天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 170|回复: 0

right of self-determination and sovereignty

[复制链接]
发表于 10/12/2020 03:58:02 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Canadian Indigenous people's right of self-determination and sovereignty


By Guoting Guo

I.  Introduction

Land claims, self-government and self-determination rights sourced from sovereignty. If a political entity has sovereignty, all other rights are natural born from it; therefore, the Key issues of aboriginal people’s right of self-determination depend on the sovereignty. The first issue is that what is sovereignty? then where the sovereignty come from? and next Who hold the rights of sovereignty? and Can sovereignty divide into different level? other questions such as what relationship between Politics and sovereignty? Did Canada committed genocide?

In this paper I argue that the first nations, in both history and in theory, have the rights of sovereignty of their home land which their ancestors have been living for ten thousand years. However, under the condition of power-politics and face political reality, it is hardly possible for them to fulfil their sovereignty claim. Because to enjoy the territory sovereignty, under power-politics and hegemony culture, nations have to meet some pre-conditions, such as large number of population, strong enough military power, and the capacity to control the territory, defense security and maintain social order effectively. Since lands and natural resources are limited which are all wealthy's foundation, while different states, nations, and ethnics people’s desire for wealthy are unlimited, thus the conflict interests cause disputes and competition amount various states for the limited resources and living space is inevitable, such disputes and competition whether resolve through peaceful or violence way, depend on power-politics rather than on moral principle; when neither agreement nor law available to resolve the conflicts and disputes, the violence and war might inescapable. Under power-politics, or hegemony logic, backward nations always become victims. To justify the "robber policy", Hegemonical states depict indigenous people as "barbarous" even "non-human being”, for slavers are treated as “the tool can speak”. Indigenous people were alleged to be inferior compare with superior white race, and the hegemony culture offer a satisfy excuse to ethnic clean, genocide indigenous people without the purpose to occupy and seize their land.

II. The Conception of sovereignty

Sovereignty is the superior right of a state to handle its external and internal affairs without any third party's intervention. Westphalian sovereignty encapsulates the sacred trinity of territory, national identity and statist political power(Arendt, 2009: 282). In another words the government, territory and population are three foundational elements of the Sovereignty. In this sense, any political entity have sovereignty within their jurisdiction. Before born of state, tribes, nations, and other political institutions must be have the sovereignty within their effectively control territory. Modern society emerge as nation-States, according to state's composition, can be divide into four categories:  family-state, nation-state, party-state, and people's state. Therefore, sovereignty can be divided according to various elements, such as absolute sovereignty and relative sovereignty; complete sovereignty and limited sovereignty; territory and political sovereignty or economical and cultural sovereignty; state sovereignty and tribe sovereignty. Tribe is a social group made up of people of the same race, beliefs, customs, language, etc, living in a particular area under the leadership of a chief. Indigenous people's sovereignty seems belong to tribal sovereignty, which is relative, incomplete, limited, part of political, more economic, and full culture. As Bruyneel (2007) described, indigenous peoples’ actions exist in and reproduce a third space of sovereignty to the extent that these actions disrupt and interrupt the hegemonic norm of Westphalian state sovereignty and create space for the inclusion and conduct of autonomous indigenous political life(Montsion 2015:115).Thus, Canadian first nations should have the right of tribal sovereignty, because they never obtain the statehood or recognized by any International organization or foreign States as a state.

In human history, Western Kings hold on sovereignty generally through violent fighting and war to conquer other nation's territory, occationaly through bought, natural increase, donate, or simply occupy the lands not belong to anyone.The winner of war always obtain the enemy's territory as a reward. Under hegemony culture, whoever is stronger and powerful, they can conquar the weaker and seize their lands. Since nobody are willing to be bullied or opporessed by others, and no states are always advanced in technology and millitary power; thus, today's winner not necessary tomorrow's winner. Machitonia conquer Greece, Romen Imperialist proudly standing for 400 years, Islam build their Imperialist empire follow, during 13 and 16 century Mongolian established an state covered Asian and European which is the largest Imperialist empire in the history of the world. then it is Osmantical Imperialist empire, then Turketish empire... finally, nations against nations wars develop into World War I and II. All of these extending territory are rely on violence and war. To justify the sovereignty, ruling class create a theory that kings as the God's representative on the earth, to hold on the state sovereignty.

However, In Eastern, a special traditional Chinese culture,which was created by "three Kings and five emperors" during 3000 and 2800 BC, concluded by Confucius in 500 BC and finally polished during 400 years of cruel and bloody wars of "Spring" and "War-states"(700-212 BC), after Qin Dynasty, Chinese emperors to extend their territory mainly rely on voluntary cultural asimilation, which called " Wang Dao"(in Confuciousism means ruling country and extending territory through voluntary cultural asimilation rather than violence or forced asimilation),  despite few emperor also believe the Hegemony culture(In Chinese term called the "Ba Dao"). China origin from a small tribel of " Xunyan" In the center of China, develop into a huge country 5000 years later, although China as a state there were few times divided and seperated, twice conquared by foreign states, first by Mongolia in 13 century, and second by Qing in 17 to earily 20 century. But since 221 BC to date, China never rely on violence to conquar any other small weaker states around its boundary, but through voluntary cultural asimilation, extending its territory to one of the biggest country in the world. In China the Emperor was called "the Son of Heavan".  In 1700 BC West-Zhou dynasty, King Wen was described as "the favouring appointment was from Heaven, giving the throne to our King Wen"(Chinese Classic The Book Poetry P.435). That is Chinese emperors are appointed by the Heavan or Dao, equal as Western term as the God.

Thus, both in Western and China the sovereignty of Kingdom exist long time ago, which come from the divine supernature power. However, Extending territory in Western mainly according to the hegemony culture, accompany with either genocide or forced asimilation, while in China mainly rely upon cooperate harmony culture, which is voluntary cultural asimilation. Under such political arrangement, the sovereignty, in essence, belong to the Kings and Emperors, that is, within Kingdom’s effective jurisdiction, all territory and natural source belong to King and Emperor while all population are the subjects and servants of the King and Emperor. After Renaissance, Martin Lude's religious reform, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes's political theory of social contact emerge, the Enlightenment, and political and culture of the nation state develop into a new stage, the state sovereignty shift from kings to the people.

The idea of sovereignty seems appear much earily. For example, In Chinese Book of Poetry (1100 BC) which said that "Under the wide heaven, all is the king’s land. Within the sea boundaries of the land, all are the king’s servants" (James Legge, The Chinese Classics The Book of Poetry Vol five, Hong Kong University press 1960. p.360). It shows that over three thousand years ago, Chinese politics already has the idea of state sovereignty. In fact, sovereignty conception is the product of nation-state and colonialism, which was invented by Western political philosopher to justify colony policy; at the same time, International law were created by legal scholars to legalized West European states to claim new territory as their crown land. However, such theory is power politics base on hegemonism, back by the social Darwinism, in essence, it is only a kind of robber logic product. Advance in civilization not necessary means that superior in morality. Civilized European white committed horrible holocaust to eliminate aboriginal people, proved that their moral is inferior. According to western conception, only states have the rights to hold on sovereignty. If a tribal or a nation’s political institution did not develop into the stage of state, or their government or culture or science technology are backward, or their race are inferior, than large or stronger state has the rights to conquer them and seize their land, ethnic clean and genocide all become legalized.

III. Indigenous sovereignty

According to western conception, the sovereignty is an attribute of statehood. Since indigenous people did not emerge into a statehood, so they can not enjoy the state sovereignty. Indigenous peoples are caught in a space that is neither domestic nor foreign. Historically, they have been excluded from the process of shaping of Westphalian state sovereignty because a Euclidean understanding of space and power precludes the existence of other independent and legitimate political communities on the same territory (Moreton-Robinson, 2006: 383). The use of Eurocentric notions such as sovereignty to express and advocate for autonomy has been criticized by scholars as incommensurate with similar concepts from various indigenous perspectives (Day, 2001: 186–187).

Second reason is that European civilization was advanced than Canadian aboriginal cultures,both in technology and in social organization. It is alleged that When westerner first come to North American, aboriginal tribes were in "barbarous stage", there were no written language, nor state exist. Thomas Flanagan(2008) claimed that indigenous culture, technology,and social organization were “several thousand”years backward than western’s (7). The key point is the assumption that Colour race are inferior to white people(Murphy 2009), make the Colonization is inevitable. Ideas of Aboriginal inferiority but limits the opportunity of Aboriginal people to develop full and complete lives based on our dreams and visions,systems of knowledge, values and beliefs. Whites can accept that Aboriginal people have politics ( not fully) but do not recognize that we equally have theologies, epistemologies, knowledge systems, pedagogy and history. These are all collapsed into mere “perspectives”, thus making actual the white fallacy of Aboriginal inferiority(Nicoll 2000:383). In Hitlers' Nazi regime, Jews were marked as "wicked creatures" who belonged to an "anti-race" outside of the hierarchy of human races, and it was believed they formed "a conspiratorial body set on ruining and then dominating the rest of mankind"(Campbell 2009: 155). Thus, even though there are millions aboriginal people have been living on "New territory" for more than ten thousand years, the lands must be treated as “the land of no owner”, and therefore, the White can claim the sovereignty of the land. However, such theory of superior against inferior race is a typical racism, which is the roots caused human society full of violence and bloody war. In the time of cold weapen or fire weapen, the results of hegemon even the worst is only eliminate one race or a nation were wiped out, such as Hilter's "final resolve" program in 1941, holocoust six million Jews.  But in the time of nuclear war, if mankind still hold on the faith on hegemon culture or power-politics, the result inevitable is whole world destroy by crazy human being all together.

In 1970 The first National American Indian Movement conference is held, A Legal Rights Center is established, the idea of tribal sovereignty is endorsed ( Diana Vinding & Robert K. Hitchcock, A Chronology of Important Events in the Genocides and Rights of Indigenous Peoples(International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs & Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University.p.115). In 1984 and 1998,General Assembly of the Chilcotin Nation six chief signed a Declaration of Sovereignty, which claim the Territory...the heartland belongs to none but the Tsilhqotin. The key issue here is why Canadian Indigenous people continue to fight for self-government even self-determination. The fundamental reason, except the history colony opporess,  must be the federal government treated aboriginal people without respect their will. The asimilation policy was base on force rather on voluntary, which definately will fail, for nobody can be force to do something against their free will.

In January 1982,Lord Denning upheld the Canadian government’s right to patriation but his ruling offered several comments sympathetic to the Aboriginal cause(Lackenbauer & Cooper 2007:103)Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees minority cultural rights.The Supreme Court of Canada has located reconciliation at the heart of its jurisprudence on Aboriginal rights, through descibes section 35 of the Canadian Constitution as the framework through which the fact that aboriginals lived on the land in distinctive societies, with theri own practices customs and traditions, is acknowledged and reconciled with the sovereignth of the Crown"(Murphy 2009:251).The Court deliberated on the international law character of Indian treaties, concluding by 1990 that British authorities had regarded the Indians as “independent nations” and had related to them on a “nation-to-nation”basis  (Lackenbauer & Cooper 2007:104) . The treaty rights of Indigenous Canadians have been embedded in the nation’s constitution since 1982. The federal government amended the Indian Act to comply with the decision. Bill C-31 (1985) eliminated sexual discrimination in determining Indian status, including the right to live on reserve. In 1985, the Coolican report on comprehensive land claims observed that the international community was increasingly recognizing “… the responsibility of nation states to ensure the survival of their indigenous peoples.”
The UN Economic and Social Council established the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) in 1982 as a pre-session working group of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Survival International, and the Indigenous Initiative for Peace.On 20 July 1990, about 150 chiefs from across Canada appealed to the United Nations and to the international community to impose sanctions on Canada similar to those levelled against South Africa.Native spokespersons framed their discourse as “sovereign nations”  (Lackenbauer & Cooper 2007:107). Mr. Smith (1987) critisize that “…Canada’s treatment of its aboriginal people is hypocritical and makes a mockery of the image it portrays to the rest of the world” ( quote at Lackenbauer & Cooper 2007).

The Canadian government became sensitive to the potential spill-over effect of conceding the legitimacy of the principle of self-determination. Canadian officials were not willing to sever the connection between self-determination and the preservation of the territorial integrity of Canada(Lackenbauer & Cooper 2007:110-111). However, indigenous peoples’ strategic use of the notion of sovereignty makes some progress towards effective assertion of autonomy.indigenous expressions of sovereignty celebrate diversity and independence of indigenous political life, and the move towards greater autonomy and self-affirmation (Coulthard, 2007: 453–454).Understanding indigenous political actions through each spatial dimension and through their combination may shed light on the production of the third space of sovereignty and on the resistance to the hegemonologue of state sovereignty(Montsion 2015: 117).

IV  Politics and sovereignty

Politics in essence is about rule and governance power and authority which mainly decide who own and hole on the power of law making, policy making,and decision making, as well as how to governance a state, or political entity and how to divide nature resource and social wealthy, government have the power and authority to fulfil its law and policy back by state power, such as army, police and prison to force its citizens obeying the law and punish any rebellious and crimes. Army defense the state against external enemy invasion or attack, while police maintain internal social order and public security. Prison except punished those criminals, derive their physical freedom for a period of time in order to correct their wrong action.  Politics can divide reality politics and theory politics, the former including power politics, later including moral politics, while legalization politics in the middle. Politics also can be named as Civilization politics and Barbarous politics; the former mainly rely on culture and education, the later usually depend on robber and violence. According to its nature, Politics might be classify into Kingcratic politics and democratic politics; the former is rule by a King, the later is governed by people, under the free and fairness elected, either direct or indirect, their representative to ruling the country.

According to reality politics, or power politics, in reality, the power and authority of a state or a tribe usually come from war and violence in the human history, until the liberal democratic politics established. Although in theory the moral political and legalization politics also play an important role, especially after seize the state power, if the ruler still mainly rely on violence to governance state, it will turn into tyranny sooner or later, and none tyranny could be able to survive forever. Under hegemon theory to rule a state, it is hardly possible to win the mind of ruled. While according to harmony cultural asimilate theory, it is hardly possible to fail to win the heart of minority. Canadian Indigenous people are asking for self-government and self-determination, which show that they are unhappy under Canadian governement's ruling, which also reveal that it must have something wrong of the policy of asimilation in the history and in reality.

Canadian Indigenous sovereignty is not state sovereignty but tribal sovereignty, when European first arrive the North American, because at that time there is no union Canadian indigenous state existed. This tribal sovereignty is not absolute, but relative, neither is reality but in theory and moral; it lacks capacity to defense itself and effectively maintain its security. Since European states were much more advance in military and industrial power than Indigenous tribes, from power-politics point of view, whoever have more power, always win in the disputes and struggles for control the land and territory, despite in historical or legalization or cultural, economic perspective, Indigenous people hold their incomplete sovereignty in the effective control area, such as reserved land.

Under such condition, the self-determination rights of indigenous people, is not absolute right, because they do not hold on absolute or reality sovereignty which justify their right of independance. Since first nations only own the history and moral sovereignty and some legalization sovereignty under international treaty and international law, which is not strict law for there is no superstate authority to guarantee its implemation, and which is not enforceable if the state do not accept or recognize the treaty. International court can not hear the case between states who are not willing to subject their disputes to the jurisdiction of the Court, neither the Court can hear any non-state's such as Indigenous people's complaim. Thus, in this sense, international law has more moral strength rather than the law authority and power. Since first nations in Canada is not state in the sense of international law, and they are not recognized by international society or any foreign states, they are not subject of international law, the Court has no right to hear the disputes between aboriginal nations and Canada.

The Idea of self-determination was created by the president Wilson of the USA during the World War I, which reflected liberalism political philosophy, with strong moral strength and later become legalization rights under international law. While Lenin also declared that every nations has the rights of self-determination, with the purpose against colonialism and imperialism. Consider international political reality, the self-determination rights, is a political right theory or moral principle, rather than a reality right. Because dominate power of political reality is power-politics, which means all political claim in reality are depend on the power, either political or economical or military. In fact, majority nations, even if they do enjoy legalized self-determination rights, it must be the paper right only. Any nations that claim for sefl-determination, either themselve are strong enough to challenge the Mother state to seperate from them, or only those nations who have been suffering serious oppress by their government, such as genocite, massacre or persecute against the fundemental human rights. Since Canadian first nations are not strong enough in either population or in military power, if they claim for self-determination rights, the only hope is to prove that Canadian government has been implement genocite policy agaisnt indigenous people. Because of a finding of “genocide” would have social and political ramifications. It would make a stronger moral and legal case for treaty rights to be upheld, for forms of Aboriginal self determination and for better political representation as suggested by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People. It might promote a second apology, greater reparations and a stronger sense of national responsibility.It might promote real attempts at conciliation on the part of many Canadians (MacDonald and Hudson 2012:446). Since sovereignty is not absolutely rights which can be divide into various level, such as state-sovereignty, tribal sovereignty, people's sovereignty and so on. Under special condition, even human rights are higher than the state-sovereignty, for example government inspire genocide and holocaust etc.

V  Canadian Genocide

General speaking, European white did commited horrible holocaust and genocide during their colony North and South American. Professor MacDonald (2007) believed that European colonization of the Americas was a “holocaust,” and the biggest genocide in history a precedent for the Nazis’ Final Solution, which demonstrate the moral guilt of western nations (996).The Third Reich base on “racial supremacism,conquest, and genocide” to final resolution; Thus, Nazism was only one of an endless succession of ‘New World Orders’ set in motion by ‘the Discovery’ (Churchill, 1997: 92).Adolf Hitler said that "When we eat wheat from Canada, we don’t think about the despoiled Indians" [Quote at Barta 2005:134]. "I learned that life is a cruel struggle...when I realise that the species is in danger, then my sentiment gives way to the coldest reason"[quote at Barta 2005: 134]. In 1992, Stannard published American Holocaust, followed by Churchill’s A Little Matter of Genocide in 1997, They make widespread use of the Holocaust as a means of highlighting indigenous suffering, while criticizing the significance of the Holocaust in American life. Both authors point out that the decimation of North and South America’s indigenous nations at potentially 100 million casualties was the largest genocide.While the pre conquest population of the United States can never be established with certainty,it probably ten millions befoere European colonization;by 1920 the number was reduced to less than 250,000 persons (MacDonald 2007:998). To refute the long-held belief that disease was but an “inadvertent” or “unintended consequence”of colonialism. Stannard focuses on forms of killing shared by both the Holocaust and the American genocide: disease, forced labour, forced marches and other conditions calculated to bring about the deaths of target group. If disease and slave labour are part of the Holocaust, they must also be included as part of the “American Holocaust” (1996: 89, 258–60; quote at MacDonald 2007:999).There are justifiable concerns about the Stannard-Churchill thesis.It suggests that the vast majority of indigenous peoples, even those killed by epidemics, were the victims of intentional killing. While some disease was deliberately spread, most epidemics raged ahead of the explorers and colonizers and were hardly comparable to conditions in Nazi ghettoes (Barkan, 2003: 122). As whites advanced to the west coast, there were fewer available areas for relocation or flight. In California, genocides against Indians were more widespread, numerous, and severe than elsewhere. There, in part due to massacres, the Indian population was reduced in a short period of time by almost two-thirds, from 100,000 in 1849 to 35,000 in 1860 ( Compall 2009:157).The French killed at least 1 ,000 Natchez and sold 400 of them into slavery. Others Fled to find refuge among other tribes, and the Natchez ceased to exist as a sovereign people (Nash 2000:47-8).Clearly, acts of genocide, which defined under the United Nations Genocide Convention, 1948 were committed during the colonization of the United States. However,to construct the entire history of indigenous-colonist interactions as a continuous process of intentional genocide, comparable to the Holocaust,is misleading(MacDonald 2007:1000).

Tony Barta (2005) after studying Darvin's work, confirmed that European white had commited horrible holocaust and genocide of Both North and South American Indigenous people. Darwin observed European colonists doing their best to make the indigenous people extinct(117). For instance, General Manuel de Rosas, who served as governor of Buenos Aires, was engaged on what Darwin recognized as a mission ‘to exterminate the Indians’(120).If all the Indians are butchered, a grand extent of country will be available for the production of cattle, and the valleys ... will be most productive of corn. The country will be in the hands of white Gaucho Savages instead of copper-coloured Indians. The former being a little superior in civilisation, while inferior in every moral virtue(120).Some 112 women and children and men were ‘nearly all taken or killed, very few escaped’.  ‘The soldiers pursue and sabre every man. Like wild animal showever they fight to the last instant.’ ‘Everyone here is fully convinced that this is the justest war, because it is against Barbarians.’ The warfare is too bloody to last; the Christians killing every Indian and the Indians doing the same to the Christians.’ 'for the reasons of historical progress self-evident to the winners of the war for the land'(120). Darwin accepted and finally promoted the idea that 'a higher form of humanity could not evolve without the demise of the lower',the best thing that could be done would be to shoot all the Blacks and manure the ground with their carcasses, which was all the good they were fit for. It was recommended likewise that the women and children should especially be shot as the most certain method of getting rid of the race.‘A large number were driven into a swamp, and mounted police rode round and round and shot them off indiscriminately until they were all destroyed’(122). ‘Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race.’ In tribal societies the contest for resources ‘is soon settled by war, slaughter,cannibalism, slavery, and absorption’(128).From above Darwin's original words, it clearly establishes the crimes of genocide of the colonism.

Whether Canada had committed the genocide against Canadian Indigenous is an arguable qustion. Prime Minister Harper’s On 11 June 2008 apology to the survivors of the residential schools was a significant step in the government’s attempts to rectify the country’s ‘cold’ conflict with Aboriginal Canadians, He admits that the Government played an integral role in a system that has done much damage to Aboriginal families, communities, and cultures; while Harper suggested that Canada is a country 'without racism'.Given the culpability of “white” settler societies for the destruction of indigenous societies and cultures, the post-liberal scholars deny any strong negative correlation between liberal-democratic regimes and propensity to genocide(Powell 2007:528). However, A number of Canadian academics assert that the UN Genocide Convention (UNGC) does indeed apply to Aboriginal experiences ( Cardinal, 1999; Davis and Zannis,1973: 175–76; Grant, 1996: 69, 270–71; Haig-Brown, 1988: 11; Neu and Therrien, 2003; quote at MacDonald & Hudson 2012: 429). MacDonald and Hudson(2012) argued that “cultural genocide” or “ethnocide” may be appropriate as a ground floor to describe much of Canada’s treatment of Aboriginal peoples, we see active attempts to destroy culture, language and religion, while stealing land and outlawing customs(442)... the evidence of genocide in Canada is building but is by no means conclusive yet, especially in light of the fairly circumspect interpretations made by international tribunals and the even narrower interpretations of international law favoured by Canadian courts(446).

It has clearly established that Canada committed a number of crimes against humanity during the colonial era. By the early nineteenth century, Newfoundland’s Beothuk were entirely decimated when forced to flee the Newfoundland coast as a result of low-intensity conflict and starvation.  Nova Scotia’s Mi’kmaq seem to have been victims of intentional killing through the spread of poisoned food and massacres in the eighteenth century. While Canadians know more about America’s brutal treatment of its indigenous people, the Canadian experience has also been bleak. In the 1990s, “levels of unemployment, undereducation,violent death, imprisonment, and ill health among First Nations people outstrip those of other Canadians in virtually all age brackets” ((Marshall, 1996;Fleras and Elliott, 1992: 8–9, 16–18; V. Miller, 2004: 259–60; quoted at MacDonald 2007:1001). Neu and Therrien (2003) Account for Genocide which draws numerous parallels between the Holocaust and Canadian handling of aboriginal issues. Much of their work falls into comparative assessments of Aboriginal peoples and Jews. They argue that Canadian experiences also figure as a precedent for the Holocaust: “The Nazi death camps, social engineering experiments in the extreme, may have found their infancy in the social engineering projects of Canada: assimilation and absorption,compulsory enfranchisement” ( 22).

In 2001, The "Canadian Holocaust" report was drafted by members of the Truth Commission into Genocide in Canada (TCGC) which argued that 50,000 indigenous peoples either disappeared or were killed in residential schools, and their report goes on to lay out a series of charges using the Genocide Convention as a means of structuring the report (TCGC, 2001: 89).The thesis is the Canadian state intended to exterminate indigenous peoples.Death was not an unhappy consequence of the system but the desired end goal (TCGC 51).Other claims include the deliberate spreading of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis to kill as many children as possible (TCGC 37–38), and an “International War Crimes Tribunal into Genocide in Canada” is to be established. In 2006, The Indian Residential School Survivors Society outlines the scope of the problem:First Nation communities experience higher rates of violence: physical, domestic abuse (3x higher than mainstream society); sexual abuse: rape, incest, etc. (4–6x higher); lack of family and community cohesion; suicide (6x higher);addictions: drugs, alcohol, food; health problems: diabetes (3x higher, heart disease, obesity; poverty; unemployment; illiteracy; high school dropout (63%do not graduate); despair (IRSSS, 2006).

Professor David MacDonald(2007) argues that used “Canadian Holocaust” terms merely disguise the fact that physical eradication cannot be conclusively proven as a key goal of Canada’s policies towards aboriginal people. "Intent to commit genocide  in my view has not been proven conclusively to date"(1008).However, Professor Michael Bennett (2009) asserted that at least one occasion smallpox had been used against the Native Americans(49). In May 1788 Aborigines attacked and killed two convicts at Rushcutters Bay, and the word was that the attack was in response to the convicts’ murder of two natives. There were similar attacks and reprisals in March 1789. Many British convicts would have been familiar with the use of scabs in variolation, and one or more of them may have seen in the smallpox matter an opportunity to seek revenge( 49).Governor Phillip believed that half of the local Aborigines Perished, and that on account of the flight of the survivors, the disease“must have spread to a considerable distance, as well in land as along the coast”(50). Willow Anderson (2012) observed that some suggest that Aboriginal Canadians should simply get over the past and they reject the PM’s statement that today’s Canadians should share the weight of past mistakes. Others want to remind the nation that until all Canadians recognize that Aboriginal Canadians have been affected by genocide, assimilation, and colonialism attempts toward real reconciliation will be both stilted and ineffectual( 583).

VI  Conclusion

From historical perspective, Canadian Indigenous people have the rights of self-determination which base on the sovereignty. Because first nations ancient ancestor have been living in this land more than ten thousand years. But when tribe sovereignty met European states since 17 century, who rely on power-politics and hegemony theory, to compete the state sovereignty, although against the moral principle, western through direct and indirect ethnic clean and genocide, eliminate majority aboriginal people, stop them to emerge into a state, seize their land. Since the moral politics can not defeated the power politics at colony time and step by step the first nation lost their best opportunity to have state sovereignty for they do not united together become an independent state in time.

According to moral and modern international law, Canadian Indigenous people's right of sovereignty do exist in theory and in moral principle. But Moral politics have to rely on party's voluntary to fulfil its moral duty and responsibility, for without state power back, no authority can force the party who breach the moral duty. Second, the moral standard is not standred, it might different between various nations and cultures, which lacking certainty and no authority from state power or Court. Almost every states consider their own state interests first rather than their moral responsibility. International law is not law but legalization moral, for there is no superstate power above states which can executive its law, although international court can hear some cases, which is accepted by both states involving disputes to its jurisdiction. International court usually only accept the cases of dispute between members states or between states and international organizations. Since first nations are neither state in international society nor international organization, they are not the subject of public international law, and international court do not have force jurisdiction to hear the disputes between Canada and Canadian indigenous people.

Since Canadian Indigenous people have no reality state-sovereignty, only have historical or moral sovereignty, although they might have tribal-sovereignty, which is not absolute but relative, limited, although in economic, natural resources, and cultural area rather than foreign affairs and political sovereignty.

Indigenous people did not united together as a first nation state, nor have enough strength to have military power, nor enough population, thus lacking the capacity to effective control territory, even if first nations do hold on moral and legalization sovereignty, which is not state sovereignty but tribe one, and which is not complete and absolute, but rather relative and limited. Under such condition, aboriginal people should choose land claim, or self-government within Canada rather than self-determination.

The Rights of nation's Self-determination was first emerge during the World War I as a strategy of war to divide enemy by the President Wilson of the USA, which is not unconditional rights. In fact, it is a danger rights that always caused big trouble and disaster in modern world.

Reference

Anderson,Willow J (2012)‘Indian drum in the house’: A critical discourse analysis of an apology for Canadian residential schools and the public’s response, the International Communication Gazette 74(6) 571–585. University of New Mexico Arendt, H (2009) The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, San Diego.
Bennett,Michael j. (2009)Smallpox and Cowpox under the Southern Cross: The Smallpox Epidemic of 1789 and the Advent of Vaccination in Colonial Australia,  Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 37-62.
Berman,Helene and  Mulcahy,Gloria A (2009)Uprooted and Displaced: A Critical Narrative Study of Homeless, Aboriginal, and Newcomer Girls in Canada,Mental Health Nursing, 30:418–430.
Barta,Tony  (2005) Mr Darwin's shooters: on natural selection and the naturalizing of genocide, Patterns of Prejudice, 39:2, 116-137.
Campbell,Bradley (2009)Genocide as Social Control, Sociological Theory, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 150-172Coulthard, G.(2007) Subjects of empire: indigenous peoples and the ‘politics of recognition’ in Canada. Contemp. Polit. Theory 6, 437–460.Day, R.( 2001) Who is this we that gives the gift? Native American political theory and the Western tradition. Crit. Horizons 2 (2), 173–201.
Dean, Misao(2001)Making Canada's "Literary land claim": Marjorie Pickthall's "The Third Generation",Journal of Canadian Studies 36: 3.
Knopf, Kerstin(2007)TERRA - TERROR - TERRORISM?: LAND, COLONIZATION, AND PROTEST IN CANADIAN ABORIGINAL LITERATURE, The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 27:2, 293-329.
Kruer,Matthew  (2009)RED ALBION: GENOCIDE AND ENGLISH COLONIALISM, 1622-1646, a Thesis of Master of Art at the University of Oregon Graduated School.
Lackenbauer, P. Whitney  & Andrew F. Cooper (2007) The Achilles heel of Canadian international citizenship: Indigenous diplomacies and state responses, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 13:3, 99-119.
Macdonald, David(2007)First Nations, Residential Schools, and the Americanization of the Holocaust: Rewriting Indigenous History in the United States and Canada,Canadian Journal of Political Science  40:4,995–1015.
Macdonald, David B (2011)The Genocide Question and Indian Residential Schools in Canada,  Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Forum, March 1.
Micheal Murphy(2009) Civilization, Self-Determination, and Reconciliation, at First Nations, First Thoughts, The Impact of Indigigenous Thought in Canada, Edited by Annis May Timpson, UBC Press. Vancouver.pp.251-278.
Montsion, Jean M(2015)Disrupting Canadian sovereignty? The ‘First Nations & China’ strategy revisited, Geoforum 58. 114–121.Moreton-Robinson, A.(2006) Towards a new research agenda? Foucault, Whiteness and Indigenous sovereignty. J. Sociol. 42 (4), 383–395.
Murray,T.R.  (2003) Can Money Undo the past? A Canadian Example,Comparative Education, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 331-343.
Nicoll,Fiona.  (2000) Indigenous Sovereignty and the Violence of Perspective: A White Woman's Coming Out Story, Australian Feminist Studies, 15:33, 369-386.
Powell,Christopher.  (2007) What do genocides kill? A relational conception of genocide, Journal of Genocide Research, 9:4, 527-547.
Schneiderhan, Erik  (2013) Genocide Reconsidered: A Pragmatist Approach ,Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 43:3.
Walling,Carrie Booth  (2000) The history and politics of ethnic cleansing, The International Journal of Human Rights, 4:3-4, 47-66.
Woods,Eric Taylor  (2003) A Cultural Approach to a Canadian Tragedy: The Indian Residential Schools as a Sacred Enterprise,Int J Polit Cult Soc  26:173–187.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 10/27/2020 21:36 , Processed in 0.086869 second(s), 11 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表