empty, half-full or full “medicine chest” › francisadufebiri › wp-content › uploads ›...

Empty, Half-Full or Full “Medicine Chest”

CONTROVERSIES ON SOVEREIGNTY IN INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE IN CANADA

© Dr. Francis Adu-Febiri, 2017

02/03/2020 1© Dr. Francis Adu-Febiri 2020

Presentation Contents

• Introduction: Medicine Chest, Central Question, Main Thesis, and Main Argument

• Major Concepts

• Models of Governance• Western: Power Model• Indigenous: Empowerment Model• The Nisga’a Model

• Agendas of Indigenous Governance• Neo-colonization Agenda• Decolonization Agenda

• Theoretical Perspectives of Indigenous governance controversy• Functionalism• Social Conflict• Feminism• Interactionism• Postmodernism• Poststructuralism• Postcolonialism• Indigenous

• Breakthroughs in the Indigenous governance controversy

• Conclusion: Sustainable governance or Types of self-government?

02/03/2020 2

02/03/2020 3

•MOTIVATE:•Why we should care about the structures and dynamics of Indigenous governance models in Canada

02/03/2020 4

Introduction: MEDICINE CHEST: A Metaphor of Sovereignty in Canada’s

Indigenous Governance Models

In this presentation, the “Medicine Chest” is used as a metaphor for Indigenous Governance models that the Canadian government is offering to Indigenous people of Canada: No sovereignty for Indigenous peoples.

– “[a] medicine chest will be kept at the house of each Indian agent, in case of sickness amongst you.”

(http://www.naho.ca/documents/naho/english/publications/DP_righ

ts.pdf)

Introduction: MEDICINE CHEST

• 3.3 Treaty Right to Medicines

• Treaty 6 contained two clauses that are of importance when discussing a treaty right to health. In addition to the pestilence clause discussed above, Treaty 6 is the only treaty to have specifically included medical care in the written text of the treaty itself. Treaty 6 contained the following clause concerning the provision of a medicine chest: That a medicine chest shall be kept at the house of each Indian Agent for the use and benefit of the Indians at the direction of such agent. The Indians articulated to Morris that they required “provisions for the poor, unfortunate, blind and the lame,” “…a free supply of medicines.” The report filed by Morris is silent concerning a response to the request for medicine. However, the records of Dr. A.G. Jackes, acting as the Secretary of the Treaty Commission, recorded the Indians’ request that medicine be provided free of charge. Dr. Jackes also recorded the response from Treaty Commissioner Morris: “[a] medicine chest will be kept at the house of each Indian agent, in case of sickness amongst you.” While there is no written reference made to health matters outside of Treaty 6, the federal government has acknowledged, “similar verbal undertakings were made by treaty commissioners when negotiating treaties 7, 8, 10, and 11.” There is evidence that ill health, disease, and the suffering brought to the Indians by the European settlers played a critical role in the decision to enter into treaties (http://www.naho.ca/documents/naho/english/publications/DP_rights.pdf).

02/03/2020 5

Introduction:

Central Question and Main Thesis

• MAIN THEME:

• Indigenous Governance

• CENTRAL QUESTION:

• What are the significance and implications of the difference in the self-governance models Indigenous communities demand and the self-governance templates the Canadian state offers?

• MAIN THESIS:

• The significance of the difference in the two different governance models lies in the irreconcilable conflict between Canadian government’s agenda of neo-colonization (no sovereignty) and Indigenous vision of de-colonization and Indigenization (sovereignty).

02/03/2020 6

Introduction: Main Argument

• The models of governance, particularly the self-governance templates the Canadian government offers Indigenous communities, represent the “medicine chest” (no sovereignty) approach to Indigenous governance that the First Nations have rejected over and over again. The Sechelt, Alberta Metis Settlements, and Nunavut templates are mere repackaging of this “medicine chest” or neocolonial model of Indigenous governance that denies the sovereignty of Indigenous communities and their Aboriginal title.

• This template is in contrast to the First Nations empowerment or de-colonization model of “Aboriginal governance which seeks for sovereign independent Aboriginal nation- states” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 251).

• Given that Canada is a settler postcolonial state that operates a power model of governance and the fact that Indigenous communities in Canada are dispersed, it is not likely that the Canadian government will grant the sovereign independence or empowerment governance model or nation-to-nation political relations that Indigenous communities demand to indigenize governance. Under these conditions, what is likely is at best a “full medicine chest” which is a metaphor for a delegated model of self-governance which may not meet the Indigenous expectation of sustainable governace.

02/03/2020 7

02/03/2020 8

•EXPLORE:•To know, understand, and apply the key concepts of Indigenous governance in a settler colony like Canada

MAJOR CONCEPTS

• Models of governance

• Power model

• Indigenous governance

• Empowerment or Consensus governance or Decolonization model

• Sovereignty

• Neo-colonial model

• Aboriginal title

• Self-government

• Aboriginal nation states

• Settler postcolonial state

• Sustainable governance

02/03/2020 9

MODELS OF GOVERNANCE

•1. Power Model: “Control Governance”•2. Empowerment Model: “Consensus Governance”•3. Combinations: “Fusion Governance”

02/03/2020 10

02/03/2020 11

RELATIONAL POWER:

AUTHORITY: Legitimate Power:

Compliance

to command because it is

perceived as legitimate:

Traditional or Legal-Rational or

Charismatic

CONTROL GOVERNANCE:

Distribution and Exercise of

Power: Sovereignty vs Delegation.

POWER: Ability to compel compliance

REPRESSIVE POWER:

DOMINATION: Illegitimate Power:

Power

relations in which regular

pattern of inequality is

established, whereby the

subordinate accepts that

position, obeying the

commands of the dominant mainly

because of fear of violence/suffering

1. WESTERN MODEL OF GOVERNANCE: POWER MODEL

FORCE

SOVEREIGNTY

THE POWER MODEL ILLUSTRATED

Culture and Visual Forms of Power: Experiencing Contemporary Spaces of ResistanceLidai K.C. Monzo (2015)

• Today, culture can be seen as a specific field in which “power” is exercised. In particular, questions about the nature of power are addressed. The editors suggest two points in the discussion: how is reality constructed, and how is it connected with power? What is the real space for subject freedom? Foucault’s idea of “power” is that it is not a thing, but a relation. Power is not merely repressive (like the use of violent control mechanisms in the pre-modern era), but it is productive as well as an everyday disciplinary practice. In reality Power is dispersed (commongroundpublishing.com).

02/03/2020 12

2. INDIGENOUS MODEL OF GOVERNANCE: EMPOWERMENT MODEL

•Consensus Governance•Structure of government may be hierarchical/centralized, acephalous, or segmented while the dynamics of governance is, to a large extent, egalitarian.

02/03/2020 13

EMPOWERMENT DEFINED

•Empowerment is “the expansion of assets and capabilities of people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control, and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives” (World Bank, 2002).

02/03/2020 14

EMPOWERMENT DEFINED

• “Empowered people have freedom of choice and action. This in turn enables them to better influence the course of their lives and the decisions which affect them”(World Bank 2002).

•Reference: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTEMPOWERMENT/0,,contentMDK:20244572~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:486411,00.html

02/03/2020 15

02/03/2020 16

• THE NISGA’A GOVERNANCE MODEL

THE NISGA’A GOVERNANCE MODEL: No Sovereignty or Sovereignty?

• Control Governance vs. Consensus Governance:

•Over one hundred years of rejection, in 1999 the Nisga’a signed a treaty that gives them self-government powers akin to municipal government, land, resource rights and cash. Under the treaty, they will once again govern themselves by their own institutions within the context of Canadian law…The Nisga’a will be allowed once again to follow their ayuukh, their code of law under their own government and self-determination (Steritt 1998-99: 73).•Do see any contradictions? Is this real sovereignty?

02/03/2020 17


• The Nisga’s self-government template is the latest among a series of templates the Canadian government has offered/proposed to Indigenous peoples of Canada. At best this template is a “full medicine chest” model of governance. Indigenous peoples don’t get sovereignty.

02/03/2020 18


• FRANK CALDER’S REMARKS after Parliament passed the Nisga’a Treaty • We are now liberated, that is what is going on here… Now we’re free to

exercise what we wanted to do, instead of remaining under the confinement of the reservation. The reservation, and to get out of it, that’s the main theme of what we’re doing (Matas 1999).

02/03/2020 19

THE REAL MEANING OF THE “MEDICINE CHEST” CONTROVERSY

•Neo-colonization (No Sovereignty) Versus Decolonization (Sovereignty)

02/03/2020 20

02/03/2020 21

• NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

• THE NECESSITY:

• By colonizing Indigenous people, EuroCanadians have had full access to material resources of Canada. To maintain this access colonization must continue. However, in the face of increased sophistication of Indigenous resistance and conventions of international human rights, it is politically incorrect to pursue classic/blatant colonialism. Hence Canadian government’s proposals of Indigenous governance templates since the 1970s that have the guise of self-government but maintain the core of colonialism. This is neo-colonialism.

02/03/2020 22


•THE EVIDENCE:

•1. Interpretations of Indigenous Governance:

•a) According to the Canadian government, “Indians, Inuit, and Metis were never nations in the legal sense and are not now to be treated as such” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001 : 236). Treaties signed with Aboriginals are not equal to that signed between other sovereign international peoples or nations. Indigenous people cannot therefore be accorded with full political autonomy (ibid.).

02/03/2020 23


• b) Indigenous claim to sovereignty is false: Any sovereignty that existed in Canada was vested in the Crown.

• According to the government, the following charters, treaties and acts of parliament phased out any Indigenous sovereignty in Canada (Frideres and Gadacz 2001):• Royal Charters including the Hudson Bay Company Charter of 1670.• Treaty of Utrecht: 1713.• Various treaties in 1725 between Indians and the British.• The Royal Proclamation of 1763.• The Constitution Act 1867 (BNA Act).• Rupert’s Land Transfer Act 1868• The Indian Act of 1876.• The Constitution Act of 1982.

02/03/2020 24


• 2. Canadian government’s unilateral introduction of rehashed versions of the 1876 Indian Act’s band Aboriginal self-government policy. This policy has been delegation of power to Aboriginals not recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty. The latest is the First Nations Governance Act (FNGA) 2003.

• This conclusion is borne out by a content analysis of the following positions of the Canadian government on Indigenous self-government:

02/03/2020 25


• A). The extent and division of powers between the federal and provincial government will not be changed through self-government negotiations.

• B). There will be an attempt to accommodate Indigenous self-governments within the existing Canadian constitutional framework.

• C). The resultant self-government structures must conform to the established principles, jurisdictions, and institutions of Canadian jurisprudence.

02/03/2020 26


• The Canadian government introduced First Nations self-government policy in 1986, and the government began negotiating with specific Indigenous communities. Each band is given the opportunity to choose the form and structure of its self-government within the framework of the community-based self-government template:• The Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, 1986.• Community-based self government, 1986.• Municipal style government.

• This form of “Aboriginal self-government does not include a right of sovereignty in the international law sense, nor will it result in sovereign independent Aboriginal nation states” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 251).

02/03/2020 27


•The “hidden” agenda of the community-based self-government template:• The structure of this “new” forms of self-government

would ensure that concern and hostility would be deflected to local leadership, not Indian Affairs personnel. Finally, the acceptance of the municipal style government by Indigenous people would lead to the acceptance of the dominant society’s culture and values, thus ensuring the further assimilation of Indigenous persons (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 256).

02/03/2020 28

NEO-COLONIZATION AGENDA OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE• Indigenous peoples’ responses to the community-

based self-government template:•1. Non-Status Indians, Inuit, Metis, and some First

Nations communities have bought into the Canadian state’s neocolonial template of Indigenous governance for pragmatic reasons.•2. Sechelt and a few other First Nations communities

have accepted municipal type governance template.•3. Nunavut preferred provincial-type governance but

settled for a municipal-type government writ large (Steckley and Cummins, 2008, p. 253).

02/03/2020 29


• 4. Non-status Indians and Metis “have publicly accepted the fact that any government for them will have to be delegated by either the provincial or the federal government” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 245) .

• 5. Metis Settlement Governance Model of Alberta is an old [internal colonial] structure infused with contemporary management notions and practices (Wall 2000).

02/03/2020 30

02/03/2020 31

• DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

DECOLONIZATION AGENDA OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

• In contrast to the neocolonial control governance template offered by the government, most First Nations “have insisted that their inherent sovereignty defines and formalizes them as a fourth level of government” in Canada (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 245).

• For some First Nations “a fourth level of government” means “internal sovereignty”, while for others it means “full independence.”

02/03/2020 32


• Internal Sovereignty: This is partial sovereignty; the freedom to regulate certain of their own affairs without interference from outside (Kulchynski 1994).

•Full Independence: This is full sovereignty; a complete control over their own affairs; does not receive its “enabling organizational act” from either the federal or the provincial government; similar to pre-contact traditional Indigenous governance.

02/03/2020 33


• The Aboriginal decolonization agenda of governance demands self-government derived from “Aboriginal title and not from Parliament” (Tennant 1984). This demand is premised on the fact that Aboriginal societies originally had a system of self-government that was in complete control over their internal and external relations (Boldt et al 1985).

02/03/2020 34


•First Nations leaders cite the following as a proof of pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty: These charters, treaties, and legislation recognized that “Indians existed as nations” (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 236-7).• Royal Charters including the Hudson Bay Company Charter of 1670.• Treaty of Utrecht: 1713.• Various treaties in 1725 between Indians and the British.• The Royal Proclamation of 1763.• The Constitution Act 1867 (BNA Act).• Rupert’s Land Transfer Act 1868.• The Indian Act.• The Constitution Act of 1982.

02/03/2020 35


•Based upon these evidences, does the Supreme Court has supported Aboriginal sovereignty? For example,

• In the Delgamuukw case, the Chief Justice noted that the Crown is under a moral, if not a legal duty to enter negotiations with Aboriginal people in good faith with the objective to achieve reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown (Laselva 1998-99).

02/03/2020 36


• The evidences shown above seem to suggest that Aboriginals have pre-existing sovereignty.

• However, the Crown has presented the following arguments purported to refute these claims of sovereignty (Frideres and Gadacz 2001: 238):

• 1. The continuity doctrine: in the case of conquest or cessation the sovereignty of a “civilized” original people continues until they change it through their own act of parliament.

• 2. The Royal Proclamation states that the British became the sovereign after the proclamation.

• 3. Canadian courts have concluded that European treaties with the Aboriginals were not international treaties. Moreover, no continuing right to self-government is mentioned in any of the treaties.

02/03/2020 37


• Given the arguments of the federal government and the judicial system’s lack of power to enforce its decisions, Frideres and Gadacz (2001: 238) may be right when they conclude that:

• “It is unlikely that the courts or the government will ever find Aboriginal peoples to have sovereignty.”

02/03/2020 38

02/03/2020 39

•CREATE:•Be a Changemaker; be a Gamechanger

CREATIVITY & INNOVATION EXERCISE

• Critically review the remaining slides.• 1. Use the knowledge you gained to come up with creative idea(s) and related

innovative design(s) to implement them in ways that could facilitate Indigenous peoples’ efforts to attain substantive sovereignty in Canada. Provide a brief description and a diagram of your design coordinating processes/steps, tasks, people, and resources)

• 2. Use your creative idea(s) or innovative design(s) to assess any one of the sociological paradigms.

• Put on paper your idea(s), design(s) and assessment. Submit them for 2 bonus marks.

02/03/2020 40

INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY: SOURCES AND SOLUTIONS

• “Aboriginal people still argue that they have sovereignty; the government says they don’t.” (Frideres and Gadacz (2001: 238)• If the controversy is settled in favor of the

Indigenous peoples they would achieve self-government beyond the municipal-government style that the Canadian government has offered. •On the other hand, if it is settled in favor of the

government, as the case is now, Indigenous peoples have to settle for limited control type of self-government.

02/03/2020 41

INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY: SOURCES AND SOLUTIONS

•What is the feasibility of Indigenous peoples in Canada realizing the “Fourth Level of Government” vision? •Fourth level of government is full independence•Full Independence: a complete control over their

own affairs; does not receive its “enabling organizational act” from neither the federal or the provincial government; similar to pre-contact traditional Indigenous governance.•What are the positions of the sociological

paradigms on this controversy?

02/03/2020 42

02/03/2020 43

•THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

FUNCTIONALIST POSITION ON INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Cause: Dysfunctional Aboriginal Political Culture:

• The controversy is the result of the dysfunctional Aboriginal political culture in contemporary Canada. Demand for Aboriginal sovereignty is unreasonable given that it would cause so many problems (dysfunctions) that would disrupt the balance (homeostasis) of Canadian social structure:

02/03/2020 44


•Dysfunctions of Aboriginal sovereignty:• From a practical point of view it would be unwieldy to operate over 500

governments in Canada; the economic implications of such an arrangement would be staggering (Mickingberg 1971).

• Politically speaking, a fourth level Aboriginal self-government will not be a palatable solution to most Canadians (Frideres and Gadacz 2001).

• Pragmatically, it would require a substantial overhaul of Canadian democratic system (Jhappan 1990).

02/03/2020 45


• Solution: Assimilation

•The limited control or municipal type self-government currently being offered is the solution because it would facilitate the assimilation of Aboriginal political culture into Canadian governmental system without much disruptions in Canadian society.

• Many Aboriginal communities have bought into that template already.

• What is the main flaw of this position?

02/03/2020 46

SOCIAL CONFLICT POSITION ON INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Cause: Competition over Resources:

• Industrial capitalist economic processes require that internal colonialism is entrenched over Indigenous peoples to give a competitive advantage to EuroCanadian capitalists. Indigenous peoples’ resistance aimed at achieving a fourth level of government is a logical response to this disguised class inequality.

02/03/2020 47

SOCIAL CONFLICT POSITION ON INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Solution: Proletariat Revolution• It is only when Indigenous people join the proletariats of all other racial

groups in Canada to use militant means to overthrow capitalism that true Indigenous sovereignty would be re-established.

• What is the main flaw in this position?

02/03/2020 48

FEMINIST POSITION ON INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Cause: Feminization of Aboriginality: Western Patriarchy

• The feminist paradigm postulates that controversy over Indigenous governance is caused by feminization of Aboriginality: the ideology that Indigenous peoples are not human enough or sufficiently “developed” to make major political decisions to effectively manage a fourth level government.

• Solution: Elimination of Western Patriarchy

• Indigenous self-government would occur beyond the municipal type government only when western patriarchy is no more. Indigenous peoples should therefore join the feminist movement to eliminate western patriarchy.


02/03/2020 49

INTERACTIONIST POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Cause: Differential Definition of good governance:

• The Western definition of governance in terms that favor individualism and hierarchically organized and impersonal politics is antithetical to Indigenous traditional definition of governance. For the western political mind a fourth level of government in Canada symbolizes chaos, but for the Indigenous political mind this form of governance is a symbol of equality in sharing power—empowerment--the most viable way to organize politics.

• The interaction between these definitions generates changing perceptions of governance, thus constantly changing the emphasis of the Indigenous governance controversy.

02/03/2020 50

INTERACTIONIST POSITION ON THE ABORIGINAL GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•Solution: Continuous re-definition and negotiation:

•The controversy demands continuous negotiations between the government and Indigenous political leaders as action units or human agents. There won’t be a time when the controversy is completely resolved; it will keep on shifting with shifting definitions/symbols of self-government.

•What is the main flaw in this position?

02/03/2020 51

POSTMODERNIST POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•Cause: Homogenization of governance:•Globalization-induced homogenizing influence of

Western political culture on traditional Indigenous governance is the main source of the controversy•Solution: Multiculturalization of politics:•Extend egalitarian pluralism or multicultural policy

to political culture of Canada. Such a policy would compel the mainstream to respect and facilitate the reinvention of traditional Indigenous governance—the empowerment model.•What is the main flaw in the position?

02/03/2020 52

POSTSTRUCTURALIST POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•Cause: Structured intersectional power inequality in the Canadian State system:

•The controversy is a reflection of the power base of the Canadian state structure which is white, male, middle/upper class, able-bodied dominated.

•Groups such as Indigenous people who are outside this structural intersection are excluded from the center of power, that is, federal and provincial governments and pushed to the margins of political power structure—municipal government.

02/03/2020 53

POSTSTRUCTURALIST POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•Solution: Elimination of the Centralized State Structure:• Indigenous peoples should join forces with other

racial/ethnic minorities, women, the lower/under class, and other disenfranchized Canadians to organize politically to eliminate the centralized Canadian state structure and redistribute power equally (Bannerji 2000). • “Change takes power, power takes organization, and

organization takes unity” (Taiaike Alfred 2002: 3)


02/03/2020 54

POSTCOLONIALIST POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

• Cause: Colonial Cultural Mentality (Frantz Fanon):

• Cultural domination of Indigenous peoples has caused them to buy into Western imperialist notions of governance – Power Model.

• Solution: De-colonization of the colonial mind-set

•Unless Indigenous peoples are liberated from this colonial mentality, true self-government will elude them like the case of African, Latin American and Asian countries which are “politically independent” but are still operating western imperialist governance systems that continue to oppress them.


02/03/2020 55

INDIGENOUS POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•There has never been a single position among Indigenous groups as to what self-government means or how it is to be implemented (Cardinal 1986).

02/03/2020 56

INDIGENOUS POSITION ON THE INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE CONTROVERSY

•As stated earlier, there has been a continuum of Indigenous positions on the Indigenous governance controversy:

• At the lower extreme are some status Indians who accept the Indian Act type Band Council system and at the upper extreme are the First Nations that seek a fourth level/order of government with powers similar to those of the federal and provincial governments (Frideresand Gadacz 2001).

• In between these two extremes are Indigenous groups who settle for municipal type (Sechelt, Nisga’a and Alberta Metis Settlements) and enlarged municipal type (Nunavut) of self-government (Steckley and Cummins 2001).

• What is the main flaw in these positions?

02/03/2020 57

02/03/2020 58

• A BREAKTHROUGH

A BREAKTHROUGH IN INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

• The main flaw of the sociological perspectives of Indigenous governance and that of Indigenous leaders demanding full sovereignty is that they fail to realize that from the perspective of Indigenous wisdom of governance and the HF theoretical perspective, governance, in the final analysis, is about creating sustainable livelihoods. The structure of governance is not as important as the leadership dynamics of governance. Indigenous communities that get this Indigenous wisdom of the HF accept the municipal structure the Canadian government offers them and use pre-contact Indigenous leadership and governance dynamics to create sustainable livelihoods for their people.

• The T’Sou-ke Nation, the Huu-ay-aht Nation, and K’omoks Nation get it:

• “Creating livelihoods is a goal the K’omoks First Nation (KFN) is having considerable successes in reaching” (Andrew Findlay 2015, p. 37: (http://www.douglasmagazine.com/component/content/article/16229.html).

http://www.douglasmagazine.com/component/content/article/16229.html

02/03/2020 60

•CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION: SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE OR TYPES OF SELF-GOVERNMENT?

• There cannot be a sustainable governance in a nation or group without the power of some self-government.

•However, a sustainable governance is not necessarily produced by systems of self-government. Many countries, nations and groups with powers of federal, provincial/state/regional, municipal/local governments in a capitalist or socialist political systems have failed to achieve sustainable governance that enhances the quality of lives of their citizens because of human factor decay/deficiency of their political leaders (Adu-Febiri 1998).

02/03/2020 61


• In this regard, the type of self-government the Canadian government offers Indigenous peoples does not matter as much as the state/level of Indigenous peoples human factor competency, particularly the quality of the HFC of the leadership, in the context of creating livelihoods.

•POSITIVE EXAMPLES on Vancouver Island (see Andrew Findlay 2015. “First Nations at the Forefront”, Douglas Magazine Feb/Mar 2015, pp. 34-40): (http://www.douglasmagazine.com/first-nations-at-the-forefront/)

• T’Sou-ke Nation• Huu-ay-aht First Nation• K’omoks First Nation

02/03/2020 62

http://www.douglasmagazine.com/first-nations-at-the-forefront/


• This ambitious band is making a dent in quashing stereotypes of First Nations by investing in a future based on food sustainability and alternative energy. With its Pacific Coast Wasabi operation, the band maintains three large greenhouses with 15,000 wasabi seedlings. Profits from this operation will be used to expand an existing 70-hectre organic community garden. And there is more: thanks to a $1.5-million capital outlay in 2009, the nation’s administration building now runs entirely on a 75-kilowatt solar power system…Chief Gordon Planes hopes his band’s focus on green energy will place them on the leading edge of local sustainability push that one day may become a necessity, not a choice…” This approach comes from our ancestors”, according to Chief Gordon Planes of T’Sou-ke Nation (Ibid., p. 36).

• http://www.douglasmagazine.com/first-nations-at-the-forefront/

•

02/03/2020 63



• In effect, it is the development of Indigenous human factor competency (HFC) rather than the type of self-government that would guarantee effective, liberating, sustainable Indigenous governance that also creates sustainable living for Indigenous peoples (Adu-Febiri, 1998; Adu-Febiri, 2017).


02/03/2020 64

REFERENCES

• Adu-Febiri, Francis. 2017. “Reclaiming, restoring, and regeneration Indigenous Lifeworlds: A Human factor Competency Perspective”. Journal of Gleanings From Academic Outliers. Volume 6(1), pp. 1-32.

• Adu-Febiri, Francis. 1998. “The Failure of Socialist Experiments in Africa: Misconceptions, Myths and Realities.” In Senyo Adjibolosoo and Benjamin Ofori-Amoah (eds.). Addressing Misconceptions About Africa’s Development. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

• Alfred, Taiaike. 2002. “The Great Law of Change.” The Eastern Door.

• Boldt, M., J.A. Long and L. Little Bear (eds.). 1985. The Quest for Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

• Cardinal, H. 1986. “Constitutional Change and the Treaty 8 Renovation.” In Indian-Provincial Relations. M. Boldt, J.A. Long and L. Little Bear (eds.). Lethbridge: The University of Lethbridge.

02/03/2020 65

REFERENCES

• Fanon, Frantz. 1952. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.

• Findlay, Andrew. 2015. “First Nations at the Forefront”, Douglas Magazine Feb/Mar 2015, pp. 34-40): http://www.douglasmagazine.com/first-nations-at-the-forefront/

• Frideres, James S. and Rene R. Gadacz. 2001. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Conflicts. Sixth Edition. Chapter 9. Toronto: Prentice Hall.

• Kulchynski, P. (ed.). 1994. Unjust Relations: Aboriginal Rights in Canadian Courts. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

• Laselva, S. 1998-99. “Aboriginal Self-Government and the Foundation of Canadian Nationhood.” B.C. Studies, 120: 41-55.

02/03/2020 66


REFERENCES

• Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism.

• Steckley, John L. and Bryan D. Cummins. 2001. Full Circle: Canada’s First Nations. Chapter 24. Toronto: Prentice Hall.

• Sreritt, N. 1998-99. “The Nisga’a Treaty: Competing Claims Ignored!” B.C. Studies, 120: 73-98).

•Wall, Denis. 2000. “Aboriginal Self-Government in Canada: The Cases of Nunavut and the Alberta Metis Settlements. In David Long and Olive Patricia Dickason (eds.). Visions of the Heart: Canadian Aboriginal Issues. Toronto: Harcourt Canada.

02/03/2020 67

empty, half-full or full “medicine chest” › francisadufebiri › wp-content › uploads ›...

Documents