Historical Foundations of Indian Sovereignty in Canada and the United States: A Brief Overview

As Homi Bhaba and Tom Nairn have asserted, modern are Janus-faced constructions. That is, on the one hand, they claim to speak for all those within their borders but, at the same time, they suppress those voices that do not adapt to, or assimilate into, the nation's dominant culture. That is ever the paradox of nation-states. While Karl Deutch argues that modernization dissolves ethnic loyalties and promotes assimilation, we see the opposite taking place today (Connor 1994, 171). In the age of modernity, nation-state borders are being contested from within, causing a crisis for the postmodern world. Canada and the United States have had to face this dilemma from their inception as colonies and, later, as nation-states. dominant ideology of these two countries arose in opposition to the cultures of the indigenous peoples who lived on the lands being colonized. Ernest Geliner says that in a a lot of attention is on the fixing of a culture and in establishing a national consciousness. A problem arises when there are individuals within that who adhere to their own group's culture rather than adopting the high culture (Gellner 1983, 65, 125). Indigenous people in Canada and the United States did not see themselves as part of these newly imagined communities (Anderson 1996) and since contact have fought to maintain their cultural diversity and nationhood (collectivity) and challenged the federal and state laws that tried to suppress and destroy their cultures. This paper examines the different trajectories Canada and the United States have taken in their approaches to Indian sovereig nty. Canadian government chose a path of nonrecognition of Indian sovereignty and dealt with its Native population in a paternalistic and ward-guardian manner. United States recognized a limited Indian sovereignty in the early Marshall cases; however, the U.S. melting-pot ideology and the dominant Anglo-Saxon, Protestant culture clashed with Indian collective rights and the dominant AngloSaxon Protestant culture has continually undermined and subordinated Indian culture. Early British colonial powers in North America recognized the sovereignty of Indian by entering into treaties with them as set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There, King George III asserted that the several nations of Indians should be dealt with on a to nation level and that land purchased from them would be done through treaties between the colonial powers and the tribes on a nation-to-nation basis. The Royal Proclamation was designed to retain native goodwill by establishing a boundary between their lands and those of the whites. It enunciated the principle that Indian lands could be surrendered only to the Crown and for compensation in each instance. It tacitly acknowledged aboriginal land title and suggested procedures of surrender that were later incorporated into the treaty system (Titley 1992, 2). Indian tribes in Canada and the United States conceived of their sovereignty and nationhood as including ideas of self-government, autonomous institutions, and a territorial land and resource base in order to maintain their cultures and traditions. In signing these treaties, the tribes saw this as recognition of their exclusive authority over their territories and acknowledgement of their distinct political communities or nations. Canada It has been argued that Canada is more appreciative and supportive of ethnic group rights because of its emphasis on multiculturalism. While on the surface Canada accepts and supports ethnic cultural heritage, this does not filter into the political dimension. Multiculturalism has become merely a way of appeasing ethnic group discontent by pretending to accept ethnic difference by showcasing different ethnic groups' cultures through various cultural programs. Multiculturalism also works against Indians by establishing their concerns as similar to the experiences of other Canadian ethnic groups--for example, the Quebec sovereignty movement. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.