Can
Native Sovereignty Coexist with Canadian sovereignty?
YES: The Case of
Native Sovereignty
(John A. Olthuis
& Roger Townshend)
Zunaira’s Tutorial :)
Summary:
The authors, John A.
Olthuis and Roger Townshend, state that there is a difference in perceptions
between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people regarding the jurisdiction
over the Canadian territory.
o
“While most non-aboriginals do not question the
legitimacy of the Canadian state, the average aboriginal believes that the
power by the Canadian state is illegimate, oppressive and assumes the powers of
the Aboriginal.”
Before the settlement of
the Europeans, the First Nations people had stable cultures, economies, and
political systems.
Treaties with the First
Nations can be put into two categories: “peace and friendship” (which was
basically to reinforce the concept of the equal nationhood of the First
Nations) and Land transaction treaties (which considered matters of
jurisdiction).
o
“These treaties did very little to establish the claim of
Canadian Sovereignty since issues of jurisdiction were unclear.”
European settlement land
claims also came through the discovery of vacant land, and then concluded that the
aboriginal people on these lands were non-persons.
“Canadian Indian policy
has intended to assimilate aboriginal people on an individual level into Canadian
Society, however, have failed in doing so. “
o
Examples of the government’s efforts are the creation of
the residential school system, where aboriginal children were taken away from
their families and forbidden to speak their native tongue, and the attempt to
make religious practices criminal.
o
In 1969, Policy of assimilation came through with the
White Paper but was rejected.
o
This helped establish the Canada-wide political
organization of First Nations.
o
Most aboriginals view the Canadian government as a
foreign government. This isn’t a surprise since in 1960 that aboriginal people
were able to vote.
“The poor conditions
that aboriginals live in today has resulted from the failed assimilation
attempts.”
They argue that the
First Nations jurisdiction (beyond the municipal-government) type must be
established in order for Aboriginals to grow as people and coexist in
o
“Something that would allow & encourage the
development of new types of structures that would reveal the distinct cultural,
political, economic, & spiritual aspects of aboriginal society.”
o
This could be a peaceful coexistence of the Canadian
state and the First Nations explain the authors.
In 1992, The
Charlottetown Accord was rejected by both, non-aboriginals and aboriginals.
o
“Non-aboriginals found it to be too much for the First
Nations whereas the aboriginals rejected it because it was too small a step.”
The authors argue that
Native sovereignty shouldn’t be of a threat to the non-aboriginal people
because we’re already familiar with a political system that consists of
divisions of power
o
The Federal and Provincial government are this.
o
If Canadian sovereignty is escaping increasing
globalization and trade agreements, there shouldn’t be a problem of sharing
jurisdiction with First Nations.
Another option is
similar to that of the
o
Entitling the aboriginal to separate tribal justice and
court systems.
The point of Native difference
is missed if they are expected to be able to achieve their social and economic
goal by involving the individuals within Canadian Society.
o
Although a “liberal democracy” is one that doesn’t permit
or encourage interaction on a collective basis,
The authors conclude,
that respect is required for the cultural distinctiveness of aboriginal people
and to do so institutional forms of First Nations governments with sufficient
resources are vital.
o
“The sad history of the treatment of aboriginal people by
the Canadian states also cries out to redress in the form of recognition in the
form of native sovereignty.”
Can
Native Sovereignty Coexist with Canadian sovereignty?
YES: The Case of
Native Sovereignty
(John A. Olthuis
& Roger Townshend)
Glossary of
Terms:
Conquest - Something, such as territory, acquired by conquering. It was one of the factors in the recognized changes in sovereignty by the international law (now and before).
Domestic Dependent
Nations - A
relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent
government relying on or requiring the aid of another for support of or
relating to a country's internal affairs. For Example, the
First Nations- Term preferred to the terms Indians,
Tribes, and Bands that are frequently used by the federal, provincial, and
territorial governments in
Jurisdiction - Generally,
legal or other governmental power, the extent of this power, or the territory
over which this power extends. In
Legitimacy - The quality or fact of being legitimate or justified. For
Example, the non-aboriginal Canadian takes as self-evident the legitimacy of
the
Native - Of, belonging to, or characteristic of the original inhabitants of a particular place; being such by birth or origin
Sovereignty - Supremacy
of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state; complete independence and self-government. A territory
existing as an independent state. In relevance to the article, the authors are
in favour of Native Sovereignty and argue that the Native claims to sovereignty
have a strong historical and moral basis.
Can
Native Sovereignty Coexist with Canadian sovereignty?
YES: The Case of Native
Sovereignty
(John A. Olthuis
& Roger Townshend)
Glossary of
Terms (continued):
Treaties- Legal
documents between government and a First Nations that confer rights and
obligations on both parties. No two Treaties are identical but the western
Treaties provide certain Treaty rights including, but not restricted to,
entitlement to reserve lands and hunting fishing and trapping.
White Paper - In
government, often a policy or a government
report. In 1969, the White Paper contained the policy of assimilation of which
the goal was to terminate the Indian status. It was greatly rejected by the
aboriginal people but actually helped form the Canada-wide political
organization of First Nations.
Can
Native Sovereignty Coexist with Canadian sovereignty?
YES: The Case of
Native Sovereignty
(John A. Olthuis
& Roger Townshend)
Questions:
1. According to John
Olthuis and Roger Townshend, what don’t most non-aboriginal people argue
against?
2. a) Why was the
non-aboriginals?
b) Should the Natives have accepted the
Accord?
3. Could another type of Indian policy have been
implemented and have been deemed successful?
4. Do you think that
establishing a legal doctrine that Indian tribes are “domestic dependent
states” which entitles them to have a separate justice and court system could
work for
5. How would the
Aboriginals in Canada benefit if they were indeed granted sovereignty?
6. Imagine that you’re a Native living on a
reserve and the Mayor of the town has decided to extend the town’s golf course
over the land that belonged to your ancestors from about a hundred years ago,
What do you do to prevent this?
7. Will there ever be a
peaceful coexistence of the Canadian state and the First Nations?
8. The author opposing that Native Sovereignty
can coexist with Canadian Sovereignty states in his article that the majority
of Aboriginals don’t even live on the reserves and wouldn’t return even if they
had the chance to. How could the fact that the majority of aboriginal people
don’t live on reserves because they are of awful conditions alter his argument?
9. Name any one of the
suggested solutions by the authors that could be implemented by the government
in the future? Is this likely?
Can
Native Sovereignty Coexist with Canadian sovereignty?
YES: The Case of
Native Sovereignty
(John A. Olthuis
& Roger Townshend)
Answers to
Questions:
1. According to John Olthuis and Roger
Townshend, non-aboriginals don’t question the legitimacy of the Canadian state,
however the aboriginal people argue that the power by the Candian state is
illegimate, oppressive and assumes the powers of the Aboriginals. This clearly
shows the different perceptions each side has regarding the jurisdiction over
Canadian territory.
2.
a) It was rejected by the aboriginals because they felt that this was too small
a step for what they had been trying to go for whereas the non-aboriginal
people felt that was too much for the First Nations.
b) Yes they should have because it would have constitutionally recognized an inherent
right to self-government for Aboriginal peoples. Although, it was too small a
step for what the First Nations were aiming for, they would be better off than
they are now. Also, they could later establish what they wanted by making use
of the little power given to them as it is much better than no power.
3. Yes, instead of the assimilating policy and
forcing the children to go to Canadian society schools without contact with
their families or even keeping their Native tongue, the government could have compromises
a policy that would instate that the Natives would have to participate in the
Canadian society for a period of time to be granted one of their wishes and the
longer they participated, the more likely it was that they’d be granted their
acclaims. They would participate by for example, working in the Canadian
society. However, this is an idealist approach and would likely have never been
sought by the government.
4. Yes, for the most part. Even though the
5. The aboriginals would finally have
what they are entitled to. Also, they would be able to maintain their way of life
along with a stable culture, economy and political system. I highly doubt that
it would intervene with the Canadian sovereignty as their laws would be very
different.
6.
I would protest and create another Oka Crisis but at a higher level. As cruel as
that may sound, the only be the way for the government to even listen, would be
by such an act. Seeing as it almost worked in 1990, if taken one step higher
it’s guaranteed to spark up controversy let alone attention rather than
ignorance. Also, the golf course is not a necessity; I would rightfully accuse
the Mayor of an intentional personal attack on the Aboriginal people.
7.
If the Canadian state permits it, then, yes there is but I think that this
would take a great number of years, unfortunately a battle, and then finally a
peaceful coexistence because a compromise would be established and perhaps the
government and the Non-aboriginal people would feel less threatened.
8.
The very fact that the majority of people of aboriginal people don’t live because
of the awful conditions at the reserved is a strong argument. Seeing as the
Natives were given very little to begin with it was hard to maintain it. Also
the poor treatment by the Non-aboriginal of the Natives on reserves is another
reason why many don’t live their as they are tired of being harassed. I’m
confident that when given the opportunity, the majority of people would jump to
support a Native sovereignty.
9.
I think that if the aboriginal people are given the something that would allow
and encourage the development of new types of structures that would reveal the
distinct cultural, political economic and spiritual aspects of the aboriginal
society. This would definitely lead to be a peaceful coexistence of the
Canadian state and the First Nations as their will be an understanding.