Assimilation In Canada
Stretching from 1887 to 1934, assimilationist practices had begun, The Allotment Act had passed in 1887, “with the liberal value of individual property rights displacing the common ownership of land associated with tribal government (Brock 368).” By 1924 natives had begun acquiring American citizenship as a result of the Allotment Act, while it bestowed the individual with the right to vote it had the inherent drive of assimilation (Brock 368). Policymakers had begun to directly interfere with the internal affairs of First Nations groups upon the basis of their system of government, further deploying assimilationist policies that reflect their own beliefs (Brock 368). Individualism versus collective rights, similarly as to what Trudeau had
…show more content…
Both countries addressed the same issue in different ways. The United States had at an early stage integrated First Nations peoples into their laws, however, it had aimed at assimilating them into the society over a long period of time. Yet in Canada, the obvious push to assimilation had been the introduction of the White Paper, which had been negatively received. However, while Canada is still on the verge of negotiating self-governance and self-determination, the United States lacks such opportunity due to the amount of policies that have been enacted. Another difference in the United States system is the fact that while the First Nations peoples in Canada had the opportunity to represent themselves at the constitution conferences, the aboriginals in the United States had no such opportunity to do so (Brock 371). While amendments to the Canadian constitution in the context of First Nations peoples’ efforts at acquiring self-governance, it is evident that “Americans tend to view their Constitution as almost sacred and are [even so] less receptive to constitutional change than their Canadian cousins (Brock …show more content…
Only a small portion of First Nations people had become enfranchised, Canadian First Nations policies had not changed significantly over the first hundred years (Franks 259). By comparison, American Aboriginal policies saw dramatic reversals during this period, something that Brocks also states (Franks 259). While both policies in both states had aimed to assimilate the First Nations peoples, this was truer for the United
Both countries addressed the same issue in different ways. The United States had at an early stage integrated First Nations peoples into their laws, however, it had aimed at assimilating them into the society over a long period of time. Yet in Canada, the obvious push to assimilation had been the introduction of the White Paper, which had been negatively received. However, while Canada is still on the verge of negotiating self-governance and self-determination, the United States lacks such opportunity due to the amount of policies that have been enacted. Another difference in the United States system is the fact that while the First Nations peoples in Canada had the opportunity to represent themselves at the constitution conferences, the aboriginals in the United States had no such opportunity to do so (Brock 371). While amendments to the Canadian constitution in the context of First Nations peoples’ efforts at acquiring self-governance, it is evident that “Americans tend to view their Constitution as almost sacred and are [even so] less receptive to constitutional change than their Canadian cousins (Brock …show more content…
Only a small portion of First Nations people had become enfranchised, Canadian First Nations policies had not changed significantly over the first hundred years (Franks 259). By comparison, American Aboriginal policies saw dramatic reversals during this period, something that Brocks also states (Franks 259). While both policies in both states had aimed to assimilate the First Nations peoples, this was truer for the United