Homeworks academic service

Argument against native sovereignty in canda essay

Indigenous people are not your incompetent children The election of Justin Trudeau's Liberal government was supposed to signal a new 'nation-to-nation relationship. When my sister and I were in high school, we thought it was funny to tell our non-Native boyfriends ridiculous things about the rez and see what they believed. We lived on the Six Nations reserve about 25 kilometres southwest of Hamilton, but since the only high school on the rez was Mohawk immersion, and we didn't speak the language, that meant we had to catch the bus into nearby Brantford, Ont.

Even though our rez was just a 20-minute drive away, very few of the non-Native kids we went to high school with had ever been there — the exception, of course, being those whose parents considered cheap cigarettes and gas worth the trek.

Native Sovereignty Essay

One day, my sister, Missy, was talking to her white boyfriend online. When he asked if she could come over, Missy fired back with, "Sorry, can't.

The gates to the rez close at night. How could he be so gullible? Story continues below advertisement I remember thinking that her white boyfriend was so ignorant, but we didn't know about the Pass System, which was in effect for 60 years in Canada, and required Native people living on the reserve to get permission from a Canadian Indian Agent to leave. What my sister and I didn't consider back then — what we perhaps couldn't consider — was how readily her boyfriend accepted this lie when it was applied to Native people.

If she had said the same thing about a non-Native town, he probably wouldn't have believed it. But something about the way this young man was socialized — even though he grew up right next to a rez, even though he interacted with Native people — made him accept that injustice against our people was normal: Canada has never accepted Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination.

Example research essay topic: The Issue Of Native Sovereignty - 1,269 words

In fact, they — the individuals who, throughout history, have represented and made decisions on behalf of Canada — have actively suppressed it. By intentionally cutting essential funding at critical moments, wielding court injunctions to stop our land defenders and legislating the minutiae of our lives through the Indian Act, to name just a few examples, the Canadian government continually prevents us from creating meaningful change in our communities.

It stops us from determining our own present and forging our own future. This is a story of how one decision illustrates the centuries-long relationship between a country's government and the Indigenous people of that land.

The Globe and Mail

It is a story of a name change and the breaking-up of a government department, but it represents the breaking of a promise, too. It is a story that illustrates how a government that only acknowledges colonial ways of governing cannot ever hope to create anything else.

It is a story whose narrative affects every Indigenous community, including my own, the Six Nations of the Grand River.

  1. The resistance of aboriginals towards assimilation increased after this time and sparked the creation of First Nations political organizations. However, the treaties did little to support the claim of Canadian sovereignty since they are mostly unclear about issues of jurisdiction.
  2. Article 18 specifically states, "Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures.
  3. Political rights should hinge on residence within that territory, not because of ethnic origin.
  4. Does Anyone Really want an Aboriginal Archipelago?

It is a story of denial, and of consent, two topics that are in the news these days for reasons that are, in some ways, not that different. This is our democracy. This is our reconciliation. Her work has been exhibited in Canada and internationally. The sign-like patterns derived from First Nations motifs are hand-cut from reflective material then adhered to metal. Many of the Liberal government's supposedly momentous announcements seem to be little more than repackaged versions of old policies.

This announcement essentially admits the status quo for First Nations communities under the Indian Act has been hundreds of years of insecure and unstable funding. How can a community plan for the future when it never knows if it's getting the meagre resources Canada has promised? Is it any surprise, then, that one-quarter of First Nations have become so indebted they've been put under third-party management? Or that many communities cannot get off third-party management once they're there?

After all, these organizations — which Canada forces First Nations to hire without offering any additional funding to pay for their services — do not have to report to Canada on their progress.

This gives them no incentive to get communities out of debt and makes them unaccountable to the very communities Canada forces to pay their salaries. By ignoring these realities, Ms. Philpott implies that only good, financially responsible communities deserve even the possibility of stable and guaranteed funding, furthering the "corrupt Indian chief" stereotype Stephen Harper trotted out before her.

This is not real change. In a cabinet shuffle, Ms. Philpott was given the newly created Indigenous Services portfolio. Then, when Indians officially became Canada's problem, it was called "Indian Affairs. In 2011, the department began referring to itself as "Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada," and, four years later, thanks to Mr. Trudeau's symbol-loving Liberals, the name changed again to "Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development.

That's the problem, though: Canada's attitude towards Indigenous people has never changed. In the eighties — the same time Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was enshrining "multiculturalism" in the Constitution — Indigenous activists had to fight tooth-and-nail for their voices to be heard.

Their hard work eventually prevailed, argument against native sovereignty in canda essay, and Canada agreed to include Section 35 in the Constitution, legally enshrining recognition and affirmation of Indigenous rights.

Although this has been part of the national Constitution for 35 years, it has not been seriously acted upon by Canada. There have been no moves to change the Indian Act in a way that reflects the Indigenous right to both self-government and self-determination entrenched in Section 35.

No moves to right the disproportionate way that Canada has grossly underfunded Indigenous nations while making billions of dollars exploiting their land and resources, ignoring treaties or, in the case of the entire province of British Columbia, ignoring the astounding lack of treaties. All of these things are done without consulting us, without asking for our consent. Trudeau's claims to want to stop the paternalism, Canada's approach to Indigenous people has always been akin to that of a paternal head of house in a fifties sitcom: Story continues below advertisement The recent penchant for symbolic change can only be viewed as superficial.

This is the undiscussed problem with "political correctness": If you're refusing to let my community enact our inherent right to self-determination and self-government, while intentionally underfunding the services we rely on to survive, it hardly matters if you call us "Indians" or "Indigenous peoples. Broken promises Here's what's even more galling: Trudeau made sure to mention that splitting INAC was one of the 440 recommendations in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples RCAPa comprehensive report that was originally released more than 20 years ago, he ignored some key information.

A Royal Proclamation outlining the new relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples was recommended. New legislation that would clearly argument against native sovereignty in canda essay out Canada's intention to create new treaties with Indigenous nations, which would form the basis for all true nation-to-nation relationships going forward.

Perhaps most importantly, there was supposed to be financial and structural support for Indigenous nations to transition from dependent band councils to independent self-government. All of these recommendations were supposed to be enacted concurrently. If they didn't, there would be no real structural change, and meaningful gestures would become nothing more than inadequate, misleading symbols. And, of course, Mr. Trudeau neglected to mention that, in the same section RCAP suggests splitting INAC, it admits one of INAC's biggest problems has been its "tendency to move relatively quickly on policy initiatives without adequate consultation with those affected.

Articles 3 and 4 assert Indigenous peoples' right to self-determination, particularly in regards to self-government. Article 18 specifically states, "Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures.