It is important to add a Secwepemc perspective to the Jan. 13 article discussing the re-naming of Roderick Haig-Brown Park with a Secwepemc name.
Despite saying that it “may be considered appropriate to recognize First Nation’s over 9,000 years of life here with a name change,” Jim Cooperman’s omission of any further reference to the Secwepemc perpetuates longstanding practices of marginalization and oppression.
Indeed, the use of the generalized term “First Nation’s” instead of identifying the Indigenous people of this area as ‘Secwepemc’ (the word ‘Shuswap’ is a misnomer) can be seen as a form of cultural erasure.
It is understandable that the re-naming of an area has generated debate, since the naming of land is never a neutral act. The naming of places within Canada was among the first actions undertaken by colonizers to establish ownership.
Secwepemc place names for landforms, waterways and gathering areas have been unceremoniously cast aside and rebranded to suit the current agendas of Euro-Canadians.
Many of these new names were named after individuals, contrasting with Secwepemc place names that highlight physical characteristics of the land and/or the relationship between humans and the earth. Names embody the value of k’wseltknéws, or, ‘we are all related.’
To commemorate Canada’s 150th year, let us reconcile past practices and work towards a shared goal of earth stewardship. Haida Gwaii and Nunavut exemplify how the re-naming of places can be a positive experience for all. Certainly, a return to one of the original place names, such as “Kwlolecw,” meaning “green earth,” or the creation of a name that embodies the spirit and intention of the park, should not be seen as disrespecting the legacy of Roderick Haig-Brown. Re-naming the park can mark a new era of knowledge exchange that ultimately will reinforce Haig-Brown’s environmental teachings.
Kathryn Michel
