Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Indigenous history in canada: essays
An essay on reconciliation
Essays of reconciliation canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Indigenous history in canada: essays
The efforts toward Reconciliation from the Canadian Government have been historically inadequate due to the conservative party led by stephen harper prioritizing other financial and social issues before important Aboriginal issues, which has ultimately affected their decision to follow through with proposed initiatives, such as the Kelowna Accord. The Kelowna Accord was a list of conditions and policies agreed upon between the Canadian Government, the leaders of every province and territory with the leaders of the First Nations People. Unfortunately when the conservative party took over, they decided that they did not have the funds necessary to implement the previously agreed upon accord, and insisted that it “did not exist” This decision unquestionably wounded the opportunity for reconciliation between the Government and First Nations People, which was a shame due to the benefits which are outlined in reconciliation. …show more content…
Another benefit would be the potential to introduce multilevel governance. A system of government that allows the Aboriginal people to have more of a say in parliament. Lastly, reconciliation provides the opportunity to eradicate a long held belief by those who are ignorant, that someone of a different cultural background of he/she, must assimilate and conform to the other’s belief. The Canadian Government following up on the Kelowna Accord will send a straight message that we are all one, and we are all Canadian Citizens regardless of root or
...t led to their rights being acknowledged in the Canadian law. Their rights including land claims could no longer be repelled or ignored by the federal government. The Policy of Outstanding Business was a huge breakthrough for Aboriginals as they were able to have their needs taken care of, receive full benefits in claims and became recognized in the Court of law.
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.
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...
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.
Some of the positive effects of the act are that it still protects several Aboriginal rights: it provides protection for the Aboriginals, paid education (post-secondary), exempts them from paying taxes, having healthcare coverage and have cheaply priced housing. As well as, the Act protects and preserves the Aboriginals’ land and prohibits non-Native people from using or living on the reserves. Lastly, It helps us to understand how the federal government took away the Aboriginals’ rights and lands and also learn that you should not discriminate people, no matter their background. Some of the negative effects of the act are that Aboriginals have lost a lot of cultural aspects due to the Indian Act. Firstly, the law prevents Aboriginals living on a reserve from owning their own property and they need to rely on their chief and band councils to grant them housing and maintain their homes condition. Adding on, First Nation people are prohibited from getting a mortgage, a business loan or even leasing a car. They are also prohibited from selling meat or agricultural products cultivated from their land to anyone off the reserve without special government permission. Finally, as of today, some Aboriginal people are still disrespected because of the stereotypes that non-Aboriginal people still believe. For example, there are a number of myths and misconceptions about Aboriginal people that some non-Aboriginal people still think is
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). The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognizes Indian sovereignty and its entitlement to land, became the benchmark for treaty making in Canada (Epp, 2008, p. 133; Isaac & Annis, p. 47, 48; Leeson, 2008, p. 226). There are currently 70 recognized treaties in Canada, encompassing 50 percent of Canadian land mass and representing over 600,000 First Nations people (Canada, 2013). These treaties usually have monetary provisions along with some financial benefits given by the Crown, in exchange for lands and its resources (Egan, 2012, p. 409). Its purpose should be an equal sharing of wealth that is beneficial for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginals (Egan, 2012, p. 414).
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
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.
Stanton, Kim. "Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: Settling the Past?" The International Indigenous Policy Journal 2, no. 3 (August 30, 2011): 1-20. Accessed May 18, 2014. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=iipj.
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.
The Indian Residential schools and the assimilating of First Nations people are more than a dark spot in Canada’s history. It was a time of racist leaders, bigoted white men who saw no point in working towards a lasting relationship with ingenious people. Recognition of these past mistakes, denunciation, and prevention steps must be taking intensively. They must be held to the same standard that we hold our current government to today. Without that standard, there is no moving forward. There is no bright future for Canada if we allow these injustices to be swept aside, leaving room for similar mistakes to be made again. We must apply our standards whatever century it was, is, or will be to rebuild trust between peoples, to never allow the abuse to be repeated, and to become the great nation we dream ourselves to be,
Now the Meech Lake Accord was presented to the public. In the beginning, it was accepted with much enthusiasm since it was flaunted as the final piece to the nation. The media said that if the document could get through the first wave of critics it could pass without problems. Mulroney said everything was moving as planned, much interest and excitement…That was until Pierre Trudeau stepped in the light with his severe opinion on the Accord.
First of all,I believe that Treaty 7 was not very effective in uniting the Canadian and the First Nations,because the reasons it was made for and the terms.But before we get into the terms of the treaty,we should talk about the Treaty first.The treaty was the 7th in the Numbered Treaties,so we can easily spot the significance of the legal document.It was signed on September 22 ,1877.The Treaty was signed between the First Nations and the Canadians and,as often happens in history,First Nations mostly were assimilated and that was the case here as they did not fully understand the terms.So,since we talked about what the Treaty was,let’s talk about how effective in tightening the bond between the FN and the Canadians.130 000 km of land was given to the Canadians and the First Nations received terms,that seemed equal to the land they were giving.The Canadian government had to pay the First Nations 2 ,000$ for ammunition and 12$ were given immediately and 25$ annually.The FN did not clearly understand
Both Hart and Anaquod were subjected to the cultural assimilation and social isolation that was part of the Canadian government’s policy to “kill the Indian in the child.” Where the goal to transform Indigenous children into productive members of society shifted to abuse and the church and government covering up the secrets of abuse is sitting on a blurred line. On June 11, 2008, the current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, made a statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada for the previous government’s actions. “The government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this,” Harper said. “We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that it created a void in many lives and communities and we apologize for having done this.” Harper noted that many former students have died and are unable to hear the government’s
In 2008, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the IRS system, which most Canadians supported. However, without real change the apology amounts to little. While the government admits wrongdoing, the institutions that committed the crime, from the mainline churches to the RCMP to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, continue to preserve their power. Genuine reconciliation could be at the adoption of a new form of bi-nationalism, between the Aboriginal peoples and the colonizers. A bi-national relationship will inevitably imply a reworking of dominant institutions and narratives foster power sharing. Another way in that the reconciliation might proceed is through the official recognition and promotion of Aboriginal languages, not only for Aboriginal peoples but for