Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of European settlement on aboriginals
The case of native sovereignty
The case of native sovereignty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of European settlement on aboriginals
Native Sovereignty
In the following assignment, I will discuss the issue of native sovereignty in Canada, and address the question; "Can native sovereignty coexist with Canadian sovereignty?" To answer this question I will summarize two articles that discuss the issue. The first by John A. Olthius and Roger Townshend entitled "The Case for Native Sovereignty", and the second, by Thomas Flanagan, entitled "Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?" I will be taking the position against the coexistence of native sovereignty with Canadian sovereignty. These two articles will help me support my position on the issue.
Olthius and Townshend are in favour of native sovereignty within Canada based on historical and moral grounds. These authors believe there is a difference in perceptions between native and non-native Canadians regarding the jurisdiction over Canadian territory. In their essay, they write that Aboriginal people believe the Canadian state is oppressive and usurps the powers of Aboriginal people, while most non-aboriginals would be unlikely to question the status of the Canadian state. The essay contends that before European settlement, First Nations people had stability in their economic and political structures. Although their style was different than that of European nations, there was recognition of sovereignty of aboriginal lands. Acquisition of land in Canada did not come from conquest; rather it came primarily in the form of land transaction treaties. However, the treaties did little to support the claim of Canadian sovereignty since they are mostly unclear about issues of jurisdiction. A secondary way of claiming land for European settlement was through discovery of vacan...
... middle of paper ...
...people in Canada. Creating a new level of government, and giving such potential political power to a relatively small percentage of Canada's population doesn't seem like a very wise idea, especially since the distance and many differences between the many nations of aboriginal people is so great. It remains to be seen whether native and non-native Canadians can come to an agreement on the definition of sovereignty.
Bibliography:
Bibliography
Olthius, John A. and Townshend, Roger. "The case for Native sovereignty". In Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, 3rd ed. ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker, 5-8. Toronto: Nelson, 1998.
Flanagan, Thomas. "Native sovereignty: Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?". In Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, 3rd ed. ed. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker, 9-15. Toronto: Nelson, 1998.
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.
Through Laws, treaties and proclamations it becomes clear of the transfer of power between Native Americas and colonizing powers within the US and Canada. One significant treaty was Treaty NO. 9 in which Native Americans gave up their aboriginal title and land for money, hunting right, entrance into the christian school system and a Canadian flag presented to the Chief. The treaties described define the cascading effect of how western powers came into control of land at which Native Americans resided in. Specifically converging on the using Native Americans “elites” to influence other Native Americans into adopting western cultural beliefs, overshadowing the diverse Native American cultural practices. The overshadowing and belittling of Native American culture is not only expressed through the several treaties presented to Native Americans across history but also through real life accounts of Native American children adopted into the western school system. This sections places into the prospective the monopolization of Native American land and
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.
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.
Razack (20020 defines the historical legacy of the “white settler society” that has dominated the legal and historical rights to land usage in relation to indigenous peoples and people of color. In addition to this problem, Razack (2002) also defines the problem of “mapping” that has allowed a primarily racist Canadian government to marginalize or remove people of color from land ownership and placement in the white hegemonic community. In response tot this, Razack (2002) proposes an “unmapping” method in which the underlying racism of Canadian legal policies can be exposed and reconstructed to resolve the problem of racism in land usage in Canada. These are the important aspects of racial identity and spatial organization that define the conflicts of racism in Canadian law and in the “unmapping” of the “white settler society” that Razack (2002) identifies throughout the
The Board of Indian Commissioners was a committee that advised the United States federal government on Native American policy. The committee also had the purpose to inspect the supplies that were delivered to Indian reservations to ensure that the government fulfilled the treat obligations to tribes. The committee was established by congress on April 10th, 1869, and authorized the President of the United States to organize a board of ten or less people to oversee all aspect of Native American policy. President Ulysses S. Grant wanted to come up with a new policy, which would be more humane, with Native American tribes. The policy would be known as the Peace Policy, which aimed to be free of political corruption. This policy was prominent on
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).
Steckley, J., & Cummins, B. D. (2008). Full circle: Canada's First Nations (2nd ed.). Toronto:
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
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
In the 30 years after the Civil War, although government policy towards Native Americans intended to shift from forced separation to integration into American society, attempts to "Americanize" Indians only hastened the death of their culture and presence in the America. The intent in the policy, after the end of aggression, was to integrate Native Americans into American society. Many attempts at this were made, ranging from offering citizenship to granting lands to Indians. All of these attempts were in vain, however, because the result of this policies is much the same as would be the result of continued agression.
The issues surrounding Aboriginal land claims have posed both challenges and opportunities for Canadian unity. Establishing agreements between Aboriginal people and the federal government is quite complex, as the claims are often linked to social issues, governance, and other matters. Many Aboriginals see self-government as having been given to them by the Creator, and view it as a part of their spiritual connection to the land. Regardless, the federal government and Canadian Aboriginal people have been successful in negotiating several important settlements. This dispute however, has also lead to opportunities for Canadian unity. The long history and rich culture of Aboriginal people in Canada not only help define our national identity, but also shape our economic and social well-being. Collaborating with agreement partners help strengthen to approach to treaty implementation. Furthermore, land and resources under the control of these Aboriginal governments are more attractive to investors, and this facilitates partnerships between Aboriginal governments, other governments, and the private sector. As a result, greater prosperity for Aboriginal people and a more promising future for all Canadians may be achieved. The Aboriginal self-determination clearly proves the challenges and opportunities it can bring when dealing with Canadian identity and
Each individual makes up the society as it is, and various characteristics and beliefs makes up an individual. Although, individual lives together with a variety of personal ideologies, emotions, cultures, and rituals, they all differentiate one person from the other making up one’s own identity. This identity makes up who one is inside and out, their behaviour, actions, and words comes from their own practices and values. However, the profound history of Indigenous people raises question in the present about their identities. Who are they really? Do we as the non-native people judge them from the outside or the inside? Regardless of whether the society or the government were involved in their lives, they faced discrimination in every shape and form. They faced discrimination and left their values at residential school, outside in the general population, and faced gender discrimination. Many non-native government policies took place in their lives and shaped their new-unwanted identity, which was followed by the indigenous, however was it followed by them deep inside? One cannot agree on taking actions verbally and follow it physically, and if it was verbally and physically the results would have been different. However, in this case the results were awful as only physical forced was used by non-native peoples to get the native peoples to follow the Euro-Canadian way of lifestyle.
After repeatedly breaking promises about recognizing Indigenous rights in both legal and social affairs, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is under fire for failing to protect the rights of the Indigenous communities that make up 4.3% of Canada’s general population (Mohan, 2018). In a speech, the Prime Minister announced that he will ask his government to fundamentally change the laws to better the rights of the Indigenous people. “We need to get to a place where Indigenous peoples in Canada are in control of their own destiny, making their own decisions about their future” (Austen, 2018), the Prime Minister said, which countered his father’s, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s, stance when he said he and his government did not want
In present society, there are many conflicts within the Canadian First Nations, despite the fact that majority of the conflicts have been resolved. Like any other marginalized group, they continue to struggle and have limited opportunities and successes. Due to the factors of unemployment, death rates, health issues, and racism, many of the conflicts that involve Aboriginal people are not resolved. As a result of the lack of education given, the low standard of living, and isolation from society, the First Nations people continue to struggle and have limited success. However, it would be possible to resolve their struggles.