Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aboriginal identity
Other than then attending the field trip we still had readings to complete for class. The topic for this week was Montreal as an indigenous city. One of the articles we had to look at was a Canadian survey from 2006, “The Aboriginal population profile for Montreal” by Lori Hohban. The survey is based on Aboriginal identity populations. The participants had to report themselves as belonging to one of the aboriginal groups. Specifically, North American Metis or Inuit. The article also illustrates the difference between two importance terms: first nations and aboriginal population. The definition of first nations refers to as individuals who distinguish themselves as North American Indian. The term Aboriginal population refers to an “aboriginal
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.
... middle of paper ... ... Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina. Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) (2013).
Steckley, J., & Cummins, B. D. (2008). Full circle: Canada's First Nations (2nd ed.). Toronto:
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.
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
Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the explicit recognition of First Nations rights to their traditional lands, which have a deep societal meaning for aboriginal groups. Several issues must be discussed to understand the complex and intimate relationship all aboriginal societies have with the earth. Exploration into the effects that the absence of these rights has had the Cree of the Eastern James Bay area, will provide a more thorough understanding of the depth of the issue. Overall, the unique cultural relationship First Nations people of Canada have with Mother Earth needs to be incorporated into the documents of the Canadian Constitution to ensure the preservation and protection of Canadian First Nations cultural and heritage rights.s
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.
In the video “Aboriginal Peoples -- It's time”, the main topic of the video is advocating for equity and justice for the aboriginal people. Aboriginal people is a collective name for the original peoples of North America and their descendants. The Canadian constitution recognizes three groups of Aboriginal peoples: Indians (commonly referred to as First Nations), Métis and Inuit. These are three distinct peoples with unique histories, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. More than 1.4 million people in Canada identify themselves as an Aboriginal person, according to the 2011
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.
Presently, access to programs and health care services is fragmented given the nature of the health care system for Aboriginal peoples (Wilson et al., 2012). The federal government is responsible for providing limited health services among Inuit living within traditional territories and status/registered Indians living on reserves (Chen et al., 2004). This responsibility is vested in the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch organizations to carry out protection activities and health promotion, and provide funding for community health programs in Inuit communities and reserves (Chen et al., 2004). Firstly, the complexity of the health care system for Aboriginal peoples has resulted in an unequal access to health services due to the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch program (FNIHB), which only applies to Inuit and Indians. Therefore, Metis and other Aboriginal peoples who do not qualify for registration under the Indian Act do not receive health services provided by FNIHB (Chen et al., 2004). Secondly, the transfer of responsibility to health boards, communities and other authorities has resulted in unequal supply of health services between territories and provinces, uneven distribution among communities, and leaves limited opportunity for increased funding (Loppie et al., 2009). It has also lead to controversy between various levels of government over the responsibility to pay for particular health services. Jurisdictional limitations, which have failed to recognize Metis identity and rights, have resulted in health disparities among the Metis population (Wilson et al., 2012). While the federal government recently decided to include Metis status in Aboriginal initiatives, the funding has not been equitable when compared to those of Inuit and First Nations or to the non-Aboriginal populations in Canada (Loppie et al., 2009). The Aboriginal health
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 and Torres Strait Islanders Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have faced disadvantages in various areas, particularly housing. The disadvantages these people face now are the result of policies introduced by the European settlers, then the government. The policies introduced were protection, assimilation, integration and self-determination. It is hard to understand the housing disadvantages faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people if their history is not known.
Poverty is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as a lack of something or when the quality of something is extremely low. All over the world, poverty is present. Charles Darwin once said in the Voyage of the Beagle: “if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions” (Charles). First Nations across Canada are being put into a position of poverty and the Canadian Government are to blame. The Canadian government is only worsening the problem, rather than helping our First Peoples. The First Nations are disconnecting them from their traditional way of living, not funding their given lifestyle and not raising any awareness of the issue of Aboriginal poverty. But why should Canadian’s help the Aboriginals?
The over-representation of Aboriginal children in the Canadian Child Welfare system is a growing and multifaceted issue rooted in a pervasive history of racism and colonization in Canada. Residential schools were established with the intent to force assimilation of Aboriginal people in Canada into European-Canadian society (Reimer, 2010, p. 22). Many Aboriginal children’s lives have been changed adversely by the development of residential schools, even for those who did not attend them. It is estimated that Aboriginal children “are 6-8 times more likely to be placed in foster care than non-Aboriginal children (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, 2010, p. 2).” Reports have also indicated that First Nations registered Indian children make up the largest proportion of Aboriginal children entering child welfare care across Canada (Saskatchewan Child Welfare Review Panel, p. 2). Consequently, this has negatively impacted Aboriginal communities experience of and relationship with child welfare services across the country. It is visible that the over-representation of Aboriginal children in the child welfare system in Canada lies in the impact of the Canadian policy for Indian residential schools, which will be described throughout this paper.
For First Nations youngsters, relevant education should include education about their heritage. Where Aboriginal children are in school with other Canadians, this part of the curriculum needs to be shared generally, as self-esteem grows when an appreciation of one’s background is shared by others.