Canada Is Guilty Of Genocide Essay

The Aboriginals had original taught the early settlers how to trap and hunt about the land but in the documents associated with the deed and the land transfer, it was written that “Any claims of Indians too compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian Government and the company shall be relieved of all responsibility in respect of them.”. Instead of the company leaving land for those who had aided them in the beginning. The singled them out due to racism and did not include them in any of the agreements between the HBC and the Crown in which they would receive land for themselves. This could have also contributed to the prejudice against the Aboriginals in future years because during that time period land was equal to power so those without land were treated as the poor and had no say. The deed also affected those who were against poaching and hunting.

It removed clauses from the Indian Act that restrained a woman's ability to be registered and based their heritage on who they married but it was not a perfect remedy. Many women were forced to live new lives or lost their sense of identity. These women who are suffering have been heard and continue to suffer until Canada finds a better solution. A main goal of the Act to Amend the Indian Act was to give bands more self-governance and although they do have more power than they did from the Indian Act, they are still largely controlled by the government. Bands have also been strained on resources with the flux of Status Indians and they have been given no federal help.

First Nations were one of the first people in Canada, but suffered horribly. Through the genocide from the European settlers to the residential schools for Indigenous children, many families were destroyed and in grief for their lost ones. As Canada became a country, the Indian Act was founded in 1867. This Act governs the matters relating to Indian status, reserves and bands. There are many parts to this Act.

The Indian Act was passed by In 1876 under the Government of Sir John A. Macdonald. The act was passed in Parliament with the First Nations people having very little or no consultation about the act. The primary purpose of the act was to control the First Nations people and assimilate them into Canada and Canadian Society. The Act originally was meant to be temporary and removed once the First Nations people were successfully integrated into Canadian Society. However, now the Act is seen as sacred among First Nations people, for giving them rights and status, and most likely will never be removed.

It also took away the tribal ownership of most tribes. The act moved Indian families onto their own land, and took away Indian children away from their families and sent them to boarding

Causes, issues, and groups involved The conflict with the aboriginal people of Canada is seen to have begun with the official Indian Act of 1875. However for decades prior to the Indian Act the population of Canada had been aiming to get the indigenous population to assimilate to the new, more modern European settler lifestyle and cultural ideals. Prior to the Indian Act, there was the Gradual Citizens act which was passed in 1857. These laws and acts became the basis of the modern Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.

In addition, the right of Aboriginal communities and leaders to function in accordance with their own customs, traditions, laws, and cultures was taken away by

Ultimately, Europeans thinking they were better than the aboriginals as didn’t matter and were no ones. Remarkably, that was the reality of the time and their own opinion. You could say it was one of the excuses for the massacre. Unfortunately, the overall the massacre was poorly documented atrocity on the

Colonialism has been a huge factor that has and will attempt to make aboriginal people conform to new cultural norms. Residential schools have been the most well-known way as to how colonialism affected these people. What society is not aware of is the cruelty of hospitalization of aboriginals, where unethical procedures took place using them as subjects without consent. As Dr Geddes stated during his lecture, the Canadian health care system has racism embedded in it. Stripping indigenous people of the proper health care which they have the right to receive, but kept from due to their racial status.

It was a way for the government to administer these ‘treaty rights’ to the ‘treaty people’ (Nelson,137). It was an overarching treaty that established treaty rights, restricting FN’s rights to participate, vote, take part in politics, travel, along with being able to celebrate and embrace their culture (Nelson,137). Aboriginal people spoke up and represented themselves, the result was Section 35 in Canada’s Constitution. Section 35 acknowledges FN, Metis and Inuit people as Aboriginals (Nelson,137). Proper collective rights were established in the Constitution for Aboriginals.

1 - What were the means used in the extermination of the Australian Aborigines and why would you or would you not call it genocide? Cultural genocide. I would call it a genocide, the intentions were pretty clear, the settler trying to westernized the aboriginals, and the way they do it was wrong as well, the aboriginals weren’t informed where their children went, they knew they left for school but were never brought back, causing suffering and pain within the heart. The children taken away were also not very well taken care off. I learned from the documentary mentioned (Being Them Home) that there are cases that if the families that take in by white families didn’t work out, instead of being sent back to their original home, they were transferred from one foster home to another, causing pain and confusion, and most

First of all, Native Americans were settled on a hotbed of natural resources which included oil and precious metals such as silver and gold. There was also much fertile land that would entice farmers and frontiersmen to move out west. On this land there was so much potential economic opportunity for farmers, cattle drivers, miners and many other occupations. The government developed the popular public misconception that the indians were misusing the land and that Americans had the right to take advantage of the opportunities that lie in the west. These ideas led to the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887 which authorized encroachment of Indian lands by the US government in order to divide up reservations and control Indian activity.

After fighting a losing battle against the English settlers, Native Americans found themselves cornered with the passage of the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851. Authorizing the creation of Indian areas in what is now Oklahoma, the native population was once again forced into even smaller fields of land called reservations. The U.S. government made several promises to provide the tribal members with food and supplies, but fell short in keeping them. In addition, there were strict limitations on the Native Americans ability to hunt, fish, and gather food. With all of these restrictions in place, the Americans were given the upper hand in terms of controlling the Indians.

“To deny people their human rights, is to challenge their very humanity.” -Nelson Mandela Canada is well known across the world for handling its national challenges well, yet has not been obeying the human rights. The human rights were made so everyone was equal and no one had higher power. According to Canada.ca, Canada is a founding member of the United Nation, (UN) and is a party to seven principal United Nations human rights conventions and covenants.

15). This has opened up a wide debate on whether the actions committed during this period constituted an act of genocide with this being extensively debated. The report (HREOC, 1997, p. 231) stated that the practice of child removal involved 'both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law '; however, the UN and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1999) has stated that the child removal policies did not amount to genocide as they did not have specific intent to destroy. Clearly, acknowledgement of responsibility is a subject of great importance, particularly to the Australian Indigenous people in order for the necessary provisions to be made available, but also to the wider Australian nation, to be able to gain a full understanding of their country’s history. Therefore, the need for a definitive answer to the inquiry of genocide is imperative, although the need for this to be assessed in a scholarly manner is vital.