Analysis Of Akwesasne : This Is Indian Land

Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian tells the story of Indigenous people in Canada and the United States, it challenges the narrative on how Indigenous history is taught and explains why Indigenous people continue to feel frustrated. King’s seeks to educate the reader as he provides a detailed accounts of the horrific massacres Indigenous people endured, yet he simultaneously inserts humorous moments which balances out the depressing content and enhances his story. The books highlights the neglect and assimilation that Indigenous were subjected to and how their survival was seen as an inconvenience to western culture. King directs his message at a Euro-centric audience to offer an accurate explanation of Indigenous culture and

Giangrande (1990) often relies on an emotional appeal of individual members of tribes, which show the abuse of indigenous peoples in a white Canadian society. Certainly, Giangrande is a journalist that gets does direct interviews with indigenous peoples , which reveals a pattern of logos in data collecting methodology. However, these interviews are based on “individual accounts” of indigenous rights

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

The 1960’s and 70’s were a turbulent time in the United States, as many minority groups took to the streets to voice their displeasure with policies that affected them. During this time period a large movement for civil rights, including Native American’s, would seek to find their voices, as largely urbanized groups sought ways in which they could reconnect with their tribe and their cultural history. In their book, Like A Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee, Paul Chaat Smith, and Robert Allen Warrior take an extensive look at the events leading up to the three of the largest civil rights movements carried out by Native Americans. Beginning with the takeover of Alcatraz Island in the San Francisco Bay by Indians of All Tribes in 1969; the authors tell in a vivid fashion of the Bay Area activism and Clyde Warrior 's National Indian Youth Council, Vine Deloria Jr.’s leadership of the National Congress of Indians, the Trail of Broken Treaties and the Bureau of Indian Affairs takeover, the Wounded Knee Occupation and the rise of the American Indian Movement.

Although the horrors of the American Civil War and Reconstruction within Indian Territory were fresh. Yet, the presence of Indian Territory changed drastically between 1865 and 1889, because of the “Second Trail of Tears”, the unrest of the Southern Plains tribes of western Indian Territory, and the impact of U.S. Polices on Indian Territory.

Throughout history, the Native people of North America and the Europeans have continually had arguments and disputes over land. To this day there are still issues trying to be resolved. Twenty years ago, the beginning of one of the most violent and intense land disputes in present day Canada occurred. This event is now referred to as the Oka Crisis, named after the town Oka in Quebec. This crisis caused a confrontation involving the Quebec provincial police, the Canadian armed forces and the Mohawk people.1 The stand that the Mohawk people took in the town of Oka became a major revelation for the aboriginal people spreading awareness of aboriginal rights across Canada.

The film Highway of Tears brought to light many issues faced by Indigenous persons however, its main focus was the missing and murdered women found along Highway 16 in Northern British Columbia. Majority of the women who are missing as well as those who were murdered are Indigenous women. This film displayed that although there are ways to prevent and possibly end the violence against Aboriginal women, no action was being taken by police or other government agents to do so. It was discussed how this as well as other wrongs done to Indigenous persons and communities, is a result of past and present colonialism.

If their chief sign a treaty they have to commit a promise that they are moving from their land. Some of the chief agree to move so nobody of their people get killed. The Cherokee leaders sign a treaty to move so the cherokees have to leave from their land and nobody won’t be harm.

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

Our nation’s history has been deep rooted in the conflict involving Native Americans, ever since the beginning of America and it is one hard to get rid of even as the days go by. The impact of colonialism can be seen in Native American communities even today, and it can only be understood through a cultural perspective once you experience it. Aaron Huey, who is a photographer, went to Pine Ridge reservation and it led him to document the poverty and issues that the Sioux Indians go through as a result of the United States government’s long term actions and policies against them. One must question all sources regarding these topics because there is a lot of biased and misinformation about Native American struggles, and sometimes schools do not thoroughly teach the truth so students can get an insight. There are also different sociological perspectives in this conflict, along with many differing opinions on how to approach the problem and deal with it. This is where ideas clash because people believe their views are right regarding how to handle it.

One major reading that contests this idea of sovereignty is the book Mohawk Interruptus by Audra Simpson, which discusses the trials of Native American populations and their efforts to reclaim their own sovereignty. Within Mohawk Interruptus, the people of the Kahnawá:ke tribe struggle against the colonial idea of American or Canadian sovereignty lorded over them, and through refusal of such “gifts” regain their sovereignty. “… Kahnawa’kehró:non had refused the authority of the state at almost every turn and in so doing reinstated a different political authority” (Simpson, 2014, 106). Through these rejections, the people of Kahnawá:ke and Kahnawa’kehró:non established that the current system of sovereignty does not work for them, as it is colonially based to oppress the Native American communities. Simpson uses these examples to make a larger point on the Western systems of governance and understandings of authority. Though this idea of sovereignty, Simpson argues, was a way to appropriate land and incorporate or destroy opposing cultures.

No analysis of violence against Indigenous women can be made without first looking at colonization as the antipasto of the conflict (Cooper & Salomons 2010). “It is thus paramount to understand the context of colonisation in Canada in order to begin to understand the structural problems and barriers that lead to serious numbers of missing and murder Indigenous women in Canada.” (Cooper & Salomons 2010, 31). When the Europeans first came to “turtle Island” they were “highly dependent” on the assistance of Indigenous women (Cooper & Salomons 2010). However when the Euro-North American governments were forming, the issue of ownership of land became significant. “As the settler society

Power can be viewed as the ability to influence and/or control others. Another flaw about reservations is the fact that they are not totally governed by Native American representatives. The U.S. government actually has tight control over the majority, if not all, reservations (Perry, 2002, p 233). This tight control has left the Native American population powerless in terms of self- regulation. Despite the fact that Native American government do exist,

The migration of European settlers and culture to North America is an often examined area. One aspect of this, however, is worthy of deeper analysis. The conquest of North America by Europeans and American settlers from the 16th to 19th centuries had a profound effect on the indigenous political landscape by defining a new relationship dynamic between natives and settlers, by upsetting existing native political, economic and military structures, and by establishing a paradigm where the indigenous peoples felt they had to resist the European and American incursions. The engaging and brilliant works of Andres Rensendez and Steve Inskeep, entitled respectively “A Land So Strange” and “Jacksonland”, provide excellent insights and aide to this analysis.

In Chapter 6, Wilkins discusses how the disclaimer clauses. These clauses keep states from exercising authority on Indian land (180). They are an “important but often overlooked tool in the arsenal available to tribes to assert their own sovereignty against state threats” (177). A specific example of a disclaimer clause is Wisconsin’s territorial disclaimer of 1836 which prohibited territories or states from having any authority on Indian land (180). In Native American Church v. Navajo Tribal Council (1959) it was declared that Indian tribes actually have a higher status than states (179). This was a major victory for Indians in their fight for sovereignty. United States v. Rickert (1903) was also a win for sovereignty in that the Court prohibited South Dakota from taxing Indian land (185).After the verdict in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), the balance of power between state and federal government leaned towards the states. Before this, negotiations with tribes had been conducted at the federal level and not with states (187). This was against the idea of sovereignty because now the states had more power over the tribes and could abuse that power for personal gain.