Indigenous People In Canada

Institutional and historical analysis often portray the motives of governments, especially in the cases of Quebec separatism and Aboriginal mistreatment. History describes attempts at compromise to rectify the problems by altering political institutions to provide more autonomy to the provinces, witness in various accords and the methods described previously. However, in regards to Aboriginals a historical relationship of exploitation and eradication sheds on the systemic issues that Aboriginals cope with and the institutions that caused them. As scholars of Canadian politics, it is important to consider historical and institutional analyses when looking at any issue, as it reveals the underlying motives of actors in regards to the cleavages that comprise a state. This is especially evident in Trudeau’s account of how over-zealous nationalism prevented Quebec from modernizing prior to WWII, setting it behind the rest of the

There were nomadic tribes such as the Plains People who followed buffalo (Iroquois Indians) and tribes who resided on the coast who hunted and fished. Arrival of the Europeans would affect the aboriginal way of life and the way people related to the land. Aboriginal people had verbal treaties. They had no central government; rather aboriginal society existed on unwritten customs and courtesies. Aboriginal nations employed oral treaties to settle disputes and end war. The Europeans brought their own governance and written treaties upon their arrival. When agreements between Aboriginals and Europeans were made they were written, as is European custom, and did not include a verbal component which made it difficult for Aboriginals. In 1867 the Indian Act was written into law which officially made all Aboriginals legal wards of the state. The Indian Act had many negative consequences. As it pertains to women, the Indian Act made a distinction between Aboriginal women who married Aboriginal men versus those who married Canadian men. Those who married Canadian men would be given full Canadian status and all the benefits it decreed; this meant, in 1930 when women were granted the right to vote and own property they could do so. However, Aboriginal women who married Aboriginal men were granted Aboriginal status with rights only on the Reserves. These women were considered non-persons and could not vote or own property in Canada. According to the Indian Act women were defined as Indians if their father or husband were Indian, however, were not considered Indian if their mothers were Aboriginal. This is a significant distinction because many Aboriginal tribes are matrilineal and define lineage through the mother not the father. In many tribes women were chiefs and men and women had equal rights. European laws such as the Indian Act had the effect of stripping Aboriginal women of their rank and

Junípero Serra has been decapitated, defaced, and became a saint all within a month’s time. He is surrounded by controversy. Many celebrated for he was the first Latino to become canonized. Rubén Mendoza of California State University of Monterey Bay explains, “Father Serra was not only a man of his time, he was a man ahead of his time in his advocacy for native people on the frontier.” However, Valentin Lopez who is the chair of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band explains that “Serra’s and the Church’s failure to learn form the teaching of Christ or from the life of St. Francis resulted in the complete extinction of many, many California tribes and great devastation for many others.”

The Indian Act is a part of Canadian legislation that is intended to elucidate how the federal government handles its responsibilities to the Aboriginal population of Canada. The Indian Act was created to civilize, protect and assimilate the Aboriginal people; however, in the past the Canadian government perceived Aboriginal people as wards, and thought that the Native communities and governments were unqualified of running their affairs (Coates, 2008). In the past the Indian Act was also utilized as an instrument to limit rights of the Aboriginal population. It banned Aboriginal people from practicing their cultural practices, denied them the right to vote, controlled who was permitted to travel from reserve settings, and decided where

The indigenous people have a long and proud history, including the rich cultural and spiritual traditions. However, many of these traditions have been changed or even disappeared after the arrival of the European settlers. Forced introduction of European culture and values, Aboriginal community, indigenous land being deprived, and the imposition of a period of governance outside the pattern of the beginning of a cycle of social, physical and spiritual destruction. You can see the effects of today. Some of the effects include poverty, poor health, and drug abuse. The basis of these problems is a loss of identity and a sense of knowing that their values are oppressed, and their rights are ignored. Likewise, non-indigenous Canadians have become increasingly aware of the unfairness of the richness of indigenous and aboriginal cultures that are taking place.

Over the past few decades, there has been many distinct perspectives and conflicts surrounding the historical context between the Indigenous peoples in Canada and the Canadian Government. In source one, the author P.J Anderson is trying to convey that the absolute goal of the Indian Residential School system in Canada has been to assimilate the Indian nation and provide them with guidance to “ forget their Indian habits”, and become educated of the “ arts of civilized life”, in order to help them integrate into society and “become one” with their “White brethren”. It is clearly evident throughout the source that the author is supportive of the Indian residential school system and strongly believes that the Indian residential School System

In the 1930s the federal government had put in place a set of policies know as the Indian New Deal. Natives of the Northwest Coast were encouraged to adopt governmental forms and constitutions to establish relations. The government had the final say in how tribes were coordinated, they controlled who sat in chairs of power and how things would be running. Following the 1950s federal policies towards the Indian people continue to vacillate. During the last past two decades of the twentieth century the tribes of Washington have been still making attempts to have the terms of the 1850 honored by the state and federal governments mostly in regards to fishing rights, to bring economic stability to the Native community through the utilization of

Latino’s suffered very harsh treatments as well however, most of Latino’s were born in their native countries, that seemingly is a negative and a positive the positive was that they knew who they were before coming to America. At a minimum this was a buffer to the dominant group, as they could not control their ideals of who Latino’s were. The barriers and doors of discrimination for this group often comes through language or the in ability to communicate however, they are the largest minority group soon to not be minority according to reports. Poverty and education as diminished as they struggle to be taught and learn through their native tongue. The upside to Latino’s is that they are the largest minority group. Their voices are listened to because they have many, they also have realized their power in numbers

“I want to get rid of the Indian problem. I do not think as a matter of fact, that the country ought to continuously protect a class of people who are able to stand alone… Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada,” -Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs (1920), Duncan Campbell Scott (The goal of

Nations all have unique governments and differences necessary for demonstrating successful leadership. Every country needs different assistance from their leadership, such as Rio requiring infrastructure or Somalia lacking political power. Some governments concern themselves with their politicians’ well-being more so than the people they lead, which creates a relevant problem in America. The United States Government can easily forget about Native American Reservations, or even ignore the people living on them. Recently, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has worked on the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which would cross over Native American ancestral lands,

This story of the Seminoles’ struggles for identity and sovereignty is a microcosm of the true horrors inflicted on Indian nations by the federal government. The Seminoles remarkably defied federal, state, and local government pressures of removal in the early nineteenth century. They also disputed Creek insistence on tribal consolidation, and other Indian nation claims to their property. Among the federal tactics were the illegal removals, and treaties that meant little to the federal government when land, as part of Manifest Destiny, and wealth the federal government sought entered the equation. The Seminoles also endured the paternalism, coercion tactics, and pressures from Bureau of Indian Affairs agents who made promises to them that were frequently broken. At the Territory and local level, legislation would pass to limit their mobility and interaction with Whites. This was a story of a people’s rebellion and quest for sovereignty, one that came at the expense of tribal disagreements, internally and externally, and separate battles with the Creek Indians and the federal government. What legitimately created an Indian nation? Certainly, the Seminole’s

In Chapter eight of Byron Williston’s Environmental Ethics for Canadians First Nation’s perspectives are explored. The case study titled “Language, Land and the Residential Schools” begins by speaking of a public apology from former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He apologizes for the treatment of “Indians” in “Indian Residential Schools”. He highlights the initial agenda of these schools as he says that the “school system [was] to remove and isolate [Aboriginal] children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them[…]” (Williston 244). By doing this, colonial Canadians assumed that aboriginal cultural and spiritual beliefs were invalid in relation to European beliefs (244). The problem with ridding the First Nations Peoples of their languages, as Williston points out is to “deprive them of the sense of place that has defined them for thousands of years” (245). The private schooling system was an attack on First Nations identities, and their identity is rooted in “a respect for nature and its processes” (245).

Legal systems and cultures are intertwined in such a way that allows them to influence one another. While most Western countries focus on top-down approaches that result in changing culture and behavior, others have concentrated their efforts to make the law reflect the culture and values of the people. In the past, when common law heavily influenced tribal courts, tribe members worked towards the preservation of traditions. Now in the modern age, tribes are working to conserve the unity of their people by using programs that center on tradition to bring forth a community. One tribe that has adopted such a program enhanced aboriginal’s Cody Kimewon understanding of his identity through a culture as cause, law as effect approach. Had he not

After the Red River Rebellion, the Metis received many of their demands in the Manitoba Act, but because of the scrip system, many didn’t receive the land they were promised causing them to move west into nowadays Saskatchewan. While living in the west, the Metis were losing patience with the Canadian government to gain title to their land. The government had surveyed the land out to pay for the Canadian Pacific Railway, which the Metis didn’t know, and wouldn’t give any away. The government was treating the Aboriginals cruelly; they let them starve and didn’t keep their promises to help them flourish in the western economy. The Metis had had enough with the government and decided to bring back Louis Riel from Montana. With Riel back in Canada, the government was worried about the uprising of another rebellion.

In the article Introduction: Symposium on Cultural Sovereignty by Rebecca Tsosie, her symposium focuses on three main ideas. First, Tsosie discusses the various standpoints on sovereignty from David Matheson, Clauden Bates Arthur, and Kunani Nihipali, whose were Native Leaders. Furthermore, she describes the challenges in attaining cultural sovereignty and the critique on other perspectives of cultural sovereignty as well as better definitions of cultural sovereignty. Lastly, Tsosie list various strategies to restore cultural and political sovereignty. David Matheson defines cultural sovereignty as the fact that Native people have always been an autonomous nation. He proves his point by mentioning that Indians country had been created by a higher authority than this government. Specifically, to maintain cultural sovereignty, Matheson