scholarly journals Perspectives on Reconciliation & Indigenous Rights

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Burridge

This paper provides an overview of discourses of the movement for national reconciliation prevailing within the Australian socio-political context since the inception of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1991, to the national apology delivered by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13th February 2008. It provides an framework for the various discourses of reconciliation, by exploring and analysing the accrued meanings to such terms such as ‘genuine’, substantive or ‘true’ reconciliation; the Howard’s Government’s ‘practical reconciliation’ and the Rudd government’s great attempt at ‘symbolic’ reconciliation in the national apology to Indigenous Australians. In the changing political context in Australia today this paper revisits the debates on reconciliation, and endeavours to locate the movement solidly within a human rights framework that includes first nation rights. This requires an examination of the roots of the reconciliation movement including community attitudes to reconciliation and the nature of the peoples’ movement as well as the differing perspectives of policy makers, politicians and of course, Indigenous peoples. It asks crucial questions about the progress of reconciliation and the type of reconciliation mainstream Australians will accept. In truth therefore, was the ‘National Apology’ a grand symbolic gesture by mainstream Australia to maintain the status quo and divert our eyes from the more searching questions of the ‘unfinished business’ of ‘substantive’ reconciliation which encompasses first nations rights for Indigenous peoples.

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-141
Author(s):  
Garth Nettheim

The paper begins by noting the low level of reference to Indigenous Australians in the Commonwealth Constitution at the start of Federation, and goes on to discuss the limits to what was achieved by the 1967 amendments. The situation represents a marked contrast with the USA and Canada in terms of treaties and constitutional recognition. In Australia, particularly during the period of the ‘Reconciliation’ process in the 1990s, important steps were taken by Indigenous Australians to identify items of ‘unfinished business’ in a ‘Statement of Indigenous Rights’. But there has been limited progress to meet these aspirations. And Australian law still lacks a tradition of recognition of human rights generally, let alone Indigenous rights. International law, too, largely lacked recognition of human rights, generally prior to the adoption in 1945 of the Charter of the United Nations. The brief references in the Charter were subsequently developed in a range of declarations and of treaties. These applied to people generally, with scant reference to Indigenous peoples. But, since the 1970s, there has been growing international recognition of the rights of Indigenous peoples under existing declarations and treaties. Since the 1990s, in particular, the UN system has established specific mechanisms for addressing such issues. On 13 September 2007, the General Assembly finally adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.


2020 ◽  
Vol 119 (2) ◽  
pp. 301-324
Author(s):  
Shiri Pasternak

The history of colonialism in Canada has meant both the partition of Indigenous peoples from participating (physically, politically, legally) in the economy and a relentless demand to become assimilated as liberal capitalist citizens. Assimilation and segregation are both tendencies of colonization that protect the interests of white capital. But their respective prevalence seems to depend on the regime of racial capitalism at play. This paper examines the intersection of settler colonization and racial capitalism to shed light on the status of Indigenous economic rights in Canada. I ask, to what extent are Indigenous peoples understood to have economic rights—defined here as the governing authority to manage their lands and resources—and, how we can we analyze these rights to better understand the conjoined meanings of colonialism and capitalism as systems of power today? In this paper, I look at two sites to address this problem: first, I examine how the Supreme Court of Canada has defined the “Aboriginal right” to commercial economies since the patriation of Aboriginal rights into the Constitution in 1982; and, second, I examine how these rights are configured through state resource revenue-sharing schemes with First Nations, in particular from extractive projects, over the past few years. Each case study provides critical material for analyzing the economic opportunities available to First Nations through democratic channels of state “recognition,” as well as when and why tensions between state policies of segregation and assimilation emerge.


2019 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-927
Author(s):  
Jeremie Caribou

This essay reveals the true history of my people. It demonstrates our highly developed social, spiritual, and political governance structures. Our use of the water systems underscores the ecological integrity of sustainable development that we fostered for thousands of years. Yet, due to colonization and oppressive policies designed to destroy Indigenous identity, culture, and history, Indigenous knowledge and governing systems have been put in jeopardy. Colonial policies intended to dispossess and oppress First Nations by depriving us from Indigenous lands, controlling all aspects of our lives, which created dependence by limiting Indigenous peoples’ abilities to provide for themselves. Furthermore, these policies had no Indigenous input or representation and were designed to eradicate or eliminate Indigenous rights, titles, and the right to self-determination to easily gain access to Indigenous lands for development and industrialization, such as in the case of the massive hydroelectrical dams that continue to alienate my home community today.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance MacIntosh

This article considers what it would mean if Canada fulfilled select existing commitments and obligations concerning the mental health needs of Indigenous peoples, as identified through current programs and recent jurisprudence: that is, where would we be if Canada carried through on existing commitments? After identifying the role of law in perpetuating poor mental well-being, it assesses programs for First Nations and Inuit peoples and determines they are unlikely to be effective without operational changes and responsive funding. The article then turns to the situation of Metis and non-status First Nations and the implications of Daniels v. Canada for changing the status quo – both by requiring appropriate mental health supports, and by dismantling the racist legal logic that has long undermined the mental well-being of non-status First Nations and Metis persons, by positioning them as not counting as true Indigenous peoples. The article concludes that merely fulfilling current state obligations could bring considerable short-term gains, and some long-term gains, for the mental well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada.


FACETS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E. Eckert ◽  
Nick XEMŦOLTW_ Claxton ◽  
Cameron Owens ◽  
Anna Johnston ◽  
Natalie C. Ban ◽  
...  

Policy-makers ideally pursue well-informed, socially just means to make environmental decisions. Indigenous peoples have used Indigenous knowledge (IK) to inform decisions about environmental management for millennia. In the last 50 years, many western societies have used environmental assessment (EA) processes to deliberate on industrial proposals, informed by scientific information. Recently EA processes have attempted to incorporate IK in some countries and regions, but practitioners and scholars have criticized the ability of EA to meaningfully engage IK. Here we consider these tensions in Canada, a country with economic focus on resource extraction and unresolved government-to-government relationships with Indigenous Nations. In 2019, the Canadian government passed the Impact Assessment Act, reinvigorating dialogue on the relationship between IK and EA. Addressing this opportunity, we examined obstacles between IK and EA via a systematic literature review, and qualitative analyses of publications and the Act itself. Our results and synthesis identify obstacles preventing the Act from meaningfully engaging IK, some of which are surmountable (e.g., failures to engage best practices, financial limitations), whereas others are substantial (e.g., knowledge incompatibilities, effects of colonization). Finally, we offer recommendations for practitioners and scholars towards ameliorating relationships between IK and EA towards improved decision-making and recognition of Indigenous rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 213-230
Author(s):  
Benjamen Franklen Gussen

This note extends my previous analysis of the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (‘First Nations’) by providing guidance on the optimal approach for this recognition. The guidance is founded on the concepts of efficiency and equity. An optimal recognition is defined as one that achieves both objectives simultaneously. Efficiency flows from a dynamic recognition that changes over time relatively easily, as exemplified by a treaty-based approach. The equity criterion has, as a proxy, legal pluralism, whereby constitutional recognition enlivens ‘Indigenous jurisprudence’ through mechanisms such as self-governance. The proposal is to combine efficiency and equity by guaranteeing the collective rights of Indigenous Australians in accordance with universally recognised principles and norms of international law, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (for which the Commonwealth of Australia announced its support in 2009). This in turn is likely to guide a treaty-based approach to the relationship between the Commonwealth and First Nations that can evolve towards legal pluralism.


Author(s):  
JoLee Sasakamoose ◽  
Terrina Bellegarde ◽  
Wilson Sutherland ◽  
Shauneen Pete ◽  
Kim McKay-McNabb

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada calls upon those who can effect change within Canadian systems to recognize the value of Indigenous healing practices and to collaborate with Indigenous healers, Elders, and knowledge keepers where requested by Indigenous Peoples. This article presents the Indigenous Cultural Responsiveness Theory (ICRT) as a decolonized pathway designed to guide research that continuously improves the health, education, governance, and policies of Indigenous Peoples in Saskatchewan. Decolonizing practices include privileging and engaging in Indigenous philosophies, beliefs, practices, and values that counter colonialism and restore well-being. The ICRT supports the development of collaborative relationships between Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous allies who seek to improve the status of First Nations health and wellness.


Author(s):  
Diane Songco

Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians has been a longstanding national movement reflective of the international struggle of Indigenous communities within a colonial framework. The Uluru Statement from the Heart, delivered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, addressed to the Australian public, called for support in the creation of constitutional reforms to build on changes made in the 1967 Referendum. Glen Sean Coulthard’s Red Skin, White Masks takes a difference stance on recognition for Indigenous peoples, specifically citing First Nations peoples in North America. In understanding the goals of the Uluru Statement and the arguments raised in Red Skin, White Masks, constitutional recognition may begin to address vital problems such as the dispossession of Indigenous land and lack of inclusion in state politics, but its existence as part of the settler-colonial governance will always act as a deterrent for true decolonization.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Mitchell ◽  
Courtney Arseneau ◽  
Darren Thomas ◽  
Peggy Smith

International and domestic rights frameworks are setting the stage for the full recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Canada. However, current political promises to restore Indigenous relations, to reconcile historic wrongs, and to foster mutual prosperity and well-being for all people within Canada remain woefully unfulfilled. Indigenous Peoples continue to call for full engagement with emerging Indigenous rights frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). This article discusses the key findings from a multi-year university–community research partnership with Matawa First Nations in which we collaboratively seek to advance understanding of consultation processes and Indigenous experiences of and perspectives on FPIC. The article, based on several years of dialogue and interviews and a two-day workshop on FPIC, offers insight into Indigenous perspectives on FPIC advancing an Indigenous-informed relational approach to consultation and consent seeking.


2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 93-154
Author(s):  
Emilio C. Viano

Summary“Sharing” the Wealth? Minerals, oil, timber, medicines and now genetic wealth, all play a major role in development and all are the source of conflict, dispute and violations of indigenous peoples’ centuries-old rights. The driving force behind the relentless conflict between indigenous peoples and the waves of outsiders making forceful contact with them is the search for resources. Driven by an increasing realization that the Earth's riches are limited and at the same time by the fierce competition that globalization and economic policies have unleashed, and using increasingly sophisticated technology, both for discovery and exploitation, states and multinationals have been motivated and able to go, literally, where no outsider has gone before.The natural resources located in some of the Earth's most remote or inhospitable locations became especially available for exploitation when a number of new states sprung up in the post-World War II, postcolonial period. Elites and dominant groups, empowered to maintain security and promote trade, spurred by multinationals’ offers that they could not refuse and by international financial institutions loans and grants ”developed” natural resources, often igniting conflicts with indigenous nations. Frequently, these clashes led to the growth of the military, to arm races to ensure the monopoly on “development”, to authoritarian and corrupt regimes, and to the opposite of what was expected, increased poverty and inequality.The conflict is over the very issue of who owns the resources — a question that has been central to the rise of nationalism and the assertion of “ethnic” identity throughout the world. First Nation peoples realize that without their resource base, they have no future. They also believe that modem states, some of them relatively young, cannot legitimately claim resources that nation peoples have utilized and maintained for centuries. The manner in which this is done is also the subject of fierce disputes (e.g. damage or destruction of ancestral lands, food and water sources, way of life, income).States have traditionally received considerable help from other states and international organizations in appropriating the resources of indigenous peoples. Ironically, the improving economic conditions worldwide and the growing wealth of many in emerging economies have made this hunt and exploitation of natural resources even more urgent and seemingly legitimize it, given the increasing demand for consumer goods and technological items.Worldwide, multinational development industries help states to seize resources and put them up for sale on the world market — especially through “obvious” projects such as mining, oil exploration, and hydroelectric development.One issue is never, or at best rarely, addressed: Who owns the resources to begin with? Whose agreement is needed before proceeding? What is an equitable formula for sharing the earnings and mitigate displacement and environmental pollution and destruction? Laws introduced in the past few decades by ruling groups often deny first nations’ claims to their resources. Such laws, many indigenous groups argue, do not take precedence over their prior claims to resources. At stake are not only the issue of ownerships, but also the value of resources and who has the right to manage, extract and consume them. It is also a question of survival and identity.This work of critical criminology reviews the historical record of “exploration” and exploitation of resources showing that it is not a new phenomenon but rather a chronic situation that indigenous peoples have endured throughout the centuries. It examines the role that the state, the multinationals and the international financial institutions play in this clash over resources when indigenous peoples’ rights are often ignored, stepped upon and disregarded. It critically examines current efforts, treaties and policies meant to recognize and respect Native peoples’ rights. It shows that current measures are not truly addressing the key issues and that a concerted effort must be undertaken to change the equation and dynamics of power, dominion and use of the earth's riches.Development must be redefined, crafted and targeted in the right way taking into account and respecting all legitimate claims to the earth's wealth, especially those of the “First Nations” that have suffered throughout the centuries the impact of colonialism, racism, and wholesale theft of their riches on the part of the “developed” world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document