Indigenous People in Canada (Coursework Sample)

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Indigenous People in Canada
Question 1a
(iii)
Tecumseh, the shooting star was born in March 1968 at Old Chillicothe. However, John Sugden suggested a different birthplace following Tecumseh’s lack of settlement in Old Chillicothe. The American Revolutionary War resulted in the onset of Tecumseh’s resistance following the consistent warfare and battles between Shawnee and European Americans (Dickason and William 57). Tecumseh moved to Chillicothe after the demise of his father and remained there until the destruction of the Boonesborough. Tecumseh and the family fled to the third village after the destruction at Kentucky. This time, the family moved to Kispoko village; however, Tecumseh and the family were forced to move out of the village in 1780 under the command of George Rodgers Clark.
The Tecumseh’s war was facilitated with the rising tension in the villages that the family moved in after destructions by different troops. Besides, Harrison's confrontation in 1810 and 1811 facilitated the resistance of Tecumseh. Harrison refused to ascend to the U.S government’s call of rescinding lands in Shawnee and other tribes; thus, leading to pan indigenous resistance among Tecumseh’s and his followers (Dickason and William 31). Thirdly, the Tecumseh’s pan-native American campaigns formulated a foundation for future resistance through the combination of spirituality and politics (201)
b
The Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy was an example of indigenous-led resistance discussed on page 272. The resistance was imposed by the Indian Act of 1876; the late amendment of the Indian Act of 1876 tat did not leave out any indigenous input. The hereditary chiefs played significant roles in the indigenous-led resistance following their roles as primary advocates of self-government. The selection of the hereditary chiefs as the main advocates for the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy originated from their exception from the Indian Act (Dickason and William 61). The amendment made to the Indian Act of 1890 empowered the development of an open election system that excluded indigenous people from voting. The denial of the democratic right resulted in resistance based on the lack of equality. Youths, especially Christians participated in the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy in Canada due to their staunch support for "Dehorners." In contrast, elderly persons in society supported traditionalists led by Deskaheh. The campaign for sovereignty began after the selection of six nations of Ontario, Brantford, and Grand River in the closure of World War I. (180)
c
The changes in historic demands in various periods indicate the connections between the indigenous resistance of Tecumseh and the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy. The narrations issued concerning the resistance of Tecumseh is similar to the events and flow of activities observed in the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy. Dickason and William (272) hold that the continuous rebellion resulting from European nations was authoritative the same way it appears in the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy. The forceful use of power to fulfil the desires and wants of people in offices and positions is persistent both in (a) and (b). The demand for changing people's perceptions regarding freedom is denied both in Tecumseh and Haudenosaunee's struggle for autonomy; thus, I think the historic demands in both instances were characterized by unchanging traits. Tecumseh's resistance was initiated with massive strikes originating from multiple attacks and battles while the Haudenosaunee struggle for autonomy was founded on the lenses of equality.
I think the historic demands in (a) are persistent in (b) due to the failures of both indigenous resistance movements to cooperate with their rivals based on grounded agreements. The disagreements in both instances resulted in continuous and progressive determinates of both parties in achieving their set goals and objectives of rebellion. The outcomes of the resistance favored the hosts; thus, the historic demands of both Tecumseh and Haudenosaunee's struggle for autonomy share common grounds of resistance. (232)
Question 2
a
The case is known for the legitimation of property laws under the Canadian constitution. St. Catharines Milling and Lumber v. the Queen case was heard at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under [1888] UKPC70, 14App Cas 46 citation. Earl of Selborne, Sir Barnes Pickock, Lord Watson, Sir Montague Smith, and Sir Richard Couch was the main judges behind the case; however, the overall court decision was made by Lord Watson. The onset of the case problems begins from the thoughts of treaty lands. The challenges attached to land treaties in the 1880s created confusion based on the constitutional clauses highlighted in the Canadian constitution. Indians were the primary rivals for land treaties because all lands were reserved for the ethnic groups.
They challenged treaty 3 that held that "lands reserved for Indians" by suggesting that such terms have never been part of treaties. The government did not reserve any lands for Indians; therefore, the St. Catharines Milling and Lumber v. the Queen case uncovered the hidden secrets regarding indigenous land claims and ownerships. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the legitimate transference of lands by the 1889 Acts rather than the referral of lands as those reserved for Indians.
The indigenous land claims are the demands of indigenous people to have their land rights and Aboriginal titles respected across the country. The outcomes of St. Catharines Milling and Lumber v. the Queen indicate the rights against indigenous land claims. Lands should be owned equally in the country without the considerations of skin color or nationality differences, provided a landowner has valid evidence and documents supporting their claims of land ownership. (272)
b.
The indigenous concepts regarding land ownership have persisted in society today due to the disbelief of people of indigenous land claims. According to Canadian Aboriginal rights, the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the indigenous concepts facilitate the spread of land ownership challenges in the country. The same misinterpretations have resulted in the consequences of indigenous people residing in different regions in Canada. For instance, the pressure inserted by non-indigenous people has led to the articulation of traditional concepts. Indigenous people believe in communal land ownership that views land as common property for society (Dickason and William 301). Nevertheless, the divided interests of nations and cyclic concepts distance non-indigenous people from implementing and respecting the decisions of viewing lands as common property. The right to land ownership depends not only on living but also on those who have existed before and those yet to arise to the world. Moreover, the excerpt claims that the right to land ownership does not only belong to humans but it should also issue some rights to other living things objected. The treaties were signed not to claim lands rather they were signed to create room for land sharing through protected rights and freedom entailed in the Canadian constitution.
The excerpt from Manitowapow obtained from the aboriginal writings from the land of water supports this claim. Warren Cariou and Niigaanwewidam Sinclair quoted that, “indigenous land ownership is fight of the past that needs solutions based on the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the concepts in the present day.” Lands should be held communally and the rights shared equally among individuals despite the differences and similarities. (267)
Question 3
a.
In my opinion, Settler colonialism means settlers who permanently plan or intend to occupy and assert sovereignty over indigenous lands. The forceful displacement of people from their native lands based on racial and ethnicity issues links the concepts of settler colonialism in the modern world. The act of using tricks to occupy lands that do not belong to someone also illustrates the definition of settler colonialism. Alternatively, I view the concept as a distinct type of colonialism that operates through the replacement of indigenous populations in an invasive settler society; such forms of colonialism never end because they raise debates in the society either for or against the implementations of various land issues. Kauanui’s text is linked to indigeneity because it tends to explain to its audiences the reasons as to why indigenous land ownership is structuralized and it is no longer an event. The past activities and histories linked to land cases leaning on indigeneity can be best defined through the approach or models of settler colonialism. According to Kauanui (45), settler colonialism is a structure that endures indigeneity because it holds out against indigenous land claims. The article is linked to indigeneity since it aims at addressing the concepts of land ownership and indigenous land claims through different lenses; one supporting the claims, and the other neglecting the claim. The excerpt obtained from Kauanui’s means a lot to readers because it indicates how enduring indigeneity exposes the impacts of settler colonialism in displacing indigenous people from their lands. (250)
b.
My understanding of indigenous people covered in chapter 10 lies on the sub-topic of "assimilating the vanishing Indians.” According to Wolfe (386), the destructive ideas of indigenous land claims were dominated by the British civil administration for North Ame...