Government Social Assistance In Relation To Indigenous Communities

While at face value it generally implies the importance of collaboration, community self-governance and clarity of responsibilities for the benefit of First Nations people, in actuality, it specifically benefits from much of the ambiguous language within the policy: “special relationship”, “mechanisms”, “Indian communities”, “active role”, “framework”, and many other terms (Kelly, 2011). It is convenient for it to not specifically spell out the details of what it means or how any of these policy commitments translate into actions that impact its intended audience. The ambiguity of the term “special relationship”, for example, implies that the government’s commitment to preserving health services on reserve is largely a “matter of goodwill” rather than a legal obligation (Cook, 2003, p. 35, Kelly, 2011). This vagueness is likely to be motivated by “social-political and economic…[and] practical reasons, such as to prevent the spread of disease” by isolating First Nations onto remote communities, rather than an intent to seriously and effectively address the problem of First Nations healthcare (Kelly, 2011, p.

Since the colonization of Canada First Nations people have been discriminated against and assimilated into the new culture of Canada through policies created by the government. Policies created had the intentions of improving the Aboriginal people’s standard of living and increasing their opportunities. Mainly in the past hundred years in Canadian Society, policies and government implemented actions such as; Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reserve systems have resulted in extinguishing native culture, teachings, and pride. Policies towards the treatment of Aboriginal Canadians has decreased their opportunities and standard of living because of policies specified previously (Residential schools, the Indian Act, and reservation systems).

This meant that all matters that had to be discussed had to be approved by the government appointed Indian agent before a chief and council could address the matter. Once matters were discussed any resolution had to be agreed upon by the appropriate federal minister before being enacted. When people attempted to address grievances or complaints they had with the government and the Indian Act System, new laws were passed to stop them from organizing and effectively dealing with the issues brought to their attention.

The Indigenous culture was viewed as inferior and unable to adequately provide for the needs of their children, which was fully fuelled by disproportionate poverty rates as well as the repercussion of residential schools (Russell, 2015). Due to not being able to maintain the standards of European child-rearing practices and common values, social services workers attempted to rescue these children from the conditions they were living in (O’Connor, 2010). These issues have detrimental effects on the families of survivors of the residential schools for generations, also known as multigenerational trauma. Instead of addressing this social policy concern the government was contributing and controlling it, where Indigenous people had little power to address

Colonialism has contributed to multiple issues in the lives of Aboriginal people including inadequate housing and clean resources on Aboriginal reserves. One significant outcome is health problems reserve residents face, including a lower life expectancy and higher mortality rate. “For Aboriginal men on reserve, life expectancy is 67.1 years, while off reserve it’s 72. 1, compared to 76 years for the general population of Canada. For Aboriginal women, it is 73.1, 77.7, and 81.5 respectively” (Frohlich et al. 134). Additionally, more than 50% of off reserve Aboriginal people have at least one chronic condition (Frohlich et al.). Reserves stem from the colonial era, where Aboriginal people were displaced by the government and are a continuous symbol of oppression.

Michael Hart begins his book by juxtaposing his position as an Aboriginal person with his experience as a social worker. Traditional social work focuses on Euro-centric ideals, not only in determining which behaviors are adaptive and maladaptive, but also in what approach therapists should take to encourage behavior change in people. Unfortunately, this approach can be, not only isolating for many Aboriginal people, but actually harmful for them. By labeling adaptive behaviors as somehow wrong or maladaptive, traditional social work approaches stigmatize Aboriginal people. This runs counter to the core value in social work, which is service, to the individual and the community.

EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CAMPAIGNS FOR INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA IN THE PERIOD 1965 – 2014

History has unveiled the early contacts of colonization from the Europeans that set motion to cultural oppression and exclusion of the Aboriginal communities (Kirmayer, Tait, Simpson & Simpson, 2009). The introduction of the residential school system was meant to eliminate the indigenous people’s cultural heritage and way of life, creating a historical trauma. As a result, survivors of the residential school system left the majority of the Aboriginal population without a sense of cultural heritage, lack of self-esteem, and depression (Gone, 2010). Aboriginal culture was suppressed, breaking the connection of traditional knowledge from parent to child (Kirmayer, Tait, Simpson & Simpson, 2009). Trans-generational trauma of the Aboriginal people has left psychologically and physically damage towards their own heritage (Gray & Nye, 2001).

Prior to the 1880s, religious organizations ran small mission schools for the Aboriginal population with federal assistance via small per-student grants. The federal government took a much larger role in residential schooling in the 1880s as a facet of a larger set of polices that operated to govern and control Aboriginal people, ban cultural practices, and achieve “their emancipation from tribal government, and for their final absorption into the general community” (as cited in The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015b, p. 27). Removing children from their families was seen as the most effective way to conduct assimilation and civilization of Aboriginal peoples, as described by Public Works Minister Hector Janegvin to

Aboriginal child welfare agencies are required to follow provincial and territorial legislations to accommodate differing circumstances across the country and to share information on local problems and solutions. Often times, child welfare agencies across Canada do not follow a single definition of “child maltreatment” that would result in a child being removed from home. Thus, each province is responsible for their individual governing practices, policies and structures. The overarching goal is to provide culturally appropriate services for their populations which involve different systemic responses and varied service delivery models that attempt to better provide for the needs of Aboriginal children and their families.

The Canadian Centre for Policy is a think tank policy institute providing social, economic, environmental policy advice to current situations and problems faced by Canada. The Income Gap between Aboriginal People and the Rest of Canada is a study by Wilson and Macdonald critiquing the common notions of thought, such as level of education, which cause economic gaps between Aboriginals and the rest of Canadian Society. References used by the authors comes from 1996, 2001, and 2006’s Canada Census (Daniel and Macdonald 2010:3). The main focus of the study surrounds the differences between Aboriginals and non-aboriginals, but the article does includes some extensive analysis about First Nations reserves. One of the leading points in Wilson and

The substance of this paper will be to discuss the discourse regarding the inequalities facing aboriginal peoples living on reserves in the northwestern corner of Ontario. Inequality is not naturally occurring; poverty is not an innate cultural trait that accumulates at the feet of the marginalized (Schick & St.Denis, 2005, p.304). Stephens, Nettleton and Porter stated in the Lancet (2005) “Aboriginal people in Canada suffer enormous inequalities in health and in accessibility to health

The predominately Anglo-Saxon values present in the welfare system have resulted in a lack of understanding of Indigenous disadvantage as well as cultural values and traditions (Chenoweth & McAuliffe 2008). Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2008, p. 28) state that Indigenous populations have handed down by word of mouth, rather than writing down, their own ways of addressing these notions of “helping”, and this has resulted in a lack of understanding or an reluctance by human services organisations to attempt to understand them.

From the first contact between Aboriginal Peoples and European immigrants to the present day, the aim of Canadian government policy has been to assimilate the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. The attempted forced abandonment of their culture was perpetrated through a variety of strategies including force, aggression and legalities. While historians and politicians may disagree about the motivations of Canadian policy, the impact has been irrefutable. In efforts to create one unified nation, successive governments failed to recognize their destructive actions. In this failure, Canada has come close to shattering the sub-nations and peoples who comprise them. This paper will review the government’s effort to absorb the Indigenous peoples’ culture, their refusal to assimilate, and will also identify potential strategies for future relations.

The welfare systems of each province and territory currently shares some basic goals and characteristics in regards to child welfare services (Sinha & Kozlowski, 2013). Many Aboriginal families are impacted by poverty, which stems from the politics of oppression and injustice of colonialism (McCaslin & Boyer, 2009). The Constitution of Canada has given provincial and territorial governments control and responsibility for overseeing child welfare, as well as funding off-reserve programs (Barker, Alfred & Kerr, 2014). Alternately, the federal government is responsible for providing funding for programs on reserves (Barker, Alfred & Kerr, 2014). This unfortunately creates inconsistent policies and practices across Canada (Barker, Alfred & Kerr, 2014).