Aboriginal People in Canada: the idea of cultual relativism

Joseph Carens makes an argument that there are two options for accommodating Aboriginal people: a system of deep diversity in which they are to govern themselves, or a unitary model of Canadian citizenship, in which they are to assimilate and be governed by the same Canadian government as the rest of the minority groups, without exception.

Carens goes on further to assess the flaws and strengths of the two and acknowledges that while each tackle specific problems, it is ultimately an amalgamation of the two polarized options that would ideally provide a culturally sensitive and equitable solution to the Aboriginal people. It is adhering to Taylor’s idea of differentiated citizenship, and Caren’s vision, which is complete self-government of the Aboriginal people, with a sense nonetheless of Canadian citizenship that does allow for unity of them with other minority groups. As previous entries have already pointed out the flaws in such expectations, this will simply assess the presuppositions Carens makes to arrive at such a conclusion.
He gives moral legitimacy to the idea of aboriginal self-government. Previous entries dispute this claim, stating that the right of self government is not necessarily contributing to the idea of equality.

His second assumption is most aboriginal people living in Canada continue to recognize their citizenship of Canada, and to identify a sense of belonging with Canada. He argues further that it is only this sense that needs to be preserved of the unitary model of citizenship. There is a sense he is arguing that to be different, but equal was the method of treating the Aboriginal people. Carens suggests that due to the different value systems of the Aboriginal people compared with other communities, it is therefore necessary to accommodate them by allowing a separate system. However, that said, the different value systems apply to each minority culture, and it would be unjust to tolerate and allow for more differences of one compared to another. His next argument is that the Aboriginal people were first in Canada prior to the immigrants who are now considered Canadians, and therefore they stake a higher claim and should be accommodated thus. This seems to be a fairly arbitrary reason for increased toleration and accommodation, and Carens does make the distinction that independent statehood is not what he is asking, rather a system of implemented self government across and within Canada, regardless of location of the people involved. This would be a great deal more accommodation for the Aboriginal people than compared to what the government does for other minority groups. The assumption that this is appropriate is based upon arguments Carens does not delve into.

Thirdly, he questions the efficacy of an inquiry into the issue by non-aboriginal people. This seems to be a logical fallacy, as arguments are not to be dismissed simply because the origins of them are from specific perspectives, rather they ought to be judged upon the merits and flaws of themselves. For instance, in building the Canadian Charter, the majority opinion was based upon Western philosophical views of rights and justice, and this does not make it less valid to the minority groups, rather it maintains its validity because it affects how others treat and reason their rights in relation to the minorities. There is a broader scope involved, and disqualifying the Western perspective harms as much as a lack of cultural sensitivity towards the group in question. It is in adopting the perspective with cultural relativism that solutions can be sought and differences fostered and upheld.
Furthermore, the idea that differentiated citizenship is necessary brings to question the unity and fairness of the Canadian Charter protecting the rights and freedoms of all Canadian Citizens. It brings to mind a theory of equality that is only superficial, as the spirit of the Charter is argued, by Carens, to be reaching only everyone but the Aboriginal peoples. What good is a universal charter of rights and freedoms that in actuality is not universally applicable to the nation? Dialogue would need to happen, but not to facilitate the separation of Aboriginal rights and courts from others, rather to foster an atmosphere of understanding and mutual respect, that allows ultimately the formation of a universally accepted and mutually agreed upon set of values and beliefs, not imposed, but voluntarily adopted. Whereas Carens sees dialogue to take its role in facilitating separation of the culture, the unity of the people would be better secured in voicing differences and commonalities and taking steps from there towards a united vision of government. Only then is a true, real sense of Canadian citizenship fostered – in an atmosphere of mutual respect and with the safe sense that differences can be worked through as opposed to become points of polarization and separation in kind. There is room for dialogue and cultural relativism, but not one that superimposes one minority's cultural norms upon that of all the others.

One instance of appealing to a sense of equality and justice is the changing language of the Aboriginal people. By addressing themselves as “First Nations”, they emphasise they were on par with the “Founding Fathers” of Canada and therefore to be taken seriously in opinion and rights. This is a fair development as others had previously not taken the Aboriginal people as seriously as they ought to have done. However what need to be brought into consideration as well is the fact that the different groups have played significant roles in shaping Canadian society, as much as, if not more than Aboriginal peoples. There is a sense that although the Aboriginal people were here first, it was the development of trade relations and international cooperation achieved by other groups which further developed Canada for the better as well.

However, the importance of semantics cannot be emphasized enough in the battle for rights and equality. By changing the framework from that of luxury and cultural accommodation to a sense of entitlement deserved by only that of the aboriginal people, they affected public perception and Carens to believe that this was while, enormously complicated and not actually just to other minority groups within Canada, an eventuality that must be achieved in order to attain justice and true adherence of the Canadian citizenship rights of aboriginal people. As Philip K. Dick said: "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

Works Cited:

Carens, Joseph. Culture, Citizenship, and Community Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. 177-199