Aboriginal+Issues

media type="file" key="Natives Note.mp3" width="240" height="20" Native peoples - descendants of Canada's original inhabitants have had a complex, and often difficult, relationship with the non-Native peoples (mainly Europeans) who have come to Canada over the last 500 years. As it became obvious to the Native peoples that they were becoming a small minority in their own land, they signed agreements called treaties with the Europeans, hoping to accomplish two things. First, they wanted to maintain an economic base. This meant having access to or keeping enough land to support themselves by fishing and hunting. They also wanted the right to control their own affairs. Most of these treaties have failed miserably, since neither goal was achieved. In recent years, Aboriginal groups and the government have worked to revive the process of treaty making so that fairer settlements can be found.

A First Nation is a Native group in which the members share a common culture and history, and wish to be treated as a distinct group on this basis. There are several such cultural groups across Canada. For legal purposes, the federal government also divides Native peoples into three groups: Indian, Inuit, and Métis. Indians include status Indians, who are entitled to certain rights through treaties made with the government, and non-status Indians, who aren't covered by treaties. The federal government has special responsibilities for both status Indians and the Inuit, who include Native people living in the arctic region of Canada. Métis include people of mixed Aboriginal and European descent.

1. What two things did the Native People hope to accomplish by signing treaties with the Europeans?

THE TREATY-MAKING PROCESS Canada has a history of treaties that dates back to 1665 when the country was a colony. First the French, and later the British, signed treaties with Native peoples. In these early years, when there were only a small number of European explorers, fur traders, and settlers, Native peoples were in the dominant position. They outnumbered Europeans, and knew how to survive in a challenging country. In fact, often they were able to give the newcomers the food, shelter, and knowledge they needed to survive. In these early encounters, European government and Native peoples made treaties based on peace and friendship as military allies.

Academic Question 2. What surprises you about this last paragraph? How does this information fit with what you already thought?

Over the years that followed, the relationship between the two groups altered sharply. As more and more Europeans arrived, the British government wanted to obtain control of the land used by Native groups. In exchange, they offered Native people payment, an area of land called a reserve, and, sometimes, goods.

Signing treaties made sense for both the First Nations and for the Europeans.The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 established two important principles that were to be applied when treaties were negotiated. The first was that the land-ownership rights of the First Nations must be respected. The second was that if a First Nation did choose to give up land, it should receive a fair payment for it. However, this was not often the case. From 1780 to 1876, small parcels of land were traded through treaties; Native people were given a very small onetime payment, sometimes suits of clothing, and later, blankets, in exchange. By 1850, much larger areas of land were being surrendered in exchange for reserves, cash, yearly payments to reserve members, and promises of hunting and fishing rights over vacant government-owned land. Payments that may have seemed fair then, do not seem adequate now, since the value of money has changed so much.

3. What two principles were to be applied to treaties? Do you think these two principles were always followed?

After Confederation, when the federal government was pushing to expand the west with the railroad and settle the Prairies, it became more concerned that Native groups give up all rights to the land. Through The Indian Act of 1876, the government signed treaties with Native groups that required them to give up their claim to the lands they occupied forever, and persuaded them to move to reserves. For the Canadian government, the reserves were seen as temporary, until the Native people on them became absorbed into the dominant culture. Under the treaty agreements, Native peoples were to receive cash payments, yearly payments to reserve members, and goods. Most convincing, perhaps, were promises of continuing fishing and hunting rights, which would allow them to live as they had in the past. The government gave gifts of flags and medals to show their friendly intentions. Near the turn of the century, after two decades, treaties were again made after gold and oil were discovered in the North. By 1923, the last unsurrendered land in southern Ontario was signed over by treaty, and with it, the treaty-making process came to an end. In British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, however, treaties had not been signed, and treaties in these areas would not begin to be looked at until over 50 years later.

Academic Question 4. Do you think the government informed the Natives that their lands had gold or oil when they formed these treaties? Why or why not?

While Native people gave up almost half of Canada's land area through treaties, unfortunately, many of the treaties proved to be unfair. There were differences between what Native peoples thought they were signing, and the actual wording of the treaties. In addition, in many cases, treaty promises of payments, reserve land, and rights to hunting and fishing were broken.

Under the Indian Act, the government decided who "Indians" were, and only status Indians had the rights to use reserve lands. Status Indians were usually those who were registered with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs by being band members on a reserve. The band was the decision-making organization created under The Indian Act by the government to represent the reserve. Often, however, the band was different from the First Nation's own decision-making unit. If you left the reserve, you lost your right to land. Métis and non-status Native peoples were not included in treaty making.

5. Do you think it was fair that Natives lost their land rights if they left the reserve? Why or why not?

The government made decisions on behalf of Native peoples. The government decided how reserve lands were to be used, and they had other powers. For example, the government decided how reserve lands were to be used. It told Native people on the Prairies that they had to have a pass in order to leave their reserves. Later, the government banned Native peoples from raising money to pursue land claims. These bans were lifted in 1951, but Native people did not have the right to vote in federal elections until 1960. Although many aspects of the Indian Act are still in place, there has been a move since the 1980s to give bands more control through their councils. More than half of the bands now control their own finances, but they still cannot sell or rent land.

media type="youtube" key="3m47ZWjkAM0" height="285" width="340" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIKPE_urY8A&feature=player_embedded

WHAT WENT WRONG? Loss of Land and Economic Base The original treaties failed to meet the needs of Aboriginal peoples for two main reasons. The most important was the enormous loss of land that occurred as a result of European settlement, especially in southern and central Canada. Having free access to land was key to the ability of the Native peoples to maintain their traditional ways of life, but the treaties meant that they had to give up most of the land that they had used for thousands of years. Rarely were these reserves of land large enough, or rich enough, to provide a sound economic base for the people who lived on them.

There are 2360 reserves in Canada, they include only 27 500 km{2}, which is less than 0.3% of Canada's total area. If you remember that there are about 800 000 people of First Nations descent living in Canada, this is a very small amount of land. Since many of the reserves do not have rich resources of fertile land, minerals, commercial forests, fish, animals and other resources, the residents of the reserves face a difficult choice. They can stay on the reserve with their family and friends but face a future that frequently includes unemployment and poverty or they can move to the city in the hope of a better economic future - but only by abandoning their own community.

6. If you were a Native what would you do? Give up your family and culture for a better economic future? Would you stay and live in poverty? Is this a fair choice? Do you have to make this choice?

Lack of Self Government The second reason why these treaties failed was that Native peoples were given no right to govern themselves. Before the arrival of Europeans, the First Nations of North America governed themselves in many different ways. For example, the Iroquois had one of the oldest democracies in the world: the Six Nations. After Europeans came to dominate Canada, these traditions of government were lost. Most decisions about how Aboriginal people were to live were, and continue to be, made by the federal government.

Some of these government decisions had a huge impact on Native ways of life. Perhaps the most damaging of these was the decision to send Native children to residential schools. For many years, Aboriginal parents were persuaded to have their children taken from their homes and sent to live and learn in special schools in the larger towns. The purpose of these schools was to teach these children the language and culture of the larger, mainstream Canadian society so that they could become assimilated into it. They were punished if they tried to speak their own languages or practice their own cultural traditions. Sometimes these children were abused while they lived at these schools. Many years have been spent trying to repair the damage caused by these schools so that these people do not remain trapped between two cultures. media type="youtube" key="fIKPE_urY8A" height="285" width="340"

The problem of not having self government can be seen in other areas as well. Provincial and federal governments have made laves to protect the populations of wildlife. Yet, Native peoples traditionally hunted and fished whenever and wherever game (or fish) were plentiful. Aboriginal leaders have argued that these laves should not apply to their people, since such laves help to destroy their economic base and traditional culture.

Native people have often been harmed by developments over which they have no control. The Bennett Dam in British Columbia, for example, is one of Canada's largest hydro-electric projects. It produces many benefits for the people and the industries of the province. At the same time, it disrupts river flow hundreds of kilometers downstream in the Peace River delta at Fort Chipewyan, Alberta. The Native people in this area traditionally earned their living by trapping muskrat in the river and selling it for fur products. The reduced water flow reduced the size and the quality of the muskrat habitat. As a result, fewer muskrat could be caught and those that were trapped were of poorer quality. Many of the trappers in Fort Chipewyan are no longer able to earn an adequate living - their economic base had been damaged by a development far away in another province over which they had no control.

7. This same situation happens all over the world. Government and corporations have often done things that have had a negative impact on people. I'd like you to look up some information on mountain top coal mining in West Virginia. Explain the following: a) the general situation (what is going on!) b) who benefits from this type of mining c) who is harmed by this type of mining d) why those people are harmed Academic e) How is the situation described with the Natives (in the paragraph above) like the situation in West Virginia with mountain top mining?

Aboriginal peoples want self government so that they can control their own destinies. They want to be able to expand their economic base so that they can reduce unemployment and poverty among their peoples and reduce their dependence on the government. They want to be able to protect and expand their cultures and develop a stronger social structure to help overcome problems of isolation, poor housing, and ill health.

Canada isn't the only country that has struggled to deal with it's original inhabitants. Listen to this podcast to find out more.... media type="file" key="What was Australia's Stolen Generation_.mp3" width="240" height="20"