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. Though Coulthard’s argues that Indigenous people’s ressentiment is a valid expression of Indigenous anger against colonial practices under certain …show more content…
Anger creates discourses that can prevent dialogues of mutual understanding which is the main goal of reconciliation. Furthermore, Coulthard acknowledges the problems that arise as a result of a discourse based upon anger. He utilizes Nietzsche and Brudholm work on the significance of anger to prove this through the genealogy of anger and an irrational preoccupation with the past. I agree with Coulthard’s assessment of their work, however, he justifies the utilization of violence for the creation“alternative subjectivities and decolonial practices.” If anger is utilized as the framework for reconciliation, it creates the justification of political violence and the internalization of individual’s oppression. Coulthard specifically argues that politicized anger can be utilized transformatively under certain conditions, it creates a dynamic in which Indigenous identity can be defined as an Otherness in relation to the anger. As a result, the utilization of anger as a framework can lead to a shift in Indigenous identity but can also be harmful to public perception that impacts reconciliatory practices. Furthemore, if anger is utilized as the main form of discourse, it prevents the achievement of the objectives of reconciliation because it does not embody “mutual recognition and
The term “Sixties Scoop,” was created by the writer, Patrick Johnson to describe “the taking of thousands of Native children from their families, communities, and peoples during the 1960s to early 1980s” (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, 274). In the 1960’s, the government generally believed that an extension of child welfare services to reserves would be a practical approach of solving some of the problems on reserves. Although the social services may have had good intentions, “little attention was paid to the effect that extending provincial services would have on Indian families and communities [and there did not appear] to be any concern that provincial services might not be compatible with the needs of Indian communities” (Lloyd 2009). The majority of children that were placed for adoption were relocated to distant communities, different provinces and some were also placed in the United States to the dwellings of middle class Caucasian families. Across North America, the scattering of Aboriginal children contributed to damaged identifications with traditional First Nations culture (Alston-O’Connor 2010). Consequently, the Sixties Scoop caused irreversible psychological, emotional and spiritual damage to not only the individual, but to the families and the community too.
In this paper, I will consider James Tully’s argument for an element “sharing” in a just relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people of Canada. I will claim that “sharing” is one of principles to the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who has connection with economic, political and legal relations. I will argue, that it is important to build “sharing” into a new, postcolonial relationship since it brings beneficial to country. I will also state proponent view with James Tully’s discussion that utilization of “sharing” to economic, political, and legal relations is essential to our society.
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.
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.
It is the belief of first nations that the healing process and renewal of relationships are the essential ingredients for the building of healthy First Nations communities. First nations realize that the current justice process does not address the real issues at hand nor does it fit into their traditional forms of achieving justice. In fact, the current justice process systematically removes the offenders from their people and communities effectively severing all ties and ...
David Garneau’s article on “Imaginary Spaces of Conciliation and Reconciliation” offers a refreshing outlook on the term and implantation of reconciliation in post-colonial culture. He argues that conciliation would evoke an individual transformation of the settler if Aboriginal history was accepted as independent yet in union with the history of Canada. Garneau’s vison of conciliation is centered on this idea of an imaginary space between the settlers and Aboriginals and, within this space, settlers are separated from Aboriginals to naturally reflect on the Aboriginal’s experiences of colonialism. However, the implications of this space also created a void in society because the residential schools are the imaginary spaces in which settlers are reconciling. The direction of Garneau’s article is insightful to understanding how reconciliation has failed in countries and how it’s practice, in accordance with religious connotations, has created an underlying tone of “charity” and “pardon” opposed to restorative justice (35).
Through the article “Intimate Enemies: Weetigo, Weesageechak, and the Politics of Reconciliation in Tomson Highway’s Kiss of the Fur Queen and Joseph Boyden’s Three Day Road”, McCall explains the methods in which the Weetigo and Weesageechak are represented in the two texts and to what purpose their presence serves. She does this through a study for each entity and examples from the texts of their usage in the plot. The first part of the article explains the ways of reconciliation between Indigenous people and Canadians by illustrating both methods of reconciliation and issues that arise. McCall identifies that reconciliation is to the benefit of the coloniser in most cases, that it is a form of national amnesia which allows for the settler community to forget about the harm inflicted upon
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
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.
Roger Townshend makes a number of points that support the idea of Native sovereignty. He identifies that the very perception of sovereignty in regard to Aboriginals in Canada has changed. In the initial contact by early European settlers, Aboriginals were treated as “…allies or as enemies, but in any event, as nations to be treated as equals with European States,” (Townshend 37). Through ti...
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
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 proud Canadian denies the fact Canada oppressed the Aboriginal peoples. The fact is that time has not been assisting in the progress of the Indigenous peoples from discrimination. “Tidings of
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).