Indigenous People Research Paper

Urbanization for indigenous people cannot be seen as emancipatory, but a display of polarization and confrontation. It can be argued that moving to urbanized areas is freeing from colonization and any negative associated representations, however, new issues arise from the move. These issues could be poor living conditions, unstable jobs, no health care and etc… In the US, the First Nations were relocated to urban spaces for work during 1950s. With limited government funding many lived in slum areas, moreover, they were unskilled and “could only find low-wage, insecure jobs” (Weaver, 2012, p.472). Mexico’s First Nations faces similar experience in terms of employment. This creates a problem that First Nations are unable to establish themselves
in the economic society, consequently, forcing teenagers to drop out of school for jobs. In addition, many indigenous are viewed as inferior compared to non-natives. Discrimination towards natives made by non-natives forces them into enclaves, where natives have a more comfortable social life. Furthermore, the non-native population views “First Nations and other indigenous peoples as primitive, backward, and often savage” (Wilson & Peters, 2005, p.
398). This identity will not allow emancipatory to happen for majority of indigenous people. The urban spaces are dominated by non-native populations; as such oppression and discrimination acts will happen from the viewpoint described. It is important to acknowledge the history which USA, Canada and Mexico have treated the native populations: USA’s relocation program, Canada’s residential schools and colonial segregation in Mexico. These programs and acts are harsh towards the first nations, forcing them to abandon their comfort identities and lifestyles. Many natives face identity issues like loss of native language, unable to be with nature and homesick. This is dominantly the case in USA and Canada, where travelling between city and reserves are common. The travel can maintain the connections to their roots, allowing “nurture and sustain cultural connections” (Weaver, 2012, p.476). Some natives in Canada were able to adapt to urbanization through abstract thinking of urban relationship of mother nature and the land. But majority of natives missed the hunting, the smudging and other tradition practices they do in the wild lands. As such, some moved from Toronto to Sudbury were tradition practices were not causing harm to
neighbours. From the three countries, it seems that natives in Canada and Mexico were able to adapt to urbanization more than USA. Natives in the USA were oppressed and disperse making unity difficult. Comparing to Canada, many natives were able to move closer to nature or change the traditional thinking. Ethnic conclaves in Mexico allowed helping each other; hence, many had short-term employment while settling down. This allowed natives to fight the oppression in hopes to gain better human rights. But this does not mean Canada and Mexico is not under oppression because the need of relocating to practice traditional values and unable to secure equal human rights as non-natives is oppression. People unable to comprehend that natives in Canada smudging is a traditional value and threatening them of eviction because it’s identical to drug usage.
To enjoy greater employment and education opportunities, natives in the example countries move to urban areas. It comes at a risk because there will be low/no native social services like health care, resulting in an unfair treatment to the aboriginal people. Nonetheless, they are sacrificing their traditional values for opportunities that may give them a better lifestyle. As sacrificing isn’t enough, many are discriminated while trying to adapt to urban society. One could argue moving to urban spaces is free from the past, but majority are suffering physically (poor living conditions, low income) and mentally (loss of tradition and language) giving them a sense of hopelessness.