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.
To begin Sprague argues that the Canadian Government disingenuously mismanaged Metis land organization. Sprague states that evidence of this can be seen in the Canadian government not allowing the Lieutenant Governor Adams G. Archibald to make changes to Section 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act. Archibald proposed the government grant outlined in Section 31 should allocate each person of Aboriginal ancestry an allotment of “140 acres” (pg.75) of land. Archibald also suggested that the location of these allotments be in close proximity so as to “not disperse families throughout the province” (Pg. 75). Lastly Archibald proposed a suggestion in carrying out Section 32 which insured that land owned was not jeopardized during the process of confederacy. He recommended that Manitoba be recognized as an independent province such that affairs including land ownership would be dealt with on a provincial level. Therefore as Sprague argues Archibald’s words were not taken into consideration by both the governments of John A. Macdonald and Alexa...
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
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.
“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
LaDuke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999. Print.
Aboriginal people groups depended on an assortment of unmistakable approaches to sort out their political frameworks and establishments prior to contact with Europeans. Later, a considerable amount of these establishments were overlooked or legitimately stifled while the national government endeavored to force a uniform arrangement of limitlessly distinctive Euro-Canadian political goals on Aboriginal social orders. For some Aboriginal people groups, self-government is seen as an approach to recover control over the administration of matters that straightforwardly influence them and to safeguard their social characters. Self-government is alluded to as an inherent right, a previous right established in Aboriginal people groups' long occupation
“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
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.
Carole Blackburn writes the first article, titled, Differentiating Indigenous Citizenship, Seeking Multiplicity in Rights, Identity, and Sovereignty in Canada. Her ethnographic research brought her to British Columbia where she examined the delicate society of the Nisga’a people; an aboriginal tribe who has fought for differentiated indigenous citizenship for over a cent...
Reed, Kevin, Natasha Beeds, and Barbara Filion. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Toronto: Pearson Canada, 2011. Print.
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.
Indigenous people are the most disadvantaged minority in Canada and it has been this way for centuries. Missing women, flooding reserves, corrupt councils and a high suicide rate are only a small ratio of all the problems that are plaguing these communities and it is simply because they are not receiving the same amount of resources as the rest of Canada. Most Canadians cannot do much about this situation, but the government can. It has been shown that the government has tried to even with the Indigenous people in past accords and acts but most of these agreements were forced and hid the government’s racist motives in plain sight. For example, the White Paper Policy Paper of 1969 which was introduced by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien to “enable the Indian people to be free, free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians.” The paper proposed items such as eliminating Indian status, dissolving the Indian Act, and converting reserve land to private property that can be sold by the band or its members. Indigenous people across Canada were shocked. The White Paper failed to discuss the concerns raised by their leaders during the consultation process (Mohan, 2018). It contained no provisions to recognize First Nations’ special rights, to recognize and deal with
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.