Question Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I think that the Indian Act should be abolished. Since Canada totally ripped the Indians off they made promises they did not keep. For example the Canadian government promised the Indians tools seeds and the right to hunt fish and trap on crown land. I think that the Indians were sent against there will to these reserves. Over some time the Indians lost more and more power. Then in the late 1700 and early 1800 the Indians started to die from many sorts of contagious sicknesses. Plus the American whisky traders that also killed many Indian peoples by putting poisonous things into the whisky the Indians traded for. Soon after the buffalo were fewer in numbers so the number 1 source of food for the Indians was gone. The first nations forced to except all of the treaties the Canadian government sent in the way. Then the Indian Act was passed on the 1876. The aim of the Indian act was to move the entire First Group to the reserves so the remaining land would be allowed to give to the settlers. While the First Nations were in these reserves the Canadians treated them horribly. Some Indians say that there land was not ours to give away in fact we had given them some of our power to the Canadian government. We did not even surrender all of our rights to our land. The land was ours to take care of not theirs! Another person says that the treaties were supposed to help us get more land not loose it! It is not fair these Canadians can’t just take all of our land. They acted as if they controlled us. First we were allowed to hunt and fish on these reserves but now they won’t let us. As you can see this the beginning of a very long battle the First Nations have to fight.
Question: Do you think the Indian Act should be abolished or revised? Answer: I adamantly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. First, having the First Nations trapped on reserves does not help them become independent people who can live without the help of the government (an example is the fact that some First Nations do not have to pay taxes). The reserves cannot give First Nations the opportunities that living in a city/town life can, and there are not enough ways on the reserves to make enough money to keep up with daily life. Moreover, it has been 150 years and the problems of that time were a lot different than the problems of the present. The First Nations have had enough time to forgive and forget since the Canadians bought their land. Additionally, it is not fair to people who earn their own living without the benefits that these people are given. If the Indian Act was abolished they would have to live with everyone else and co-operate with the people around them. They might worry about being assimalited and about losing their unique culture but there are many different ethnic groups in Canada and each one respects the others traditions and way of life. An example of this is Catholics do not stop going to Church just because some people in their community do not believe in the same things. In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished.
Blog Question History: Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised? I believe that the Indian Act should be revised. I believe an appropriate revision to the Indian Act would be to allow a woman of Indian heritage to marry a man of non-Indian decent and still be allowed to keep her status as an Indian. The Canadian government took all of the Indian band’s religions away and converted them to the same religion as the most of Canada at the time. Another revision would be that when an Indian moved to a reserve or any government land he or she should be able to keep their beliefs and religion without having to be converted. Once again I believe that the Indian Act should be revised because in the act itself the aboriginal people’s wants and needs were over looked by the Canadian government to fit their own needs.
I adamantly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. This act does give rights to the First Nations people, but these serve the Canadian government’s best interests, not the First Nations. This act gave the Indians their own reserves and, in turn, the Canadian government was given complete ownership of these lands.
After European colonization, the First Nations people were treated very badly. This way of thinking is put into practice by the Canadians in the form of the Indian Act.
Throughout history, it is evident that the tremendous power given to these leaders was misused. Rations were used as a weapon to impose authority on the First Nations. These leaders were responsible for the forced signing of many agreements. Furthermore, large amounts of land could (since it was under the control of a Canadian) be appropriated to other projects. An example of this is when Kahnawake (Mohawk) land was designated for the St. Lawrence Seaway (1954). As the Act states in Clause 20, Section 1: "No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band."
Today, the conditions for First Nation people are not that different. The First Nations live on reserves that lack basic rights. For example, a recent survey conducted by StatsCan in 2004 shows that Aboriginals make up less than three percent of Canada’s population. Yet, they account for seventeen percent of the country’s murder victims and twenty-three percent of those convicted of murder. Moreover, many of the reserves have the highest suicide rates in the world. These only illustrate the terrible living conditions given to the First Nations by a supposedly “fair” government.
The Indian Act was a ploy to trick the First Nations, nothing more. I think that it is a racist document that forced the Natives to bend to the Canadian government’s will. I also think that it is time to end such apartheid and to give equal rights to everyone. The Indian Act should be abolished.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
After researching the Indian Act, I can undeniably say that the Indian Act should not be abolished, but it should be revised. There are numerous reasons why I strongly believe that the Indian Act should not be abolished. One reason is because during colonialism, when different countries were exploring Canada or British North America at the time, they trespassed and took over on the Indians land. I do not believe it is fair at all that these First Nations People were living on the land first and then were completely disregarded. Moreover, the Canadian government then forced all of these Aboriginal groups into reserves where there were treated horribly. For all these actions, I definitely think that the Indian Act is the least the Canadian government can do to repay the Indians for how atrociously they treated them and invaded there land. These are the reasons why I firmly believe that Indian Act should not be abolished.
The Indian Act should certainly be revised. Since 1885, the Indian Act prohibits any religious dances or ceremonies, such as potlatches. Consequently, I confidently believe that a revision that should be made to the Indian Act would be to allow religious ceremonies and dances. There is no reason why they should not be permitted to participate in these activities. For example, us Catholics are allowed to go to church and participate in religious ceremonies, so why shouldn’t these First Nations groups be allowed to do the same? I think that they should be treated fairly and this revision would allow this. This is one revision that I think should definitely be made to the Indian Act.
There have been many revisions in the Indian since the initial copy. One amendment that I strongly agree with is that women can no longer lose her “Indian Status” if she marries a man who is not a status Indian. Before 1885, a man with Indian Status could marry a woman without and he could still keep his status, yet if a woman of Indian Status married a man without, her status was lost. This revision would ensure that both genders are treated equally.
The Indian Act should not be abolished for the main reason that during colonialism, there land was taken over and they were then forced onto reserves. One revision that I think that should be made is that these First Nations groups should be allowed to participate in religious ceremonies and dances. For these reasons, I absolutely believe that the Indian Act should not be abolished, but revised.
Question: Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
Answer: I believe that the Indian act should not be abolished. If the Indian act were to just be abolished that would just be throwing away all the Indians hard work put into that land and be left with the Canadian government to do whatever they wanted to do with it. Abolishing the Indian Act will leave the indians under strict control by the Canadian government which I personally dont feel is right nore fair. If I were in the Indians position I would fight as hard as I can and for as long as I can because they worked really hard for this land and just giving it away to the Canadian governmnet personally just doesnt seem right. If I found, settled and put all my hard work into something like the Indians and their land, I would not just give it away to someone because they are bribing me for it. However I do understand the Canadian governmants poit of view. They are also just fighting for something they want, but it is still the Indians land so they do not have the right to just tell the Indians to give it to them. The Canadians can continue to fight for what they want but they can not in anyway, take it without the Indians say.
Should the Indian Act be abolishe? Or should it be revised?
I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be revised not abolished for these reasons. One, the Canadian Government treated the First Nations People like dirt. They were all forced onto their reserves and were dealt with in a dreadful manner. Another main reason why the Indian Act should be revised is because that due to colonialism some Canadians and other settlers were exploring, they intruded on the First Nations People land. The First Nations People were living there first and made their land their own, then inhabitants just waltz on in and interfere with all the Aboriginals lifestyle. After all the poor actions the Canadian government put them through, the Indian Act is the least they can do to reimburse the First Nations People for how wickedly they acted. They should be humiliated for how utterly cold they were towards the First Nations People. There has been many revisions and few additions, but I firmly believe that there should have been one final revision to the initial copy which ensures that all First Nations People are treated fairly and equally and that they receive and own what is rightfully theirs, ( invaders on their land). As a result, I strongly and firmly believe that the India Act should be revised not abolished for the main reason that during the colonialism their land was taken over from the explorers and they were forced on their reserves. For these reasons, I certainly support my decision that the Indian Act should be revised not abolished.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
As we have been reading in history as a class we all are quite aware of, all the wrongs that the Canadian government has done to the Indians, so how did the Canadian government react? When Canadian government had realized how they had been acting they began to try and listen to the Indians and assimilate them into their own culture. Eventually the Indian act was formed granting the Indians special reserves and had them not have to pay taxes. Now, 120 years later we are negotiating weather the Indian act should be abolished or revised. I firmly believe that the Indian act should be abolished. The fact is that times have changed and the rights granted on that document do not go well with today’s culture. It’s true that in the time that the Indian act was made the reserves were very helpful and gave good agricultural opportunities and the no taxes is always helpful, but now the reserves do not give as much opportunities as the cities. If we do abolish it it’s going to feel like a slap in the face when they begin to pay taxes again. However they will recover. In the end of it that act as lasted much too long and at this point what happened 120 years ago does not count any more. In conclusion I believe that the Indian cat should be abolished.
Question: Should the Indian Act be abolished or should it be revised? I think that the Indian act of 1867 should be revised because the first nations women would be losing their culture (if they married a white euopean male settler), the Indian celebration known as the Potlatch and various traditional dances and customs as illegal and they don't have a little bit of after the colonialism done by the explorers. The thing that is dumb about the Indian act is if any first nation’s woman that married a white European settler would lose their culture and the white European male settler would be consider as an bona fide member of the Canadian society. It should be that all first nation’s women would keep their Indian status even if they get married to a white European male settler and the white European male settler should keep his status but the baby should be a mix of status. The Indians should be aloud the celebration known as the Potlatch and various traditional dances after if they get married to a white European male settler you shouldn’t lose your traditions and the right to have Indian traditional dances and celebrations. Also the Indians should have a special for them because they were there first and after the colonialism done by the explorers the Indians were not noticed and the Indians were in Canada first. So in conclusion the Indian act should be revised.
After reading about the Indian Act, I believe that it should be revised. One of the strong points that I think that the Indian Act should be revised is the strict rules that they have if it would be abolished. The one point that really caught my attention was the marriage rule. The rule was that an Indian woman was not allowed to marry and non-indian man. This is not fair. I think this because, no mater what heritage you are you should be allowed to marry any man or woman. If things are like this now a days then i don't understand why they were not like this back in the 18-1900's.
This is a big reason why I personally think that the Indian Act should be revised. Indian people should be able to marry whomever they want to, no matter the heritage.
Should the Indian Act be revised? Or should it be revised?
I think the Indian Act should be revised and abolished. 1.When an Indian woman marries a non- Indian man, the woman shouldn’t lose her rights as an Indian (Indian status) and she would be forced to go his culture. 2.The government put all of the Indians on to reserves and changed their religion and culture (mostly Catholics). I strongly believe that they should revise it to: if an Indian went on to a reserve they shouldn’t have to change their religion or culture. 3.When Britain, France and America started colonialism but mainly Britain and America. They kept on taking the First Nations land and forcing them off of it and putting them somewhere else. They have been treated like garbage; the government just tosses the first nations around just like a sack of potatoes. The government has realized the mistakes he made and is doing the best to correct them. I know I have already stated this but I cannot stress this enough: the Indian Act should be revised and not abolished
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I believe that the Indian Act should be revised. The Indian Act was established in 1876 in regards to governing the First Nations people and their land and property. I think that it should not be abolished, but revised because of many reasons. First off, any women who got married to an Aboriginal man received the status/rights of an Indian, but if an Indian women married a white man, than she would lose her Indian status/rights. I disagree with this because I think that it should be the same for both, and that no one should lose their status/rights. Secondly, the Indian Act excluded the Métis, and I believe that they should have been included, and that they should receive the Indian rights too. Lastly, the Aboriginal people were granted land, and at any time the government had the right to cut down the trees on their lots. I disagree with this because trees were a main resource for them, and I believe that if they own the land then they should own the trees on it too, and that the government should not be allowed to take them at any time. For those three main reasons, I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be revised.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I think it should be revised. This is because it does not reflect the realities of the 21st century. Many of our Aboriginal people are suffering from modern day maladies such as poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, low education and inadequate housing due to their placement on the reserves. The Indian Act should be revised to ensure that these basic necessities are adequately provided for.
Many conflicts are now arising over land disputes. The ambiguity of the Indian Act has been the cause of these present day dilemas. Treaties should be honoured so that we can avoid future confrontations. Even though the Act provides reserves, we cannot forget that the land was originally occupied by Indians so they should benefit from some of the rewards we reap from mining, foresting or farming these lands.
The isolation policies have also been complete FAILURE. I don't believe that segregating communities and slowly assimilating them is a good way to preserve their heritage. They could slowly develop a deep bond with the natives and propose new ideas and/or negotiate trades.For these reasons I absolutely believe that the indian act should be revised.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished for many reasons. In the past, First Nations had been treated unfairly and lost many on the things that belonged to them like land, culture and beliefs/religion. The Canadian government eventually decided to negotiate with then to bring peace, which lead to the creation of the 66 treaties also known as the Indian Act. This act still exists today. I think that the Indian Act should be abolished because it happened many years ago and it still carries on. I believe that it has been around too long and that First Nations have been having the financial benefits for many years so they should be able to maintain financial stability by now without the act. I also feel that it is unfair to everyone else in living in Canada because they receive financial payments and land with no taxes. I feel that because they live on reserves, they seem more isolated from everyone else living in Canada because they are not allowed to live outside of their reserves.
For these reasons I believe that the Indian Act should be abolished.
I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. It isn’t fair that we have to pay taxes and they don’t. Sure- it’s a “gift” from the government but WHY don’t they have to pay taxes. Not even that- they don’t have to pay for university textbooks OR medical bills. WHY?? Because they are aboriginal- that’s why. But then, why do WE have to pay fees? What we earn, we give a portion to the government. Fair, right? But then, a portion of our taxes go to funding for the Aboriginals. So why are WE giving money to the Aboriginals? It isn’t fair. Also, currently, we are in a job crisis so why do Aboriginals get to usually keep their jobs and we don’t? We know the fact between “no worries- everything’s going to be fine” and “I just lost my job.” They don’t get the difference!!! They don’t even have to worry because WE are paying for them!
The Indian Act should be abolished for a variety of reasons. First of all, as I mentioned before, we pay the Aboriginals’ expenses so they don’t know HOW to cherish money and make good use of it because WE pay for most, if not all their bills. The rescission started in December 2007 and while we are hoping and praying that we don’t get laid off, the Aboriginals don’t even have to worry! It isn’t fair to give EVERYthing to someone or to a group of people. That shows favoritism to the Aboriginals. Next, since they lived on reserves and had everyone else paid their fees/ bills, they don’t have the best social skills around here because not much people live on reserves. That occurs when the Act is abolished, the Aboriginals might finally learn social skills that they should’ve learned a long time ago… Also, they could face the *real* world, finding jobs, homes, stuff like that. Last of all, because of their poor social skills, a recent survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2004 shows that Aboriginals make up less than three percent of Canada’s population. Yet, they account for seventeen percent of the country’s murder victims and twenty-three percent of those convicted of murder. If they learn BETTER social skills, the homicide percentages will decrease.
The Canadian Government made promises that they never kept, such as a wonderful land to live on- although they got to choose their own land, they go to choose the area in which the reserves would be. Now, the Canadian government governs and monitors them very harshly. They weren’t even allowed liquor on or off the reserve while we- living very comfortably, are allowed liquor. That is discrimination- why do we get to drink liquor while they don’t? They’re still human beings, you know? Nobody’s perfect so why act as their status is very lowly? Thirdly, the children of the Aboriginals are treated harshly. They were taken away from their parents at an early age and were trained at residential schools so they couldn’t learn their own practices and beliefs their parents were going to teach them to practice!!( research) Children who were habitually absent from school were "deemed" to be juvenile delinquents. Lastly, the Act took away the Aboriginals land and placed them onto reserves. The Aboriginals all shared a same perspective that the land belonged to everyone and everyone could share it. They never believed in “claiming” land. So, when Jacques Cartier came and claimed land for France, the Haudenosaunee, also known as the Iroquois, opposed to the idea, although didn’t comment much until, Cartier took away Donnacona and 9 other villagers back to France. Only 1 villager survived, while the rest died of European diseases like small pox or scurvy. Cartier then returned to “Canada” and lied to the Haudenosaunee, saying that all of them are living luxuriously in France. The Haudenosaunee obviously didn’t believe and then, the 2 sides held grudges against each other. Soon, the British came and took all the land and it became known as Canada. The European countries all believed in claiming land so they claimed not only the land but the people living on it as well: the ABORIGINALS.
Question
ReplyDeleteShould the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I think that the Indian Act should be abolished. Since Canada totally ripped the Indians off they made promises they did not keep. For example the Canadian government promised the Indians tools seeds and the right to hunt fish and trap on crown land. I think that the Indians were sent against there will to these reserves. Over some time the Indians lost more and more power. Then in the late 1700 and early 1800 the Indians started to die from many sorts of contagious sicknesses. Plus the American whisky traders that also killed many Indian peoples by putting poisonous things into the whisky the Indians traded for. Soon after the buffalo were fewer in numbers so the number 1 source of food for the Indians was gone. The first nations forced to except all of the treaties the Canadian government sent in the way. Then the Indian Act was passed on the 1876. The aim of the Indian act was to move the entire First Group to the reserves so the remaining land would be allowed to give to the settlers. While the First Nations were in these reserves the Canadians treated them horribly. Some Indians say that there land was not ours to give away in fact we had given them some of our power to the Canadian government. We did not even surrender all of our rights to our land. The land was ours to take care of not theirs! Another person says that the treaties were supposed to help us get more land not loose it! It is not fair these Canadians can’t just take all of our land. They acted as if they controlled us. First we were allowed to hunt and fish on these reserves but now they won’t let us. As you can see this the beginning of a very long battle the First Nations have to fight.
History Question #4
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Do you think the Indian Act should be abolished or revised?
Answer:
I adamantly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. First, having the First Nations trapped on reserves does not help them become independent people who can live without the help of the government (an example is the fact that some First Nations do not have to pay taxes). The reserves cannot give First Nations the opportunities that living in a city/town life can, and there are not enough ways on the reserves to make enough money to keep up with daily life. Moreover, it has been 150 years and the problems of that time were a lot different than the problems of the present. The First Nations have had enough time to forgive and forget since the Canadians bought their land. Additionally, it is not fair to people who earn their own living without the benefits that these people are given. If the Indian Act was abolished they would have to live with everyone else and co-operate with the people around them. They might worry about being assimalited and about losing their unique culture but there are many different ethnic groups in Canada and each one respects the others traditions and way of life. An example of this is Catholics do not stop going to Church just because some people in their community do not believe in the same things. In conclusion, I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished.
Blog Question History:
ReplyDeleteShould the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
I believe that the Indian Act should be revised. I believe an appropriate revision to the Indian Act would be to allow a woman of Indian heritage to marry a man of non-Indian decent and still be allowed to keep her status as an Indian. The Canadian government took all of the Indian band’s religions away and converted them to the same religion as the most of Canada at the time. Another revision would be that when an Indian moved to a reserve or any government land he or she should be able to keep their beliefs and religion without having to be converted. Once again I believe that the Indian Act should be revised because in the act itself the aboriginal people’s wants and needs were over looked by the Canadian government to fit their own needs.
The Indian Act should be abolished or revised.
ReplyDeleteAnswer:
I adamantly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. This act does give rights to the First Nations people, but these serve the Canadian government’s best interests, not the First Nations. This act gave the Indians their own reserves and, in turn, the Canadian government was given complete ownership of these lands.
After European colonization, the First Nations people were treated very badly. This way of thinking is put into practice by the Canadians in the form of the Indian Act.
Throughout history, it is evident that the tremendous power given to these leaders was misused. Rations were used as a weapon to impose authority on the First Nations. These leaders were responsible for the forced signing of many agreements. Furthermore, large amounts of land could (since it was under the control of a Canadian) be appropriated to other projects. An example of this is when Kahnawake (Mohawk) land was designated for the St. Lawrence Seaway (1954). As the Act states in Clause 20, Section 1: "No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister, possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band."
Today, the conditions for First Nation people are not that different. The First Nations live on reserves that lack basic rights. For example, a recent survey conducted by StatsCan in 2004 shows that Aboriginals make up less than three percent of Canada’s population. Yet, they account for seventeen percent of the country’s murder victims and twenty-three percent of those convicted of murder. Moreover, many of the reserves have the highest suicide rates in the world. These only illustrate the terrible living conditions given to the First Nations by a supposedly “fair” government.
The Indian Act was a ploy to trick the First Nations, nothing more. I think that it is a racist document that forced the Natives to bend to the Canadian government’s will. I also think that it is time to end such apartheid and to give equal rights to everyone. The Indian Act should be abolished.
By: Alisha
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteAfter researching the Indian Act, I can undeniably say that the Indian Act should not be abolished, but it should be revised. There are numerous reasons why I strongly believe that the Indian Act should not be abolished. One reason is because during colonialism, when different countries were exploring Canada or British North America at the time, they trespassed and took over on the Indians land. I do not believe it is fair at all that these First Nations People were living on the land first and then were completely disregarded. Moreover, the Canadian government then forced all of these Aboriginal groups into reserves where there were treated horribly. For all these actions, I definitely think that the Indian Act is the least the Canadian government can do to repay the Indians for how atrociously they treated them and invaded there land. These are the reasons why I firmly believe that Indian Act should not be abolished.
The Indian Act should certainly be revised. Since 1885, the Indian Act prohibits any religious dances or ceremonies, such as potlatches. Consequently, I confidently believe that a revision that should be made to the Indian Act would be to allow religious ceremonies and dances. There is no reason why they should not be permitted to participate in these activities. For example, us Catholics are allowed to go to church and participate in religious ceremonies, so why shouldn’t these First Nations groups be allowed to do the same? I think that they should be treated fairly and this revision would allow this. This is one revision that I think should definitely be made to the Indian Act.
There have been many revisions in the Indian since the initial copy. One amendment that I strongly agree with is that women can no longer lose her “Indian Status” if she marries a man who is not a status Indian. Before 1885, a man with Indian Status could marry a woman without and he could still keep his status, yet if a woman of Indian Status married a man without, her status was lost. This revision would ensure that both genders are treated equally.
The Indian Act should not be abolished for the main reason that during colonialism, there land was taken over and they were then forced onto reserves. One revision that I think that should be made is that these First Nations groups should be allowed to participate in religious ceremonies and dances. For these reasons, I absolutely believe that the Indian Act should not be abolished, but revised.
Question:
ReplyDeleteShould the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
Answer:
I believe that the Indian act should not be abolished. If the Indian act were to just be abolished that would just be throwing away all the Indians hard work put into that land and be left with the Canadian government to do whatever they wanted to do with it. Abolishing the Indian Act will leave the indians under strict control by the Canadian government which I personally dont feel is right nore fair.
If I were in the Indians position I would fight as hard as I can and for as long as I can because they worked really hard for this land and just giving it away to the Canadian governmnet personally just doesnt seem right. If I found, settled and put all my hard work into something like the Indians and their land, I would not just give it away to someone because they are bribing me for it.
However I do understand the Canadian governmants poit of view. They are also just fighting for something they want, but it is still the Indians land so they do not have the right to just tell the Indians to give it to them. The Canadians can continue to fight for what they want but they can not in anyway, take it without the Indians say.
Should the Indian Act be abolishe? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Indian Act should be revised not abolished for these reasons. One, the Canadian Government treated the First Nations People like dirt. They were all forced onto their reserves and were dealt with in a dreadful manner. Another main reason why the Indian Act should be revised is because that due to colonialism some Canadians and other settlers were exploring, they intruded on the First Nations People land. The First Nations People were living there first and made their land their own, then inhabitants just waltz on in and interfere with all the Aboriginals lifestyle. After all the poor actions the Canadian government put them through, the Indian Act is the least they can do to reimburse the First Nations People for how wickedly they acted. They should be humiliated for how utterly cold they were towards the First Nations People. There has been many revisions and few additions, but I firmly believe that there should have been one final revision to the initial copy which ensures that all First Nations People are treated fairly and equally and that they receive and own what is rightfully theirs, ( invaders on their land).
As a result, I strongly and firmly believe that the India Act should be revised not abolished for the main reason that during the colonialism their land was taken over from the explorers and they were forced on their reserves. For these reasons, I certainly support my decision that the Indian Act should be revised not abolished.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteAs we have been reading in history as a class we all are quite aware of, all the wrongs that the Canadian government has done to the Indians, so how did the Canadian government react? When Canadian government had realized how they had been acting they began to try and listen to the Indians and assimilate them into their own culture. Eventually the Indian act was formed granting the Indians special reserves and had them not have to pay taxes. Now, 120 years later we are negotiating weather the Indian act should be abolished or revised. I firmly believe that the Indian act should be abolished. The fact is that times have changed and the rights granted on that document do not go well with today’s culture. It’s true that in the time that the Indian act was made the reserves were very helpful and gave good agricultural opportunities and the no taxes is always helpful, but now the reserves do not give as much opportunities as the cities. If we do abolish it it’s going to feel like a slap in the face when they begin to pay taxes again. However they will recover. In the end of it that act as lasted much too long and at this point what happened 120 years ago does not count any more. In conclusion I believe that the Indian cat should be abolished.
Question: Should the Indian Act be abolished or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI think that the Indian act of 1867 should be revised because the first nations women would be losing their culture (if they married a white euopean male settler), the Indian celebration known as the Potlatch and various traditional dances and customs as illegal and they don't have a little bit of after the colonialism done by the explorers.
The thing that is dumb about the Indian act is if any first nation’s woman that married a white European settler would lose their culture and the white European male settler would be consider as an bona fide member of the Canadian society. It should be that all first nation’s women would keep their Indian status even if they get married to a white European male settler and the white European male settler should keep his status but the baby should be a mix of status. The Indians should be aloud the celebration known as the Potlatch and various traditional dances after if they get married to a white European male settler you shouldn’t lose your traditions and the right to have Indian traditional dances and celebrations. Also the Indians should have a special for them because they were there first and after the colonialism done by the explorers the Indians were not noticed and the Indians were in Canada first. So in conclusion the Indian act should be revised.
By: Keith
After reading about the Indian Act, I believe that it should be revised. One of the strong points that I think that the Indian Act should be revised is the strict rules that they have if it would be abolished. The one point that really caught my attention was the marriage rule. The rule was that an Indian woman was not allowed to marry and non-indian man. This is not fair. I think this because, no mater what heritage you are you should be allowed to marry any man or woman. If things are like this now a days then i don't understand why they were not like this back in the 18-1900's.
ReplyDeleteThis is a big reason why I personally think that the Indian Act should be revised. Indian people should be able to marry whomever they want to, no matter the heritage.
Should the Indian Act be revised? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI think the Indian Act should be revised and abolished.
1.When an Indian woman marries a non- Indian man, the woman shouldn’t lose her rights as an Indian (Indian status) and she would be forced to go his culture.
2.The government put all of the Indians on to reserves and changed their religion and culture (mostly Catholics). I strongly believe that they should revise it to: if an Indian went on to a reserve they shouldn’t have to change their religion or culture.
3.When Britain, France and America started colonialism but mainly Britain and America.
They kept on taking the First Nations land and forcing them off of it and putting them somewhere else. They have been treated like garbage; the government just tosses the first nations around just like a sack of potatoes. The government has realized the mistakes he made and is doing the best to correct them. I know I have already stated this but I cannot stress this enough: the Indian Act should be revised and not abolished
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Indian Act should be revised. The Indian Act was established in 1876 in regards to governing the First Nations people and their land and property. I think that it should not be abolished, but revised because of many reasons. First off, any women who got married to an Aboriginal man received the status/rights of an Indian, but if an Indian women married a white man, than she would lose her Indian status/rights. I disagree with this because I think that it should be the same for both, and that no one should lose their status/rights. Secondly, the Indian Act excluded the Métis, and I believe that they should have been included, and that they should receive the Indian rights too. Lastly, the Aboriginal people were granted land, and at any time the government had the right to cut down the trees on their lots. I disagree with this because trees were a main resource for them, and I believe that if they own the land then they should own the trees on it too, and that the government should not be allowed to take them at any time. For those three main reasons, I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be revised.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI think it should be revised. This is because it does not reflect the realities of the 21st century. Many of our Aboriginal people are suffering from modern day maladies such as poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, low education and inadequate housing due to their placement on the reserves. The Indian Act should be revised to ensure that these basic necessities are adequately provided for.
Many conflicts are now arising over land disputes. The ambiguity of the Indian Act has been the cause of these present day dilemas. Treaties should be honoured so that we can avoid future confrontations. Even though the Act provides reserves, we cannot forget that the land was originally occupied by Indians so they should benefit from some of the rewards we reap from mining, foresting or farming these lands.
The isolation policies have also been complete FAILURE. I don't believe that segregating communities and slowly assimilating them is a good way to preserve their heritage. They could slowly develop a deep bond with the natives and propose new ideas and/or negotiate trades.For these reasons I absolutely believe that the indian act should be revised.
Should the Indian Act be abolished? Or should it be revised?
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished for many reasons. In the past, First Nations had been treated unfairly and lost many on the things that belonged to them like land, culture and beliefs/religion. The Canadian government eventually decided to negotiate with then to bring peace, which lead to the creation of the 66 treaties also known as the Indian Act. This act still exists today. I think that the Indian Act should be abolished because it happened many years ago and it still carries on. I believe that it has been around too long and that First Nations have been having the financial benefits for many years so they should be able to maintain financial stability by now without the act. I also feel that it is unfair to everyone else in living in Canada because they receive financial payments and land with no taxes. I feel that because they live on reserves, they seem more isolated from everyone else living in Canada because they are not allowed to live outside of their reserves.
For these reasons I believe that the Indian Act should be abolished.
I strongly believe that the Indian Act should be abolished. It isn’t fair that we have to pay taxes and they don’t. Sure- it’s a “gift” from the government but WHY don’t they have to pay taxes. Not even that- they don’t have to pay for university textbooks OR medical bills. WHY?? Because they are aboriginal- that’s why. But then, why do WE have to pay fees? What we earn, we give a portion to the government. Fair, right? But then, a portion of our taxes go to funding for the Aboriginals. So why are WE giving money to the Aboriginals? It isn’t fair. Also, currently, we are in a job crisis so why do Aboriginals get to usually keep their jobs and we don’t? We know the fact between “no worries- everything’s going to be fine” and “I just lost my job.” They don’t get the difference!!! They don’t even have to worry because WE are paying for them!
ReplyDeleteThe Indian Act should be abolished for a variety of reasons. First of all, as I mentioned before, we pay the Aboriginals’ expenses so they don’t know HOW to cherish money and make good use of it because WE pay for most, if not all their bills. The rescission started in December 2007 and while we are hoping and praying that we don’t get laid off, the Aboriginals don’t even have to worry! It isn’t fair to give EVERYthing to someone or to a group of people. That shows favoritism to the Aboriginals. Next, since they lived on reserves and had everyone else paid their fees/ bills, they don’t have the best social skills around here because not much people live on reserves. That occurs when the Act is abolished, the Aboriginals might finally learn social skills that they should’ve learned a long time ago… Also, they could face the *real* world, finding jobs, homes, stuff like that. Last of all, because of their poor social skills, a recent survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2004 shows that Aboriginals make up less than three percent of Canada’s population. Yet, they account for seventeen percent of the country’s murder victims and twenty-three percent of those convicted of murder. If they learn BETTER social skills, the homicide percentages will decrease.
The Canadian Government made promises that they never kept, such as a wonderful land to live on- although they got to choose their own land, they go to choose the area in which the reserves would be. Now, the Canadian government governs and monitors them very harshly. They weren’t even allowed liquor on or off the reserve while we- living very comfortably, are allowed liquor. That is discrimination- why do we get to drink liquor while they don’t? They’re still human beings, you know? Nobody’s perfect so why act as their status is very lowly?
Thirdly, the children of the Aboriginals are treated harshly. They were taken away from their parents at an early age and were trained at residential schools so they couldn’t learn their own practices and beliefs their parents were going to teach them to practice!!( research) Children who were habitually absent from school were "deemed" to be juvenile delinquents.
Lastly, the Act took away the Aboriginals land and placed them onto reserves. The Aboriginals all shared a same perspective that the land belonged to everyone and everyone could share it. They never believed in “claiming” land. So, when Jacques Cartier came and claimed land for France, the Haudenosaunee, also known as the Iroquois, opposed to the idea, although didn’t comment much until, Cartier took away Donnacona and 9 other villagers back to France. Only 1 villager survived, while the rest died of European diseases like small pox or scurvy. Cartier then returned to “Canada” and lied to the Haudenosaunee, saying that all of them are living luxuriously in France. The Haudenosaunee obviously didn’t believe and then, the 2 sides held grudges against each other. Soon, the British came and took all the land and it became known as Canada. The European countries all believed in claiming land so they claimed not only the land but the people living on it as well: the ABORIGINALS.