Indian Reorganization Act Essay

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

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

For several hundreds of years, Aboriginals have been impacted by the Indian Act in many ways. They have dealt with numerous challenges that have changed their lives forever. Laws were created by the Canadian government with the purpose of controlling Natives and assimilating them into Canadian culture.For multiple years,

During the end of the nineteenth century, the United States had formed policies which reduced land allotted to Native Americans. By enforcing these laws as well as Anglo-American ideals, the United States compromised indigenous people’s culture and ability to thrive in its society.

Some Native Americans may not like the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 because of the way it made them look which was like “museum pieces” and because they did not want to establish tribal governments.

Power can be viewed as the ability to influence and/or control others. Another flaw about reservations is the fact that they are not totally governed by Native American representatives. The U.S. government actually has tight control over the majority, if not all, reservations (Perry, 2002, p 233). This tight control has left the Native American population powerless in terms of self- regulation. Despite the fact that Native American government do exist,

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler Howard Act or the IRA, had a major impact on the everyday lives of Native American Tribes that were scattered across the United states. The Indian Reorganization Act provided the means and tools for tribes to form their own governments and constitutions. The IRA stopped the general allotment act that was put into effect by the Dawes of 1887. The Indian Reorganization Act granted the Secretary of Interior a tremendous amount of power over Native American affairs ranging from land, livestock, employment, government, etc. According to the reorganization plan, after a tribe or nation voted to accept the IRA, it would draw up a constitution and bylaws, submit it to a referendum,

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934, otherwise known as the Wheeler-Howard Act or the Indian New Deal, was a United States federal legislation that attempted to reverse traditional U.S policy, which typically forced Indian assimilation into american culture and regularly took Indian reservation land. It was a radical act in its time and was introduced into congress by John Collier, who was head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The IRA’s main goal was to provide a means for Native Americans to establish sovereignty and self-government, reduce the amount of land loss by reservations, and to build economic self sufficiencies for these tribes. The act also ended the Allotment System and provided loans for Indians to pursue higher education and farm their lands. Whether or not the act was considered a longstanding success is heavily debated, by historians and Native Americans leaders alike.

Canada and the US categorized Indigenous people creating a complex paternalistic system because Indigenous people were seen as inferior. The American and Canadian governments sought to control Indigenous people without any regard for their human dignity, nor did they acknowledge the different tribes, languages or customs and instead set about creating a single entity that would stand for the whole group (82). Instead of treating each group differently, the one-size-fits-all approach was taken because it required less work on the governments part and reinforced the message that Natives were not important enough for individual recognition. King shows the assimilation and elimination that Indigenous people endured and how the governments decided that they had to either butcher or civilize the Indians quickly (108). A major assimilation policy were residential schools which targeted children so their culture would die out by the next generation.

The beginning of the 1970 U.S Postal Strike came shortly after midnight on March 18, 1970. Members of the National Association of Letter Carriers voted 1,555 to 1,055 to walk out of their jobs and strike. The National Association of Letter Carriers Local 36 President James Rademacher was urging the members to return to work, but it plea was not enough, employees walked off their jobs that morning. The number of postal workers on strike reached 200,000, one worker stated that during the period of strike they felt like they were “standing 10 feet tall instead of groveling in the dust” (AFL-CIO, n.d). Together these 200,000 workers changed not only their lives but the postal service forever.

The Indian Act was the principal statute through which the federal government administered and controlled Indian status, local First Nations

However there are challenges in developing effective governance in the contemporary settler state including changing government policy frameworks and multi-levels of government, history of settler relationships and a focus on attempts to assimilate Indigenous governance with western values. These intercultural challenges indicate that there are bilateral conditions that may need to change for Indigenous people to be able to drive their own development. Examples from different trials and projects in Indigenous communities are drawn on to demonstrate the drivers and challenges for

According to the Cornell University Law School’s ‘Legal Information Institute’, self-determination ‘denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order’. As a major concept of international law, self-determination gives people the right to control their own fates under certain fundamental criteria, and can be claimed by a minority that bases its lifestyle on an ethnic identity that is distinguishable from regular society, with a strong desire for cultural preservation. It has been considered to be a framework with the ability to guide legislative reforms within Australia, with an underlying ‘rights- based’ approach to Indigenous Issues. Self-determination is considered to be an important aspect of the legal system in regards to Indigenous Peoples, as it provides them a process of choice, to guarantee the practice of Indigenous social, cultural and economic needs.

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

It is my opinion that any culture is going to feel threatened by the unknown. This is true of the Fijian society, and is evident in the continuing struggle for independence by the Fijian nation. With a Gross Domestic Product of over 3 million, an independence that struggles with overthrow by military coups, and the continuing struggle to develop a steady democracy, Fijian culture is clearly in a state of uncertainty avoidance (Background Note, 2010). Having claimed independence in 1970 from the United Kingdom, the Fijian government has begun to undergo what is called the “coup cycle”, fed by indigenous Fijians unrest over land ownership (Background Note, 2010). Such events show proof that the historical dwellers of the Fijian islands are uncertain of the change being suggested and strive to hold on to what they know s familiar and normal.