Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Indigenous sovereignty (Why necessary? (subjective vs objective terms of…

- - - - Controlled by Indian Act 1876. took away self-determination. Racist and sexist policies. Based on colonial gender bias assumptions (pg 231)
        
        despicable, colonizing, racist situation. under conrol of 'Indian agents'. not legally in charge of a single thing that happened in their land (Erasmus and Sanders kit 112
        
        self-government to this day ihas to go to a department official for approval. Burocrats. No responsible government; can deny changes without reason(Erasmus and Sanders kit 112
        
        continued degradation of the environment by private interests over contested land claims to this day (Erasmus and Sanders kit 112.. not same respect reverence for environment and relationship. need self-government to protect and self-determination
        
        current practice rather than correct behaviour is to offer money for "fee simple" property rights. try to extinguish historic claims through this process. (Erasmus and Sanders kit 112.
        
        Indian Act and new department of Indian Affairs led to benign neglect coupled with social control and assimilation. (Schouls kit 117.
  - - - want to express their communal ideals in their own way. need to express those differences through self-governemnt (Schouls kit 115
  - - - Canada has formed ICC (Indian Claims Comission ) but ignored its suggestions (Land and Townshend pg 127.)
- - - - First NAtions became protected states of the British while being recognized as sovereign nations. Weaker power does not mean the surrender right to self-governance by associating with a stronger power (Erasmus and Sanders kit 111.
    - - 4 Constitutional Conferences between 1983 and 1987 could not resolve. Aboriginal leaders argue "existing" meansinherent right to self-government. Government argues that only the rights determined and accorded by the historic treaty process
  - - - treaties were made in good faith, but European interpretation of the agreement was different and altered the intent of the agreement. "fee simple" concept of land for example(Erasmus and Sanders kit 110)
      - treaties allowing settlement by not giving up the right to use their traditional lands. or government. protect own culture and traditions. keep traditions. hunt, fish, trap and engage with others as they choose (Erasmus and Sanders kit 110)
      - Treaties never gave up sovereignty. Have been treated like private law contracts, but SCC R. v Simon found that First NAtions' treaties are unique and share some of the features of international treaties. Were seen as among sovereign nations in 18th and 19th century, why not now? (Erasmus and Sanders kit 111.
      - treaties have not been made for huge swathes of Canadian territory. Canadina courts deciding against indigenous people St Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v. R.) legal right to occupy land but did not legally own them.(Land and Townshend pg 124) Compare to secret tribunals of freetrade agreements
        
        by 1927 illegal to pursue land claims unil 1951 (Land and Townshend pg 124)
        
        Canada finally deal with land claims after 1973 Calder case about Nisga's land rights (Land and Townshend pg 124).
  - - - Indian Act implemmented in 1876 but no imput from FN. no selection of politicians who legislated the act because they did not have the vote federally until 1960s.