Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of colonialism on indigenous people
The effects of colonialism on indigenous people
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of colonialism on indigenous people
Outline of the issue: Self-determination is regarded to be the capability of an individual, an assembly of people, or a group of individuals to govern themselves. Therefore, this signifies that they are allowed to make their own decisions as to how they are governed, which legal system is in place as well as the utmost effective health and education system. Basically, any sort of verdict the government is trusted with. Identify any domestic/international laws that have been breached: Being in control over ones future is a vital human right, thus self-determination puts the legislative command for the good or ill in the influences of indigenous people. In saying this, both the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries …show more content…
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is used for protection of areas and items that are of importance to Aboriginal people as well as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 which also protects Indigenous places in which hold great value. The act punishes anyone who has impacted the significant heritage areas. An important legislation that tries to sort out issues is the Howard government’s Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 usually referred to as ‘The Intervention’, thus this act aims to protect the Indigenous society by adding extra police officers, boundaries on alcohol and welfare payments. Non-legal measures include various organisations that attempt to help Indigenous communities that are facing issues. For instance there is Oxfam Australia, The Fred Hollows Foundation and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. The media is a source in which helps society be aware of arising issues that the Indigenous population faces. For instance “10 more years of Intervention” 29th of June 2012. Thus the media discovers these matters and notifies the public on the arising issues in that are related to Indigenous …show more content…
Although as demonstrated in certain cases the process is slow however the results are effective. Domestic and international have led to an effective outcome as it targets to battle the issue of self-determination within the Indigenous society by applying various legal measures. Hence it has been taken in to consideration over the past years that Indigenous peoples have been excluded of the fact of having human rights. Throughout the ending of WWII, there were policies which permitted children from Indigenous families to be removed and taken away, Indigenous were not granted to vote in federal elections, discriminated, deficient in access to land rights and various other human rights that were not given to them. The General Assembly had put out the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which clearly states throughout Articles which affirms that Indigenous people are granted with human rights, which as a result proves the effectiveness of the legal system as it proves justice is served. Thus, this gives Indigenous people are treated equally. Charter of the United Nations, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic along with the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, confirm the essential significance of the right of self-determination of all individuals, by benefit of which
The Effectiveness of the Law in Achieving Justice for Indigenous People In relation to Australia, the term ‘Indigenous peoples’ refers to two distinct cultures of people who inhabited the land prior to European settlement – The Aboriginals and the Torres Strait Islanders. This population declined dramatically over the 19th and early 20th century due to the introduction of new diseases from European settlement, Government policies of dispersal and dispossession, the era of protection, assimilation and integration causing a cultural disruption and disintegration of the Indigenous peoples. In the 20th century the recognition and protection of Indigenous peoples land rights and human rights have been at the forefront of Global Issues where the International community has sought to address the issues and ratify Human Rights and Land Rights for Indigenous People as a legitimate subject to be implemented into international law and the domestic law of member states such as Australia. To evaluate the effectiveness of the law in achieving justice for Indigenous Australians we must look at the Australian Legal System, and the extent to which it addresses it’s obligations to International Law in relation to Australia’s
First I will define the definition of terms used in this paper. When I use the word Aboriginal, I understand this as a label given from the colonizers/ Europeans to identify Indigenous peoples. Canadian legislation defines Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal, I understand this as indifferent from the dominant ideology, therefore, the colonizers named Indigenous peoples as Aboriginal. According to teachings I have been exposed to it’s a legal term and it’s associated with discrimination and oppression. However, audiences I have written for prefer the use of Aboriginal. More premise to this reference is Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nations, Indian and Native are used interchangeable, but it should be noted these names do represent distinct differences. Furthermore, I will use Indigenous to represent an empowering way to reference a unique general culture in Canada. Under the title of Indigenous peoples in Canada, for me represents: First Nations people, Metis people and Inuit peoples. These are the two titles I will use when I reference Indigenous people from an empowering perspective and Aboriginal from a colonizer perspective.
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
United nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples In United Nations. General Assembly, United Nations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Eds.), . New York: New York : United Nations, 2008.
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business.
For Status Indians various activities have expanded nearby control under the Indian Act and permitted the arrangement of new administrative structures to supplant that act. On the other hand, numerous First Nations keep up that any type of assigned power is conflicting with an intrinsic right of self-government. Inuit have sought after self-government through open government courses of action in the north in conjunction with area claims, while the Métis have progressed different cases for area and self-government. Native people groups have additionally drawn on the privilege of self-determination and worldwide law to bolster their cases. The creating assemblage of global law on human rights has concentrated much consideration, as of late, on the privilege to self-determination as it applies to Aboriginal people groups. Native associations have contended that the characteristic right of self-government is a part of the privilege of self-determination perceived in the United Nations Charter and in the Draft Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous
July 11th 1990, marked the beginning date of the Oka Crisis in Quebec Canada. It lasted until September 26th 1990 resulting in one fatality of a local police officer. The violent clash was triggered by something as simple as a golf course extension and as complicated as native burial traditions. It had drawn world attention, catapulting native land rights into the mix. The Oka Crisis is just one of many conflicts between the Aboriginals and the Canadian government. A major issue that has been of much debate in the 20th century has been Native sovereignty. The demand sounds simple, allow Aboriginals of Canada to govern themselves; however, coexisting with the Canadian government makes this idea extremely complicated. Roger Townshend states that there is a difference in perception between Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal people about jurisdiction over Canadian territory and that is one reason Aboriginals should be governing themselves. Opposing this view, Thomas Flanagan argues against Native sovereignty for it is not a workable mechanism in Canadian politics. Native sovereignty can never coexist with Canadian sovereignty because of the complexity of having a third level of government, a resolution cannot be breached since each tribe’s traditions are different, and the idea of having a functioning conglomerate of native groups is very improbable.
In the following assignment, I will discuss the issue of native sovereignty in Canada, and address the question; "Can native sovereignty coexist with Canadian sovereignty?" To answer this question I will summarize two articles that discuss the issue. The first by John A. Olthius and Roger Townshend entitled "The Case for Native Sovereignty", and the second, by Thomas Flanagan, entitled "Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?" I will be taking the position against the coexistence of native sovereignty with Canadian sovereignty. These two articles will help me support my position on the issue.
his own life how he wishes, even if it will damage health or lead to
Indigenous Australians began to be robbed of their rights and freedoms when the Europeans colonized Australia. Since then, Aboriginal people and Indigenous supporters have taken steps towards equality and reconciliation.
The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second largest country in the world the geographical constraints on uniting Aboriginal people living across the country plays a significant factor. Flanagan also points to the diversity within this group; there are over six hundred bands across the ten provinces in Canada in more than 2,200 reserves. Compounding the geographical constraints facing their unity, Aboriginal bands in Canada often differ from each other significantly in their culture including language religion/customs (Flanagan 71). Many Aboriginal people now choose to live off reserve which further complicates their unity (Flanagan 73). Flanagan highlights that as many small bodies they would not be able to survive in the competition of the international community. Current international governance is extremely complex and Flanagan argues it is unlikely for poor isolated people to succeed (73). One united aboriginal voice is also highly unlikely according to Flanagan; having been freed of one power most bands would not choose to become conne...
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
The Indian act, since being passed by Parliament in 1876, has been quite the validity test for Aboriginal affairs occurring in Canada. Only a minority of documents in Canadian history have bred as much dismay, anger and debate compared to the Indian Act—but the legislation continues as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Aboriginal hatred against current and historic terms of the Indian Act is powerful, but Indigenous governments and politicians stand on different sides of the fence pertaining to value and/or purpose of the legislation. This is not shocking, considering the political cultures and structures of Aboriginal communities have been distorted and created by the imposition of the Indian Act.
Self-determination theory is one that assumes all humans are born with an innate drive to better oneself, basically becoming self-actualized, which is referred to as full-functioning. In self-determination theory, or SDT, full-functioning is characterized as “being aware and mindful, acting autonomously…, and pursuing and attaining intrinsic life goals” (Deci, Ryan, and, Guay 2013). SDT describes three autonomous behaviors: intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated, and emotionally motivated. SDT also describes three psychological basic needs of every human: the needs for competency, autonomy, and relatedness. The need for competency causes people to try tasks slightly tougher than they can currently manage, in order to improve upon