In “Aboriginal Self Government through Constitutional Design: A Survey of Fourteen Aboriginal Constitutions in Canada” Christopher Alcantara and Greg Whitfield explore the dynamics of modern Aboriginal constitutions, as they analyze 14 Aboriginal constitutions and their comparative design and political nature to that of non-Aboriginal ones. Longstanding Indigenous traditions, and the unique development of their beliefs and practices are often reflected in these constitutional texts, which aim to develop “contemporary laws based on the values that informed and shaped their traditional approaches to the governance of human relationships and dispute resolution[s]” (123). The studied constitutions provide a textual snapshot of their societies makeup, which outline the issues they often face and are committed to overcoming. Despite differing and often challenging legal, cultural and constitutional traditions division between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals, their document creators are often confronted with the same types of issues (139). Indigenous constitutions signify a bond between individual groups and serve as legitimate documents that are important to their communities (128). While most of the studied First Nations groups have both signed land-claims and self-government agreements, it is not mandatory and does not alter the deep-rooted sense of identity that these groups continue to maintain.
Alcantara and Whitfield outline the analytical framework of a modern constitution, to establish a point of reference as they assess those of the Indigenous. The inclusion of first-generation rights in Aboriginal constitutions represent the largest portion of individual and communal rights, often including “the right to universal franchise, ...
... middle of paper ...
...has existed for centuries and did not originate in any particular tradition (135) – it serves as a commonality.
Alcantara and Whitfield discuss the work that must still be done; what conditions surround the creation of Aboriginal constitutions and the documentation of their evolution and impact. Tracking the effectiveness of these documents would illustrate if and how written text is put into practice and how it reflects Aboriginal self-government in Canada (140-141). It is not often that authors will acknowledge what is left to discover, and as a result it often becomes to conclusion of future readers, which can take away from the value of the piece itself. The initiative taken by the authors to illustrate not only the merit of their work, but the questions that still need attention display their commitment to Indigenous development and understanding in Canada.
The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
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.
In this paper, I will consider James Tully’s argument for an element “sharing” in a just relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of Canada. I will claim that “sharing” is one of principles to the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who has connection with economic, political and legal relations. I will argue, that it is important to build “sharing” into a new, postcolonial relationship since it brings beneficial to country. I will also state proponent view with James Tully’s discussion that utilization of “sharing” to economic, political, and legal relations is essential to our society.
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
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...
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.
Systems: The canadian Future in light of the American Past.” Ontario native Council on Justice. Toronto, Ontario.
Despite the decreasing inequalities between men and women in both private and public spheres, aboriginal women continue to be oppressed and discriminated against in both. Aboriginal people in Canada are the indigenous group of people that were residing in Canada prior to the European colonization. The term First Nations, Indian and indigenous are used interchangeably when referring to aboriginal people. Prior to the colonization, aboriginal communities used to be matrilineal and the power between men and women were equally balanced. When the European came in contact with the aboriginal, there came a shift in gender role and power control leading towards discrimination against the women. As a consequence of the colonization, the aboriginal women are a dominant group that are constantly subordinated and ignored by the government system of Canada. Thus today, aboriginal women experiences double jeopardy as they belong to more than one disadvantaged group i.e. being women and belonging to aboriginal group. In contemporary world, there are not much of a difference between Aboriginal people and the other minority groups as they face the similar challenges such as gender discrimination, victimization, and experiences injustice towards them. Although aboriginal people are not considered as visible minorities, this population continues to struggle for their existence like any other visible minorities group. Although both aboriginal men and women are being discriminated in our society, the women tends to experience more discrimination in public and private sphere and are constantly the targeted for violence, abuse and are victimized. In addition, many of the problems and violence faced by aborigin...
Aboriginal people groups depended on an assortment of unmistakable approaches to sort out their political frameworks and establishments prior to contact with Europeans. Later, a considerable amount of these establishments were overlooked or legitimately stifled while the national government endeavored to force a uniform arrangement of limitlessly distinctive Euro-Canadian political goals on Aboriginal social orders. For some Aboriginal people groups, self-government is seen as an approach to recover control over the administration of matters that straightforwardly influence them and to safeguard their social characters. Self-government is alluded to as an inherent right, a previous right established in Aboriginal people groups' long occupation
“In about half of the Dominion, the aboriginal rights of Indians have arguably been extinguished by treaty” (Sanders, 13). The traditions and culture of Aboriginals are vanishing at a quick pace, and along it is their wealth. If the Canadian Government restore Native rights over resource development once again, Aboriginals would be able to gain back wealth and help with the poverty in their societies. “An influential lobby group with close ties to the federal Conservatives is recommending that Ottawa ditch the Indian Act and give First Nations more control over their land in order to end aboriginal poverty once and for all” (End First). This recommendation would increase the income within Native communities, helping them jump out of
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.
Reed, Kevin, Natasha Beeds, and Barbara Filion. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2011. Print.
Aboriginal customary laws, before white settlement in 1788, were considered primitive by the British, if considered at all. But Aboriginal laws and customs had lasted hundreds of years, based on traditions such as kinship ties and rituals.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
Australia’s Indigenous people are thought to have reached the continent between 60 000 and 80 000 years ago. Over the thousands of years since then, a complex customary legal system have developed, strongly linked to the notion of kinship and based on oral tradition. The indigenous people were not seen as have a political culture or system for law. They were denied the access to basic human right e.g., the right to land ownership. Their cultural values of indigenous people became lost. They lost their traditional lifestyle and became disconnected socially. This means that they were unable to pass down their heritage and also were disconnected from the new occupants of the land.