More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination against indigenous people in canada
Essays on proclamation of 1763
Discrimination against indigenous people in canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discrimination against indigenous people in canada
Royal Proclamation of 1763: a Historic Moment
Few Canadians acknowledge the Aboriginals and their land rights, and even fewer Canadians study them. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is considered one of the most important treaties in history to be made with the Native People; yet very few have even a vague idea when they hear the words “Royal Proclamation, 1763”. Even with the grounds that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 provided, Canada has repeatedly shown ill treatment towards Aboriginals in an repugnant manner. The Royal Proclamation should be respected as an official treaty, signified as a milestone, as well as to be a lesson to teach Canadians equality toward Aboriginals.
Respect is a quality that is almost always expect of one in all societies. Why should it be any different when it comes Canadians and Aboriginals? Known as the “Indian Magna Carta”, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 is an official document issued by King George III himself. One would think this a document or great authority and power; however with a quick look on how Canada treated Aboriginals throughout ...
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.
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.
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).
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.
Harold Cardinal made a bold statement in his book, The Unjust Society, in 1969 about the history of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. His entire book is, in fact, a jab at Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s idea of ‘the just society’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made great assumptions about First Nations people by declaring that Aboriginal people should be happy about no longer being described as Indian. His goal was to rid Canada of Indians by assimilating them into the Canadian framework. Considered by many as a progressive policy, Trudeau’s white paper demonstrates just how accurate the following statement made by Harold Cardinal at the beginning of his book is : “The history of Canada’s Indians is a shameful chronicle of the white man’s disinterest,
Canadians view themselves as morally correct, yet the Indigenous peoples are oppressed and discriminated by Canadians. The Aboriginal peoples culture would last longer without Canada since Canada wants to control first, but not by understanding the culture and heritage. Aboriginal peoples express how they felt about the Canadian “Myth of Progress”. Some other works take a more satirical look like “Tidings of Comfort and Joy” but the points still stand. One of the points is Canadians are discriminating the Indigenous peoples to be lazy and corrupt.
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.
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.
“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
Our government’s predecessors have attempted to eradicate Canada’s first people, which is not only an insult to the indigenous people of the past, but to the present. This country did not start off as a joint endeavor of the two general groups of people that inhabited it during its birth, but decimation and forced assimilation of great traditions and people. The assimilation of a great culture, the destruction of oral histories, and the forced loss of language destroyed the chance trust. Only by teaching disgust towards that type of attitude and action, by not excusing it or attempting to justify, will begin a new age of
Despite the overwhelming use in political rhetoric, it is difficult to establish the Government of Canada’s precise definition of reconciliation. It is equally unclear as to what reconciliation entails substantively— as either a process or an outcome —in reconceiving the colonial relationship between Indigenous peoples, Settlers, and the Canadian government. For my Reconciliation Essay, I intend to problematize the very term of reconciliation as used in Canadian politics by drawing primarily on its use in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2008 Residential Schools Apology. I will argue that the concept reconciliation as exercised in the political discourse of federal government is neither a meaningful gesture, nor consistent with Indigenous conceptions of same term. In fact, reconciliation as presented by the Government of Canada serves only as a tool to recolonize Indigenous peoples, in that its connotations leave the colonial relationship largely
“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
The Indian Act is a combination of multiple legislations regarding the Aboriginal people who reside across Canada, such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Civilization Act was the Canadian government's attempt to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society in a passive manner, through a method they encouraged called Enfranchisement. Enfranchisement is basically a legal process that allows aboriginals to give up their aboriginal status and accept a Canadian status (Crey, n.p.). This process, while under the Gradual Civilization Act, was still voluntary, but became a forced process when the Indian Act was consolidated in 1876 (Hanson, n.p.). The Gradual Enfranchisement Act introduced in 1869 was a major legislation that intruded with the private lives of the aboriginals. First, it established the “elective band council system” (Hanson, n.p.) that grants th...