasts) both by Hilaire Belloc….for the child with a sense of irony. "I shoot the hippopotamus with bullets made of platinum, for if I used the leaden ones his hide is sure to flatten 'em." - Nunh-huh 03:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Belloc's "Cautionary Tales". Such memories. My favourite is still the first one I ever heard, "Matilda, Who Told Lies and Was Burnt to Death". Let that be a warning to all of you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm astonished that we don't have an article for Cautionary Tales for Children. My favourite is Henry King: Who Chewed Bits Of String, And Was Early Cut Off In Dreadful Agonies[2]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While I too liked both Matilda and Henry, my personal favorite was "Jim, Who Ran Away from His Nurse, and Was Eaten by a Lion.".... - Nunh-huh 17:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they may be a little dated, but are none the less charming for it, but the Peter Rabbit books by Beatrix Potter kept me happy when I was a nipper! In complete contrast, and in order to fulfil my husband's fantasy of being the "weird uncle", we bought our 3 and 5 year old nieces "The Book of Poo" the other year. And yes, it is a book about what sorts of animals make what sort of poo! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

4 is a bit young, but when the child is older, Naughty Stories for Good Boys and Girls (series) is brilliant. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous aboriginal governments in Canada

Is there a definitive list of what aboriginal governments in Canada are classified as autonomous, as opposed to being delegates of the federal government? We have a list of First Nations governments, but that does not distinguish the autonomous ones. The article autonomous area mentions Nunatsiavut, Nisga’a people, and Tlicho Government; is that all of them? The article List of autonomous areas by country only mentions Nunatsiavut. The only government sources I can find are the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act, and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, which each define the term "aboriginal government", but only for the acts themselves. Each act specifically includes Nisga’a, Westbank, Tlicho, Nunatsiavut, Tsawwassen, and Maanulth, but each act also references a longer list of governments. Are those six governments the autonomous ones? Thanks. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this complicated topic, but do Canadian federal and provincial governments classify First Nations using the term "autonomous"? I'm not sure they do. Also, if the Nisga’a are to be defined as autonomous--due to the Nisga'a Final Agreement no doubt--then the Maa-nulth First Nations should also count as autonomous. Their treaty was fully implemented in April, 2011. This page says the Maa-nulth Final Agreement is the second under the British Columbia Treaty Process BCTP, with the Nisga'a being first (see also [3]). There are quite a few FNs trying to work through the BCTP. A number of them are close to done, so the list of "autonomous" FNs is likely to increase over the next few years (or maybe decades--this process is slow!). See Status of First Nations treaties in British Columbia for a long list of BC FNs and how far along they are. I was surprised that the Haida were not further along. British Columbia is perhaps an unusual case. As far as I know it is the only province that never made treaties with the vast majority of indigenous peoples. If I understand right, only two treaties, covering relative small areas, were signed before the 21st century, with the second, Treaty 8, dating to 1899. For about a century aboriginal title was apparently ignored and essentially treated as Crown land. I was amazed to learn that only in the last decade or so has the province finally gotten around to dealing with this. The US is infamous for having treated (and continuing to treat) its indigenous people badly, but BC's history of neglect and exploitation surprised me. Canada is supposed to be better than that, isn't it?

Anyway, my rambling point is to question whether "autonomous" is a term by which First Nations are classified, and to point out that there are many treaty negotations going on, some of which are nearly finalized, and some of which have only recently been finalized, rendering older info out of date. Finally, I just checked both the Nisga'a Final Agreement, [4] and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, [5], for any words beginning "autono-". No results for either. Neither treaty mentions the words autonomous, autonomy, etc. I should repeat that I'm no expert on this topic. I'm not even Canadian. I could have it all wrong. Pfly (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pfly. "Autonomous" is not a term that has a definite meaning in Canada with regards to First Nations governments. What you should be looking for are communities that have signed "modern" treaties, also known as comprehensive land claim settlements [6]. These would include the first nations covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (the first so-called modern treaty), the groups under the umbrella of the Council for Yukon Indians [7], the two groups in BC mentioned above, as well as the Sechelt [8] and Westbank [9] First Nations, which have negotiated self-government agreements outside the Indian Act, and treaties with a few other groups such as the Inuvialuit Final Agreement [10], the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement [11], the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement [12] and the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement [13]. All other First Nations which have not signed modern treaties are still governed by provisions of the Indian Act and are therefore not autonomous. Nunavut is a different animal as it is a public government, not a first nations one. --Xuxl (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A followup question. I noticed that the Tsawwassen First Nation completed the modern BC treaty process and apparently owns in fee simple the Tsawwassen Indian Reserve. But it wasn't clear if their situation is quite comparable to the Nisga'a, Maa-nulth, and others in BC. Our page makes it sound like the deal made between the Tsawwassen and the BC government will result in something closer to the FN becoming "regular" Canadian citizens instead of a self-governing "autonomous" group. Perhaps their situation is simply unique and not like most other modern treaties? Pfly (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)