Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social issues in canada due to the indian act
Indigenous history in canada: essays
Essay on indigenous rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social issues in canada due to the indian act
Throughout Canadian history, Aboriginal peoples have been subjected to varying degrees of state imposed control. With the end goal of eliminating the ‘Indian problem’, colonising mechanisms were put in place to regulate individual and collective Indigenous rights, possessions, and privileges. Various Canadian governmental policies had made institutionalized racism, as well as assimilation tactics against its Aboriginal people’s common practice. Infringing on their basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, the legislated policies and programs reflected the ideology of the time, which could be summed up by the very words of the Deputy Superintendent of Indian and Northern Affairs from 1913-32, Duncan Campbell Scott. As he infamously wrote, “our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department” (Palmater, 2011, 28). While present-day Canadian governments preach their official governmental policy of multiculturalism, progress is thought to be making headway towards a state of peaceful coexistence between the Indigenous population and the settlers of Turtle Island. However, in spite of Harper’s apology for past governmental ails regarding its ‘Indian policies’, the country continues to defend, and create new hidden legislated assimilation programs. Nevertheless, progress towards reconciliation is arguably being made in certain areas of our Nation, displaying exemplary deeds, which the rest of Canada ought to learn form, and quickly follow suit. In settler societies like Canada, reconciliation between Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples is certainly an obscured, but a profoundly important concept. As wi... ... middle of paper ... ...l person twice as likely to no have a university degree? The meaning of the word ‘reconciliation’ will mean a number of different things, to different people. RCAP maintained that reconciliation requires an understanding of the history of settler- Aboriginal relations as well as the contemporary Aboriginal plight. In Canada, the government has formally recognized its historical wrongdoings, which is surely a positive step; however, what I would argue to be the marker for achieved reconciliation, is that Aboriginal peoples would hold a standard of living equal to that of the mainstream Canadian populace, and where the anger and animosity that exist between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals would have disappeared. Hope is not lost for the aboriginal plight, but if achieving socio-economic balance is the end goal, then evidently, there is much work to be done.
The Indian Act is a combination of multiple legislations regarding the Aboriginal people who reside across Canada, such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Civilization Act was the Canadian government's attempt to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society in a passive manner, through a method they encouraged called Enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is basically a legal process that allows aboriginals to give up their aboriginal status and accept a Canadian status (Crey, n.p.). This process, while under the Gradual Civilization Act, was still voluntary, but became a forced process when the Indian Act was consolidated in 1876 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Enfranchisement Act introduced in 1869 was a major legislation that intruded with the private lives of the aboriginals. First, it established the “elective band council system” (Hanson, n.p.) that grants th...
Glen Coulthard’s “Resentment and Indigenous Politics” discusses the politics of recognition that are currently utilized within Canada’s current framework of rectifying its colonial relationship with Indigenous peoples. Coulthard continues a discussion on reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the state that recognizes the three main methods of reconciliation: the diversity of individual and collective practices to re-establish a positive self relation, the act of restoring damaged social and political relationships and the process in which things are brought to agreement and made consistent.
He also assumes that they should be participated in economic cooperation, resource development and the sharing of knowledge and technologies, like they assisted non-Aboriginal people in the past time. (James Tully pg.53) Obviously, Aboriginal people get a chance to participate in the society and to get respect and rights to exert their ability. Therefore, Aboriginal are able to promote the economic development. It is sufficiently show equality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in economic aspect. On the other hand, Tully’s states that Aboriginal people want to get power back from the government, they more likely to govern themselves and desire to delegate several of their rights to the political area. (James Tully pg.53) I will argue that it is valid to repatriate legal and political powers to Aboriginal people. Because when they self-govern accord with their own tradition and laws, it will create stabilize social order which avoid misconduct in our society. Furthermore, it offers Aboriginal people fair chance to speak in public that maintain their interest and profit. Most importantly, it recalls and emphasizes mutual respect is a factor to balance citizens between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. So that while Aboriginal people express their voice to society, it gain
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.
Generations of native people in Canada have faced suffering and cultural loss as a result of European colonization of their land. Government legislation has impacted the lives of five generations of First Nations people and as a result the fifth generation (from 1980 to present) is working to recover from their crippled cultural identity (Deiter-McArthur 379-380). This current generation is living with the fallout of previous government policies and societal prejudices that linger from four generations previous. Unrepentant, Canada’s ‘Genocide’, and Saskatchewan’s Indian People – Five Generations highlight issues that negatively influence First Nations people. The fifth generation of native people struggle against tremendous adversity in regard to assimilation, integration, separation, and recovering their cultural identity with inadequate assistance from our great nation.
Living in Canada, there is a long past with the Indigenous people. The relationship between the white and First Nations community is one that is damaged because of our shameful actions in the 1800’s. Unnecessary measures were taken when the Canadian government planned to assimilate the Aboriginal people. Through the Indian Act and Residential schools the government attempted to take away their culture and “kill the Indian in the child.” The Indian Act allowed the government to take control over the people, the residential schools took away their culture and tore apart their families, and now we are left with not only a broken relationship between the First Nations people but they are trying to put back together their lives while still living with a harsh reality of their past.
David Garneau’s article on “Imaginary Spaces of Conciliation and Reconciliation” offers a refreshing outlook on the term and implantation of reconciliation in post-colonial culture. He argues that conciliation would evoke an individual transformation of the settler if Aboriginal history was accepted as independent yet in union with the history of Canada. Garneau’s vison of conciliation is centered on this idea of an imaginary space between the settlers and Aboriginals and, within this space, settlers are separated from Aboriginals to naturally reflect on the Aboriginal’s experiences of colonialism. However, the implications of this space also created a void in society because the residential schools are the imaginary spaces in which settlers are reconciling. The direction of Garneau’s article is insightful to understanding how reconciliation has failed in countries and how it’s practice, in accordance with religious connotations, has created an underlying tone of “charity” and “pardon” opposed to restorative justice (35).
Despite the overwhelming use in political rhetoric, it is difficult to establish the Government of Canada’s precise definition of reconciliation. It is equally unclear as to what reconciliation entails substantively— as either a process or an outcome —in reconceiving the colonial relationship between Indigenous peoples, Settlers, and the Canadian government. For my Reconciliation Essay, I intend to problematize the very term of reconciliation as used in Canadian politics by drawing primarily on its use in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2008 Residential Schools Apology. I will argue that the concept reconciliation as exercised in the political discourse of federal government is neither a meaningful gesture, nor consistent with Indigenous conceptions of same term. In fact, reconciliation as presented by the Government of Canada serves only as a tool to recolonize Indigenous peoples, in that its connotations leave the colonial relationship largely
The question that is often brought to our nations attention is whether or not incremental equality for First Nations children is compatible with reconciliation. When considering my personal opinion, the two are in fact compatible with one another. However, Canada is still working towards reconciliation but still has not completely reached it. The working towards reconciliation within First Nations children is seen throughout many aspects in Canada. Firstly, incremental equality is trying to be reached through education. Next, incremental equality is working towards being met throughout health systems as well as behaviors. Lastly, incremental equality for First Nations children is moving towards reconciliation throughout the physical environments
Fleras, Augie. “Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Repairing the Relationship.” Chapter 7 of Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada. 6th ed. Toronto: Pearson, 2010. 162-210. Print.
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
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.
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
Vancouver currently maintains an image as a sort of maternal ethnic melting pot, a region rich in cultural diversity and with a municipality that is both tolerant and welcoming of various displays and traditions. However, upon closer examination of recent history, it becomes clear that the concept of the city embracing minorities with a warm liberal hug is both incorrect and a form of manipulation in itself. The articles Erasing Indigenous Indigeneity in Vancouver and The Idea of Chinatown unravel the cultural sanitization that occurred in Vancouver at the turn of the nineteenth century as means of state domination. Through careful synthesis of primary documents, the articles piece together the systematic oppression suffered by BC indigenous
Understanding that the Aboriginal population is indeed a special population in Canada derives from the fact that there has been serious injustice since colonization in Canada, and that has built the foundation for the injustice we see today. For instance, we see injustice in the systematic discrimination against Aboriginal people. However this is interpreted through the perception that we see Aboriginal people as having lower status in society as a result of the statistic demonstrating higher rates of incarceration, lower education, and higher rates of addiction. These have not only added to injustice that natives will face but also the systematic