More handpicked essays just for you.
Canadian government discrimination against aboriginals
Canadian government discrimination against aboriginals
Racial discrimination and indigenous people in canada essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...ereignty. As mentioned Quebec does not have complete sovereignty and it shares its powers with the federal government (Johnson). Strong words like Johnson's found in the mass media are very significant to issues such as this. As elected representatives the government will not act against the wishes of the majority of citizens. Therefore if the Canadian citizens claim that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty than it will not. In conclusion Thomas Flanagan is correct in his argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
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.
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.
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.
... A successful strategy in the accommodation of national minorities within a liberal democracy could be founded upon mutual trust, recognition and sound financial arrangements. However, a certain degree of tension between central and regional institutions may remain as a constant threat in this complex relationship since they entertain opposing aims. The federal governments determination to protect its territorial integrity, and its will to foster a single national identity among its citizens clashes with Quebec’s wish to be recognized as a separate nation and decide upon its political destiny and to foster its distinct identity (Guibernau pg.72). Moreover, if the ROC and the federal government can come to an agreement on terms that satisfy the majority and an identity that encompasses the heart of a country; Canada will continue to exist with or without Quebec.
“The recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
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
The question of whether Quebec will secede from Canada to become an independent nation has been a hot topic in the country for several years now. It dates back to the abortive rebellions of 1837-38. In 1980, a referendum to secede was rejected by a 60-40 margin. Since then though, the number of Quebeckers that want to become sovereign has significantly increased. There are so many questions about what will happen if this does happen.
When asked about the definition of a sovereign nation, Selma Buckwheat (September 25, 2013), elder member of the Anishinabeg tribe, explains by stating, “We govern ourselves and have our own laws” (personal communication). They have a lot of meetings that help understand most of the sovereign nations. In other words, a sovereign nation is power or a territory existing as an independent s...
For many centuries, The Métis have fought for sovereignty for their culture and what they thought the federal government should’ve given to them. They fought for the right to their land, including property rights. These rights almost disappeared when the European Settlers came to Canada. Though their rights were very much lost, they were never forgotten by the Metis. Throughout history the Metis has had success and failure, but they have always continued to fight for their sovereignty. Though after the North West Rebellion, little was accomplished by the Metis for their sovereignty. Future generations have recently come forward in the last decade or so, standing up for what their ancestors 140 years ago strongly fought for.
In the past 30 years, two “Rebellions” have taken place between the Métis and the Government of Canada. I strongly believe that the terminology used to describe the Red River “Rebellion” and North West “Rebellion” is misused and should be modified to correctly represent these events. Due to the nature of these events, the more accurate term to use would be “resistance” as the Métis were strictly defending their rights as human beings. A rebellion is defined as an effort by many people to change the government or leader of a country through the use of violence. A resistance however, is the refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument. The Métis were not in pursuit of changing the government; they simply wanted a voice in Confederation. The use of the term “rebellion” delivers the wrong impressions of the Métis. Their use of violence was not an act of destruction but of defense. It is for the following reasons that I believe the term “”rebellion” should be corrected to “resistance”.
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”Wisconsin International Law Journal. Vol. 7 No. 1. Retrieved Nov 28th 2013 from http://works.bepress.com
For the past 500 years the native inhabitants of this land have lived a legacy amongst and became subordinates to the European colonialists. They have had to adhere to stipulations that did not translate into their way of understanding and life ethos, and were misinterpreted. “The misunderstanding of my ancestors at treaty was linguistic and conceptual. We did not understand your language or your concepts of property” (Johnson 2007:41). The legacy consists of poverty, powerlessness, and the breakdown of social cohesion that plague so many Aboriginal families and communities. These conditions did not come about by chance or failure to modernize. They were created by past policies that systematically dispossessed Aboriginal people of their lands and economic resources, their cultures and languages, and the social and political institutions through which they took care of their own (Brant-Castellano 2001:5). Due to colonial and imperial impositions the majority of Canada’s Indigenous population is amongst the most highly excluded, poverty stricken, oppressed, and disadvantaged groups. Within the past half century, Aboriginal peoples have been relentless and determined in their struggle to attain self-determination, maintain their treaty rights and dispute rightful control of land possession matters. By means of mobilization and resistance movements they have contested and are challenging the policies that originated with colonialism and continue with government policies of the present day. The following essay will begin with a timeline of significant dates in the history of colonial and present day policy and law making that governing powers have applied and imposed on First Nation populations. A portion of the paper will cover a h...
"Fundamental Principles of Tribal Sovereignty." Americanindianpolicycenter.org. American Indian Policy Center, 1 Nov. 2005. Web. 29 Mar. 2014. .
Racialization of Poverty becomes concentrated among racialized group such as the Indigenous and inevitably it is socially constructed. In addition, “ colonization is the word most often used to describe the experience of Indigenous encounters with Settler societies.” In country like Canada, colonialism is the domination over Indigenous People by European colonizers and constructing that they are inferior. Furthermore, “ colonialism is the act of claiming sovereignty over the lands and resources of subject people.”(Burger, 2013) This manifests that the aboriginal are being targeted and they experienced terrible violence in the fight of natural resources, lack of power, and suppression with the states. Indeed, The more white settlers occupy, the more marginalized with the indigenous people. Comparing to the first nation, a white settler society continues to be structured by a racial hierarchy. Race and identity is interrelated among groups peculiarly like the First Nation. Most of the indigenous people still live a society which they are separate to the rest, but self- determination is rather essential. After huge assimilation, even though they are not self- governing, self- determination such as “ the right to determine [their] own membership; the right to protect [their] own culture and language; and the right to educate [their] children in accordance with the values of your people” ( Coe, 1994). Although their identity is socially constructed, it is critical for them to maintain their own culture because they are allow to identify themselves upon their interest and perspectives. Research by Eisenberg (2013) says that “in Canada, most Indigenous actors criticized the state for failing to be faithful to the treaties and not recognizing the Indigenous right to sovereignty and self-determination.” For instance, he mentioned that they should have the right to survive
In times of rapid change and development, Canada as a democratic nation has failed to represent its population as an entirety, specifically, it has failed to represent its Indigenous peoples; its First Nations. Seen as a utopia for people of all ideologies, the Canadian government has done nothing for the Indigenous communities in their fight against alcoholism and in providing the necessary treatment. They have refused to acknowledge their poor standard of living and quality of life on reserves that are cut off from the rest of the Canadian population, where they face issues on a daily basis that defy basic human rights. The Indigenous peoples have a gap in their faith, culture, heritage, and traditions compared to the rest of Canada due to