impact of European colonization | My Assignment Tutor

The material following this cover page is protected by copyright and has beenshared with permission from the copyright holder. This copy may only bedistributed in a password-protected environment such as eCentennial and onlyfor the students enrolled in the course listed.GNED500Learning OUTCOMeSChapter 7LO-1 Discuss what constitutes an inequalityLO-2 Identify key terms and concepts in the study … Continue reading “impact of European colonization | My Assignment Tutor”

The material following this cover page is protected by copyright and has beenshared with permission from the copyright holder. This copy may only bedistributed in a password-protected environment such as eCentennial and onlyfor the students enrolled in the course listed.GNED500Learning OUTCOMeSChapter 7LO-1 Discuss what constitutes an inequalityLO-2 Identify key terms and concepts in the study ofinequalityLO-3 Examine four factors that contribute to inequalityLO-4 Analyze Canada’s role in the preservation ofinequalitiesLO-5 Discuss the impact of European colonization onCanada’s indigenous populationLO-6 Examine contemporary land claims issues as theypertain to self-governmentLO-7 Understand the importance of sovereignty and selfgovernment for First NationsLO-8 Explore the importance of the various conventions,treaties, and constitutions between First Nationsand the federal governmentTracing History: Equality, Equity,and Inequality in CanadaAgnes Gajewski and Jared PurdyIntrOductIOnCanada perceives itself as being an egalitarian society where all individuals enjoyequal opportunities, rights, and freedoms. We like to believe that inequality,prejudice, and discrimination are issues that have ceased to exist in our country.Structures to address fairness, such as policies, acts, statements, and departmentsestablished by government, institutions, organizations, and the media, provide uswith the perception that we support and practise inclusion—without differentiation on the basis of race, class, gender, ability, sexuality, ethnicity, or citizenship.Internationally, Canada has long been recognized and respected for its progressiveprinciples on matters of global citizenship and human rights (Fleras, 2012). Wehave played an influential role in the advancement of rights and opportunities forindividuals belonging to minoritized groups globally, specifically those of women,children, visible minorities, and individuals with disabilities. We have done so bypassing laws and regulations that promote inclusion and equity such as the Charterof Rights and Freedoms (1982), the Multiculturalism Act (1988), the EmploymentinclusionThe act of establishingan environment thatfosters diversity whereall members of thatsociety are believedto be equally valuedcontributors andparticipants (Anzovino &Boutilier, 2015).multiculturalismThe “practice ofcreating harmoniousrelations betweendifferent culturalgroups as an ideologyand policy to promotecultural diversity”(Anzovino & Boutilier,2015, p. 3).Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 125NELEquity Act (1995), and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001). The Canadianidentity is commonly presented as one of diversity, accommodation of difference,and tolerance.Despite all of this, one must question Canada’s commitment to inclusion anddiversity. Is tolerance sufficient? Who establishes these laws and policies and whoseinterests do they serve? Do we support the concepts of inclusion and diversity, orare these merely catch phrases and “tokenistic gestures” that serve political, economic, and social aims intended to benefit those in positions of power?Consider the Multiculturalism Act, passed in 1988 with the intent to promoterespect and uphold the differences in ethnicities, cultures, religions, languages, andheritages of Canada’s citizens. The Act was originally established as a policy in 1971by Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who maintained that all Canadian citizens are equal and should be treated fairly. It is arguable that the Multiculturalism Act was not necessarily introduced in the interests of minoritized groups.While appearing idealistic, the multiculturalism policy served alternative aims:to attract newcomers to Canada to increase the population and therefore developthe economy, and to improve trade relations with developing countries. Previously, Canada’s immigration policy explicitly favoured immigrants from WesternEurope. However, economic changes that reduced emigration from Europe forcedCanada to seek other sources of immigrants to meet its labour demands. Consequently, Canada was forced to improve its relations with, and open its doors to,other nations. As Canada transitioned from a colonial state, the multiculturalismpolicy presented an impression of acceptance and celebration of diversity to theworld (Thobani, 2007). Be that as it may, this Act was created by those in a positionof power and privilege and the concept of Canada as a multicultural society wascontrolled and defined in European patriarchal terms.Almost three decades have passed since the inception of the MulticulturalismAct and Canada has grown as a nation. According to the 2011 National HouseholdSurvey, over 200 ethnic origins make up Canada’s population with 1 in 5 Canadiansidentifying themselves as a visible minority (Statistics Canada, 2011). Canada continues to distinguish itself as a nation that values diversity and promotes equalrights and freedoms for all its citizens.Has the increase in Canada’s ethno-cultural diversity transformed the dominantideology established by the English and French who first colonized the land? Howhas the Multiculturalism Act fared in its promise of justice and fairness for all Canadians since 1988?While much has changed, numerous inequalities persist in Canada. Socialinequality “can be defined as any difference in the treatment of people on the basisof class, gender, age, ability, race, ethnicity, or citizenship. This treatment generally involves restricting people’s full participation in society and limiting resourcesand opportunities, hence, affecting overall quality of life” (McPherson, 2013,tokenismThe “practice ofincluding one or a smallnumber of membersof a minority group tocreate the appearanceof representation,inclusion, and nondiscrimination, withoutever giving thesemembers access topower” (Anzovino &Boutilier, 2015, p. 6).social inequalityDifference in thetreatment of peopleon the basis of class,gender, age, ability,race, ethnicity, orcitizenship. Generallyinvolves restrictingpeople’s fullparticipation in societyand limiting resourcesand opportunities,affecting quality of life(McPherson, 2013,p. 112).126 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELp. 112). For instance, in 2013 the Quebec government proposed a charter banning all religious symbols from the public sector. The charter would prohibit allpublic employees from wearing overt religious symbols including turbans, burkas,hijabs, and kippas, and those receiving services would be required to uncover theirfaces (CBC, 2013). The proposal was made despite the guarantee of the Multiculturalism Act of “freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance,and share their cultural heritage” (Minister of Justice, 2003, p. 3) and more so, theassurances in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting religion asa fundamental freedom.How does the attempt to deny individuals the right to express and practise theirreligious beliefs undermine Canada’s perceived claims of multiculturalism?Minoritized groups in Canada continue to be marginalized and oppressed bythe very government, institutions, and organizations that claim to advance justice,fairness, and diversity (Thobani, 2007).It is comfortable and reassuring to believe that Canada is a multicultural nationthat promotes and accepts diversity. How can we question such a premise whenrights, freedoms, and inclusion for all citizens are embedded in Canada’s Constitution? The dominant discourse in Canadian society suggests that we have achievedequality. We all have equal access to opportunities and resources, which is ensuredby our human rights codes and policies along with our social services and supports.However, a danger exists in such a belief; it silences all discussions aboutinequality. It normalizes all forms of discrimination and oppression by deemingthem to be non-existent and therefore not a problem. Such a premise further marginalizes minoritized groups and gives power to those in dominant positions, thusperpetuating existing inequalities (Thobani, 2007).This chapter will encourage you to think critically and question Canada’s claimthat it is a diverse, multicultural, and inclusive nation in a broader discussion oftheoretical concepts of equality, equity, and inequality. It will conclude with anoverview of Aboriginal history in Canada in order to highlight the issues discussedin the chapter.understandIng equaLIty and equItyTo engage in an examination of Aboriginal history we must first consider a coupleof key concepts that clarify what inequality is rooted in, and by implication thevarious attempts at reparation for that inequality. Through this we will be able tosee who are (or were) the agents of discriminatory practices against Aboriginalpeoples, what that meant for the emerging Canadian society at large, and how theseissues are perpetuated today.Equality denotes sameness—everyone is treated the same without consideration of individual needs, circumstances, background, or history (Fleras, 2012).However, equality does not necessarily lead to fairness. Globally, individuals do notequalitySameness whereeveryone is treatedthe same withoutconsideration ofindividual needs,circumstances,background, or history(Fleras, 2012).Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 127NELequityPromotes the differentialtreatment of individualsbased on need, takinginto considerationcircumstances,experiences,background, history,and so on. Equity isfocused on achievingequality in the outcome.social justice“Full and equalparticipation of allgroups in a societythat is mutually shapedto meet their needs.Includes a vision ofsociety in which thedistribution of resources[and opportunities] isequitable” (Adams etal., 1997, p. 3).* C. MacKinnon, “Equality rights: An overview of equality theories. Ottawa: National Meeting of EqualitySeeking Groups.” In Anzovino, T., & Boutilier, D. (2015). Walk a mile: Experiencing and understandingdiversity in Canada. Nelson Education: Toronto, 1989.† M. Adams, L. A. Bell & P. Griffin, Teaching for diversity and social justice, Routledge. New York: NY. 1997.possess equal access to opportunities and resources and do not enjoy equal powerand privilege. Consequently, this means that we do not start off as equal. How canwe then expect equal treatment to lead to equal outcomes—the very goal of socialjustice? MacKinnon (1989) states:You can’t change the relationship between those who are equal and those whoare unequal by giving them the same things…the relation between the twostays the same, and it is the relation that defines the inequality. The dominantmeasure is set by advantaged people…sameness and difference is not the issueof inequality. It never has been. To make this the issue conceals, among otherthings, the way that the dominant group becomes the measure of everything,including the measure of the disadvantaged group’s entitlement to equaltreatment. (Anzovino & Boutilier, 2015, p. 5)*Given that we do not all start from the same place, treating people equally preservesinequality. This inequality is defined by power and privilege, more specifically thedisproportionate distribution of power and privilege in society and the differingability to exercise that power and privilege by members of different groups. Consequently, treating everyone the same would maintain existing barriers, which prevent those in minoritized groups from gaining equal access to opportunities andresources within society.Alternatively, equity acknowledges the “need to take difference-based disadvantages into consideration” (Fleras, 2012, p. 146). Equity promotes the differentialtreatment of individuals based on need, circumstances, experiences, background,history, and so on, in order to balance the scale. Equity is focused on achievingequality in the outcome.The concepts of equity and equality can be explored through a range of orientations. In this chapter we will be looking at them from the perspective of socialjustice, which consists of the following belief:The full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutuallyshaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in whichthe distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically andpsychologically safe and secure. We envision a society in which individuals areboth self-determining (able to develop their full capacities), and interdependent(capable of interacting democratically with others). Social justice involvessocial actors who have a sense of their own agency as well as a sense of socialresponsibility towards and with others and the society as a whole. (Adams, Bell,& Griffin, 1997, p. 3)†128 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELApplying the orientation of social justice to the concepts of equality and equityprompts us to think about issues from an outcomes-based rather than processbased perspective. While the process may involve differential treatment (equity),the end result would involve all individuals having equal opportunities and access(equality).To better understand these concepts let us consider learning disabilities.Learning disabilities can be defined through a range of perspectives, rooted inideology. The medical model perceives disability as biologically based. Consequently, there is a focus on the limitations or deficits presented by the “disability” with all responsibility for learning placed on the individual (Anzovino &Boutilier, 2015; Lilly, 1992; Zuriff, 1996). Such a perspective stigmatizes disability,perpetuates stereotypes, and encourages discrimination by establishing a hierarchyof “normal” versus “abnormal” (Adelman, 1992). In contrast to the medical model,the social-construct perspective views learning disabilities as socially constructedby the dominant social group (the “abled”). This perspective implies that individuals with learning disabilities are “differently-abled,” meaning that traditional waysof teaching are not best suited for that individual. Rather, the individual requiresaccommodations to provide him or her with equal access to learning outcomes.Such individuals are very capable of learning but they just do it differently from thedominant population (Adelman, 1992; Anzovino & Boutilier, 2015; Jordan, 2007).These beliefs influence the ways in which students with learning disabilitiesare treated and taught, and in turn the learning opportunities available to them.Teachers who maintain a medical model perspective of learning disability wouldnot individualize their program to meet the unique needs of the student, ratherthey would provide each student with the same program and methods of evaluation (equality), as illustrated in the cartoon (Figure 7.1). Thus, disadvantaging thestudent with a learning disability (the minoritized group) and advantaging thosewithout (the dominant group). A teacher with a social-construct perspective wouldchange the learning environment and program to address the specific learningneeds of each student (equity). Students would receive what they require individually in order to have equal learning opportunities (Anzovino & Boutilier, 2015;Stainback & Stainback, 1992).What are InequaLItIes and Why dO they exIst?The concepts of equality and equity can further be defined through an understanding of inequality and its contributing factors. Inequality consists of the unequaldistribution and access to resources, services, and opportunities (Curtis, Grabb, &Guppy, 2004; Harper, 2011). These disparities are socially structured and affect thetreatment of and interactions between individuals belonging to different groups insociety. Within this structure, some groups are more disadvantaged than others,Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 129NELFigure 7.1In order to win this race you will need to reach the finish line in under a minute.Source: © Julia Gajewski, 2014.130 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELwith position determined by socially defined categories such as race, class, gender,and ability. Those who are more advantaged have a greater capacity to access, control, and influence the resources and opportunities they need to attain for theirown betterment. Consequently, they maintain greater power and privilege, whichreinforces their position within society and thus perpetuates the cycle of inequality(Curtis et al., 2004). Inequalities are maintained through four factors that functiontogether: social stratification, power and privilege, ideology, and barriers.Factor 1: Social StratificationSocial stratification refers to “the hierarchal arrangement of large social groupson the basis of their control over basic resources” (Kendall, 2010, p. 214). Withinthis arrangement, groups are classified according to their social positioning. Dominant groups, defined as those “characterized by a disproportionately large share ofpower, wealth and social status” (Jianghe & Rosenthal, 2009), are at the top of thehierarchy, whereas minoritized groups, those “within a society that ha[ve] limitedaccess to power, resources, and social status” (McPherson, 2013, p. 116), are at thebottom. Differences in social rank lead to disparities between the capacities of individuals to access opportunities and resources and to maintain power and controlin order to make decisions and exercise choice. Social positioning is relative, established according to criteria defined by those in dominant groups, who determinewhat is deemed to be worthy, valuable, and superior. In essence, social stratificationis the legitimizing and organization of inequality. Within the hierarchy some havemore rights, freedoms, and choice than others. This hierarchy is reproduced acrossand between generations where those who are disproportionately disadvantagedmaintain that position, as do their children, due to barriers that make it very difficult to advance (Adams et al., 1997; Bottero, 2004).Class refers to the “relative location of a person or group within a larger society,based on wealth, power, prestige, or other valued resources” (Kendall, LothianMurray, & Linden, 2007, p. 655). Class determines one’s access to rewards,resources, and opportunities. Those, in turn, influence one’s level of education,income, occupation, housing, health care, and life expectancy. In a capitalist systemlike Canada’s, class is hierarchically stratified, with individuals belonging to upper,middle, working, working-poor, and underclass orders, as identified by Gilbert andKahl (1998) (see Figure 7.2). Given that mobility between classes can be limited,many people become trapped. Those who belong to the upper class tend to have themost wealth and power, and the greatest access to opportunities and resources. Thisclass is also made up of the smallest number of people, approximately 3 percent ofthe population in Canada (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 239). According to Macdonald(2014) of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, while the richest 20 percentof Canadian families make about 50 percent of the nation’s income, they holdclassThe “relative locationof a person or groupwithin a larger society,based on wealth, power,prestige, or other valuedresources” (Kendall etal., 2007, p. 655).social stratificationRefers to “the hierarchalarrangement of largesocial groups on thebasis of their controlover basic resources”(Kendall, 2010, p. 214).dominant groupsThose “characterizedby a disproportionatelylarge share of power,wealth, and socialstatus” (Jianghe &Rosenthal, 2009).Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 131NEL1. The poverty line, or low income cut-off, refers to “income thresholds below which a family will likely devotea larger share of its income on the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family.” For 2011,the low income cut-off for a family of four was $30,487 (Statistics Canada, 2013).Figure 7.2 Class Structure Based on Model by Gilbert and Kahl (1998) Class OrdersPercentage of CanadianPopulation (%)examples of OccupationsUpper Class3Investors, executivesMiddle Class40Professionals, medium-sized business owners, managers,semi-professionals, crafts people, non-retail salesWorking Class30Low-skilled manual labourers, clerical workers, retail salesWorking Poor20Unskilled labourers, lowest paid manual labourers, serviceworkersUnderclass7Unemployed, part-time menial jobs, public assistanceSource: Data retrieved from Kendall, Lothian-Murray, and Linden, (2007) Pg. 239-241. 70 percent of the nation’s net wealth (p. 8). The largest portion of the populationin Canada, around 40 percent (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 240), make up the middleclass, which can further be subdivided into upper-middle and lower-middle. Thedistinguishing factor of the middle class is education, with most individuals havingcompleted a college or university program. The working class, about 30 percentof the Canadian population (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 241), is made up of labourerssuch as factory, office, and daycare workers. Approximately 20 percent of the Canadian population consists of the working poor (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 241). Thepeople in this group live on an income level that falls around the poverty line.1Many individuals belonging to minoritized groups make up this class category,including a disproportionate number of single mothers and children (Kendall etal., 2007). Individuals belonging to the underclass are often unemployed and havelow levels of education. Living below the poverty line, most rely on social assistanceand services to meet their basic needs. Often, those who are discriminated against,marginalized, and oppressed fall into this class category, as they are unable to getjobs because of systemic and social barriers that exist in society.While class is, for the most part, economically based, it has a direct and substantial influence over other social issues. Grabb (2004) presents the following argument:Class differences represent one manifestation of the more general structure ofpower that is responsible for generating the overall system of inequality in most132 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELsocieties. Other crucial manifestations of inequality, such as those based ongender and race, can therefore be understood as a result of differential access tothe different forms of power or domination in society. (p. 10)*Consequently, those who are working poor or underclass have, on average, a shorterlife expectancy, poorer health care, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher obesityrates, higher infant mortality rates, lower literacy rates, and a greater likelihood tofall under the control of the criminal justice system (Fraser, 2012).Relatedly, a number of scholars have suggested that the traditional class categories proposed by Gilbert and Kahl are outdated in the new economy (Savage,Devine, Cunningham, Taylor, Li, Hjellbrekke, Le Roux, Friedman, & Miles, 2013).Their model considers social, cultural, and economic capital and includes sevenclasses: elite, established middle class, technical middle class, new affluent workers,traditional working class, emergent service workers, and precarious proletariat(Savage et. al., 2013) (see Figure 7.3).A study conducted by Hulchanski (2010) of the University of Toronto found thatthe city of Toronto could be divided, with regions based on social class, into three* E. Grabb, “Conceptual issues in the study of social inequality.” In J. Curtis, E. Grabb & N. Guppy, Socialinequality in Canada: Patterns, problems, and policies (4th Ed.). Pearson Publishers: Toronto, 2004, Pg. 10.Figure 7.3 Seven Social Class Model Social Class CategoryDescriptionEliteVery high economic capital (especially savings), high social capital, very high highbrow culturalcapitalEstablished middle classHigh economic capital, high status of mean contacts, high highbrow and emerging culturalcapitalTechnical middle classHigh economic capital, very high mean social contacts, but relatively few contacts reported,moderate cultural capitalNew affluent workersModerately good economic capital, moderately poor mean score of social contacts, though highrange, moderate highbrow but good emerging cultural capitalTraditional working classModerately poor economic capital, though with reasonable house price, few social contacts,low highbrow and emerging cultural capitalEmergent service workersModerately poor economic capital, though with reasonable household income, moderate socialcontacts, high emerging (but low highbrow) cultural capitalProletariatPoor economic capital, and the lowest scores on every other criterionSource: M. Savage, F. Devine, N. Cunningham, et al., “A new model of social class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey experiment,” Sociology, 47(2):219–50, 2013. Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 133NEL2. Social mobility refers to “the movement of individuals or groups from one level in a stratified system toanother” (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 663).distinct cities (Figure 7.4). He noted that, since 1970, based on income, the lowerclass neighbourhoods increased to cover more than half the city while middle classneighbourhoods decreased by 37 percent. In city #1, “the average income earnedby individuals (15 and older) in 2005 was $88,400,” whereas in city #3, “the averageincome earned by individuals (15 and older) in 2005 was $26,900” (p. 6).A similar trend was found by the United Way of Toronto (2004). Individualswho make up the population of the most poverty-stricken neighbourhoods includechildren, single parents, newcomers, and visible minorities (United Way Toronto,2004) (see Figure 7.5, page 135). These are individuals with the least power andprivilege in society and therefore face the most inequalities.Those who belong to the working poor and underclass are often assumed tobe responsible for their perceived failures. They are labelled lazy and incapablewithout considering the systemic, social, and ideological factors that contribute tothe inequalities they experience (Kendall et al., 2007). While individuals can potentially move between class categories, the lower someone falls within the socialhierarchy, the greater the barriers that must be overcome. Not least of these arethe stigmas attributed to lower classes by higher classes and discrimination, bothof which often prevent social mobility.2 Kendall et al. (2007), based on the work ofsocial analysts, suggest that it is more difficult for individuals of colour to advancewithin the class system, as racism continues to disadvantage them despite theirlevel of education or income.Factor 2: Power and PrivilegeThe second factor contributing to inequality consists of the related concepts ofpower and privilege. Power is “the capacity to command resources and therebyto control social situations.” Resources can be material, human, and ideologicaland their control can be economic, political, and ideological (Curtis et al., 2004,p. 10). Power can also be defined as “the ability of people or groups to achieve theirgoals despite opposition from others” (Kendall et al., 2007, p. 237). Power promotesstructures of dominance and subordination to be established among social groups(Kendall et al., 2007; McMullin, 2004, p. 29) and allows for inequalities to be reproduced in society. In a stratified system, dominant group members have the greatestdegree of power, meaning they have the ability to make decisions, influence systems, and establish dominant ideologies, thus contributing to and maintaininginequalities. They can use their position of power to develop laws and policies that134 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELChange in Average Individual Income, City of Toronto, 1970 to 2005Source: Statistics Canada,Census 1971, 20065 2.5 0 5 KilometersAverage Individual Income from All Sources, 15 Years and Over, Census TractsSteeles AveBloor St WDanforth Ave Yon ge StHwy 401Hwy 401 Change in the Census Tract Average Individual Incomeas a percentage of the Toronto CMA Average, 1970-2005Increase of 20% or More (100 Census Tracts, 19% of the Cit Note: Census Tract 2001 boundaries shown. Census Tracts with no income datafor 1970 or 2005 are excluded from the analysis. There were 527 total census tracts in 2001.y)Increase or Decrease is Less than 20% (208 Census Tracts, 40% of the City)Decrease of 20% or More (206 Census Tracts, 40% of the City)2 13Greater Toronto Urban Observatorywww.gtuo.ca www.NeighbourhoodChange.caCity of TorontoPriority Neighbourhoods (2005)HighwaysOld Toronto (1996)No DataBloor-Danforth subwaySheppard East subwayScarborough RTYonge-University-Spadina subwayFigure 7.4 The Three Cities within Toronto: Change in Average Individual Income, City of Toronto, 1970–2005Source: J. David Hulchanski, The three cities within Toronto: Income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970-2005.University of Toronto, Cities Centre, 2010. Map 1, Pg. 2. Found at: http://www.3cities.neighbourhoodchange.caChapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 135NELSource: United Way Toronto and The Canadian Council on Social Development, Poverty by postal code: The geography ofneighbourhood poverty city of Toronto, 1981–2001. 2004. Found at: http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/PovertybyPostalCodeFinal.pdfFigure 7.5 City of Toronto Poverty Level by Percentages of Individuals in Neighbourhood136 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELwork in their favour and sway public views and principles to uphold their agendas(Curtis et al., 2004).Minoritized groups within society are relatively powerless and are often vulnerable to exploitation by those in dominant groups (Kendall et al., 2007). If weconsider the role of women in society, for instance, we can begin to understandthe power dynamic of gender and its function. Fewer women hold high-rankingpositions in the Canadian political system or in corporate and academic boardrooms. Only one third of full-time university faculty are women and only onequarter are Canadian research chairs. Sexism in academics is still prevalent andnormalized through the dominant discourse (Robbins, 2012). In 2003, a humanrights complaint was brought forward by eight women to expose the inequitiesfaced by women in academia. The justice system is expected to strive for equity,to uphold human rights, and err on the side of those who have been disadvantaged and perhaps victimized. Instead, the gap was legitimized, claiming “excellence” over “equity,” implying that men are simply more qualified and better suitedfor the positions (Robbins, 2012, pp. 1–2). Such statements, especially when madeby those in power, allow—and may even encourage—the injustice and inequity tocontinue. Furthermore, it silences all others who face similar inequities.Women are consistently marginalized and excluded from positions of powerwithin a patriarchal society, where gatekeepers, primarily men, prevent theiraccess. On the other hand, women are overrepresented and contribute significantlymore to domestic labour and child/elderly care than men (Anzovino & Boutilier,2015). This translates to the socio-economic position of women within the socialhierarchy, where a significant disparity exists between men and women both interms of social status and wealth. In 2008, the average income of women in Canadawas $30,100, about 65 percent of the average income of men, $47,000 (StatisticsCanada, 2013). Similar social and economic marginalization is experienced bymembers belonging to other minoritized groups such as Aboriginal peoples, racialized groups, and people with disabilities. Who then is making the most importantdecisions for Canadians? Whose interests are those decisions serving? And howdo these decisions contribute to the cycle of inequality faced by many Canadians?Membership in dominant groups also grants individuals privilege. “Privilege isgained through unearned power that gives dominant group members economic,social, and political advantage” (Lopes & Thomas, 2006, p. 266). This privilege is notdeserved or attained due to hard work or achievement. Rather, it is assumed merelybecause one belongs to a dominant group. Those who are privileged thereforehave opportunities, resources, rights, choices, and freedoms that are categoricallydenied to others (McPherson, 2013). Those with privilege often fail to recognizetheir advantaged status, as privilege in dominant groups has become so sociallynormalized that it has become invisible. Privilege that is unrecognized and invisChapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 137NELible to a group equates to the degree of power that group maintains within society(Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012). Dominant forms of privilege are reinforced sociallyand ideologically, thus appearing universal. For example, nationally recognizedholidays in Canada, supported by government, institutions, corporations, andmedia, overwhelmingly follow Christian practices and celebrations. Consequently,those in minoritized groups often internalize their position and perceive the powerand privilege maintained by dominant groups as status quo and fixed (Bell, 1997).Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) point out that our vocabulary emphasizes this perception, “while we refer to the minoritized group as underprivileged or disadvantaged,we rarely talk about the dominant group as overprivileged or over advantaged”(p. 74). Discussions of privilege are completely silenced and ignored. As a result, thosein dominant groups continue to benefit from the unearned privilege they maintainwhile those in minoritized groups continue to be oppressed by that privilege.Differences in power and privilege are manifested by components of our identity. As discussed in Chapter 6, identity is socially constructed. These constructsdetermine what is considered to be valuable, superior, and powerful within society.Groups are categorized based on components of their identity, with some sociallydeemed as dominant and others minoritized. However, identity is multidimensional and complex. As such, we occupy more than one social group simultaneously (intersectionality) (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012), meaning that we can havepower and privilege and we can also lack it. A man with a disability, for example,maintains power and privilege in society due to his gender status, but lacks thatpower and privilege due to his ability status. All of us have power and privilegedue to some component of our identity. “Most of us have one or more dominantidentities. In most parts of Canada, dominant identities are White, male, Englishspeaking, heterosexual, able-bodied, Christian, affluent and middle class, thirty tosixty-five years of age, university educated, from central Canada” (Lopes & Thomas,2006, p. 266). Nonetheless, we can still be oppressed.Minoritized groups, however, experience several forms of oppression that arecompounded due to different and multiple components of their identity, which aredenied power and privilege (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012).Factor 3: IdeologyIdeology refers to systems of ideas transmitted through the process of socialization, including through systems and structures such as the media, government,families, religion, and education. The degree to which each of these systems andstructures can affect one’s socialization will depend upon the degree to which theyare important and prevalent in a particular historical period. Different interpretations can be drawn from a study of ideology, namely that there is more than oneideology at work in society at any given time, and there are conflicts and tensions138 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELbetween them. They are also historically based and socially stratified along class,gender, race, and other areas of identity.Dominant ideologies are those that are most closely aligned with a group ofpeople who represent a particular set of class, economic, cultural, political andsociological interests situated at the top of the hierarchy. Dominant ideologies insociety originate from a group of people who were directly involved in, or whosecultural ancestors were an integral part of, the drafting of a country’s constitution,its charter, laws and the systems of justice, its dominant religion, and the content ofthe canons in educational institutions. These are the ideologies that serve to influence how society functions and how it is structured. Ideology is used by those indominant positions to achieve desired ends, which often benefit a select few.Ideologies serve to shape and reinforce stereotypes and prejudices. Norms andvalues of a society are created and reinforced by ideologies. Ideology serves tocreate a routine response to how certain phenomena (social, political, etc.) andcertain groups of people are viewed. Dominant ideologies consistently reinforcesuch ideas, ultimately affecting how we see and treat others. We adopt these viewsthrough socialization and structures. Our ideas about minoritized groups in societyarise due to the limited knowledge and narrow understandings we have of individuals belonging to these groups. We consider anyone or anything that deviates fromthe dominant or norm as different, odd, undesirable, or wrong.Dominant ideologies hold little merit in terms of accuracy or truth. They becomedominant merely because those who hold positions of power and privilege createdthem. They do, however, serve to perpetuate oppression and inequality. Ideologiesare internalized by both dominant groups and minoritized groups within society,and as such they establish how things should be, normalizing and privileging someideas or ways of being over others. Dominant groups control ideology and maintain power by enforcing their ideologies onto individuals, thus elevating their ownstatus within society (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012).In order to oppress, a group must hold institutional power in society. In this way,the group is in the position to impose their worldview on others and controlthe ideas (ideologies), political rules (the technical mechanisms), and socialrules for communication (discourses) that we are all taught (socialized) to seeas normal, natural, and required for a functioning society. This domination ishistorical (long-term), automatic, and normalized. (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012,p. 52)** O. Sensoy & R. DiAngelo, Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education.Teachers College Press: New York, 2012.Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 139NELFactor 4: BarriersThe final factor that contributes to inequalities is barriers. Barriers can be definedas “policies or practices that prevent full and equal participation in society; barriers can be physical, social, attitudinal, organizational, technological, or informational” (Anzovino & Boutilier, 2015, p. 262). For example, for a visually impairedindividual, a physical barrier in education may be the small font in a text or poorlighting in the classroom, and an attitudinal barrier may be the perception thatthe visual impairment also implies an intellectual impairment. People belongingto minoritized groups in society frequently encounter these barriers, which affecttheir ability to access the opportunities, resources, and benefits of membership insociety (McPherson, 2013, p. 123).For an individual with a disability, barriers “make it difficult—sometimes impossible…to do the things most of us take for granted—things like going shopping,working, or taking public transit” (Ministry of Economic Development, Trade, andEmployment, 2013).Barriers prevent or limit people from achieving equality in society and can bevisible physically or in policies, or invisible in social structures. Visible barriersinclude those public and private spaces that are literally inaccessible to individualswho have a physical disability. Visible barriers also include the documented policies and practices in any economic, political, or social institution. These policiesand practices largely represent the interests of members of dominant groups. Thosein non-dominant groups are restricted from participating in policy developmentand therefore are not represented in it. An example is a hiring practice that preventsor restricts access to employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities(Ministry of Economic Development, Trade, and Employment, 2013). This demonstrates a visible barrier because such policies are in place to favour abled individualsand deny access to those who do not meet the criteria (McPherson, 2013, p. 123).Alternatively, invisible barriers may not be obviously outlined and defined inlaws and policies, but are maintained within social structures. Continuing with theprevious example, due to invisible barriers, individuals with disabilities encountersignificant challenges when they try to access employment. Often, they are perceived as inferior, deficient, or incapable. Therefore, many are underemployed,unemployed, or seek re-training (McPherson, 2013, p. 123).It is important to note that these barriers are not internal. It is not the disability,race, or gender that is a barrier. Rather, barriers arise from the ideologies established by those in dominant groups and the individual, institutional, and structuralresponses to those ideologies, dominant discourses, the lack of power and privilegepossessed by minoritized groups, or one’s position on the social hierarchy. Thesebarriers are problematic because they prevent members of minoritized groupsfrom equally participating and benefiting in society, thus producing inequalities.barriersThese “policiesor practices thatprevent full and equalparticipation in society;barriers can be physical,social, attitudinal,organizational,technological, orinformational”(Anzovino & Boutilier,2015, p. 262).140 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNEL3. For the purposes of this chapter, the terms, Aboriginal, First Nations, and indigenous are used interchangeably.4. The term “settler” is a contested and controversial term within discussions around the colonization of Canada, or any other country thathas undergone colonization. Settler implies someone who is engaged in a passive, neutral activity, with legitimate access to land that reallydoes not belong to them. It implies other things as well, such as being invited, performing a service in the interests of the government of thecountry, being peaceful, and respectful. The history of colonization in Canada however, suggests quite the opposite. What is positioned in thischapter is that “settlers” were part of the colonial government’s attempt at stealing Aboriginal land, and they often did so in very violent ways.They were part of the process of disenfranchising indigenous people.An Examination of Aboriginal Issues in CanadaEquity and Equality in Canada: Are We ThereYet?Inequalities have historical roots. They often begin withan event that serves to marginalize, oppress, and disadvantage a particular group of people. We cannot beginto understand inequalities that exist in Canada withoutexamining how and why they came to be. As membersof Canadian society, we face various inequalities and,knowingly or unknowingly, we contribute to the oppression of others. It is our responsibility, as global citizensand critical thinkers, to disrupt social hierarchies, exposedominant ideologies, unearth power and privilege, challenge barriers, and, ultimately, to uncover the causes ofinequalities.In the next section we will examine the history ofAboriginal3 peoples in Canada. This is in order to clarifythe concepts covered in this chapter and to understandhow ideologies have informed behaviours and shapedthe social structures that have been historically controlled by European “settlers.”4 The history of Canada hasbeen marked by deeply held and prevailing ideas: thatAboriginal peoples are inferior to Europeans, that theyneed to be saved, and that they need to be integratedinto the dominant culture. This history is paramount inits contribution to social issues and inequalities faced byAboriginal peoples today. Historical attitudes have alsoserved to maintain other existing economic, political,and social problems.Throughout this chapter we have been discussing theissue of equity based on race, gender, sexual orientation,and other minoritized social identities. When discussingequity-related issues, however, there has been a tendencyto discuss the First Nations alongside issues of equityand multiculturalism. First Nations, however, assert thattheir prime issues or areas of concern are the unsettledland claims and sovereignty rights as Canada’s originalinhabitants, who were displaced by European colonization and imperialism. For many First Nations, if there isgoing to be a discussion of equity for various discriminated groups of people, then it needs to include a discussion about sovereignty.Within the dominant discourse, Aboriginal peoplehave been stereotyped as “savage, poor and unlettered”(Axtell, 1998, p. 26), an attitude beginning as far backas 1610 (Axtell, 1998). Other references allude to colonial administrators referring to Aboriginals as children(Dickason & Newbigging, 2010, p. 160), incapable ofunderstanding property rights. That discourse was effectively used to justify the theft of Aboriginal land and theirultimate subjugation, first to the British Crown, and thento the Canadian government. Defining Aboriginals inthat fashion became increasingly important because itwas easier to (morally) justify seizing land from “savages” than from “civilized” people.The discourse around First Nations’ rights, identity,and sovereignty continues to be controlled by the government, mainstream media, sports conglomerates,and fashion houses, all presenting a Eurocentric viewof indigenous people. This goes on in the context ofmovies (white actors playing Native people, such as inThe Lone Ranger), negative portrayals of indigenouspeople’s socio-economic and political issues in the news,sports teams (the Washington Redskins football team’sracist logo and name), fashion houses (Luis Vuitton’sappropriation of Aboriginal culture such as headdressesand beaded moccasins to sell their European clothing),CaSe StuDyChapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 141NEL5. These trading posts also acted as conduits for European trade goods that First Nations were becoming increasingly dependent on throughtheir direct involvement in the fur trade. Trading posts sold or traded muskets, which led to increasingly deadly conflicts between oncepeaceful First Nations communities (Dickason & Newbigging, 2010; Harris, 1998).6. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been referred to as an “Indian Bill of Rights” for its recognition of Aboriginal title, use of land, and therole that the Crown and federal governments had and continue to have in protecting Aboriginal interests. The Proclamation was passedin large measure to protect First Nations rights from the increasingly hostile treatment from “settlers” coming to Canada and encroachingon First Nations land and getting into physical altercations with them. Particularly important is how it has been interpreted to settle morerecent land claims. It stipulates that Aboriginal land cannot simply be taken from them without the government first negotiating a treaty withthe respective Aboriginal community. Settling current land claim disputes is often protracted and divisive as the Proclamation has set theprecedent for all land claims.and so forth. Most of these representations are historical,where the only characteristics that seem to matter arebeads and tomahawks. This misrepresentation ignoresvibrant and modern Aboriginal cultures and also ignoresthe numerous issues facing Aboriginal people. Instead, itromanticizes and commodifies their history, culture, andcontemporary issues.Historical Context: Colonization andImperialismAboriginals have endured loss of land, loss of culture, andloss of basic human rights due to colonization, war, andexploitation. European expansionism through the 1600sand 1700s was the driving force behind this, and resultedin exploitation and the disenfranchisement of indigenouspeoples from virtually every facet of their lives.While there were a number of circumstances that hada drastic effect on Aboriginal ways of life, their increasedinvolvement in the fur trade and the repercussions ofthat involvement had several consequences: exposureto disease, cultural genocide, engagement in a commercial wage-based economy, legislated institutionalizedinequality, and their ultimate disenfranchisement fromtheir traditional ways of life.Impacts of Colonization: DiseaseFirst Nations in Canada were particularly hard hitwhen exposed to European diseases that they were notimmune to. The increased exposure was due to theincrease in trade and contact between Europeans andFirst Nations as time went on. For example, the establishment of fur trading posts5 along the coast of BritishColumbia (and in other parts of Canada) created fertilegrounds for the spread of diseases, such as smallpox,cholera, measles, tuberculosis, and venereal disease toonce-resilient communities (Harris, 1998). These diseases occasionally raged in epidemic proportions andwiped out as much as half the population in a given area(Gibson, 1980, p. 236).The British Columbia provincial government evenused the decimation of First Nations’ population in theircalculations to determine what kinds of treaty provisionsFirst Nations would be entitled to. For example, theyfigured that, if the population of a treaty signatory wassmall, the government could pay them less money orallot them less land in land claims cases (Harris, 1998).Loss of LandDuring the early colonial period, European powersfought each other over land and resources. In NorthAmerica, the British and French fought each other forthe land mass we now know as Canada, with wars andskirmishes lasting from the early 1600s until the mid-1700s. The British defeat of the French in 1759 led tothe signing of the Proclamation of 1763, which partiallyacknowledges Aboriginal territorial rights.6In spite of the Proclamation and the promises it made,the British set about to remove First Nations people fromtheir land and in the process colonize the entire country.On the one hand, the Proclamation recognized FirstNations’ rightful interest and use of the land, and stipulated that no First Nation land could be bought or takenwithout the negotiation of a treaty or the consent of thepeople in the area in question (Frideres, 2011, p. 9). Onthe other hand, what became increasingly important forthe government was the issue of land acquisition—and142 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELfor the government to secure it from First Nations communities.Relevant Ideologies: Capitalism, Eurocentrism,and PatriarchyThe Commercialization of Relationships: The FurTradeThe strategy of colonization was to increase wealthfor the colonizer; hence, relations with First Nationswere commercialized, which resulted in their increaseddependency on European trade goods. The impetus forthis activity was economic imperialism, and it wouldhappen through the exploitation of Canada’s manynatural resources, many of which were very familiar toAboriginal peoples. This of course led to their employwith various private and Crown corporations, such asthe Hudson’s Bay Company. Numerous laws were passedthat sought to permanently alter Aboriginal ways of life,restricting where they could live, the customs they couldpractise, their freedom of movement and assembly, andintroducing a patriarchal system of governance and decision making.The fur trade altered the land in ways that wouldalso permanently alter Aboriginal ways of living. Overharvesting for the commercial trade led to a gradualdecrease in wildlife. This was a condition that Aboriginals had never encountered. Their inability to dealwith this new reality also created new problems, amongwhich was the replacement of traditional materials andresources with imported European goods.Also, traditional practices around hunting for thetribe became affected. Hunters now left the tribe forlong periods to engage in commercial hunting, therebyeffectively engaging in a form of wage-based labour, aconcept completely foreign to them before Europeansarrived. With the decrease in the animal pelts that werecoveted by the fur trade, it also meant increased conflictbetween different Nations as they competed for dwindling resources on each other’s lands. Eventually, animalpopulations were so reduced that many Aboriginal communities were left destitute. Since they could not trap,they could not eat either (Ray, 1998, p. 97).Upon European arrival, colonizing techniques such aspitting various First Nations against each other, otherwise known as “divide and conquer,” were used. Forexample, trade wars began between various Aboriginalcommunities because they wanted access to the unusualtrade goods (metal objects such as axes, awls, knives,glass beads, and cloth). Those conflicts first occurred inwhat is now Newfoundland among the once peacefulBeothuk, Mi’kmaq, and Abenaki. The consequence ofthose trade wars resulted in the extermination of theBeothuk, with the last one dying of tuberculosis in 1829(Dickason & Newbigging, 2010; Upton, 1977).Instruments of Control: PatriarchyColonialism and a patriarchal ideology resulted in thebreakdown of egalitarian systems of governance, systemsthat had defined First Nations philosophy for millennia.Legislative changes introduced by the colonial government had a notable impact on Aboriginal women’s rights.A patriarchal system of governance and family structurewas introduced into First Nations communities.As part of the emerging Indian Act, the 1857 Act toEncourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribeswas passed by the colonial government. It marks alegislative start in the discrimination against Aboriginalwomen by allowing only males the right to vote (admittedly, no women of any race could vote in Canada until1916), and successful male applicants would also begiven 20 hectares of taxable reserve land (seen as anotherassimilationist tactic).Perhaps even more of an affront to Aboriginalwomen’s dignity and rights was the passing of the 1869Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians. Theact stipulated that Aboriginal women would lose their“Indian” status if they married a non-Aboriginal man,but if an Aboriginal man married a non-Aboriginalwoman he would not lose his status and his non-Aboriginal wife would gain “Indian” status. The act has beenseen as an effort to destroy Aboriginal ways of life.Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 143NEL7. In 1981 Sandra Lovelace, a Maliseet woman from the Tobique reserve in New Brunswick, wrote to the United Nations Human RightsCommittee complaining of the discriminatory treatment faced by Aboriginal women. The Canadian government was forced to amend thelegislation, which would thereby allow Aboriginal women the right to marry who they wanted, and keep their status and other provisions(Long & Dickason, 2011, p. 259).8. The colonial government under Great Britain, and later the newly minted Canadian government (in 1867), were constantly under the threatof annexation by the United States. Many provinces were not sure that they wanted to join confederation as they had set up lucrative traderelations with their southern neighbours. Many in the U.S.A., including the government, believed in a “manifest destiny” in which they wouldhave control of the entire continent. Hence, the goals of the Canadian government were to populate the country as quickly as possible and tohave total control over First Nations so “settlers” would be able to take up their place in the new dominion.It was not until decades later that this act was struckdown as unconstitutional,7 after the battle for Aboriginalwomen’s rights gained speed in the 1950s. Many Aboriginal people challenged the law that stipulated that a FirstNations woman and her children would be stripped oftheir status and forced to leave the reserve if she married a non-First Nations man (Dickason & Newbigging,2010).Structures of Domination: Reserves, Treaties, theIndian Act, and Residential SchoolsPermanent changes to First Nations ways of life werebrought about through assimilationist policies andlaws introduced by the colonial and Canadian federalgovernments. Every advancement, modification, andadjustment to law or policy directed at First Nations wasmeant to reduce their standing as sovereign beings andto advance their forced removal from their land and thesubsequent appropriation of those lands (Marule, 1981,p. 14).Disenfranchisement from the Land: Reserves andTreaties as Instruments of ControlFirst Nations endured many challenges as a result of colonization. The imposition of immigration coupled withthe relentless pace at which their land was seized by thecolonial government was significant. 8 During the sameperiod (1820–1850), the government was restrictingAboriginal movement in an attempt to isolate them fromthe growing European populations. The formation of thereserve system, the imposition of foreign political practices such as the forced adoption of an electoral systemfor electing chiefs, the banning of many traditional cultural practices, and the Indian Act, were encroaching onthe Aboriginal life as they knew it.For example, cultural practices such as the potlatch, acustom unique to the west coast First Nations of BritishColumbia where individuals would give away all of theirpossessions, was banned. Also, dances associated withtraditional religious and supernatural beliefs and practices, such as the Sun Dance and the Ghost Dance of theplains First Nations, were outlawed by 1895 as they wereseen as “paganistic” and an affront to Christianity(Dickason & Newbigging, 2010, p. 199; Miller, 2009,pp. 232, 247).For assimilation and disenfranchisement to work,First Nations had to suffer loss of sovereignty throughloss of land and gradual loss of self-government. Thishappened through their forced migration onto reserves,which thereby created a dependence on the state for foodrations and other necessities. One of the greatest inequities faced by First Nations communities was the destruction of their own laws and customs, which were replacedby the laws of the colonialists. And while this happenedover a time of more than 130 years, some of the biggerchanges came with the enactment of the Canadian Constitution in 1867 (previously named the British NorthAmerica Act, 1867), the signing of Treaties 1 through 6,the denial of treaties in some parts of the country, andthe establishment of reserves (Miller, 2009, pp. 142–44).Treaties: Legislated TheftThe treaties that were negotiated between the federalgovernment and various First Nations of the plains (early1870s) were drafted in response to the threat of First144 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNEL9. By the 1880s, the Cree were the most militant First Nations group in Canada, and the federal government expressed concerns over theirnumber and their increasing demands for land and mobility rights. Their distrust of the government coupled with outright anger over brokenpromises led to one of the largest Aboriginal uprisings in Canadian history in 1885. Métis leader Louis Riel joined forces with Cree leaderBig Bear and stormed the garrison at Batoche, Saskatchewan, in an attempt to create a Métis and First Nations homeland. The North WestRebellion, as it is known, was put down, Riel was hung for treason, Big Bear was imprisoned and later released, and several other Métis andFirst Nations people were also hung or imprisoned (Dickason & Newbigging, 2010, p. 218). The message was clear: there would be no territoryfor Aboriginal people, and the government would use whatever force necessary to meet its goals.Nations uprisings.9 The federal government saw treatiesas a way to manage native peoples and pave the way forwidespread European settlement. The Plains Cree inparticular fought for assurances that their autonomy,including where they could live, would be maintainedif treaties were signed. They also petitioned the federalgovernment to limit the buffalo hunt to First Nationsonly. This proved to be very difficult as not only were thebuffalo herds dwindling rapidly, but the Crow, Peigan,and Blackfoot First Nations on both the American andCanadian sides of the border were also asking for restrictions—and the Cree were not originally from that areabut had migrated in search of a reliable food source(Tobias, 1998).The presence of First Nations people on a land thatwas destined for colonization was labelled as the “Indianproblem,” a term used as far back as the 1820s. For theBritish colonial governments and immigrants alike, the“Indian problem” meant that First Nations stood in theway of colonization. It was even believed that Aboriginalpeople were disappearing (dying off), and in a sense theywere as their numbers had dropped by roughly 6000 inUpper and Lower Canada (modern day Ontario andQuebec) by 1830 (Dickason & Newbigging, 2010).The establishment of reserves contributed to theoppression of First Nations people. Once on the reserves,regardless of whether they wanted to engage in agriculture (which is what the federal government said theyhad to do) they were all but abandoned, with most treatypromises being broken (Frideres, 2011). “The reserveswere the cradle of the Indian civilizing effort—and themeans of securing the White man’s freedom to exploitthe vast riches of a young dominion” (Dickason & Newbigging, 2010, p. 171).The federal government looked at the treaties andreserves as bestowing a privilege, when in fact they hadtotally altered First Nations’ ways of life and subjugatedthem. First Nations who were dependent on the buffalohunt for food and subsistence went from prosperity tobegging for food from the white settlers who took theirland (Dickason & Newbigging, 2010).Residential Schools: Removing the Indian from theChildAs much as the treaties and the reserve system had adevastating effect on First Nations, the residential schoolsystem dealt a particularly harsh blow. The trauma ofresidential schools continues to affect the Aboriginalcommunity today. Its purpose was to extinguish anytraces of Aboriginal culture and identity.The residential school system began at varioustimes across the country: in Quebec in the early 1700s(Barman, Hebert, & McCaskin, 1986, p. 4), and a hundred years later in the Prairies. It was not always controlled by the colonial or federal government and did notbecome a central pillar of the Indian Act until the mid-1800s. The colonial, and later the federal, governmentdecided that rather than start its own system, it wouldwork with the churches that had started schools in aneffort to Christianize First Nations.After the completion of the continental railroad in1885, demands grew for the complete assimilation ofFirst Nations people, and the residential school systemtook up a central role in that goal. The Canadian government decided that the best way to educate (assimilate)First Nations children was to remove them from theirhomes and place them in residential schools. In mostcases, children had no contact with their families. Allaspects of their lives, including language, clothing, hairstyles, and conduct, would be strictly controlled throughcorporal punishment and modelled after Europeanexpectations.Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 145NEL10. In 1996, the federal government commissioned the 4000-page Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. The commission made over400 recommendations regarding issues that characterize life on many reserves across Canada (such as the lack of proper sanitation and sewagesystems resulting in boil water advisories; tuberculosis; high rates of suicide, unemployment, and incarceration compared to the generalpopulation; decrepit infrastructure; and very low educational retention rates). Almost 20 years later, the recommendations mostly remainunfulfilled. In 2006, the CBC, and in 2010 the Toronto Star, conducted a series of investigations into the living conditions, financial problems,and other issues plaguing reserves across Canada. They found that 117 reserves, with a population of over half a million people, had beenunder boil water advisories for years.11. In order to help the churches avoid bankruptcy, the federal government stepped in with this initial compensation. The churches were losing agrowing number of lawsuits and could not afford the amount of compensation awarded to victims.It has been suggested that the conditions at many residential schools where children were boarded was so poorin the late 1800s to early 1900s that it would be generousto say that 50 percent of them lived to see the benefits ofthe education that they were forced to endure (Barmanet al., p. 8). Another startling effect of this system wasthat after years away from their families, when the children returned to the reserves at age 16, not only couldthey not fit back into their own communities, but theyweren’t welcomed in the white world either (Barman etal., p. 9). In effect, they were left stateless in their ownland. To make matters worse, the quality of their education was below that of the schools white children went toand when they finished (in the early 1900s) they weren’tallowed to go to high school (Barman et al., 1986, p. 11),thereby ensuring their continued second-class-citizenstatus.However, First Nations did not respond passively.Many resisted and refused outright to send their children away. This wasn’t just because of the poor qualityof the education itself, but because they were aware ofthe inherent contradictions in the educational policyitself that continued to discriminate against them evenif they went to school. By the mid-1900s, in what is nowreferred to as the “baby boom” generation, only a thirdof First Nations children went beyond Grade 3 comparedto over 60 percent in the white population (Barman etal., 1986, p. 13). It wasn’t until after World War II thatthe federal government was forced to recognize the inadequacies of their education policies towards First Nations(Perrson, 1986).Truth and ReconciliationIn 2008, more than 40 years after the closing of thelast residential school, First Nations finally received anapology from the federal government of Canada forthe abuse they suffered in the residential school system.The apology was seen as a milestone in federal–FirstNations relations. It represented the first time that thefederal government actually used the words “we’re sorry,”which was taken as an admission of responsibility forthe damage caused to so many First Nations families.The Residential School Settlement Agreement of 2007compensated roughly 80,000 survivors of the residentialschool system, and also led to the creation of the IndianResidential School Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Frideres, 2011; Regan, 2010).The reconciliation process had been occurring sincethe early 1990s when the various churches involved inadministering residential schools started apologizing toFirst Nations communities for the physical, sexual, andmental abuse inflicted upon their children by clergy.However, it was only during the federally appointedRoyal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples10 that survivors of the residential school system really startedtelling their stories of abuse, of the deep emotional scarsthat remained, and of how the pain caused by the abusehas created intergenerational family problems. Asidefrom the apologies and payouts made by the variouschurches, in 1998 the federal government under PaulMartin offered $350 million to aid in the recovery ofvictims of the residential school system.11 The moneythat was offered was seen as a first step and not nearlyenough to compensate the thousands of survivors. Underincreasing pressure from First Nations survivors and146 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELlegal representatives, the federal government was eventually persuaded to act. In May 2006, a deal was reached,and the largest class action law suit in Canadian historyawarded First Nations survivors $1.9 billion throughwhat came to be known as The Indian Residential SchoolSettlement Agreement (Tailfeathers, 2012, p. 5).The Failure of the Education System and the Casefor Self-GovernmentThe inadequacies of the education system imposed uponFirst Nations, combined with their awareness of thisdiscriminatory practice and of the emergence of varioushuman rights movements in the 1960s, helped to pavethe way for the idea of self-government. First Nationsmaintained that the colonial education system was notworking and that education for First Nations should behandled by First Nations.In 1969, the federal government under Prime MinisterPierre Trudeau released a White Paper that spelled outhow dismantling the Indian Act and the reserve systemand severing all ties with First Nations would give themthe same chances as their non-Aboriginal counterparts. First Nations groups across the country, such asthe National Indian Brotherhood (now known as theAssembly of First Nations), reacted swiftly (Miller, 2009,p. 248). Trudeau was forced to back down, signallingan end to the cultural assimilationist approach that haddefined colonial/federal government–First Nations relationships for the previous two centuries.Self-GovernmentOne way to understand self-government is to see it asa shift in power from being controlled by a foreign,external entity (the federal government and the IndianAct) to First Nations having control over their education,justice (certain aspects of it), lands, resources on thoselands, health and social services (Barman et al., 1986). Inshort, self-government is the ability of a group of peopleto govern themselves and their lands without having toask permission to do so (Asch, 2002, p. 66). First Nationsarguments have been consistent; they were self-governing people before European colonizers arrived. Rightsto the land and its resources, their culture, languages,customs, and sovereignty cannot be conferred uponthem by a late-coming benevolent dictator.First Nations’ quest for self-government is not just afight against the federal and provincial governments. Itis also a fight against popular perceptions of Aboriginalsheld by the majority of non-Aboriginals, and againstcorporations, particularly those involved in mineral andresource exploration and exploitation. However, selfgovernment does not mean extinguishing business orconstitutional relations between the federal governmentand First Nations; it is precisely the federal government that needs to enshrine those responsibilities in law(Marule, 1981, p. 2).First Nations believe that the Constitution, theCharter of Rights and Freedoms, and all of the previoustreaties and conventions between First Nations andthe federal government contain the foundation for therealization of First Nations’ goals of self-government.12The current Constitution (1982)13 does recognize thecollective interests of First Nations and also recognizesthat they have exclusive rights—indeed, a proprietaryinterest—to all lands reserved for First Nations (Union ofB.C. Indian Chiefs, 1980, p. 2). Also, it is expressly statedin the Royal Proclamation, 1763, through the Doctrine12. The Union of B.C Indian Chiefs identify the following examples: the Treaty of Utrecht, 1763; the Treaties of Peace and Friendship with theIndian Nations of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, 1713 and 1763; the Articles of Capitulation of Quebec, 1757 and of Montreal 1760 and1763; the Treaty of Paris 1763; the Royal Proclamation, 1763; and the Constitution Act, 1791.13 Working against the attempt to realize self-government are the repeated attempts by the federal government to circumvent or outrightextinguish Aboriginal title (Marule, 1981). The repatriation of the Constitution from Great Britain in 1982 by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeauwas no different as the federal government once again tried to extinguish First Nation title through amendments to the Constitution. Althoughprovincial premiers were invited to the negotiations on the amendments, First Nation political leaders were not. Their exclusion was onereason they objected to the repatriation and successfully forced the deletion of amendments that would have seen the federal governmentabsolve itself of Constitutional responsibilities (Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, 1980, p. 14).Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 147NELof Consent, that the (British) Crown “would recognizethe lawful transfer of Indian lands to the Crown if, andonly if, the Indian Nations gave their consent” (Marule,1981, p. 3). Despite these legislative assurances, thestruggle for self-government has been paved with difficulties.One of the main goals in the quest for self-government has been for First Nations to hold the Crown andthe federal government accountable for the treaties andvarious political declarations that have been signed(Marule, 1981, p. 2). Many are versed in the legalese ofthe government and know that their rights cannot be soeasily extinguished without a complete repudiation bythe Crown and federal government of their own conventions and laws. In other words, they state that FirstNations “will never be legislated out of existence” (Unionof B.C. Indian Chiefs, 1980, p. 21).At the international level, the United NationsCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,Article 1, Part 1, states that “All peoples have the rightof self-determination. By virtue of that right they freelydetermine their political status and freely pursue theireconomic, social and cultural development” (Marule,1981, p. 16). Despite being a party to this internationaltreaty since 1976, the Canadian government has repeatedly denied First Nations the right to self-determination(that is, self-government).First Nations have identified specific recommendations to bring self-government to fruition. Due to theirdecentralized nature across the country, self-governingFirst Nations would not look like provinces. Rather,through a constitutional process, a First Nations legislative assembly would be the governing body for FirstNations people, and it would have the powers andresources of a provincial government, as well the rightsas spelled out in the treaties, such as fishing and hunting.It would also have powers over who can have membership in a Band, the administration of cultural, social,education, health and other services, and the administration of equalization payments that provinces are entitledto (Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, 1980).First Nations argue that the Indian Act and the otherstatutes should be answerable to the Charter of Rightsand Freedoms, which in theory supersedes all otherlegislation. However, as Marule (1981), the B.C. Union ofIndian Chiefs (1980), Flanagan, Alcantra, and Le Dressay(2011), and Dickason and Newbigging (2010) point out,the Indian Act continues to define Aboriginal rights,keeps Aboriginals separate from the rest of the population, and that assimilation has emphasized control overtheir improvement.Today’s Indigenous Resistance to ColonialismPerhaps the biggest Aboriginal movement today is IdleNo More. While it was started in Canada in 2012 by fourFirst Nations women from Saskatchewan, it has growninternationally as a vehicle to unite Aboriginal concernsfor self-government and environmental sustainability.They are on the front lines of pushing for decolonization.Idle No More asserts that non-Aboriginal Canadiansalso benefit from the disenfranchisement of Aboriginals,but do so at everyone’s peril as the skyrocketing costs ofincarceration, poor health, and exceedingly low post-secondary graduation rates for First Nations end up costingall Canadian taxpayers. They further argue that thedestruction of Canada’s natural environment as a resultof resource exploitation concerns all Canadians too.Through protests, speaking engagements, and publicity campaigns, they are aggressively pushing forAboriginal sovereignty in Canada and raising awareness of environmental issues, particularly the Albertaoil sands and the environmental destruction underwaythere (Donkin, 2013).Idle No More has also received considerable mediacoverage. One of their goals is to inform the publicabout the misdeeds and misinformation of the federalgovernment. They point out that the federal governmentcontinues to take an assimilationist approach to FirstNations. They suggest that the reason federal fundingfor many Aboriginal communities is so low is that thegovernment is trying to encourage Aboriginal people tomove off the reserve and into the cities, effectively beingassimilated.148 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELcOncLusIOnThis chapter has attempted to offer the reader a glimpse into some of the historicaland contemporary issues around the relationship of Canada and its First Nations.The events of the past few hundred years are far more complicated than what hasbeen discussed, but the discussion nonetheless offers insight into some of the mainthemes and circumstances facing First Nations.First Nations continue to live under the Indian Act. While there have been certain gains in self-government, such as the Nishga’a land claims settlement and thecreation of Nunavut, much more work needs to be done. Aboriginals have thehighest incarceration rates in Canada. While representing only 4 percent of thepopulation, they make up almost 24 percent of the prison population (Governmentof Canada, 2014). Education and housing issues continue to plague First Nationscommunities with 36 percent of First Nations youth graduating from high schoolcompared to 72 percent for the rest of the population. Suicide among Aboriginalyouth is 5 to 7 times the national average (Assembly of First Nations, 2012). Onmany First Nations reserves, boil water advisories are in effect due to water pollution (as along the MacKenzie River) and poor sanitation infrastructure. The failureof successive federal governments to adequately address these issues is one of theprimary reasons behind the First Nations quest for self-government.crItIcal thInkIng queStIonS1. How does the concept of equity play a role in hiringpractices?2. What is the relationship between poverty and othersocial inequalities? Why does socio-economics playsuch an important role in terms of its contribution toinequality?3. Discuss Canada’s image as an egalitarian multiculturalsociety internationally as it relates to global citizenship.4. Discuss the complexities of power and privilege as theyrelate to different aspects of our identity. How does thistranslate to our position in society and our experiencesof inequality?reFerenCeSAdams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (1997) Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York:Routledge.Adelman, H. S. (1992). The classification problem. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback,Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives. London: Alyyn andBacon.Anzovino, T., & Boutilier, D. (2015). Walk a mile: Experiencing and understanding diversity inCanada. Toronto: Nelson Education.Asch, M. (2002). Self-government in the new millenium. In J. Bird, L. Land, & M. McAdam(Eds.), Nation to nation. Aboriginal sovereignty and the future of Canada. Toronto: IrwinPublishing.Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 149NELAssembly of First Nations. (2012, October). A portrait of First Nations education. Retrievedfrom http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/events/fact_sheet-ccoe-3.pdfAxtel, J. (1998). Through another glass darkly: Early Indian views of Europeans. In K. S. Coates& R. Fisher (Eds.), Out of the background. Readings on Canadian Native history (2nd ed.).Scarborough, ON: Irwin Publishing, Thomson Nelson.Barman, J., Hebert, Y., & McCaskill, D. (1986). The legacy of the past: An overview. In Indianeducation in Canada: The Legacy (Vol 1). Vancouver: UBC Press.Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P.Griffin, P. (1997) Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge.Bottero, W. (2004). Stratification: Social division and inequality. Florence, KY: Routledge Taylorand Francis Group.CBC. (2013, September 10). Charter of Quebec values would ban religious symbols for publicworkers. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ montreal/charter-of-quebecvalues-would-ban-religious-symbols-for-public-workers-1.1699315Curtis, J., Grabb, E., & Guppy, N. (2004). Social inequality in Canada: Patterns, problems, andpolicies (4th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Publishers.Dickason, O. P., & Newbigging, W. (2010). A concise history of Canada’s First Nations (2nd ed.).Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Donkin, K. (2013, January 18). Idle No More: The rise of Pam Palmater. The Toronto Star.Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/weekend/2013/01/19/idle_no_more_the_rise_of_pam_palmater.htmlFlanagan, T., Alcantara, C., & Le Dressay, A. (2011). Beyond the Indian Act. RestoringAboriginal property rights (2nd ed.). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.Fleras, A. (2012). Unequal relations: An introduction to race, ethnic, and Aboriginal dynamics inCanada (7th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Publishers.Fraser, J. (2012). Canada’s income inequality: What is it, and how bad? Huffington Post.Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/27/canada-income-inequality-bynumbers_n_1545900.htmlFrideres, J. S. (2011). First Nations in the twenty-first century. Don Mills, ON: Oxford UniversityPress.Gibson, A. M. (1980). The American Indian. Prehistory and present. USA: D.C. Heath andCompany.Gilbert, D., & Kahl, J. A. (1998). The American class structure: A new synthesis (5th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Government of Canada. (2014). Office of the Correction Investigator. Backgrounder.Aboriginal offenders—A critical situation. Retrieved from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/oth-aut/oth-aut20121022info-eng.aspxGrabb, E. (2004). Conceptual issues in the study of social inequality. In J. Curtis, E. Grabb, &N. Guppy, Social inequality in Canada: Patterns, problems, and policies (4th ed.). Toronto:Pearson Publishers.150 Chapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in CanadaNELHarper, D. J. (2011). Social inequality and the diagnosis of paranoia. Health Sociology Review,20(4), 423–36.Harris, C. (1998). Voice of disaster: Smallpox around the Strait of Georgia in 1782. In K. S.Coates & R. Fisher (Eds.), Out of the background. Readings in Canadian Native history (2nded.). Scarborough, ON: Irwin Publishing.Hulchanski, D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto: Income polarization among Toronto’sneighbourhoods. Retrieved from http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/Three-Cities-Within-Toronto-2010-Final.pdfJianghe, N., & Rosenthal, S. A. (2009). Trust discrimination toward socially dominant andsubordinate social groups. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 501–09.Jordan, A. (2007) Introduction to inclusive education. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Kendall, D. (2010) Sociology in our times: The essentials. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Kendall, D., Lothian-Murray, J., & Linden, R. (2007). Sociology in our times. Toronto: NelsonEducation.Lilly, S. M. (1992) Labeling: A tired, overworked, yet unresolved issue in special education. InW. Stainback & S. Stainback, S., Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergentperspectives. London: Alyyn and Bacon.Long, D., & Dickason, O. P. (2011). Visions of the heart. Canadian Aboriginal issues (3rd ed.).Toronto: Oxford University Press.Lopes, T., & Thomas, B. (2006). Dancing on live embers: Challenging racism in institutions.Toronto: Between the Lines Publishing.Macdonald, D. (2014). Outrageous fortune: Documenting Canada’s wealth gap. CanadianCentre for Policy Alternatives. Retrieved from https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2014/04/Outrageous_Fortune.pdfMacKinnon, C. (1989). Equality rights: An overview of equality theories. Ottawa: NationalMeeting of Equality Seeking Groups. In T. Anzovino & D. Boutilier (2015), Walk a mile:Experiencing and understanding diversity in Canada. Toronto: Nelson Education.Marule, M. S. (Ed.). (1981). First Nations, states of Canada & United Kingdom: Patriationof the Canadian Constitution. Unpublished manuscript, prepared for ConstitutionalCommittee of the Chiefs of Alberta.McGregor, H. E. (2010). Inuit education and schools in the eastern Arctic. Vancouver: UBCPress.McPherson, K. (2013). Moving to equity and advancing equality. In GNED500 GlobalCitizenship: From Social Analysis to Social Action. Toronto: Pearson Publishers Custom.Miller, J. R. (2009). Compact, contract, covenant. Aboriginal treating-making in Canada.University of Toronto Press. Toronto.Minister of Justice. (2003). Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Government of Canada. Retrievedfrom http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-18.7.pdfMinistry of Economic Development, Trade, and Employment. (2013). Understanding barriersto accessibility. Retrieved from http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/accessibility/understanding_accessibility/understanding_barriers.aspxChapter 7 Tracing History: Equality, Equity, and Inequality in Canada 151NELPersson, D. (1986). The changing experience of Indian residential schooling: Blue quills, 1931–1970. In Indian education in Canada: The Legacy (Vol 1). Vancouver: UBC Press.Ray, A. (1998). Periodic shortages, Native welfare, and the Hudson’s Bay Company 1670–1930.In Out of the background. Readings on Canadian native history (2nd ed.). Scarborough, ON:Irwin Publishing, Thomson Nelson.Regan, P. (2010). Unsettling the settler within. Indian residential schools, truth telling, andreconciliation in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Robbins, W. J. (2012). Discriminatory rationalization: The equity/excellence debate in Canada.Forum on Public Policy. Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/vol2012.no2/archive/robbins.pdfSavage, M., Devine, F., Cunningham, N., Taylor, M., Li, Y., Hjellbrekke, J., Le Roux, B.,Friedman, S., & Miles, A. (2013). A new model of social class: Findings from the BBC’sGreat British class survey experiment. Sociology, 1–32. doi: 10.1177/0038038513481128Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2012). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts insocial justice education. New York: Teachers College Press.Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1992) Controversial issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.Statistics Canada. (2011). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada. Governmentof Canada. National Household Survey. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhsenm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.pdfStatistics Canada. (2013). Low income cut-offs. Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75f0002m/2012002/lico-sfr-eng.htmStatistics Canada. (2013). Economic well-being. Women in Canada: A gender-based statisticalreport. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11388-eng.htmTailfeathers, R. (2012, January). Niitsitapi—A resilient people. In Blood tribe chief and councilreview. Tsinikssini, 4(1). Retrieved from http://newsletters.bloodtribe.org/2012/JAN2012.pdfThobani, S. (2007) Exalted subjects: Studies in the making of race and nation in Canada.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Tobias, J. L. (1998). Canada’s subjugation of the Plains Cree, 1879–1885. In Out of thebackground. Readings on Canadian native history (2nd ed.). Scarborough, ON: IrwinPublishing, Thomson Nelson.Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. (1980, October). Indians and the Canadian Constitution. Aposition paper. Vancouver: Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.United Way Toronto. (2004). Poverty by postal code: The geography of neighbourhood povertyCity of Toronto, 1981–2001. Retrieved from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/PovertybyPostalCodeFinal.pdfUpton, L. (1977). The extermination of the Beothucks of Newfoundland. Canadian HistoricalReview, 58, 144–53.Zuriff, G. E. (1996, October). The myth of learning disabilities: The social construction of adisorder. Public Affairs Quarterly, 10(4), 276.