Incomplete Sovereigns: Unpacking Patterns of Indigenous Self-Governance in the United States and Canada

ABSTRACT

In the early 1970s, both the Canadian and United States federal governments introduced modern land claim agreements as a first step forward in the states’ recognition of Indigenous goals for self-determination. Since then, both the United States and Canadian federal governments have incrementally expanded their recognition of Indigenous rights to include Indigenous goals for political self-determination. Yet, despite the fact that both countries began implementing broadly similar policies at approximately the same time, the degree to which Indigenous political and economic self-determination has been realized varies considerably both within and between the two countries. The variation in Indigenous self-governing power and authority suggests that the policy shift towards Indigenous self-determination is incomplete and has faced important barriers to implementation. This paper investigates two key aspects of this variation in Indigenous self-determination in the United States and Canada: (1) institutional histories embedded in geography, and (2) the temporal nature of policy frameworks. I argue that the full realization of Indigenous self-determination has been shaped in different ways and, ultimately, is limited by the intersection of embedded institutional legacies and federal political dynamics.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous self-determination
• policy change
• institutional legacies

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. David Hugill, whose careful and thorough feedback on the original draft of this paper was key to its development. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Hawes and Fulbright Canada for supporting my participation in the 2017 Colloquium. This work is based on my dissertation research, which was carefully guided and supported by Dr. Grace Skogstad, Dr. Graham White, and Dr. Robert Schertzer at the University of Toronto. My research was also supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Fulbright Canada.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Some of these numbers have come under scrutiny; in particular, there was a large increase in self-reported Métis identity, up 149.2% in Quebec and up 124.3% in Atlantic Canada since the 2006 census.

2. Reforms have included (a) removing the conditions for the “enfranchisement” of Indian citizens, whereby individuals would lose their Indian status and become Canadian citizens upon receiving a university education or joining a recognized profession, (b) extending voting rights, and (c) allowing Indigenous women to retain their status if they marry non-status Canadians.

3. Since 1973, more than 1,200 specific claims have been launched against the Canadian federal government, of which 390 were settled through negotiation. As of March 2017, an additional 143 specific claims are undergoing assessment while 230 remain under active negotiation (Government of Canada 2016).

4. States with disclaimers are Wisconsin (1836), Iowa (1838), Oregon (1848), Washington (1853), Kansas (1854), North Dakota (1861), Nebraska (1854), Colorado (1861), Idaho (1863), Montana (1864), Wyoming (1868), and Oklahoma (1890).

5. The Enabling Act disclaimer reads: “The People and the State forever disclaim all rights to Indian land and to any land or other property (e.g., Fishing rights) held in trust by the United States. All lands and property under absolute federal jurisdiction, except when held in fee simple title” (Wilkins 1998, 35).

6. At its passage, ANCSA included a clause would have allowed Alaska Native “shareholders” to sell their shares to non-Native individuals, corporations, or governments after a 20-year period (beginning in 1992), which raised concern among Indigenous Alaskans about how to ensure that Native lands remained in Native hands. After several years of lobbying by Alaska Native leaders, amendments to ANCSA were passed in 1980, including a provision to remove the clause on stock alienation (NANA Regional Corporation 1978).

7. Of the 26 modern land claim agreements that have been finalized in Canada, only three were finalized in the first 17 years of the policy.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adrienne M. Davidson

Adrienne M. Davidson is the Skelton-Clark Postdoctoral Fellow in Canadian Affairs at Queen’s University. Dr. Davidson was a Fulbright Visiting Researcher at the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC in 2016-2017