Pol111h5: Issues with Native Sovereignty in Canada

...

The Aboriginals and Canadians would not be able to live together in political harmony. If an ethnically defined system of government was put into place, both groups would be obliged to live under the respective laws of their state. Roger Townshend states that most Aboriginal people view the power of the Canadian state as “illegitimate, oppressive, and infringing on Aboriginal governance powers.” (Townshend, 37) The conflict in political views would make law enforcement difficult. The court systems of both states would have to work communally in order to ensure justice. Aboriginals within the Canadian state would be subject to Canadian laws, which, as previously stated, they do not feel apply to them. This scenario would likely cause chaos and animosity between the two nations. As Charles Tilly said, “States are relatively centralized, differentiated organizations, the officials of which, more or less, successfully claim control over the chief concentrated means of violence within a population inhabiting a large, contiguous territory.” In this sense, Natives would have a difficult time controlling violence in their state, and would therefore fail to live up to Tilly’s definition of the state.

Although the Aboriginal community shows a strong sense of entitlement as well as resentment for the Canadian government, they will not be able to sustain an independent state. The absence of a clearly marked territory would make it difficult to define their territory. It is evident that Natives have not yet achieved sovereignty over what they believe to be their rightful land. However, time has told that Canada ultimately governs the Northern American lands, and she does so modestly.

Bibliography

Flanagan, Thomas. "Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?." Contemporary Political Issues. no. 6th (2009): 43-50.

Townshend, Roger. "The Case for Native Sovereignty." Contemporary Political Issues. no. 6th (2009): 37-42