ABORIGINALITY AND SELF GOVERNANCE

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CANADIAN STATE ====> THEY ARGUE IT WAS FORM BY CONQUEST, BROKEN PROMISES AND EXPANSION BY FORCE AND TRICKERY {EX: LAND AS DIVINITY} =====> THEIR CLAIM IS – THAT THE CANADIAN STATE DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM / AND THAT, BY DECEPTION AND FORCE, THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF THE LAND ON WHICH THEY HAD LIVED ======> THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MAKE ELOQUENTLY AND OFTEN IN THE LAW COURTS, THROUGH THE MEDIA, IN POLITICAL PROTESTS, AND IN FORUMS LIKE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE [ALSO] CLAIM A UNIQUE STATUS BASED ON THEIR POSITION AS CANADA’S FIRST NATIONS AND HAVE, BECAUSE OF THAT POSITION, PURSUED THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERNMENT.

~~ CONSEQUENTLY ~~

{ALTHOUGH} ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES HAVE A DISTINCTIVE ETHNICITY, THEY COMMONLY REJECT LABELING AS AN ETHNIC MINORITY – THEY ENDORSE THE STATUS OF A PEOPLE OR NATION. ====> {NOT AN INDEPENDENT NATION-STATE, BUT RATHER COLLECTIVES (1) WITH A RIGHT TO GOVERN SELVES, AND (2) IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CANADA} è

WHAT WAS THE HISTORY LEADING TO THE CONTEMPORARY “ABORIGINALITY” MOVEMENT

FOLLOWING CONFEDERATION, ABORIGINAL PEOPLES CAME UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE MECHANISM FOR THIS CONTROL, THE INDIAN ACT, WAS PASSED IN 1876 AND GAVE GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS ALMOST TOTAL CONTROL OVER ABORIGINAL PEOPLE. THE ACT EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO DEFINE A “PERSON” AS “AN INDIVIDUAL OTHER THAN AN INDIAN.”

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE INDIAN ACT WERE PROFOUND:

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN WERE FORCED TO ATTEND RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS (WHICH MEANT THAT GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN WERE NOT RAISED BY THEIR FAMILIES.)

[IN LOCO PARENTIS (IN PLACE OF THE PARENTS) WHICH MEANT THAT GENERATIONS OF CHILDREN WERE NOT RAISED BY THEIR FAMILIES == CHILDREN WERE FORBIDDEN TO USE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE, WEAR THEIR OWN CLOTHES, OR MAINTAIN CULTURAL TRADITIONS OR RELIGIONS.)

TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES WERE RESTRICTED.

ABORIGINAL PEOPLE DID NOT FULLY CONTROL THEIR OWN LAND AND COULD NOT SELL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OFF THE RESERVE.

THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSED A “PASS SYSTEM” WHICH RESTRICTED THE RIGHT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES TO TRAVEL OFF THEIR RESERVES.

AND, THEY DID NOT GET VOTING RIGHTS IN CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTIONS UNTIL 1960.

IN THE 1960S, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO REVIEW THE POLICIES CONCERNING ABORIGINAL PEOPLES. A “WHITE PAPER”, TABLED IN 1969, PROPOSED ASSIMILATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE – TREATIES WERE DROPPED, RESERVES WERE TO BECOME LIKE NEIGHBORING NON-ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES, AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND ABORIGINAL LANDS WERE TO BE DISCARDED.

REACTION TO THIS WHITE PAPER MARKED A WATERSHED IN ABORIGINAL POLITICS – A NATIONAL CAMPAIGN, WHICH ULTIMATELY FORCED THE GOVERNMENT TO DROP ITS PROPOSALS, BECAME A COUNTRYWIDE MOVEMENT AND SEVERAL PAN-INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS, WERE FORMED.

SELF-GOVERNMENT, ABORIGINAL RIGHTS, AND LAND CLAIMS BECAME THE RALLYING POINTS OF THE MOVEMENT.

[TODAY] THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS OF “ABORIGIALITY” REVOLVES AROUND THE KEY ISSUE OF SELF-DETERMINATION ======> OR MORE ACCURATELY, ABORIGINAL MODELS OF SELF-DETERMINING AUTONOMY =======> MEANS THE “DEVOLUTION” OF REPONSIBILITY AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER ABORIGINAL LANDS AND AFFAIRS, AND THE TRANSFERENCE OF RIGHTS AND AUTHORITIES TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE ====> IN SHORT, LAND, IDENTITY AND POLITICAL VOICE}}}

WHAT DOE THIS MEAN (?)

THIS (SOMETIMES CALLED) 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.

[ON THIS FINAL POINT} WE CAN ENVISION ABORIGINALITY AS A STRATEGY OF “SELF-DETERMINATION THROUGH SELF-GOVERNANCE”

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.

SO 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.

HOWEVER, ONE OF THE ISSUES DEALING WITH SELF-GOVERNANCE IS THAT THERE ARE SO MANY FORMS AND MODELS THAT IT’S HARD TO PICK ONE (SEE CHART BELOW) THAT WORKS. PLUS, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SO MANY BANDS, IT IS EQUALLY CHALLENGING TO FIND A MODEL THAT ACCOMMODATES ALL OF THEM.

THE POSITION OF THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN THAT THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION COULD ONLY BE EXTENDED AS POWERS DELEGATED TO ABORIGINAL PEOPLE BY GOVERNMENT THROUGH LEGISLATION OR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.

FURTHER, THE POWERS THAT WOULD BE GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT WOULD EXTEND ONLY TO POWERS NOW HELD BY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS RATHER THAN THE MUCH BROADER POWERS SOUGHT BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLES.

RESULTING 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

CONCLUSIONS: 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 INTERNAL COLONIALISM, OPPRESSION, AND NEGLECT OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLE HAVE HISTORICALLY ENDURED.