Although I am still in the midst of finishing my FNSP 100 course at UBC, I have learned so much more than I expected to learn about Indigenous issues. I initially wanted to take FNSP 100 to learn more about Canadian history and what it means to be a Canadian today. Throughout primary and secondary school, I never learned much about Indigenous history or current events. I vaguely remember learning about Sitting Bull and Louis Riel, but these history lessons were always taught from a settler’s point of view. Not fully aware of what I was getting myself into, I dove into FNSP 100 excited and ready to learn more about Aboriginal peoples. I was expecting to learn about Indigenous culture, history, geography, art. And while I did learn about these topics and the issues behind them, I never expected to learn about them the way Dr Sheryl Lightfoot taught them. We have watched documentaries and films, we have read novels and academic articles, and we have even visited an exhibit in the Museum of Anthropology at UBC. Learning through so many outlets made the process of learning feel much more wholesome and rich – I was able to learn through a variety of ways which challenged me each differently. The content of the course was always thought-provoking and left me reflecting over the issues we talked outside of class. One of the most interesting issues we talked about in class was the ideas raised by Thomas King: the Dead Indian, Live Indian, and the Legal Indian.

The Dead Indian is the romanticized Indian, the Indian that follows the common stereotypes and clichés of society. It is often found in contemporary popular culture, illustrated as a dignified, noble being. At the same time, it is seen as obedient because it is silent and dead. But Dead Indians may not necessarily solely live in the past. Indigenous people may choose to celebrate their culture and history, thereby wearing traditional “Dead Indian” attire, but this is generally intended for one’s own spirituality and connection to ancestors rather than for show. This is also where the overlap between a Dead Indian and a Live Indian is blurred.

A Live Indian is progressive, having rights and responsibilities. But a Live Indian is also often invisible and deemed inauthentic in contemporary times. Live Indians still face many challenges that Dead Indians once faced, yet they are widely ignored and treated unfairly. Thus, many Indigenous peoples fight for their rights, title, and land yet are often called unruly or disruptive for doing so. Moreover, in order to maintain the Dead Indian, Live Indians are often deemed inauthentic, not true Indians because of how they have progressed and adapted just as settlers have. But who is to say that their culture or traditions are static? Who decided what or who a “true” Indian is?

A Legal Indian is an Indian with status. A Legal Indian is controlled by the Indian Act, in which the federal government has ultimate authority over. A Legal Indian receives title from Canada, but it is difficult to receive and maintain this title. Even when one fully identifies as Indian, status can still be elusive. And yet once one is granted status, do the benefits from the government truly compensate Indigenous peoples? The answer is often no, and because of that, Indians are seen as inconvenient. Indians are seen fighting for their rights, which involves control over land and resources, but this is rarely encouraged or advanced by Canadian government which seems to still seek for assimilation.

Although I still struggle with these issues today, FNSP has opened my mind to different resources and perspectives. The course has been amazing so far and I recommend anyone to take it. Learning about Indigenous studies is integral to understanding who you are as a Canadian setter and Canadian Indian. These issues are still relevant today and seen in our current issues. It is up to you to take the initiative to educate yourself on the complexities behind them in order to better understand Canada, Indigenous peoples, and your own role in Canada.

Note: I have attempted to use the term Indian as Thomas King has used the term in his book, The Inconvenient Indian. It is not meant to be offensive or hurtful. The term is intended to be neutral and refers to a group of diverse and indefinable people, just as King has intended to use it.