“Indian”
Problems/Aboriginal
Solutions
By: Ehsan Jahangirvand and
Marcia Lopes
Framing the Problem



For Aboriginal peoples, the challenge lies in establishing
a new relationship based on the principle of partnership
and power-sharing.
Aboriginal peoples do not see themselves as subjects of
the Crown but as sovereign self-determining peoples—a
situation unacceptable by the Canadian government,
which can neither accept a power that is above the
constitution nor relinquish its sovereignty over territory
in deference to a doctrine rejected by the UN.
Both Aboriginal peoples and the Quebecois define
themselves as nations or peoples with inherent and
collective rights to self-determining autonomy as
“nations or peoples with inherent and collective rights to
self-determining autonomy as “nations within.”
The “Indian” Problem: Opposing
Arguments




The Indian problem is caused by too much assimilation
pressure at the expense of aboriginal differences.
The problem stems from aboriginal refusal to assimilate,
with a corresponding drift towards isolation, dependency
and underdevelopment.
Indian problem may also be interpreted as the ‘Indians’
Canada problem because of history, power and politics.
There is still a tendency to foist responsibility for the
Indian problem on aboriginal peoples (blaming the
victim) while overlooking the broader colonial context.
The Indian Problem




Nearly four hundred years of sustained contact have left
Canada’s relationship with aboriginal peoples in a state
of denial, disarray and despair.
Aboriginal peoples were ruthlessly stripped of land,
culture, livelihood and leadership with devastating
impacts in terms of poverty, powerlessness and
marginality.
Unemployment is a major cause of aboriginal distress
that leads directly to poor housing, illness, a sense of
powerlessness, and cycles of poverty.
Access to land and resources remains a key problem.
Aboriginal Woman and Youth
Aboriginal woman and youth








The complexity of issues that confront aboriginal women is gaining
prominence.
Aboriginal women rank among the most severely disadvantaged people in
Canada.
Depression and self-hatred among aboriginal women is reflected in high
levels of suicide, alcohol dependency, or neglect of children.
Bill C-31 women do not have the right to pass full status to their children
unless they marry a status Indian.
Aboriginal women claim their rights are being trampled by male-dominated
band councils that are neither responsible nor accountable, so what they
get is based on who they know.
Aboriginal youth in Canada are opting for suicide at rates that are
unprecedented at any time or place in recorded history.
Aboriginal youth are inclined to suicide because many lack a positive
identity, role models, or a clear direction to assist them in meeting the
challenges of adult life.
Lack of opportunity on reserves, despair and boredom, and constant sense
of powerlessness and loss of identity are also factors conductive to suicide.
From Problems to Peoples








Canada is accused of pursuing policies of repression and violence
that have had the intent or effect of denying aboriginal peoples their
rights and resources.
A selective application of the law attests to this negativity:
a disproportionate number of aboriginal peoples in prisons;
continued dispossession of aboriginal land and resources;
erosion of the aboriginal right to self-determining autonomy;
destruction of the environment;
and desecration of sacred and burial sites.
Aboriginal peoples are perceived as a pampered lot who get a free
ride, don’t pay taxes but receive $7.5 billion annually in reserve
programs, and are treated with kid gloves by cowardly politicians.
[There is a paradox]. The combination of promises, commitments,
and concessions is poised to transform Canada’s First Nation from a
‘problem’ to a ‘peoples.’
VIDEO CLIP



http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-5162434/politics_economy/erasmus/clip1
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-5162439/politics_economy/erasmus/clip5
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-5162444/politics_economy/erasmus/clip8
Duelling Discourses


Functionalist theorists look to assimilation as a solution. Aboriginal people
should become more like “us” if they want to be successful. Functionalists
argue that aboriginal people’s refusal to assimilate is the root cause of
aboriginal problems, and solutions must focus on closing the cultural gaps
between ‘Neolithic’ cultures and the modern world. A commitment to
formal equality suggests that everyone is fundamentally alike. Towards that
end, aboriginal policy objectives must focus on eliminating distinctions that
not only distinguish aboriginal people from the mainstream but also
preclude them from full and equal participation (Fleras, 2005, p. 311).
However, conflict theorists argue that aboriginal people should be further
removed from the mainstream in order to secure their distinctiveness and
prosperity as a people. Unless aboriginal differences are incorporated into
mainstream society, aboriginal people will continue to chafe under a system
that created the Indian problem in the first place. An aboriginal agenda
acknowledges aboriginal rights and defines aboriginal peoples as
autonomous political communities who are sovereign in their own right
(‘self rule’) (Fleras, 2005, pp. 311-312).
Duelling Discourses
Continued




For aboriginal people, the solution to the Indian problem lies in
becoming less like the mainstream. That means, taking aboriginal
differences into consideration when formulating policies,
implementing programs, or defining agendas. The Indian problem
needs to be rethought as a “Canada problem.” A new constitutional
discourse is required for living together differently in the 21st
century (Fleras, 2005, p. 313). Two questions to consider in
constructing a new social contract for solving social problems are:
What do aboriginal peoples want?
What is the government willing to concede?
One thing is for certain, that throwing money at aboriginal people
will not solve their problems, but have had the effect of creating
even more problems.
Aboriginal Self-Governance



Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada. In the years before the arrival of
Europeans, Aboriginal peoples relied on a variety of distinctive ways to organize their political
systems and institutions. Later, many of these institutions were ignored or legally suppressed
while the federal government attempted to impose a uniform set of vastly different EuroCanadian political ideals on Aboriginal societies.
For many Aboriginal societies, self-government is seen as a way to regain control over the
management of matters that directly affect them and to preserve their cultural identities.
Aboriginal self-governance pertains to the distribution of power within Aboriginal communities
and with central authorities.
The federal government recognizes the need to renew the relationship with Aboriginal peoples
and governments in Canada. It believes that Aboriginal peoples have the right to govern
themselves; to make decisions about matters that affect their communities; and to exercise the
responsibility that comes with self-government. In 1995, the federal government declared
conditional support for the principle of self-governance through negotiated agreements within a
federal framework. The Government of Canada is guided by several principles in negotiating selfgovernment arrangements.






Self-government is based on contingent rather than sovereign rights.
Aboriginal self-governments must operate within the Canadian federal system.
Self-government must work in harmony with other governments.
Self-government must be exercised within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Aboriginal peoples must continue to be citizens of Canada and of the territory where they live.
The interests of all Canadians must be taken into account as agreements are negotiated.
Aboriginal Self-Governance
continued



Concerns are raised over costs, feasibility,
effectiveness and jurisdiction, as well as the
potential for corruption or abuse, and lack of
community legitimacy.
Self-government is perceived as a threat to
Canadian unity and vested interests.
Self-government is criticized as a quick-fix
solution to a problem endorsed by Aboriginal
elites who are out of touch with urban realities
and local needs.
Rethinking the “Indian” Problem










What do Aboriginal Peoples Want?
Want to live in a just and equal society where their cultural lifestyles and
language are protected from assimilationist pressures;
Want to select relevant elements of the past and incorporate them into the
present for advance into the future;
want minimization of bureaucratic interference in their lives;
do not want to be victimized by public racism or political indifference;
want a reliable and culturally safe delivery of government services;
want collective access to power and resources;
want to maintain meaningful involvement over issues of immediate concern;
want to be different and to have their difference recognized as a basis for
engagement and entitlement;
don’t want to separate from Canada but want enough of their own territory
to allow institutional sovereignty;
Rethinking the “Indian” Problem
Continued





want to cooperate with Canada not destroy it;
want to participate not assimilate;
and want to maintain their distinct identities as one of the many
identities that make up this diverse country.
The challenge lies in finding a working balance between aboriginal
rights to self-government and Canada’s rights to impose rule of law
in advancing national interests. Governments exercise remarkable
power and control over aboriginal populations. They can set
budgets, determine how many will be spent, and possess the power
to do almost anything they want in terms of shaping the political
agenda.
Aboriginal peoples propose a radical redistribution of power ad
resources in the hope of creating a new social contract for living
together differently (Fleras, 2005, p. 325).
Discussion Questions



What are the major issues confronting
aboriginal populations?
Are Indigenous peoples in poverty and
powerlessness because of a reluctance to
assimilate into the mainstream?
What are some other solutions proposed
by aboriginal leaders to solve the so-called
“Indian” problem? How do these differ
from mainstream political proposals?