Essay about Native Sovereignty

This enables the federal government to assume full responsibility over the entire First Nations population. In A People’s Dream Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada, by Dan Russell, 2000, he brings up issues about the federal government making policies that have direct affect on First Nations People and they have no knowledge or say of what happens regarding decision about their people[4]. The federal government has a great deal of power that will ultimately alter how First Nations are dealt with. Dan Russell discuses both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlotte Town Accord that would have had a major impact on how “Indians” were handled he states “Canadian history and laws, since shortly after initial contact with Europeans settlers, have limited the possibilities of easily exercising Aboriginal self-government in Canada”[5]. Once the first wave of settles arrived in North America, the Dominion of Canada created the power to control how settlers and resources were handled which left them also having to deal with the original inhabitants by means isolation in reserves. To look back into history even in the earliest stages of civilization First Nations People were only “interpreters and clerks, but none at the policy-making level”[6], in order to create change they need to be where these policies are being made. In making these policies and procedures there has been little to no

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.

Aboriginal persons in Canada have been facing oppression ever since colonization began. Even when Canada gained independence from the British Empire, the oppression continued and still goes on today. One major contributing factor to the oppression of Aboriginal people in Canada is the actions taken by the Government. The Government of Canada has in fact mistreated and found to be partaking in wrongdoing when dealing with the Aboriginal population in this country. With this ugly truth being revealed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had to be tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. (cite)

In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts, which recognised aboriginal and Torres Strait islander claims to land and guaranteed them royalty payments from mining companies working there. Some laws enforced by the government became challenging for most indigenous people to abide by. Through the analysis of this information we understand the impacts the government and its laws had towards the indigenous society of

The purpose of this essay is to investigate whether the Oka Crisis has had a positive or negative effect on First Nations affairs in Canada. There are many opinions that could be explored based on research of the crisis. The side that the crisis had a negative effect on Canada could be taken, because the crisis created tension in relations between the government and the Mohawks and caused many physical and emotional

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).

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

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

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.

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.

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.

Those who are critical of current forms of aboriginal self-government view them as little more than convenient arrangements that allow aboriginal people administrative responsibility for services which are ultimately controlled by the federal or provincial government.3 They argue that self-government is essentially glorified municipal government; arrangements which are far from the ideal of a third level of government equal in legislative and financial authority to the federal and provincial governments.4