Transcript Slide 1

Aboriginal Peoples:
Rethinking the Relationship
Chelsea Gabel
Health, Aging and Society Department
Department of Political Science
McMaster University
March 11th, 2013
Discussion Question

Should a state provide preferential support for
services on the basis of ethnicity?
2
Discussion Questions


Should a state provide preferential support for
services for Canadian Aboriginal peoples?
Should it matter if you live on or off reserve?
3
Discussion Question

Should Canadian Aboriginal Peoples be
included under the umbrella of
multiculturalism?
4
Aboriginal Peoples and
Multiculturalism



First, Aboriginal peoples exist outside of multiculturalism
because their inclusion would fail to recognize their unique
claims.
Second, Aboriginal groups were marginalized because their
cultural practices left them outside of mainstream society and
its accompanying rights.
Third, the urban transition of Aboriginal groups impacts on
their collective capacity and accentuates their marginalization
to the extent that these groups are essentially communities in
crisis rather than the cultural communities that
multiculturalism applauds.
5
Class Objectives
Who are Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples?
Framing the Problem
The Politics of Reconciliation
Duelling Discourses: Two Models to the So Called “Indian”
Problem”
Citizens Plus: A Third Model?
Aboriginal Self-Governance
Who are Canada’s
Aboriginal Peoples?
3
7
Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples
Terms used to categorize Aboriginal peoples include:
Indian
Native
Status Indian
Aboriginal
Treaty Indian
Non-treaty
C-31s
Non-status
Inuit
Metis
First Nation
Indigenous
All these terms are legalistic divisions rather than cultural or national
distinctions
4
8
Categories of Aboriginal Peoples
Status Indian
Membership to status Indian is defined:
• Admittance to a general registry in Ottawa
• Affiliation with one of 633 bands
• Entitlement to residence on band
Non-Status Indian
• Persons of Aboriginal ancestry are classified as non-status if
their ancestors failed to register under the Indian Act, signed a
treaty with federal authorities or were taken off the register and
enfranchised for some reason
• They do not live on reserves
• They are scattered in small towns and large cities across Canada
5
9
Categories of Aboriginal Peoples
Métis
• They comprise the offspring (and descendants) of mixed
European-Aboriginal unions
Inuit
•
They enjoy a special relationship with the government but never
signed a treaty arrangement or registered under the Indian Act
•
At local levels they are governed by municipal councils
Inuit interests at national level are represented by the Inuit Tapirisat
of Canada
6
10
Urban Aboriginal Peoples
Reasons for migrating to the city are numerous but often reflect
push factors (lack of resources, opportunity and excitement)
and pull forces related to employment, education and lifestyle
Structural, social and cultural factors are also important
7
11
Framing the Problem
8
12
Policy Problem
Aboriginal Peoples have experienced poorer health
status than the majority of Canadians.
- Chronic diseases
- Cancer
- Mortality
- Cardiovascular disease
- FASD
- Diabetes
- Infectious disease (TB, STDs, AIDS)
- Arthritis
- Suicide rates
- Smoking
Socio-Economic Status
Aboriginal Peoples remain at the bottom of
the socio-economic status
Housing is inadequate
Unemployment is a major cause of poverty
Deterioration of Aboriginal cultural values
Loss of language
WHY?
10
14
Discussion Question

“Why are Aboriginals so consistently
and significantly less well off than other
Canadians?” (Richards 2006, 9)
15
Colonization
“the subjugation of one people by another
through destruction and/or weakening of basic
institutions of the subjugated culture and
replacing them with those of the dominant
culture” (Lee, 1992: p.213).
The Indian Act, 1876
Define who is a “status Indian”
Tool of colonization
Regulates and controls every aspect of
their life
Residential Schools
Part of assimilation policy
Removed Native children
from their homes to be
placed in religious based
schools
The Canadian State and Aboriginal
Peoples: The Politics of Reconciliation
14
19
How has the Canadian State engaged with
Aboriginal peoples?
The Politics of “Reconciliation”
1966
The Hawthorn Report introduced the idea of citizens plus (p. 13)
1969
The White Paper proposes the discontinuation of special services
for Aboriginal peoples and the assimilation of Aboriginal people
into Canadian society (p. 15)
1973
The Calder decision determined
that Aboriginal rights were preText
existing.
1982
Canadian government agreed to constitutionally protect particular
aspects of self-government agreements as treaty rights under section
35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
1996
The Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (p. 20)
1998
Gathering Strength – Canada’s Action Plan including a Statement of
Reconciliation
2008
The Apology
2010
The endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
Discussion Questions
What do you think the relationship should be between a state
and Indigenous peoples? Is Canada a good role model in your
opinion?
Do Government policies contribute to the social problems in
Aboriginal communities?
17
22
Three Models
18
23
Duelling Discourses: Two Models to the So
Called “Indian Problem”
Functionalist theorists look to assimilation as a solution. Aboriginal people should
become more like “us” if they want to be successful.
However, conflict theorists argue that Aboriginal people should be further removed
from the mainstream in order to secure their distinctiveness and prosperity as a
people.
For Aboriginal people, the solution to the Indian problem lies in becoming less like
the mainstream.
Two questions to consider in constructing a new social contract for solving social
problems are:
1. What do Aboriginal peoples want?
2. What is the government willing to concede?
19
24
Citizens Plus: A Third Model?
Respects notion of Aboriginal rights and “positive
recognition of difference”
Recognizes power of Aboriginal nationalism and
accepts aspects of dual citizenship
Seeks practical solutions to making current selfgovernment arrangements work better
Concerned that Aboriginal nationalism often seek
separateness, which cuts them off from solidarity
with Canadians
20
25
Three Perspectives on Aboriginal Rights
and Self-Government
1. Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,
1996 Report: parallel sovereignty
2. Thomas Flanagan, book in 2000 entitled First
Nations, Second Thoughts: neo-liberal
integration
3. Alan Cairns, book in 2000, Citizens Plus, more
pragmatic recognition of difference.
Discussion Question: Where do you stand?
21
26
Discussion Question

Are Aboriginal peoples in poverty and
powerlessness because of a reluctance to
assimilate into the mainstream?
27
Aboriginal SelfGovernance
22
28
The Meanings of Aboriginal SelfGovernment
Descriptions of Aboriginal self-government vary from the
ideal of parity among Aboriginal, provincial, and federal
legislative and financial authority to
Descriptions of Aboriginal communities simply taking
administrative control after governments have made the
important policy and financial decisions
A common sentiment is that colonial controls and the
resulting abuses heaped on Aboriginal peoples for more than
a century must be rejected
23
29
“ Cultural revival among Aboriginal people is
just one step toward regaining what has been
lost. Self-government is the other key to the
future of Aboriginal people. When they are
permitted to gain influence over the central
institutions in their communities - the schools,
the justice system, the child welfare system Indian and Metis people have already
demonstrated that they can repair the damage
caused by centuries of racism and neglect”
24
30
Problems with Self-Government
Self-Government is essentially glorified municipal government, which is far from
the ideal of a third level of government that is equal in legislative and financial
authority to the federal and provincial governments
Differences about the most beneficial structure of self-government, about who
controls what, about when self-government should be implemented, and about
whether or not true self-government can ever be achieved
Aboriginal self-government has no universal standard
Self-government proposals also have critics among the very people within the
communities for whom they are intended
25
31
The Nisga’a Self-Government
The Nisga’a First Nations of Central BC have looked to
Ottawa since 1885 to redress the unlawful surrender of
their land to the Crown
Here are some of the actual terms of the Nisga’a Final
Agreement in May 2000:
• 5500 members of bands who live 800 kilometers north of Vancouver a
land base of 1900 kilometres
• Control of forest and fishery resources
• Control over health care
• $200 million in cash
• Release from Indian Act provisions
• A supra-municipal level of government including control over
policing, education, community services and taxes
• They will receive forest and timber cutting rights
• Oil and Mineral Resources
26
32
• $21.5 million to purchase boats and equipment
Criticisms of the Nisga’a Final Agreement
This provides the Nisga’a Nations of British Columbia with
more autonomy and self-government than it constitutionally
deserves
It confers benefits unavailable to other Canadians based
solely on culture or skin colour
Prohibits non-Nisga’a from voting for the regions
administration, thus disenfranchising local residents who may
be taxed without representation
There is a third order of government-where citizens live by
different rules than other citizens
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
27
33
Discussion Question
Can you think of some other solutions to
solve the so-called “Indian” problem?
How does Idle no More factor into the politics
of recognition?
34