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 first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second
…show more content…
Flanagan's analysis of Native sovereignty internationally is effectively argued. International organizations such as the World Trade Organization and United Nations would be hesitant to accept sovereignty of Aboriginal people. Although it is commonly known that many bands within Canada have access to significant natural resources the majority do not. Flanagan is very direct in stating that (outside of transfer payments from the government of Canada which would presumably stop to a sovereign nations) most bands are very weak economically (73). It would be extremely difficult therefore to afford to send delegates to these international bodies. Without significant monetary support no sovereign state can be involved in significant international organizations. Flanagan also soundly refutes the idea of a united Aboriginal sovereign state. Most Aboriginals would likely agree the greatest evil committed against them by European settlers has been the attempts of assimilation. By gaining sovereignty they would be free from these attempts, at least in theory. However in order to develop a significant voice working as one would result into a similar problem. As mentioned above language, religion and other major difference would make a union extremely difficult. Therefore with these issues present it would not be possible for native sovereignty to coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
Flanagan examines sovereignty as originally defined by philosophers; this definition defines
Aboriginal self-government is a long standing issue that continues to be a struggle for the First Nations People. To truly understand the scope of Aboriginal self-government within First Nations communities, more effort is needed to understand the legislative system that runs Canada. This issue of self-governance has been very destructive in First Nations communities. After signing the Treaties, First Nations People was stripped of their livelihood and from that point on to abide by the Dominion of Canadas legislative policies. One current issue that would be a perfect example is the Nisga People in British Columbia who is no longer under the protection of the
Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.
Sovereignty is a nation’s “relative independence from and among other states” (Cobb, 2005). In this case, tribal sovereignty of Native nations depends upon recognition by the United States. This is ironic; their tribal sovereignty has been “granted” to them by the Unites States federal government. No single nation is completely independent of foreign influence. Tribal nations more so
Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and
Second, Canada’s First Nations’ plight can be improved through self-governance. According to Pocklington, “For several years, Canadian aboriginal leaders have been demanding the recognition of a right of Native self-determination and thereby, for the aboriginal collectivities that choose it a right of self-government” (102). Aboriginal self-governance is a controversial issue in Canada. Before researching the issue I believed that self-governance would deter national unity, after further investigation, I presently believe that the claim for Aboriginal self-governance is justifiable. Although, according to Blakeney, “It will be a real challenge to make effective
Often times, when it came to the discussion on equality within Canada, the actions of Canada were compared to those of the United States, and often times, a comment is made stating that the United States could learn from Canada’s example when it came to racial harmony. However, this idea was often criticized as the racial problems within Canada were just as severe. The respect and the livelihood of the First Nation were violated for years even before the start of the twentieth century. However, the issues of the First Nations were hardly ever brought to light by other Canadians because these issues were often hidden deep within the reserves that these First Nations were forced into. From taking their land away to disregarding their cultures, the government rarely ever acknowledged the needs of the First Nations until they could no longer be ignored. The government continuously stressed assimilation, especially with the Indian Act , and expected the First Nations
First Nation Peoples within Canada have been facing many injustices in their homeland since the dawn of colonization. The most unraveling point to First Nation assimilation was the formation of the consequential Indian Act and residential schools resulting in a stir of adversity. As racist ideologies within Canada developed, upheaval against such treatment was undertaken as First Nation communities fought back against government land claims and eradication of treaty rights. In attempt to make amends, proper compensations from the injustices within residential schools have been released and the key for the future is allowing First Nation self-government. Ideals with the intent of ultimate assimilation have been standardized unto First Nation
81). Section 35 of the constitution states the rights of Aboriginal Canadians. The specific sections that are important to this argument are Section 35(1) and 35(3) because they are the only sections in the constitution that explicitly acknowledge aboriginal treaty and land claim rights. The exact interpretation of what is encompassed as an aboriginal constitutional right has come under question in a number of cases which include Sparrow v. The Queen and where it is stated that these rights must be “interpreted flexibly so as to permit their evolution over time,” (Manus, 2006, p. 6-7). However, while flexibility is important to the interpretation of aboriginal rights it is insufficient in ensuring that protection of those rights in all cases, as the courts may chose to interpret these vague constitutional laws in various ways. This is evident in the Van der Peet Court ruling which “reduced the concept of aboriginal rights protection from one under which courts must acknowledge and protect an indigenous culture to one under which courts scrutinize individual tribal practices,” (Manus, 2006, p. 14-15). In essence, the exclusion of aboriginal rights that explicitly acknowledge the intimate relationship First Nations share with the land leave too much room for these laws to be interpreted in a manner that may work against indigenous peoples interests. Furthermore, while Canada’s constitution falls short in this respect, the United Nations
One of Canada’s priorities in regards to Arctic Sovereignty should be to protect the Inuit people not only because they are experiencing a loss in culture, but the Circumpolar Inuit Declaration on Arctic Sovereignty also declares that the Inuit have rights to the resources and the land upon which they live on.
Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could
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.
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.
One major reading that contests this idea of sovereignty is the book Mohawk Interruptus by Audra Simpson, which discusses the trials of Native American populations and their efforts to reclaim their own sovereignty. Within Mohawk Interruptus, the people of the Kahnawá:ke tribe struggle against the colonial idea of American or Canadian sovereignty lorded over them, and through refusal of such “gifts” regain their sovereignty. “… Kahnawa’kehró:non had refused the authority of the state at almost every turn and in so doing reinstated a different political authority” (Simpson, 2014, 106). Through these rejections, the people of Kahnawá:ke and Kahnawa’kehró:non established that the current system of sovereignty does not work for them, as it is colonially based to oppress the Native American communities. Simpson uses these examples to make a larger point on the Western systems of governance and understandings of authority. Though this idea of sovereignty, Simpson argues, was a way to appropriate land and incorporate or destroy opposing cultures.
Conventional sovereignty assumes a world of “autonomous, internationally recognized, and well-governed states” according to Stephen Krasner, international relations professor at Stanford University. Krasner poses a strong and widely acknowledged argument around the evidence that the rules of sovereignty are continually broken by powerful states to “fix badly governed or collapsed states,” and breaks sovereignty down into three main types; domestic, international legal, and Westphalian. These types all have
“Sovereignty is far more problematic than recognized in the classical model, that important elements of hierarchy exist in the global system, and that both our theories and practice of international politics would be improved by explicitly incorporating variations in hierarchy.”