Summary Statement – Indian Act The Indian Act was an attempt by the Canadian government to assimilate the aboriginals into the Canadian society through means such as Enfranchisement, the creation of elective band councils, the banning of aboriginals seeking legal help, and through the process of providing the Superintendent General of the Indian Affairs extreme control over the aboriginals, such as allowing the Superintendent to decide who receives certain benefits, during the earlier stages of the Canadian-Indigenous' political interaction. The failure of the Indian Act though only led to more confusion regarding the interaction of Canada and the aboriginals, giving birth to the failed White Paper and the unconstitutional Bill C-31, and the conflict still is left unresolved until this day. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...n.p.). Soon the Canadian government amended Section 12 in 1985, and Bill C-31 was passed for those who lost their status and want to regain them (Hanson, n.p.). Unfortunately a fault existed in Bill C-31, which stated that the statuses of the aboriginals can only be passed on for one generation. Seeing as this was still unconstitutional, the government is now attempting to again retract its footsteps by amending the Indian Act altogether (Hanson, n.p.), but is still meeting difficulty in doing so. The aboriginal reject the idea of abolishing the Indian Act for one reason. Because it still protects the “sacred rights” of the aboriginals (Hanson, n.p.). It still separates the Canadians from the aboriginals, and also benefits are given to the aboriginals under the Indian Act, and thus it still serves as a useful tool for the aboriginals to attain protection from.
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.
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
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
Throughout the history of Canada the indigenous population of the country have been voiceless. They have been both suppressed and oppressed by the Federal and various Provincial governments within Canada. Many organizations tried to provide a voice for the native population but failed in their attempt. These organizations eventually merged together to become what is now known as The Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations gives voice to the issues and problems facing the different components of the aboriginal community in Canada.
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.
Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State. …the true interests of the aborigines and of the State alike require...
celebration among the First Nations an the Pacific Coast) for they believe it was a corrupt
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.
“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
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 early 1800’s was a very important time for America. The small country was quickly expanding. With the Louisiana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition, America almost tripled in size by 1853. However, even with the amount of land growing, not everyone was welcomed with open arms. With the expansion of the country, the white Americans decided that they needed the Natives out.
The creation of the Residential Schools is now looked upon to be a regretful part of Canada’s past. The objective: to assimilate and to isolate First Nations and Aboriginal children so that they could be educated and integrated into Canadian society. However, under the image of morality, present day society views this assimilation as a deliberate form of cultural genocide. From the first school built in 1830 to the last one closed in 1996, Residential Schools were mandatory for First Nations or Aboriginal children and it was illegal for such children to attend any other educational institution. If there was any disobedience on the part of the parents, there would be monetary fines or in the worst case scenario, trouble with Indian Affairs.
The Indian Act in Canada, is the principal statute dealing with status Indians, their bands and the system of Indian reserves. The Act is wide raning in scope including resource development, governance, fiscal management and many other major policies. It is still regarded as one of the primary documents which rules how the Government of Canada interacts with first nations and their members. Section 87 is one of the most important policies enacted via the Indian Act regarding tax exemption.
The movement also strives for Aboriginals involvement and a means for their voices to be heard. The movement main issue was with bill C-45, as it affected the Indian Act, navigation Protection Act (former Navigable Waters Protection Act) and the environmental Assessment Act. The “first nations drum” wedsite gives detail of three main objectives of the movement, the first objective was the Indian Act, Natives groups wants to be able to rent, lease or own reserves, by majority vote whether by parliament or Native groups Already, endorsement required the backing of a greater part of qualified voters. Aboriginals want the right to own lands and for Ottawa to surrender band regions and easier allowance of the land treaty and territory. Natives also want to amend the navigation protection acts, which would protect land and lakes of the territory with the proper or no implementing of pipes, lines and drilling as Natives are considered to be “protectors of nature” according to Russell means. Hence, why they would also want to protect the environment assessment act, lessens further the quantity of ventures that would require an appraisal under the old procurements. These issues were very much evident in theAborginal communities, along with the poor living conditions and a
The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 was the New Deal for the Indian nation. The new policy was intended to ease the injustices that the Indians suffered at the hands of government. It was intended to stop the practice of forcing Indians to assimilate into western society (erasing their Indian identity and culture), as well as forcing them to live on reservations that were too small to sustain them (Kennedy, pg. 379).