Aboriginal rights in Canada Essay Example

the main reason behind this was racism and ethnocentrism. The Europeans saw aboriginals as savages. In their view the "savages" were more like animals then humans, and they were treated like animals. They were constantly marginalized and had no choice but to do what these newcomers (the Europeans) told them. For example, according to "Nation to Nation" edited by Diane Engelstad, the Canadian government declared illegal practice of native ceremonies, such as the Potlatch and the Sundance" (102).

Reading this now seems completely absurd. How can a ceremony which brings family and friends together in a positive and happy atmosphere, be illegal? The Europeans had no right to take this tradition away from the aboriginals. But this particular law was reasonable in comparison to the brutality that later occurred. The Europeans' effort to assimilate the aboriginals in the late 1800's, early 1900's changed native societies forever. Assimilation refers to bringing a group into conformity with the customs, culture, language of another group, or society.

It was something the Europeans thought was a treat for the aboriginals and something in which they should be grateful. They thought it was a great opportunity for the aboriginals to learn all the new customs and fit in with their people (the Europeans). Even though the intentions of the Europeans were good in assimilating the aboriginals, the process in which they did it was horrific. It was closer to a nightmare from which the aboriginals would never wake. The struggle against assimilation continued through generations and little was done to alleviate the situation.

The residential school system was the primary way of assimilating native children. Children were taken away from their home by

force, separated from their brothers and sisters, and anyone with whom they were in contact. They were sent to these schools miles away from home which were run by priests and nuns. They then were forced to live there until they reached a mature age, often without seeing their parents for years. Their education was based on the Roman Catholic religion and "God's way". They were taught to believe that "the more they sacrificed and denied their humanity, the closer they would be to God" (Englestad 103).

So in order to be closer to God, aboriginal children were told to forget their past, isolate themselves from their family, and to expect frequent beatings. A journal written by a young boy in a residential school talked about his experience and wrote this: one of the boys had loosened the top of the salt shaker and the whole thing spilled onto my dinner. I remember Sister Anderson stirring everything up with a spoon. Then she grabbed a handful of my hair and tilted my head back.

Then she shoveled the rest of the food in my mouth until I threw up all over my clothes.. Knockwood 38) Some parents of these children would try to take their children out of the schools however it was nearly impossible for aboriginal families to challenge the authority. They had nowhere to turn. The authorities represented the government, and the church. Parents were threatened by a jail sentence if they did not co-operate (Englestad 104). Under these circumstances, children had no way of avoiding residential schools. In my opinion, a school led by priests would give the impression that good values and morals

would be instilled in these children.

However, in this case, the opposite happened. Aboriginal children learned what it was like to live in fear, being abused verbally, physically and sexually for every mistake they made. Or for what was thought to be a mistake in the eyes of the priest. Talking to their brother or sister was not allowed and deserved a beating. Wetting the bed resulted in severe beating or sexual assult, and worst of all children were brutally beaten and/or sexually abused if they uttered a single word in their mother tongue.

Since the children attending the schools were forced to stay there until they were around 19 years of age, they were raised by the priests and nuns, and learned or heard no different than what the priest taught them, until adulthood. By the time they left the school, it was too late. They had started their own families and because they were deprived of seeing their own parents' example, they never learned how to parent effectively. Having said that, how can Hitchens possibly describe this as a positive part of history?

How can violations of 1st and 2nd generation rights such as "freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading punishment, and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" of the first people who lived in America before anyone else, be an accomplishment? Even though these rights were established years after harm was done to the aboriginals, it still applies because no one should have to live under these conditions. Not only was this morally wrong, it was an invasion and a "cultural genocide" (Warren).

The European settlers completely took

over the land, took over the people and changed lives for a numerous amount of people. Not only were North American aboriginals dehumanized, so were aboriginals living in south and Central America. Or what we now call "Latin America". In 1519, the Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortes captured the Mexica, capital of Tenochtitlan, and exposed the aboriginals to a smallpox epidemic (Churchill 98). The remaining aboriginals were slaughtered, captured or trapped by his troops. Thousands were butchered by day.

By the time the epidemic was over 350,000 aboriginals were dead, a third of the Tenochtitlan population (Churchill 98). It seems ironic how Hitchens describes the European settlements in the Americas as something that should be celebrated when in some ways it seems like something they should be ashamed of. He has some truth to what he says when he brings up the point about how we should recognize the innovations that came with the Europeans such as the medicine chest, the wheel and the railway. But how can those achievements compensate for the brutal killings and vicious attacks?

The intentions of the conquistadores were to have power land and resources. And they succeeded in that, but why couldn't they have incorporate the role of the aboriginal? Instead the Spanish decided to either murder them or use them as slaves. There were constantly new methods of killing aboriginals being created. Almost as though it was a form of entertainment. One example was called "dogging", which was a process in which a dog that was raised on a diet of human flesh was to disembowel an aboriginal upon command.

The attacks and the murders were so gruesome that one of Cortez'

men withdrew because "he could no longer endure the stench of the dead bodies that lay in the streets" (Churchill 98). In the United States, President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act which gave him authority to remove all aboriginals that were living west of the Mississippi River (Stevenson 73). President Jackson had said ".. what good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic" (Stevenson 73).

This statement clearly reflects how racist Jackson and the society were at that time in history. They felt superior to the aboriginals and couldn't bare living in an environment with them included. Aboriginals in the United States were losing more and more privileges such as land. They lost two thirds of their land between 1887-1930 (Stevenson 74). All the authorities in the US were in agreement about which actions to take with the aboriginals. A senator of Ohio stated "these Indians must either change... r they will be exterminated... " (Stevenson 74).

In terms of changing, the authorities wanted them to "stimulate within them the idea of home, family and property" (Stevenson 74). This request is senseless as the aboriginals already knew exactly what home and family was. They lived as families long before the Europeans ever came to America! The only difference was that the authorities wanted the aboriginals to adopt their [the white Americans] meaning of family, home and property, in terms of education, values and morals.

Christopher Hitchens fails in defending his point in the article "Minority Report" as he almost ignores the fact that an entire culture and several communities were wiped out for no

reason other than racism. Whether these violations of rights occurred in North America (Canada and the US) or further down south in Latin America, it presented a negative outcome. Today aboriginals still face racism and still strive for their collective rights. It is clear that racism is the only way these gruesome killings could have happened.

The Europeans felt superior and of higher status than aboriginals and did not want to mix the population. I fully support Hitchens as he reminds us of the great achievements the settlers made such as technologies and innovations but I strongly disagree with him as he believes that the way the aboriginals were treated should have been accepted. It is something that could have been avoided and the aboriginals today deserve much compensation for what their ancestors had experienced.