Given that our discussion centres on the accommodation practices related to cultural differences in Canada, the topic of Aboriginal self-government seems to be perfectly placed. However, upon reading Carens’ chapter in “Culture, Citizenship and Community” and listening closely to seminar discussions, it becomes evident that perhaps the problem with the entire debate is that it in fact misplaced; it preoccupies itself with proving the constitutional right to Aboriginal self-government and determining the circumstances under which civic integration of Aboriginals will come about in a way that represents the ‘deep diversity’ of the Aboriginal character in Canada. Perhaps due to the fact that Aboriginal presence in Canada was considerable even before Confederation, the discussion is misplaced fundamentally in assuming that Aboriginals are first and foremost, a ‘culture’ per se. For instance, the Chinese, Italians, Portuguese, Greek, Spanish and many others in Canada should be seen as ‘cultures’ that immigrated here from ancestral lands who attempted to leave in search of a better life (i.e. one that involved assimilating into Canada amongst nativist backlash and ‘forming into the mould’ of what was required of a Canadian citizen for acknowledgement and legitimate political representation). If we think of ‘culture’ this way, then accommodation seems to take on a different meaning when it comes to the Aboriginal predicament. They are a people all unto their own in Canada.
The ‘right’ to self-government is a right guaranteed in section 35 of the Canadian constitution and perhaps this is part of the problem. If stating Aboriginal self-government is a 'right' and one that is protected given that it has been written down and formally adopted as part of Canadian policy, the nation has not gotten very far past this point. While, granted, it was a difficult and long journey for even this development to occur, our nation has not gotten very far if all it has done is merely guaranteed Aboriginal self-government. This development (if we can call it one) seems to be the reason why our current discussion centres on how this ‘right’ to Aboriginal self government will come about and to determine the conditions to which it may materialize. But if people are supposed to experience the realization of principles of justice through various concrete institutions, what happens when the background culture is not shared by the people subject to the institutions? This is precisely the point Carens outlines. Not only do the majority of other ‘cultures’ in Canada come from European nations, they all share a common tradition and history that is inherently tied with Western discourse on rights of the individual and liberal democratic theory. Aboriginal traditions, on the other hand, emphasize responsibilities more than rights and the well-being of the collective rather than the claims of the individual (Carens, 191). How can you possibly integrate these two positions?
Carens argues for a version of differentiated citizenship that Charles Taylor has labelled ‘deep diversity,’ “an arrangement in which many aboriginal people would have a self-governing aboriginal community as their primary locus of political identity and participation while still being Canadian citizens. This argument, again, depends on keeping and maintaining Aboriginals in some form of Canadian citizenship. But again, Aboriginals are not like the rest of the cultures that make up Canada’s diverse mosaic, they are people who belonged to this land way before any of us came here and should be seen as unique and separate. The Aboriginal decision to call themselves ‘First Nations’ reflects the Aboriginal appreciation for European politics of language given that they noticed that Western discourse valued the self-determination of nationhood (Carens, 181). If this is the case, doesn’t this clearly suggest to us not only that Aboriginals wish to reinstate their ‘First Nation’ status but that they also want to exist as a separate nation? It may be correct to equate this use of language as a clear sign that Aboriginals are implicitly challenging the myth of the two founding nations but Carens is not correct in assuming this also means that Aboriginals wish so be regarded as equal to the French and English.
Aboriginals perhaps should be seen instead simply as the first inhabitants of this land that do not need to be culturally accommodated but should be let loose and become finally free from the bonds of Canadian imperialism, forced assimilation and in present times, the ‘cuffs’ of Canadian citizenship. The Carens’ chapter seems to offer a lot of evidence to support this claim. Other than the fundamental differences in discourse mentioned above, Aboriginals are different than the many complex and diverse ‘cultures’ that immigrated to Canada from various European lands. These ‘cultures’ immigrated to Canada for various socioeconomic reasons and even though their future generations may become more inclined to view themselves as Canadian, their ancestry is tied to a geographical location and homeland whether it is natal or ancestral. The issues of Aboriginal identity transcend normative cultural tensions with ‘dual identity’ as Aboriginals do not even belong or feel at home in their ancestral land. Aboriginal people in Canada did not choose to be forcibly assimilated, harshly treated, severely separated and then ruthlessly pushed into confined boundaries drawn up by the Europeans or English.
These actions were the ways in which Aboriginals were excluded and included as Canadian citizens and the other ‘cultures’ we speak of today do not share that history of experience. There is a difference between inclusion as citizens by means of forced assimilation and granting citizenship by filling in the requirements necessitated by what the Canadian views to be characteristics or qualities of an ideal citizen. Carens states this in his article as “enfranchisement and full citizenship status were initially provided as a reward for becoming ‘civilized,’ that is, for adopting Euro-Canadian values and practices and repudiating Indian culture and identity” (Carens, 186). Despite this, “few Indians, even among those educated by Euro-Canadians, were willing to trade their Indian status and give up their links to their Indian communities for the sake of full Canadian citizenship” (Carens 186). The ‘cultures’ we speak of today with regards to debates on accommodation do not share this history and choose to immigrate here and participate in the requirements of citizenship. Despite the nativist backlash they initially received upon immigration, they never shared in the degree of coercion and inclusion of Canadian citizenship and the repudiation of their core identity.
Regardless of the unfortunate historical record, the important point is to consider the present situation and find out what the Aboriginal people truly want today. Aboriginal peoples in Canada “want to have standing in international for dealing with the rights of peoples, especially indigenous peoples” and “they want access to these fora to gain recognition and respect on the world stage as distinct cultural communities and political actors” (Carens, 187). If this is so, why must this be done in a way where Aboriginals maintain a primary commitment to the Canadian regime? Because this would provide additional ways of challenging the hegemonic policies of the Canadian government. Thus, “whatever its original motivations, the extension of the franchise and full Canadian citizenship to Indians has been used strategically by the Canadian government to protect itself against challenges from Indians” (Carens, 187). In this way, notions of ‘deep diversity’ and ‘civic integration’ can be seen as further attempts to reconcile Aboriginal identity within Canadian citizenship for the benefit of the Canadian government, not the Aboriginals people.
Carens is correct in seeing the hegemony of the unitary model of citizenship as a serious obstacle to the project of aboriginal self-government. However, the main problem is in assuming that the real issue is how to characterize the Aboriginal character and ‘fit’ them within a form of Canadian citizenship, whether it be unitary or differentiated. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Canada do not see themselves as members of the same community and it is for this reason that ideals of civic integration are misplaced. If this is so, the entire attempt to bring this about by means of ‘deep diversity’ and differentiated citizenship is misplaced. It may be quite controversial to state but there may be no real or proper way to treat Aboriginals as equal citizens because they are not equal with respect to other ‘cultures’ in Canada, do not fit within the identity and discourse of Canadian citizenship and never wanted to be Canadian citizens in the first place! This may be different for those Aboriginals fully assimilated, displaced and living in urban areas and experiencing contact with federal governments but this argument is concerned primarily with authentic traditions of Aboriginal collectivities, regardless of their diversity and multiplicity.
We should focus less on creating or forming a version of ‘differentiated citizenship’ that allows for multiplicity and moves beyond the main, valued and unitary model of Canadian citizenship. Perhaps Aboriginal people should be seen as independent peoples given that even the ideals of Canadian citizenship is just as discriminatory as the ideals of forced assimilation in the not so distant past. What we must do is listen to what Aboriginals want and give it to them, albeit with some degree of negotiation and restraint given that claims of historical oppression have the tendency to be used perpetually as arguments for support. As long as Canadians value their contributions, celebrate in their history and respect their customs, this is just as good as forming any ideal of Aboriginal self-government. Our nation is what is has become and there is no way to return back. Whether Aboriginal people wish to fit within the 'mould' of Canadian citizenship and retain their primary committment to the Canadian regime or become recognized as indigenous people entirely to their own, either case should be respected.
References:
Carens, Joseph. "Culture, Citizenship, and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness." (Oxford, 2000), Chapter 8: 177-199.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. "Federal Policy Guide: Aboriginal Self-Government." http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/sg/plcy_e.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment