The Politics of Aboriginality:Repairing the Relationship

“”

Bonus assignment• Worth 2 marks – submit one page summary of three key

points in video. One week deadline.

• NFB video “The People of the Kattawapiskat River by Alanis Obomsawin. Free streaming ends on January 18. google: nfb.ca or

• http://thetyee.ca/video/2013/01/11

Competing Narratives

• THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE CHALLENGING• Success - Osoyoos

• Dysfunctions - Attawapiskat

• Challenges - Caledonia

Core Insights # 1

• Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples = Indigenous Peoples

• 350 million everywhere• Original inhabitants• Colonization = deep persistent inequities• “Get out” of existing relations (vs get in for immi

LEGACY OF COLONIALISM

• Colonialism and its Aftermath• What is colonialism

– Fundamentally exploitive and controlling relationship– By which indigenous society is transformed and dominated– According to priorities, interests, and superiorities of the colonizer

• Effects– Indigenous peoples forcibly incorporated + loss of land, identity,

and political voice + marginalized or encapsulated status

• Impact

Structures/legacy of colonialism persists

THE POLITICS OF INDIGENEITY/ABORIGINALITY

Pre colonial Colonialism Neo Colonialism

- Same game- Same rules- Different

conventions- Different players

Post Colonialism

Core Insight no 2Canada’s Difference Model (p.176)

ABORIGINAL PEOPLES IMMIGRANTS (multicultural minorities)

Sociological Status

Constitutional Status

Core Problem

Proposed solutions

Anticipated Outcomes

Core Insight No 3: Diversity in Inequality

• Internal Diversity - Legal and Constitutional Status - historical, cultural and social differences - reserves, rural, urban - youth - women

Constitutional and Legal StatusSTATUS INDIANS+ REGISTERED INDIANS+ NORTH AMERICAN IND.

METIS INUIT

+ NON STATUS INDIANS

Patterns of Aboriginal Inequality

SOCIOECONOMIC - demographic- income/poverty- employment/unemployment- Education- housing

HEALTH - violence - Suicide- diseases

OFF RESERVE - Discrimination- Access to services- Lack of human capital

COMMUNITY /RESERVE DYSFUNCTIONS- Band governance- Boredom/Lack of opportunity- powerlessness- Location/Remoteness - Dependency

Urban Aboriginal (Identity) Population, Selected Cities, 2006.

Toronto

Winnipeg

Regina

Saska

toon

Calgary

Edmonton

Vanco

uver

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Thinking about urban Aboriginal peoples

• 1950s-1980s “caught between two worlds– Moving to escape poor social conditions on-reserve– Caught up in poor conditions in the city (Indians on Skid Row)

• 1980s-1990s– Less emphasis on cultural conflict– A disadvantaged group, along with others – More practical concern with outcomes, policies/programmes– Circular movement

• 2000s– Increased recognition of urban spaces as Aboriginal spaces– Hybrid identities and biculturalism (not cultural conflict) – “Happiness” factor

Intersecting cycle of poverty and powerlessness

Poor living conditions

Poverty/powerlessness health, violence etc

Poor parenting, school failures

Grassy Narrows/Attawapiskat

• What are causes of socio-economic-cultural problems?

- an “Indian” problem? - a Canada problem - a Canada/”Indian” problem

• What are solutions - assimilation, autonomy, accommodation

Poison stronger than love

WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN YOUR READING• Different levels of meaning in the title• What is the nature of the problems on the Grassy

Narrows Reserve• What are the causes?• What policy framework best explains situation?• What are solutions depending on how the problem

is defined: assimilation, autonomy, accommodation?

Core Insight NO 4 Contesting the problem definition/

Proposing Solutions

ASSIMILATIONIST (Functionalism)• (so called) “INDIAN” PROBLEM• Problem = Blame the victim /people with needs• Solution = Modernize (‘more like us’)

ACCOMMODATIONIST (Symbolic Interactionism)• CANADA-”INDIAN” PROBLEM• Problem = Blame the relationship/situation• Solution = Relations Repair + Improve situation mutual adjustment/citizens +)

AUTONOMISTS (Conflict Theory)• CANADA PROBLEM• Problem = Blame the system/colonization• Solution = Indigenize (‘less like you’) + Separation

Competing Models (p225)Model Assimilation

“Indian” ProblemFunctionalism

AutonomyCanada problemConflict theory

AccommodationCan-”Indian” probSymbolic Interaction

Who to blame/cause/ResponsibilityProblem Source

Solution

Means

Results

Outcomes

Core Insight No 5Aboriginal Policy: Friend or Foe?

• Historical relations• As instrument of progress or regress?• At worst, disempower and destroy– No more ‘Indians’– Assimilation/self sufficiency

• At best – smoothing the pillow of a dying race (progress)

• Canada = logic: white supremacist society

Comparing Aboriginal peoples Policy

Perceived Status of Aboriginal Peoples

Underlying Assumptions behind Policy

Proposed Policy Goals

Proposed means to achieve policy goals

Assimilation

Integration

Devolution

Conditional autonomy

Indian Act 1876

• Exercise in micro management• Reserves =multiple meanings

Accommodation (1760s-1830s)

Royal Proclamation (1763)

C-31 Inheritance RulesStatus Man

Status Woman

(Married before 1985)

6.1 Status

Non-Status Spouse

6.1 Status (if b. Pre 1985)6.2 Status (if b. After 1985)

6.1 Status woman

Non-Status Man

6.2 StatusNon-Status

Spouse

Non-Status

6.2 Status 6.2 Status

6.1 Status

• Continues to be gender-discriminatory • The “cousins problem”

Summing UpOverview: You got it … You took it….

Aboriginal Policy = contested site/competing agendas = Assimilation x Accommodation x Autonomy

• Drivers of Aboriginal Policya) Constitution Act, Indian Act, Court Rulingsb) Treaty Obligationsc) Imposition of Certaintyd) Canada’s international reputation/ UN Scrutinye) Political Ideology

• FEAR• Aboriginal Militancy• Not another Ipperwash/Oka

Towards a Reconciliation/ Relations Repair

Taking ABORIGINAL DIFFERENCE seriously

ABORIGINAL TITLE AND TREATY RIGHTS

ABORIGINAL MODELS OF SELF DETERMINING AUTONOMY / SELF GOVERNANCE

Pre and Post-Confederation Treaties

National Resources Canadawww.nrcan.gc.ca

Modern Treaties (as of 2010)

Indian and Northern Affairs Canadawww.ainc-inac.gc.ca

Aboriginal Title and Treaty Rights

• Towards a treaty based relationship Proclamation Act• Three types of treaty claims

1. Specific Treaty Claims2. Comprehensive (modern) Treaty Claims3. Compensation Claims (Six Nations)

• Aboriginal title

Aboriginal Title

• Customary right rooted in common and international law• If prove continuous occupation and use prior to European contact,

aboriginal peoples are “en-title-ed” to land and resources• Freedom of use, except...• Crown usurpation of title but only if

1. National Interests2. Consultations, (consent) and compensation

• Realistic Compromise?

Models of Self Determining Autonomy or Models of Self Government

Statehood (Complete sovereignty) Nationhood (Strings Attached Sovereignty)

Community/Municipal Level (embedded) Institutional Level (nominal)

Core Insight No 6: Unblocking the Impasse“REPAIRING THE RELATIONSHIP”

• From a Colonial relationship /social contract • A neo-colonial relationship at present (same game, same rules, different conventions, different players )

• Towards a post colonial social contract (different game, different rules, different players)

• Principles of Constructive Engagement - partnership - power sharing - participation - property return

Towards Relations- Repair Model

• Principles of constructive engagement/see also RCAP (p 201-202)– De facto sovereignty– Relations repair– Peoples with (aboriginal) rights– Political communities– Power sharing/partnership– Living together jurisdictionally – Aboriginal models of self determining autonomy – Belonging/citizenship thru nations– Difference matters– Reconciliation and property return

COLONIAL PARADIGM(old social contract –from Indian Act to White Paper)

NEO COLONIAL PARADIGM(current social contract based on the principle of indirect rule)

POST COLONIAL PARADIGM (proposed social contract based on pples of RCAP + constructive engagement)

STATUS

Children Citizens plus Peoples/nations/political communities

RIGHTS

Wards of the state: From citizen minus to equal citizenship rights

Delegated rights and responsibilities

Inherent and collective indigenous rights

ENTITLEMENTS Social problems with needs A minority problem with rights Indigenous peoples with rights

NATURE OF RELATIONSHIPParent-child guardianship Partnership (senior-junior partners)

Nation to nation;Government to govt;Peoples to peoples

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT Paternalistic (‘do for’) Partnership (senior-junior-partners) Partnership (work with)

POWER DISTRIBUTION Power deficit Delegate power Power sharing

POLICY APPROACH Canada knows what is best(obey/conform)

We know what is best but we have duty to consult + administrate what we say

Indigenous peoples know what is best + work together

POLICY GOAL Assimilation(protection until absorption and normalization)

Integration (conditional autonomy + state determination)

Relational Self determining autonomy without domination

UNDERLYING POLICY ASSUMPTIONS

Absorption Modernize Indigenize – indigenous difference as basis for rewards, recognition, and relations

ANIMATING LOGIC Eliminate ‘Indian’ problem Control problem by coexistence Co-sovereign coexistence

ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES Individual self sufficiency Community self sufficiency Self determining autonomy as basis for living separately together

CORE LOGICFoundational principles/rules of a colonial constitutional order are uncontested

Conventions that inform the rules/foundational principles of a neo colonial constitutional order are modified nt this.

Challenge the rules/foundational principles underlying constitutional order to create post colonial contract

REDEFINING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT: EVOLVING PARADIGMS IN the RELATIONAL STATUS of ABORIGINAL PEOPLES (p 220)