Aboriginal Rights in Canada

To the crown, this meant compromises with the native tribes to protect their territory, but to the colonists, they sought it as unfair for they believed that they had fought to win over that very land. English policy also instilled Navigation Laws which forbade colonists from trading with other foreign nations because they didn’t want to miss out on all the profits that their colonies had to offer. Before 1763, these laws weren’t enforced because of the mother country was all the way across the Atlantic

Canada was ceded by New France and came under British rule the year 1763 with ‘Treaty of Paris’. Many provinces of Canada then became part of the British Empire and it soon started expanding. At first, France saw Aboriginal people as allies and relied on them for trade wealth and their own survival. After the transfer of power from French to British, diplomatic relations and alliances between them began to cease (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-french-relations/). The history of Aboriginal policy is characterized by the presence of both Britain and France as colonizing powers. It was assumed by the Canadian government that the Aboriginal people are hopeless and they will never be able to adapt to the new

The first paper by Ladner and Orsini, (2003) gives a detailed account, review and analysis of the First nations governance act. The paper reflects on the act and provides arguments supporting the fact that it is an example of a gentler, subtle form of colonialism that is still in practice today. It argues that although the government has well researched the problems affecting the first nations, it has not efficiently advocated the involvement of these people in their own welfare and improvement.

The British were cruel, forceful, and just plain mean. Colonists asked the British for their rights, but no, the British would not give them their rights. Britain was a horrible country, and they didn’t listen to the Colonists, although they were usually right.

Firstly, Aboriginals have been run out of their native lands and what little they have left is constantly being fought over by the Natives, the government and major corporations. Mr. Norman Slotkin, a lawyer for the Union of Ontario Indians, had this to say:

In modern society the question of why the aboriginal population receives benefits often arises. Much of today’s youth does not understand that the Native American people were often stripped of their rights in the past in order to gain these advantages. Two main incidents were established in the Aboriginal history, the first was the treaties that spread across Canada and the second incident was the Indian Act of 1876. The main difference between the Indian Act and treaties were the aboriginal’s role in the decision-making. Treaties allowed for a compromise between the Natives and the government that allowed for benefits on both ends whereas the Indian act

In this research paper, I will be explaining how western colonialism and racism destroyed the reputation of aboriginal peoples in Canada. The reason why I chose this topic because it shows the strong relationship to anthropology and after taking aboriginal studies 30, it also shows that I have a clear understanding about the history of aboriginal peoples in Canada, the struggles they have been through over the past decade and the challenges they still face today in modern day society. I’ll be addressing these issues in a couple of paragraphs on the discrimination and the inequalities of these “minorities” and how they had to assimilate into European culture, leaving their way of life behind them.

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

The change in legal affairs for the indigenous was a result of the change in rights and freedoms. Throughout the 19th century white settlers moved the Aboriginal people off their land and into reserves. This resulted in Aboriginal people experiencing dispossession, which meant that they didn’t exist. In the early 1970s the Whitlam government began to work on

My first reason to support the fact that Canada hasn’t affirmed collective rights for the Aboriginal group is the Indian Act and how poorly it treated the Aboriginals. The Indian Act is a federal legislation that is related to the rights and status of First Nations peoples (“status Indians”), which was first passed in 1867. During this time, the government thought that is was appropriate/acceptable to make laws for the First Nations peoples without consulting them. This move connected to Canada’s colonial past, the part where people of European descent strongly believed that their culture and way of life was way more superior to any other culture existing. In other words, they were ethnocentric. Within the Indian Act, it defied who may be registered as a “status Indian” with treaty rights. This meant that the Federal government were the ones who mostly made

Section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act of Canada, recognizes the existing rights of aboriginal people but leaves them undefined. This had led to further debate on the status of Aboriginal rights, and their inherent right to self-government (Henderson, 2006). The following year, the Penner Committee on Indian Self-Government gave recommendations that “First Nations’ right to self-government be explicitly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government recognize a distinct First Nations order of government and work towards implementing self-government” (Hurley, 2009, 1). This report was created by Special Committee of the House of Commons which promoted the creation of legislation to advance aboriginal Indian-government (this report focused solely on Indian self-government, instead of the self-government for all Aboriginal people). This report led to elevating the conversation

In 1967, a landmark event occurred for the Indigenous Community of Australia. They were no longer declared Flora and Fauna This means that Aboriginal people would be considered a part of the landscape and not humans in their own right.. In 1967, a Referendum was held by all members of Australian society voting on the issue of allowing Indigenous Australian to be a part of the census and thereby able to vote and be counted as part of Australia’s population. This achieved not only citizenship for Aboriginal people, but put the issue of Indigenous Rights on both the political and social platforms. This essay will look at the lead up to the Referendum, how Aborigines and their supporters communicated their belief in their rights to the

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.

1. Over the course of the past semester, we have discussed a number of different ways in which the colonial and, subsequently, Canadian authorities have attempted to impose their vision of public order on Indigenous peoples. Discuss two examples of this.

Division 1 and Division 2 colleges provide over 2.9 billion dollars a year in scholarships to student athletes. Student athletes should not be compensated for participating in college sports. College athletes can receive full ride scholarships for playing their sport of choice. Is the 40,000 dollars they are receiving in scholarships not compensation; thus prompting the question is the top tier education they are being provided with, not compensation enough? Most of the thousands of students that participate in college sports compete for the love of the game, not for a paycheck. Furthermore, college athletes understand that they may not compete at the pro level, in fact, only 2 % of college athletes go on to play professionally. The main part of the term student-athletes is student. Students do not go to college expecting a check at the end of every month or to land a spot in the first round of the draft, instead the purpose is to receive an education. All things considered, student athletes should not receive compensation for playing sports in college because it would be almost financially impossible, some are already provided with money from scholarships , and finally they are being provided with an excellent higher education.