Introduction
The Canadian aboriginals’ rights in terms of education, land use and cultural identity are debated in three current newspaper articles depicted in the Canadian press. The First Nations receive considerable mass media attention in response to the country’s current efforts to promote diversity and to defend human rights. In this context, three articles from the Canadian press refer to the efforts that the Aboriginal communities make to ensure a better life for themselves, while negotiating their identity and rights with the Federal Government.
This essay analyzes three articles: “Who Speaks for Canada’s Aboriginal” (Mark Kennedy, Ottawa Citizen), “First Nations’ Land Claims Stall Federal Government Sale Plans” (Peter O’Neil, Vancouver Sun) and “Pembroke Celebrates Aboriginal Cultures” (Sean Chase, The Daily Observer). The online comments are mixed, suggest sympathy and support for the Aboriginal issues but also criticizing increased aboriginal rights.
Body
Writing for Ottawa Citizen newspaper, Mark Kennedy asks “Who Speaks for Canada’s Aboriginal”, investigating the actual power and influence of the aboriginals’ authority (Assembly of First Nations) in negotiating with the federal government on issues regarding education, housing or crime among aboriginals. Peter O’Neil writes in Vancouver Sun about “First Nations’ Land Claims Stall Federal Government Sale Plans”, discussing the land rights of aborigines, while Chase follows the restitution of identity pride among the aboriginals as they celebrate their national day.
Mark Kennedy, writing for Ottawa Citizen, notes that the First Nations need to have increased authority. The journalist says that the current organism that represents the Canadian aboriginal peoples, Assembly of First Nations (AFN) should be reformed for assuring a higher level of relevancy and responsiveness of the aboriginal problems (Kennedy, “Who Speaks”). O’Neil (“First Nations’ Land”) deals with the landing issue that affects the First Nations, indicating that Canada’s federal government intends to sell the lands wherein aboriginals currently live. The article objectively reflects the issue of the property selling for increased urbanization and resource exploitation, explaining that such actions would represent the violation of the first nations’ rights (O’Neil, “First Nations’ Land”). The issue of negotiation between the first nations’ representatives and the federal government is discussed in both articles (Kennedy, “Who Speaks”; O’Neil, “First Nations’ Land”). Kennedy is interested in evaluating the education law enforcement and also the aboriginal housing policies, qualifying them as currently inadequate, which situates the peoples of the first nations on a disadvantaged position compared to the non-aboriginals. In this time, O’Neil follows the negotiation between first nations’ representatives, the Department of National Defence and the sales agents interested in the aboriginal properties rich in natural resources, suggesting that agreements might have been reached to seal the sell. Such an action would also be unfavorable to the Canadian aboriginals, but it would offer other benefits in the negotiation process.
Following another aboriginal theme, while still focusing on the promotion of their rights and identity, Sean Chase takes the readers to an aboriginal festivity in Pembroke, where the second National Aboriginal Day was celebrated in June, this year. The article talks about the reinstitution of the Aboriginal pride through the celebration of its traditions, culture and identity, strengthening the first nations’ self-esteem, making them stronger in defending their rights and more aware of conserving their identity.
The three articles reveal socio-cultural and economic issues that aboriginals face in Canada, denoting that their existence and their diverse identity must be defended, negotiated and promoted constantly in order not to lose it to various mercantile governmental policies.
The nature of the comments that are posted in response to the analyzed articles are mainly supportive of the aboriginals’ actions who promote and stand up for their rights, property and identity, although against comments are also available. The persons who commented on the articles consider the policies regarding first nations’ land protection as fair, and as sign of respect for their rights to own properties. Gordon R. Snow comments: “I believe it is time to grant aboriginals property rights on reservations. With ownership comes pride and respect” (in Kennedy, “Who Speaks”). The federal government artifices and to exploit the rightfully owned lands of the aboriginals are harshly criticized: “Canadians are racist (). They live in luxury from First Nations resources” (Cornell Fontaine in Kennedy, “Who Speaks”). Naturally, there are also comments against aboriginals’ right to proper education, housing or lands, such as Susan Bone’s comment: “Either give them the land but deny any modern conveniences”, which are nevertheless, criticized and argued by the other commenters. O’Neil’s article is highly debated and the opinions are divided into supporters and attackers of the property act for the aboriginals. A positive, informative and engaging comment also accompanies Chase’s article, as labanmande greets the aboriginals’ embracing of their identity and welcomes their return in Renfrew County, a more traditionalist Canadian province, from the highly urbanized Ontario.
The nature of the online comments that respond to the analyzed articles are ambivalent. Some are friendly and supportive of the aboriginals’ rights and causes and other are criticizing their claims for property rights. This ambivalence indicates the complexity of the aboriginals’ rights discussion and the adversity of human and political views
Conclusion
Responding to the articles, the comments mostly sustain the decolonization of aboriginals, supporting their rights’ to self-representation and increased negotiation of their identity. Chase’s article, “Pembroke Celebrates Aboriginal Cultures” is accompanied by an encouraging message that embraces the aboriginals’ return from Ottawa, where they had been colonized, to Renfrew County, wherein they could live a more traditional life, exerting the right to explore their identities. The comments to O’Neil (“First Nations’ Land Claims”) encourage the mix of colonization and decolonization of the Canadian aboriginals, considering that they should have increased independency and their own land, but also the right to modern conveniences provided within the non-aboriginal Canadian society. On the other hand, the comments on Kennedy’s article “Who Speaks for Canada’s Aboriginals?” support the decolonization, as a more effective solution for achieving more indigenous rights. The comments on all three articles present additional information that provide the readers’ a more comprehensible view on the topic.
Works Cited
Chase, Sean. Pembroke Celebrates Aboriginal Cultures. Available at http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/2014/06/22/pembroke-celebrates-aboriginal-cultures. Accessed 9 October 2014. 2014. Web.
Kennedy, Mark. Who Speaks for Canada’s Aboriginals?. Ottawa Citizen. Available at http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/who-speaks-for-canadas-aboriginals, accessed 9 October 2014. 2014. Web.
O’Neil, Peter. First Nations’ Land Claims Stall Federal Government Sale Plans. Vancouver Sun. Available at http://www.vancouversun.com/business/First+Nations+land+claims+stall+federal+government+sale+plans/10110125/story.html. Accessed 9 October 2014. 2014. Web.
