Guidelines Paper 1
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Concordia University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
388
Subject
Arts Humanities
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by ChiefBraveryReindeer35
Poli.204 (Winter 2021) - Antoine Bilodeau --- Critical
Essay 1 ---
DUE ON FEB 8
th
BEFORE 5 PM
Reading:
Chapter 16. Citizenship, Communities, and Identity in Canada, by Will
Kymlicka (in required textbook).
Requirements
Your paper must include three sections.
o
Provide a quick summary: In this section, you must identify
what the author is trying to demonstrate/argue, what are
the main arguments, and what is the main conclusion.
Point of the chapter by author:
ways of accommodating difference in Canadian political
system
Distinctive Creative relationship btw citizenship and identity
Different ways of thinking about or defining citizenship in Canada that also goes back to the
idea of identity
-
how different ways of thinking about citizenship might influence our
thinking about Aboriginal self-government and about the
relationships between Aboriginal people and the people and
governments in Canada with which they have some connection. At
the same time, the paper explores how thinking about Aboriginal
self-government might contribute to a reconceptualization of
citizenship.
Main arguments:
3 forms of ethnocultural groups in Canada
the rights of indigenous people and their relationship to the support society
built on their traditional territories remains an issue in all of them including questions about
their winning rights treaty rights customary law and rights to self-government
the “finding peoples” = French and …
British ignores the role of Indigenous peoples on whose territory this new
country was built
-
There are at least three forms of differentiated citizenship in Canada intended to
accommodate these ethnic and national differences
-
self-government rights
indigenous peoples and and the Quebecois view themselves
as peoples or nations and as such as having their inherent right of self-determination.
Both groups demand certain powers of self-government that they say we're not
relinquished by there initially involuntary incorporation into the larger Canadian state.
They want to govern themselves in certain key matters to enter the full and free
development of their cultures and the best interests of their people.
-
accommodation rights
-
special representation rights
-
Kymlicka extends Young's case for differentiated citizenship,
distinguishing among various ways of taking cultural
differences into account and defending the need for self-
government rights in cases involving minority nations like
Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
Taylor develops a vision of
"deep diversity" that he suggests would permit different
people to belong to Canada in different ways, thus providing
"more than one formula for citizenship" at the same time.
For Aboriginal people, this might mean that their Canadian
citizenship would be mediated primarily by their
membership in their Aboriginal communities, communities
that themselves would be part of Canada.
-
One brief section of Young's paper makes the case that
special rights for cultural minorities may be necessary for
the achievement of a fully inclusive form of citizenship.
-
Will Kymlicka develops the case for special rights for
cultural minorities in much more detail in a book and a
subsequent series of articles. (Kymlicka 1989, 1992, 1993)
Kymlicka's project is to show that the liberal commitment to
equality permits and even requires special rights for cultural
minorities under some circumstances.
-
He shows first that, despite the neglect of culture in
contemporary liberal political theory, the basic arguments of
theorists like Rawls and Dworkin presuppose that
individuals have access to a secure cultural structure that
they recognize as an essential framework for making choices
about what sort of life to lead. Then he points out that those
who do not share the majority culture may find their ability
to make choices from within their own cultural framework
jeopardized in the absence of special measures to protect
their minority culture, measures that may sometimes even
conflict with the normal political or personal rights of
members of the majority culture. The principal example
Kymlicka uses to illustrate and support these claims is that
of Indian peoples in North America. Thus he argues that
Aboriginal peoples are morally entitled to special rights in
order to preserve their cultures.
-
One difference worth noting between Kymlicka and Young is
the way they use the language of equality and citizenship.
As we have seen, Young criticizes the norm of equal
treatment in the name of universal citizenship
.
-
By contrast, Kymlicka treats the commitment to equal
treatment of persons as primary and speaks of the conflict
between the equality due people as citizens and the equality
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help