Canadian social welfare: impacts of governance on indigenous people

Canadian Social Welfare: Impacts of Governance on Indigenous People

Introduction to Indigenous Social Welfare (2021SP)

ISWK 1006 EL12

July 8th, 2021

Introduction

          The current division of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments might be continuing the negative experiences of Indigenous People. Historically, both the Federal and Provincial authorities interfered with the livelihoods of Indigenous communities. Europeans created both governments based on their values and principles. These ideas differed significantly from those of Indigenous People. For one, European governance was individualistic, focusing on independence, power, and authority. Christian values often dictated the ways and structures under early European governments. From the onset, European interaction came with a price for Indigenous People. Throughout history, Indigenous People have faced pressure to change their ways and embrace wester values and structure: assimilation. These perceptions and expectations stem from European’s governance and values.

        On the other hand, Indigenous People valued self-governance and communal structures.

Here, the well-being of the community was more important than individual needs. Canadian systems morphed from the European structures that white settlers established. A historical and contemporary analysis shows that the provincial and federal governments developed welfare programs based on control. For Indigenous communities, the values of contemporary governance continued to present disadvantages. The federal and provincial governments have a long way before they can establish fair systems for all communities, especially to Indigenous People.

Historical Realities

1. Pre-European Contact

Indigenous People had an active social system before coming to contact with Europeans.

During this period, Indigenous communities created structures that worked best for the different communities. Anne-Marie Mawhiney and Sheila Hardy (2009) explained that the Anishinaabe community valued communal interests over individual ones. In the setting, all community members were equal except the council of Elders (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). This perspective meant that everyone’s well-being and contribution to this survival were vital. As a result, a balance of labor between men and women was necessary. This way, the community could meet all its needs as a group. In the Anishinaabe community, women cared for children, provided clothing and shelter, and gathered and prepared food (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). Men, on the other hand, harvested and ensured that the community was safe and secure. This clear role division contributed to the social harmony within Indigenous community. Everyone’s role was also seen as equal valuable to the survival of the community.

         The social welfare system also ensured that children and young people understood the group’s values. In most communities, the council of Elders took this responsibility. They created system that ensured that children learned “the ways of living, beliefs, and values” (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). This approach was logical because Elders knew more about the community, its ancestral roots and traditions compared to other members. In some cases, other older people also became role models within the community. These individuals showed the importance of community values through their lifestyles (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). One can compare this to small communal settings where everyone feels responsible for children’s upbringing.  AS a result, they try their best to guide young people through advice and action. In such settings, culture, morality, and responsibility are almost sacred element. A community that losses its values almost losses its identity and connection to the ancestors. Therefore, a collective responsibility seems like the best way of protecting the community.

1. Early European Contact and its Impact

The egalitarian structures of Indigenous People contrasted European way of individuality and superiority. European contact led to abrupt changes in the social welfare structure. As Mawhiney and Hardy (2009) explain, the main goal of Europeans was civilization.

This objective meant that their invasion would lead to the destruction of communal structures and value systems. One of the first elements to be affected was religion. In most accounts of European explorers, the communities they encountered were “savages” or “primitive”. As a result, one of the main goals was to assimilate or civilize The Indigenous People. Conversion to Christianity was rampant, with the messaging that it was the true and superior religion (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). This conversion meant an abandonment of Indigenous People’s beliefs and complete devotion to Christian teachings. In some cases, conversion was tied to the worthiness of an individual because one’s worth was measured against European self-appointed superiority (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). Social, identity, and territorial conflicts are inevitable under such inconsiderate circumstances.

           European individuality also ignored the existing collaborative systems. A communal structure that values everyone does not align with capitalism or faster economic development. As a result, Europeans introduced trade and other new economic systems (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). Here, Indigenous People were convinced to give up their valuable in exchange for what Europeans offered. This system benefitted Europeans for some time because it gave them access to new things. However, their attitude changed as soon as the benefits decreased. The next step became a scrumble for the ownership of North America (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). French and British took different approaches to the colonization process. These differences blinded the two parties on the value of existing Indigenous People community system. Instead, the focus became covering and introducing the most territories to the varied European ways. It was at this point that Indigenous People started losing their land rights (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). At the time, only the French and British Crowns had ownership.

            Meanwhile, Indigenous communities had no choices. European settlers put up permanent structures in these new regions. This new settlement compromised community resources and overall ownership. However, this practice did not happen immediately in all territories. The Europeans were only interested in the resources in some regions, not the land. In Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, the cod stock became an attraction for European governments (Higgins,2016). As a result, they settled in this area in the 1800s. Still, the Indigenous communities in this area suffered an economic and cultural loss. Missionaries settled in the area to spread Christianity (Higgins, 2016). These missionary stations came with educational and health benefits. At the same time, the stations gave access to European traders, allowing them to take over the fishery trade (Higgins, 2016). In the end, the minimal European contact still affected the social welfare of some of the Indigenous tribes. Those that managed to avoid European contact avoided its impacts until the establishment of permanent government.

1. Government Establishment and Control

As Europeans settled in North America, they established government systems that controlled other important structures. This action ended the self-governance of individual in the Indigenous communities. As mentioned above, every Indigenous community had unique system and structures. These institutions were tailored to communal needs and practices. The abrupt changes that came with the French and English settlers threatened the well-being of the Indigenous People. European governance came with legislation that governed all communities. In the beginning, the government used laws to re-establish relations with Indigenous People. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 allowed tribal councils to maintain decision-making powers in their communities (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). This move was seen as a positive step by some because First Nations maintained a level of self-governance. The continued guidance of tribal councils would have also protected culture and heritage.

             However, this change did not last. In 1857, the British established the Gradual Civilization Act. This new legislation introduced the concept of enfranchisement. At the time, colonizers falsely presented enfranchisement as a progressive concept that would allow Indigenous People to own land (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). Although, this concept was another attempt to erase the Indian Identity and promote a Euro-Canadian culture.

Kanatase Horn (2013) expands on this reality explaining that it labelled Indians as different and unworthy. Horn (2013) adds that:

              “In order to gain the respect of dominant society, it was expected that would    Indians shed their legal status as Indian, which meant renouncing their Indigenous identity, their ties to the community, their familial bonds, and their cultural traditions in order to gain colonial citizenship and individual property rights to a parcel of reserve land (p.28).”

Essentially, the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 was an attempt to literally “civilize” Indigenous communities. Another goal of the act was to move small groups of indigenous communities into reserves (Mawhiney & Hardy, 2009). Fortunately, the Gradual Civilization Act was a failure because most Indians rejected its requirements.