Aboriginal People
(As a social problem)
Aboriginal peoples constitute the
indigenous (or original) occupants of modern nation-states. They are highly varied
in culture and custom; differences can also be discerned at levels of
development and degree of absorption into Canadian society.
Some aboriginal peoples:
·
are covered by the general provisions of a royal
proclamation.
·
others have ceded sovereignty in exchange for specific
rights
·
still others have neither been conquered nor signed treaty
rights
·
yet others were conferred benefits because of their role as
British allies
·
yet others still live in urban areas but identify themselves
as aboriginal peoples.
Aboriginal peoples have long struggled to
1. retain control
over the development of traditional lands and resources
2. cope with
government intervention in their lives
3. survive as a
culturally distinct population
4. sever the bonds of
dependency and underdevelopment created by internal colonization
They do not regard themselves as
immigrants or minorities. They believe their involuntary “migrants” statuses
were forcibly imposed. They see themselves as relatively independent
communities. Aboriginal peoples define themselves as descendents of the
original occupants whose collective and inherent rights to self-determination
over internal jurisdictions have never been extinguished but remain intact as a
basis for entitlement and engagement.
Canada is widely praised for its engaging
diversity but Canada’s treatment of aboriginal peoples is generally considered
a national tragedy and an international disgrace. Historically, Canada’s
aboriginal peoples have either been pitied and condemned or denied and excluded
by mainstream society. From the nineteenth century and on, aboriginal peoples
were dismissed as a “problem people” whose problems were defined by refusal to
discard the past in exchange for the realities of the present.
Questions:
1. What exactly is
meant by the expression “Indian Problem”?
2. How is this
problem manifest with respect to social and cultural indices?
3. Why does the
“Indian Problem” still exist?
4. Have government
policy initiatives contributed to the problem or the solution?
5. What can be done to
improve aboriginal peoples-Canada relations?
Aboriginal peoples are extremely diverse,
with numerous tribes of varying characteristics. According to the 1996 census,
nearly 800 000 people reported they were aboriginal, of which:
554 000 were “North American Indian”
210 000 were Metis
41 000 were Inuit
Social, political, and cultural
differences among aboriginal tribes remain as real and divisive as they did
prior to European contact. Even the term “aboriginal peoples” is
misleading, since this constitutional status can be further subdivided into the
categories of status
Indians, non-status Indians, Metis and Inuit.
·
The highest profile of all aboriginal peoples.
·
Defined by:
1. admittance to a
general registry in Ottawa
2. affiliation with
one of 605 bands
3. entitlement to
residence on band reserve lands
4. jurisdiction under
the Indian Act.
·
Resides on one of 2597 reserves across Canada and their
interests are represented by 633 chiefs who constitute the Assembly of First
Nations.
·
Population varying from 75 000 and up.
·
They are exempt from provisions of the Indian Act and
jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs.
·
Some relinquish their official status in exchange for the
right to vote, drink alcohol off the reserve, or (in the case of women) to
marry a non-Indian.
·
Have this status because of never having entered into any
formal treaty agreement with the federal government.
·
They do not live on the reserves and are scattered in small
towns and large cities across Canada.
·
Many non-status Indians still identify themselves as
aboriginal peoples because of shared affinities.
·
Inclusion of non-status Indians as aboriginal peoples by the
Constitution Act of 1982 has legitimized the identity and concerns of
non-status Indians.
·
“The third class”
·
The offspring of mixed European-aboriginal unions.
·
Numbering between 100 000 to 400 000, initially were
restricted to those descendents of the Red River settlements in Manitoba who
identified themselves with the Metis Nation, but now many Metis dwell in
relatively remote communities throughout the prairie provinces.
·
Because of the assumed constitutional rights of 1982 that
claims over traditional lands can only be enjoyed by those who can prove
original occupancy, it proved to be quite difficult to define where the Metis
stood in that definition.
·
In 1998, the Ontario provincial court ruled that Metis and
non-status Indians have as much right to hunt and fish for food as status
Indians and also confirmed the Metis as a culturally distinct aboriginal
people.
·
The Alberta government has also recognized Metis
self-governing rights along with the right to limited institutional autonomy.
·
There are about 192 000 Metis across the prairies and are
represented by the Metis National Council.
·
There are about 40 000 – 60 000 Inuit
·
They enjoy and special status and relationship with federal
government despite never signing any treaties.
·
Inuktitut is widely spoken in the 53 communities across
Northwest Territories, Northern Quebec and Labrador.
·
Many continue to rely on hunting and trapping to secure
food, clothing and shelter.
·
Although there is much cultural integrity, there are still
many social problems which are growing, including: teenage pregnancies,
substance abuse, suicide rates, accidental deaths and diabetes.
·
They are governed by municipal councils, with committees
taking responsibility for health and education.
·
At the national level they are represented by the Inuit
Tapirisat of Canada
·
They recently completed successful negotiations with Ottawa
for control over their homeland, Nunavut, in the Eastern Artic.
With the coming of colonialism, there was also a powerfully negative
effect on aboriginal people. In some cases, government policies deliberately
undermined their capabilities of living as communities by depriving aboriginal
peoples of their land, culture, and tribal authority.
No matter how evaluated or assessed,
aboriginal peoples as a group remain at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.
For example:
·
Housing is inadequate or overcrowded on many reserves,
failing to meet basic standards.
·
Fewer than 50% of aboriginal homes have sewer or water
connections.
·
Unemployment rates of nearly 3 times the national average,
causes more aboriginal distress, leading directly to poor housing, illness, a
sense of powerlessness, cultural disintegration and social decay, and cycles of
poverty.
·
About ½ or 1/3 who have drifted in cities experience just as
much problems in employment, exposed to inadequate services and are cut off by
federal funding or reserve benefits.
·
A positive side is that enrollments in post-secondary education
has increased exponentially from 200 in the 1960s to 27 487 in 1997
Equally worrying is the demographic time
bomb that is ticking away in many aboriginal communities. The aboriginal
population has been rapidly increasing since the 1960s because of high
fertility and dramatic declines in infant mortality. With a birthrate that is
higher than 70% higher than the general population, the youthfulness of many
aboriginal communities is causing concern. Nearly 2/3 of the aboriginal
population prefers to live off-reserve, including 44% of status, on-reserve
Indians.
The psychological effects derived from a
sense of powerlessness, alienation and irrelevance have been no less
detrimental.
“One hundred years of submissions and servitude, of protectionism and paternalism have created psychological barriers for Indian people that are far more difficult to break down and conquer than the problems of economic and social problem.” (Buckley, 1992)
Alcohol and substance abuse are widely
regarded as the foremost problems on most reserves, with alcohol-related deaths
accounting for up to 80% of the fatalities on some reserves. Aboriginal
involvement with the criminal system is quite woeful as well. Nearly
three-quarters of aboriginal males will have been incarcerated in a
correctional center at some point in their lives by the age of 25.
Lastly the situation for aboriginal women
is slowly becoming that they are the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged.
Economically they are worse off than non-aboriginal women and aboriginal men in
terms of income levels and employment options, with the result that the
feminization of poverty bites deeply, especially for lone parent women in
cities.
The impression is created that poverty will disappear with better
opportunities, thus ignoring structural problems and the fundamental changes
required to a system that continues to deny or distort. Improvements will
occur only with changes that provide aboriginal control over institutions and a
share of revenue from reserve mineral resources and aboriginal title to land.
Instead of an “Indian problem”, there is a “Canada problem”.
Several questions come to mind:
1. How does Canadian
society create problems for aboriginal peoples?
2. To what extent are
government policies and programs central to this Canada problem?
3. What is it about
Canadian society that makes it so problematic for the First Nations?
References to “the Indian problem” imply that
aboriginal peoples bear full responsibility for their bad and unfortunate
situation. First Nations have problems that many see as of their own making,
compounded by a refusal to assimilate.
The government has subscribed to the view
that the solution to “the Indian problem” can only come about by eliminating
aboriginal culture through the assimilation of aboriginal peoples into
mainstream society. The federal government has employed 7 strategies to remove
social and cultural “obstructions” to Western-style economic development and
growth for if this transformation were successful, the so-called “Indian
problem” would vanish. But it seems with this plan the opposite appears to have
happened.
·
A shift from assimilation to integration and “ordinary
citizenship” gathered momentum after the late 1940s.
·
These attempts at “mainstreaming” had the catalytic effect
of mobilizing aboriginal peoples in protest against the ill-fated White Paper
of 1969.
·
The federal government then shifted toward devolution
§
A passing down or descent through successive stages of time
or a process.
§
Transference, as of rights or qualities, to a successor.
Accommodation (to 1820s)
The Aboriginal Policy in the broadest sense began with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The
purpose of the Proclamation was to establish
the Crown sovereignty over unexplored land. It was also meant to acknowledge
the Aboriginal interest in the land was a pre-existing right, rather than an
entitlement delegated by the Crown. The Proclamation was intended to achieve
the following principles: (1) create a harmonious and respected working
partnership with Aboriginal people, (2) a mutual recognition of each group’s
shared use and inhabitance of the land, and (3) non-interference were to guide
the Crown’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. However, the reality of the
Proclamation has brought many disagreements when compared to its intended
purpose.
Assimilation (to 1960s)
From 1775 to 1812, the British Indian department implemented the key
tenet of British policy by forging relationships with Aboriginal tribes. This
was to ensure the survival of the colonists and settlers. But once the British
established a grasp of handling the living conditions, they assumed
paramountcy. They virtually negated and bypassed all previous treaties and
commitments made with the Aboriginal tribes, for the purposes of exploration,
expansion and settlement. The post-1815 era was subsequently dominated by this
commitment to pacify Aboriginal tribes through conquest-oriented acculturation
or displacement into increasingly remote areas (pg. 181).
Canada was seen as the colonizing arm of the British empire. The British North America Act (BNA Act) of 1867 was
created for these purposes through the use of British rule: (1) occupation, (2)
negotiated settlements, and (3) threat of force. The BNA Act gave the state
full responsibility for the Aboriginal people by establishing federal
jurisdiction over Aboriginal lands and affairs. Essentially, this was seen as
the most effective means of solving the “Indian problem” – by assimilating them
into British civilization. One of the way it did that was through the Indian
Act of 1876 – a repressive instrument of containment and control, its role in
usurping Aboriginal authority (disbandment of traditional tribal governance),
thus creating a dependence and learned helplessness towards the state.
Integration (1940s to 1970s)
An official commitment to assimilation merged with the principles of
integration (also seen as a form of social engineering) as a blueprint for
reform. Strategies to desegregate once-isolated Aboriginal enclaves through
integration into the main stream proved increasingly attractive for political
and economic reasons. In order to exercise the theory of integration, all
people needed to be recognized, regardless of race or ethnicity, in order to
achieve an integrated society.
The White Paper was meant to be that tool of integration. Essentially,
it was meant to terminate the special relationship between Aboriginal people
and the Crown, thus eliminating the status of Aboriginal peoples as legal
entity. The belief was that any remaining Aboriginal issues would be left to
the individual provinces to sort out and fix. However, what the federal
government did not anticipate was the resistance they encountered by Aboriginal
councils and activists.
The shift to the devolution process began following
after the White Paper “crisis”. The principles of devolution included: greater
input by Aboriginals in local affairs, greater control over service delivery,
administration of departmental programs and decision-making. This shift in
power and governance changed the mentality of the federal government from a
control-and-deliver directive to a more inclusive and awareness of the
Aboriginal needs and recognition.
In 1986, the government announced a
devolutionary program of community-based, municipal-style self-government in
conjunction with Cabinet-approved guidelines for community self-sufficiency, to
be pursued on a band-to-band basis and outside any federally imposed blueprint.
In essence, this was the beginning of addressing the formerly overlooked and
neglected needs of the individual Aboriginal bands that the government had made
commitments to. This was able to happen because of Canada’s Constitution Act of 1982. Canada
became the first country in the world to constitutionally entrench aboriginal
and treaty rights. In doing so, Canada had finally and formally acknowledged
Aboriginals as a nation of people on the international stage and was moving
towards correcting the historical discrimination.
Conditional autonomy is a move towards the
direction of self-governance, but with certain strings and limitations attached
the autonomy. Rising from conditional autonomy, three themes emerge: (1)
renewing partnership. (2) strengthening aboriginal governments; and (3) supporting
strong communities.
This all came on the heels of the Oka
crisis. As a result of the crisis, four Policy pillars were introduced to serve
as the guidelines for all future interactions between the federal government
and the Aboriginal peoples. The four pillars are:
5. Accelerated land
claims settlement.
6. Improved
socio-economic status on reserves,
7. Reconstruction of
aboriginal peoples-government relations; and
8. Fulfillment of
aboriginal concerns.
This being said, this new form of autonomy
comes with limitations. In a 1995 federal policy document, the terms and
conditions were outlined in order for conditional autonomy to be pursued. Those
conditions include, and are not limited to:
1. Aboriginal
self-governance must operate within the Canadian federal system,
2. Cannot declare
independence or impair Canada’s territorial sovereignty,
3. Must be in harmony
with other governments,
4. Must be consistent
with the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and
5. Must enhance the
participation of aboriginal peoples in Canadian society.
In order for solutions to available and
possible, the situation between Canadian government and Aboriginals cannot be
viewed as an “Indian Problem”. All past solutions made by the Canadian government
have been “quick fixes” – processes of assimilation, integration and
devolution.
Aboriginals have taken on the mantel and
redefined this problem, such that they have focused the solutions on addressing
their peoples’ needs, concerns, and aspirations. Three proposed solutions that
encompass these are: Aboriginal-Plus Status, Self-Determination through
Self-Governance, and Aboriginal Title and Treaty Rights.
The very things that Aboriginal people
want are the very things we have (and sometimes take for granted):
o
Protection and freedom in exercising their cultural
lifestyles and language;
o
Select elements of their culture can be preserved and
interpreted within our contemporary framework;
o
Freedom from bureaucratic subjectivity;
o
Elimination of discrimination and racism against them,
socially and politically, which they have faced for hundreds of years; and
o
Access to power, resources, status and meaningful
decision-making capabilities.
In addition to these things, Aboriginals wish
to be seen differently as well. Because of their existence in this land before
the Conquest and as a result of the numerous treaties signed, they are pushing
for an “aboriginal-plus status” – recognition of pre-existing rights that were
afforded to them previously that were never honored.
This aboriginal-plus status entitles:
o
The right to control land and resources;
o
The right to protect and promote language, culture and
identity;
o
The right to conduct their affairs on a nation-to-nation
basis; and
o
The right to establish indigenous models of self-government.
Recognizing their aboriginal-plus status
is vital because it signifies and validates not only their reasons for redress,
but also the originality of their inhabitance of Canada as people of a nation that
existed before European arrival.
Aboriginals desire the opportunity to have
the same rights enjoyed by other Canadians, yet want an additional recognition
in status as being a nation people whom co-habited Canada since the beginning (hence,
aboriginal-plus status).
Aboriginal people tend to reject the idea
of viewing themselves as a group of Canadian citizens living on reserves.
Rather, they see themselves as sovereign and self-governing nations that have
distinct political status within the Canadian nation-state.
This is the rationale for the
self-governance of Aboriginal people:
o
Aboriginals believe they have the right to control their own
destiny;
o
International law recognizes them as a nation people and
thus justifies self-governance;
o
Royal Proclamation of 1763 affirmed and protected aboriginal
nationhood; and
o
The process of self-governance would help to persevere and
protect their culture and lifestyle from further erosion.
One of the issues dealing with
self-governance is that there are so many forms and models that it’s hard to
pick one that works. Plus, given that there are so many bands, it is equally
challenging to find a model that accommodates all of them.
Other limitations:
o
Self-governance must be within the limits of Constitution of
Canada and Charter of Rights and Freedom, which affect all levels of
government;
o
Aboriginal laws must work within and comply with federal and
provincial legislations and criminal codes;
o
Third-party interests must be taken into account; and
o
Self-governance must also enhance the participation of
aboriginal in Canadian society (must not be self-isolating).
Levels of Aboriginal Self-Governance
|
Statehood
*absolute (de jure) sovereignty *internal + external jurisdiction *complete independence with no external interference |
Nationhood
*de facto sovereignty *self-determining control over multiple yet interlinked jurisdictions within a framework of shared sovereignty *nations within/province-like |
Community/Municipality-based
*conditional sovereignty *community-based autonomy *internal jurisdictions, limited only by interaction with similar
bodies and higher political authorities |
Institutional
*nominal sovereignty *decision-making power through institutional accommodation *parallel institutions |
Aboriginals see self-governance as part of
the only viable solution because they have never voluntarily relinquished their
Aboriginal rights for the sake of Canadian government assistance.
There are no guarantees that
self-governance will “fix” everything, but it’s a good first-step to helping
and redressing the neglect of Aboriginal people.
In order to affect change, there are three
principles that must be applied when dealing with aboriginal title and treat
rights: recognition, definition, and implementation.
The concept of treaties, and more
importantly, the ownership of personal property, was a European concept.
Aboriginals were under the impression that they would be co-habiting the land,
while Europeans had a more capitalistic and Alexandrian mindset.
Aboriginals’ view on treaty: semi-sacred
and binding documents, exchange of land and resources for goods, services,
guaranteed homeland, and Crown assistance.
Europeans’ view on treaty: legal
surrenders of aboriginal land, doctrine of “terra nullius”.
There are two types of treaty rights:
specific claims and comprehensive claims.
Specific claims deal with violations of
existing treaty violations, while comprehensive claims require proving claims
through historical and contemporary proofs while dealing with the fact of a
lack of a treaty.
Delgamuukw clause: case in B.C. The Court ruled that aboriginal peoples have a
constitutional and exclusive right of use and ownership to land they occupied
prior to European arrival, in effect going beyond an earlier conception of
aboriginal title that included on the right to traditional hunting, fishing and
good gathering. As long as aboriginal title is unextinguished and aboriginal
people retain interest in the land, Delgamuukw ruled, aboriginal people can use the land or
resources in almost any way they wish – traditional or non-traditional – except
in a destructive way that might imperil future use.
The current means of addressing this
so-called “Indian Problem” is through the use of claims-making approach,
whereby claims are made after a violation, a
somewhat retroactive, after-the-fact approach.
The pro of this approach is that so far,
it has worked (i.e., James Bay-Cree settlement of 1975, Nunavut Agreement in
1993).
The con of this approach is that it can
potentially create a bigger divide of “us” verse “them”.
Constructive engagement of redress and
renewal of the relationship between people-nations require principles of
partnership, recognition, respect, sharing, and responsibility, while being anchored
in a commitment to cooperative coexistence and a relative, yet relational
autonomy.
Aboriginals continue to work towards
overcoming dependency on government supplement despite the bondage they face.
They continue to push for self-governance
within a Canadian framework and remain consistent with their demands for
redress.
In order to affect change, the following
must be recognized:
o
Assimilation is not an option;
o
It is a process of preserving culture, language and
identity;
o
The opportunity to progress forward without the loss the
uniqueness; and
o
Political and economic power to enable to encourage
meaningful society participation.
As a Canadian society, both as a nation of
people and a democratic government, we must:
o
Stop seeing it as just “their problem” or an “Indian
problem” – it’s a Canadian disenfranchisement;
o
Must not be content with merely maintaining the status-quo –
they did not arrive their on their own, therefore we cannot expect them to fix
it themselves.