New Brunswick (Canada) 1861 census "Native"
You are mislabeling virtually the entire population of New Brunswick in the 1861 census as "Native", which is being interpreted as Native American, when it actually means 'born in New Brunswick'. Not just a few entries, practically all of them.
The "Race and Where Born" column was universally completed by enumerators with the term "Native". Virtually all of these people are European descent and where the 'Race' portion appears it uses terms like 'Scotch', 'Irish', 'England', 'German' and so on. Native here means born in New Brunswick. It's an innocent but problematic application of the word. Even though
first nations people may also be in the census they are almost certainly barely represented or found primarily in specific census areas or special census forms.
FamilySearch record pages reproduces this field as "race=Native", which in the above context can only mean a First Nations person, i.e. what Americans call Native American, and invoking the underlying vulgar term indian. eg: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQM5-BG4
Ancestry.com over-extends the field specifically to: "race=Native (Native American)". eg: https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/774518134:1570?tid=5632735&pid=-1393602619&hid=1038750017186
Contrast with Library & Archives Canada record pages which omits the field altogether in it's record pages. eg: https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=census&IdNumber=44179287
Solve this by removing the 'race...' field in your record page. Simple. Other fields are also not included in the report pages and no-one will miss this one. The original scanned documents are viewable by Ancestry users and free from Library & Archives Canada. Family Search is missing these images so researchers don't have the original document to compare.
A second solution is edit the data fields, replacing "Native" with "New Brunswick".
Thank you for your attention to this issue.
According to the Library and Archive Canada census of 1861 page this is a known issue:
In the 1861 census of New Brunswick, “Native” meant born in that province, not Aboriginal.
The index accurately reflects what was written by the enumerator, so there is no error to correct. When the capability to edit every field is applied to this collection, you will be able to change the race with an explanation of what is should have been. Until then, when you attach the the record, you can make a note that Native referred to being born in New Brunswick.0
Paul W ✭✭✭✭✭
Unfortunately, I do not have access to images of the original documents. However, I understand the general rules on indexing emphasise that data should be indexed exactly as recorded in the original. In this case, if the column is indeed headed "Race" it is perfectly correct for "Native" to be recorded - even though that term appears to be quite meaningless.
As I argued with one of my schoolteachers (more years ago than I wish to remember), "Native (of)" refers to the place of ones birth - the term being found in Durham, England parish registers in describing where an individual was born (or possibly raised from infancy). It has nothing whatsoever to do with race - as a "native" of my home town in England can be a Londoner, an Englishman, Asian, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese, or whatever: they only have to be born there to qualify for that description. On the other hand, "race" is usually defined by the part of the world to which your ancestors can be originally traced.
To clarify, unless there is a "Race" column in these original documents, it was completely wrong to add this term to the indexed version. (FamilySearch has been "guilty" of this previously: still refusing to change the term "Beneficiary" to "Executor" in its England & Wales Probate collection.)
In summary, no - nothing should be changed in the index to "avoid misunderstanding". The change that would need to be made is if the column in the original census records is not headed "Race".0