Abstract
Every society that is distinguished by a particular history and culture naturally seeks to maintain and promote the unique ways in which it understands and organizes the universe. People say “This is the way we do things around here.” With that statement they tell us about the purposes of establishing autonomous political units, of establishing places with political boundaries drawn around them to define the relevant community. Such places include countries, autonomous parts of federations, and tribal territories. People repose confidence and pride and assert not only a particular corporate identity but also a political commitment to maintaining that identity when they assert “This is the way we do things around here.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Compare, for example, Russel L. Barsch, “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Self-Determination in International Law”, in Barbara Hocking (ed.), International Law and Aboriginal Human Rights (Sydney: The Law Book Co. Ltd, 1988), pp. 68–82; and S. James Anaya, “The Capacity of International Law to Advance Ethnic or Nationality Rights Claims” (1990) 75 Iowa L. Rev. 837. See also, James Crawford, The Rights of Peoples (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).
See the discussion of this point in Paul L. A. H. Chartrand, “Aboriginal Self-Government: The Two Sides of Legitimacy”, in Susan D. Phillips (ed.), How Ottawa Spends: A More Democratic Canada …? 1993–1994 (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1993), pp. 231–56.
Much of the substance of the debate can be glimpsed in the following publications: Douglas Sanders, “Prior Claims: Aboriginal People in the Constitution of Canada”, in Stanley M. Beck and Ivan Bernier (eds), Canada and the New Constitution: The Unfinished Agenda, vol. I (Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1983), pp. 225–80; Bryan Schwartz, First Principles, Second Thoughts: Aboriginal Peoples, Constitutional Reform and Canadian Statecraft (Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986); “Toward Native Self-Rule”, The Globe and Mail, 8 October 1992, A8; Jeffrey Simpson, “Politics, Native and Non-Native Style: There isn’t much Difference”, The Globe and Mail, 13 October 1992, A18; Robert Matas, “B.C. No Group Attacks Package on Native Self-Rule”, The Globe and Mail, 15 October 1992, A3; “Constitution Special: Including the Complete Legal Text”, Winnipeg Free Press, 15 October 1992, D1–D14.
Russel Barsch makes the point, and discusses some of the implications, in Barbara Hocking (ed.), International Law and Aboriginal Human Rights, supra, note 1.
There are the “reserves” that have been set apart by the terms of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c. I-5, as amended, and other lands set apart for exclusive or shared use and occupancy by modern land claims agreements. See chapters 8, 10, 11 and 12 in Bradford W. Morse, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: Indian, Métis and Inuit Rights in Canada, revised 1st edn (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989).
See, for example, Alan D. McMillan, Native Peoples and Cultures of Canada: An Anthropological Overview (Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre, 1988); William W. Warren, History of the Ojibway People (St Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1984); Bruce G. Trigger, The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1976).
See Paul L. A. H. Chartrand, “Terms of Division: Problems of ‘Outside-Naming’ for Aboriginal People in Canada”, (1991) 2 (Gabriel Dumont Institute of Native Studies and Applied Research, Regina, Saskatchewan) 1.
See Paul L. A. H. Chartrand, in Susan D. Phillips (ed.), How Ottawa Spends, supra, note 2.
This tension is producing a scholarly debate about Aboriginal aspirations, liberalism and group rights. See, for example, Bryan Schwartz, First Principles, Second Thoughts: Aboriginal Peoples, Constitutional Reform and Canadian Statecraft (Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986); and Will Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).
See Marcel Giraud, The Métis in the Canadian West, 2 vols (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1986). (Translated by George Woodcock. Originally published by l’Institut d”Ethnologie, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, 1945, under the title Le Métis Canadien.) George F. G. Stanley, The Birth of Western Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1936).
Paul L. A. H. Chartrand, “Aboriginal Rights: The Dispossession of the Métis” (1991) 29 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 457; Manitoba’s Métis Settlement Scheme of 1870 (Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Centre, 1991).
See T. C. Pocklington, The Government and Politics of the Alberta Métis Settlements (Regina: Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina, 1991).
For an historical account of the founding of the Manitoba Métis Federation, see Emile Pelletier, “A Glimpse of the Manitoba Métis Federation”, in Antoine S. Lussier and D. Bruce Sealey (eds), The Other Natives: The Métis (Winnipeg: Manitoba Métis Federation and Editions Bois Brulés, 1978), pp. 155–69.
But see Sally M. Weaver, “Federal Policy-Making for Métis and Non-Status Indians in the Context of Native Policy” (1985) XVII Canadian Ethnic Studies (Special Issue: The Métis: Past and Present), 80.
See, for example, Joe Sawchuk, The Métis of Manitoba: Reformulation of an Ethnic Identity (Toronto: Peter Martin, 1978).
Harry W. Daniels, We Are the New Nation: The Métis and National Native Policy (Ottawa: Native Council of Canada, 1979).
Catherine Bell has argued that there are two distinct Métis “peoples” for constitutional purposes. Her contentious view seems to place a heavy emphasis on recent political developments. An interpretation of “Métis” for constitutional purposes that focused on the usual social, anthropological antecedents of identity might well conclude that there is but one Métis nation and that the mixed-parentage, pan-aboriginal identity promoted by some political organizations is an “Indian” identity: Catherine Bell, “Who Are the Métis People in Section 35(2)?” (1991) 29 Alberta Law Review, 351.
Joe Sawchuk, “The Métis, Non-Status Indians, and the New Aboriginality: Government Influence on Native Political Alliances and Identity” (1985) XVII Canadian Ethnic Studies (Special Issue: The Métis: Past and Present), 135.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1996 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chartrand, P.L.A.H. (1996). Self-Determination without a Discrete Territorial Base?. In: Clark, D., Williamson, R. (eds) Self-Determination. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24918-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24918-3_18
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-24920-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24918-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)