Summary: Racial Segregation In Canada

Aboriginals extensive structural history of being segregated from the rest of the Canadian population

In Canada there are a variety of different races that exist. The different types of ethnic groups that are included are Africans, Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, and Indians (Peterson, Krivo 2010). Historically, and in our present society the problem of racial segregation has been a very critical issue. The more enhanced diversity gets, the greater the likelihood that conflicts may arise. A major reasoning behind this is because of socio-economic issues (Peterson, Krivo 2010). According to Peterson and Krivo, there is a difference between Africans, Blacks, Latino’s, Aboriginals and Whites in terms of social and economic
class (2010). The continuous cycle of class difference caused from previous decades, creates thoughts that there has to be an issue other than class that prevents this problem from changing.
The way certain racial minority groups are stigmatized and labeled as inferior from others is a major reasoning why these stereotypes still exist (Copes, Topalli 2008). Taking in consideration that stereotypical views have continued to create conflict, means that class and racial differences raise concerns of empowerment (Gabbidon 2007). The society needs to pay more attention to racial issues involving visible minorities and in this essay Aboriginals will be specifically mentioned. In other words, if racial segregation amongst Aboriginals in Canada were to be more acknowledged either past or present, this group would not be negatively labeled. Aboriginals have a long structural history of being segregated from the rest of the Canadian population, and because of
this segregation on reserves and being mistreated throughout our Canadian history; aboriginals have been removed from wider Canadian society. In Canada there are three different categories of Aboriginal groups that are recognized. The different types of aboriginals groups that exist in Canada are the Inuit peoples, the Status and Non-Status Indians, and Metis people (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). There is a difference in terms of population size between these different Aboriginal groups. As presented by Satzewich and Liodakis, according to statistics in 2006 regarding the Aboriginal population, the non-Status Indians were the largest Aboriginal group out of the three that reside in Canada (2010). The second highest Aboriginal population was the Metis people, which there were approximately four hundred thousand Metis citizens. The third highest Aboriginal population consisted of around 130, 000 Non-Status Indians and finally there were only 50,000 Inuit’s (Satzwich, Liodakis 2010). These numbers are significant in the makeup of our Canadian population and also the racial makeup of these Aboriginal groups has a long history which is why the population differs so much between them. The Inuit people gained critical attention in the year 1941. The reasoning for this was because the federal government of Canada had a hard time determining exactly who should be counted as an Inuit (Satzwich, Liodakis 2010). The federal government came up with a strategy to try to provide a distinction on who was Inuit and who wasn’t. This type of determination by the government is in itself problematic. The government planned out an idea to create special discs the size of Canadian Quarter (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). The disc which had a 4 digit number was to be distributed to those citizens who the government approved as Inuit’s. This specific disc was to be worn around the Inuit’s necks, or attached to a bracelet (Satzwich, Liodakis 2010). According to Satzwich and Liodakis, the discs later on in years became more detailed before the policy of having to wear the disc was terminated (2010). The detailed discs coded the families surname and which area the Inuit family settled in (Satzewich, Liodakid 2010). There is no clear indication on why the government was so concerned about who was Inuit and who was not, but the method tells us that the Inuit populations during that time were at risk of many racial and segregation problems and is another factor of how they were mistreated in Canadian history. The metis population in Canada also has a very interesting history.
The first thing that Satzewich and Liodakis note is that the term Metis means half caste in the French Language. In other words the Metis people in Canada are a mixed race that includes white and Aboriginal descent (2010). The word Metis is a derogatory racist label attached to a group of Aboriginals to separate them from the general Aboriginal population in order to divide them producing weakness. The history of Metis people also mentioned that it was the French- Canadian fur traders who had come into contact with Indian women through rape and other means and that this is where the term Metis also originated from (Satzewich, Liodakid 2010). In the year 2002, the Metis National Council also known as the MNC came up with a clear definition to classify the exact definition for the term Metis which made them the first Aboriginal group to define a term for Aboriginals (Satzewich, Liodakid 2010). When the Indian women came into contact with the French- Canadian fur traders, they decided to relocate to specific territories. This is why a large minority of the Metis population exists in the Provinces of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and certain parts of Northern Ontario (Satzewich, Liodakid 2010). There are problems today between Aboriginals supporters that put an attempt to alter the definition of Metis. The Congress of Aboriginal People argues that the definition should not be directed to only those who
live in the provinces mentioned above (Satzewhich, Liodakis 2010). The Congress argues that the new Aboriginals who are mistaken for their identity in the southern part of Ontario as well as British Columbia and Nova Scotia should also be defined as Metis (Satzewich, Liodakid 2010). These political conflicts and concerns may also lead to additional stress towards Aboriginals in the local communities and reserves they live in. This also supports (Watson, Seeman, Rapp, Osypuk, Roux, and Mair 2010) when they mention how stress in communities with the same race appears to be more prevalent than the areas that do not consist of the same race. The Status Indians also have a bit of a history behind them in Canada. The way certain Aboriginals are described as Status Indians, are also called by another name. The Status Indians are known as First Nations Aboriginals. The term First Nations is more of a common term used to describe these certain types of Aboriginals individuals (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). The term was first introduced in the 1980’s by an Aboriginal group that went by the name Assembly of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations group has a biased opinion towards First Nation women to take part in the organization, which raised gender issues (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). Another interesting issue that Satzewhich and Liodakis point out is that when the Assembly of First Nations was established, First Nations leaders felt that Status Indians deserved more respect because they claimed land first in Canada (2010). This caused disputes over certain areas of land, and introduced conflicting issues relating to pride and privileges (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). A term called enfranchisement was also developed in relation to the conflict amongst Aboriginals which was originally caused by the Canadian government. The term enfranchisement means to give up one’s own Indian status either by his or her own will or by force by another person (Satzewich, Liodakis 2010). According to Satzewich and Liodakis, individuals of Aboriginal descent who achieved high and respectful occupations had to relocate to other reserves because they had to give up their Indian Status (2010). This is another reasoning why segregation between First Nations Aboriginals and other Aboriginals groups is present. This can also be looked at as a potential risk factor for increasing psychological issues and higher crime rates between themselves and other ethnic groups in Canada. So far, throughout history we can see Aboriginals segregated from the rest of the Canadian population by number of different ways. The question remains, do aboriginals participate willingly to these types segregation? Of course Aboriginals want to be treated equally, but they also want to remain distinct or distinguished as originators of this land and at the same time maintain their rights and freedoms that they originally possessed. Canada through its sovereignty has its rights over the Aboriginal people. Aboriginals in the end must comply with the government on many issues especially because we live in a democratic society under a democratic system of rule. In Canada, according to Maureen Ann Donohue, there is a surrender type concept which was needed at the time when Aboriginals either gave Canada their land or their land was stolen by Canada (Donohue 1991). Either given or stolen, there must have been this type of surrender concept which deals with Canada’s new authority over the Aboriginal people and their land. Also by answering the question of Aboriginals wanting to be treated equally but also maintaining distinguished Aboriginals, Donohue conveys an interesting point. She says at the same time as wanting to be distinguished, having rights and freedom with their own land, Aboriginals depend on the federal government resources, funds, relationships with other entity’s and other needs (Donohue 1991). In saying this, there may be a contraction between Aboriginal needs and wants. Labelling theory which may be called social reaction theory or interactionism has its different interpretations and is a worthy sociological theory to explain this social issue. The reasoning for this is because those individuals in society who are segregated have a greater chance that they can be negatively labeled. This can also lower self- esteem and can possibly increase the chances for them to rebel. This can alter the crime rates, suicide rates, increase racism and discrimination because the more troubled people in society due to negative labels the greater chance of others being victimized. Charles Cooley, Williams James, Herbert Mead, Kelly Miller and Frank Tannanbaum all made great contributions to the labeling theory and how others are perceived. Charles Cooley for example talked about a concept that studied the effects of how one reacted based on what others thought of them. This term is also known as the Self- Glass (Gabbidon 2007). When we study the labeling theory and how it relates to C.W Mills sociological imagination, we can provide a clear description as to how it affects individuals from an individual and social point of view. When we look at this from an individualistic model, we can refer back to what Charles Cooley talked about. Charles Cooley idea of the self- glass affects the person individually because they may turn into what others perceive them as (Gabbidon 2007). When analyzing labelling theory on a larger scale, an individual may rebel against society as a whole simply because of the way the self- glass portrayed him or her in a negative way, therefore negatively affecting the social-structure of society. According to Giabbidon, Cooley grasped a lot of his ideas by looking at the way African Americans were treated throughout history. Cooley’s idea of the self- glass also concluded that racism towards blacks by the government in America limited their life chances (2007). This is very similar to the way the government of Canada treated the Aboriginal people, specifically with their intention to brand each one with disc placed around their necks that had four digits on them. When the Metis people where labeled a derogatory term it affects individuals from an individualistic point of view making them leave their area of land and move to another and also a social point of view as feeling inferior to the rest of society. Enfranchisement as mentioned earlier occurred to the Status Indians. Each society has certain needs and in that there are a number of activities that must be carried for that society to be successful (Ritzer 2011). What enfranchisement did was any recognized male Indian over a certain age, able to speak, read and write well, is advanced in the education system was no longer able to be a legal Indian and was forced to be a regular citizen. In other words, the government took the means to attain success by Aboriginal people which impacted them negatively that still has its negative affects today. This may be a prime reason why Aboriginals are seen so distant from non-Aboriginal people. By not letting these gifted Aboriginals stay with their people it limited their overall success. This is similar to what Donohue said about the surrender concept Aboriginals must comply with to be organized as Canadian citizens. From a Canadian social systems perspective this surrender concept must be established by Canada for their social structures in society to operate successfully. Labelling theory is an exceptional way to explain the social issues above but it has its limitations and breakdowns. Labelling theory is almost touching a micro-sociological approach when studying social issues where it specifically looks at small groups and their interaction which is individualistic in its orientation. In saying this, it’s very closely associated with symbolic interactionism which distances it from social structural perspectives because it’s a micro theory compared to a structural macro theory. For example if a micro theory where to be used, it could be said that the Metis people were affected by a certain organization in the government which made certain groups within them weak. Looking at the issue from a macro level would be an example of two large social structures and how they affect society as a whole. An example of this would be Aboriginal people in Canada and its effects on the Canadian government and population. Mentioned above, Aboriginals have a long structural history of being segregated from the rest of the Canadian population. This essay has mentioned multiple times how the Canadian Government has issued, and labeled Aboriginal people lesser citizens for no other reason other than being fearful over there uprising. This is an example of enfranchisement mentioned above, thrusting the intelligent out the Aboriginal public and taking away there Aboriginal status. Canadian history expressions discrimination against Aboriginal people and this may be a cause of being segregated from other Canadian citizens today. Through Aboriginal history it also shows why many rates like suicide, crime, deviance, psychological issues and alcohol abuse is much greater for Aboriginals than the average Canadian population in our present time.

References

Copes, Heith and Volkan Topalli. 2008. Criminological Theory: Reading and Retrospectives. New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill

Donohue, Ann Maureen. 1991. American Indian Law Review. University of Oklahoma College of Law

Gabbidon, Shaun L. 2007. Criminological Perspective on Race and Crime. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mair, Christina, Ana V.D. Roux, Theresa L. Osypuk, Stephen R. Rapp, Teresa Seeman and Karol E. Watson. 2010. ``Is Neighborhood racial/ethnic Composition Associated with Depressive Symptoms? The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.” Social Science & Medicine 71(3):541-550.

Peterson, Ruth D., and Lauren Krivo. 2010. Divergent Social Worlds: neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Ritzer, George. 2011. Sociological Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Statzewich, Vic and Nikolaos Liodakis. 2010. Race & Ethnicity in Canada: A critical Introduction. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.