In the current political climate, many disenchanted Americans have expressed, to various degrees of sincerity, a desire to escape to Canada. “If Trump gets re-elected, I’m crossing the border North.” While the last electoral cycle and current pandemic have greatly amplified this sentiment, it belies an underlying and ongoing American perception that the land up north of maple syrup and apologies is immune to many of the problems plaguing the U.S. It is difficult not to jump to conclusions when contrasting the Trudeau and Trump administrations’ differential handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the comparison falls short with regard to their respective treatment of indigenous tribes and nations.
While at first glance the relationship between the Canadian government and First Nations people may appear progressive, conciliatory, and apologetic, these symbolic gestures actually belie a federal reluctance to extend political sovereignty to all First Nations. And while Native Americans are indeed much less visible in the U.S. political landscape, the U.S. government’s recognition of indigenous statehood has laid the foundation for greater political empowerment, socioeconomic growth, and cultural revitalization. In each of these areas, the Canadian government’s denial of universal political sovereignty hinders the well-being of First Nations peoples.
Symbolism at Best
Superficially, Canada’s policies appear much more progressive. After Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognized the murder of Indigenous women and girls as “genocide,” the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was founded in 2008 to address the legacy of the Indian Residential Schools system, and numerous government officials have offered apologies for “historic wrongs” committed. The movement to acknowledge missing and murdered Indigenous women also originated in Canada before spreading to the U.S. Neither the U.S. government nor its officials have recognized its historical actions as a “genocide,” nor have apologies been issued to Native American tribes.
Moreover, generally speaking, First Nations policies occupy a much more prominent role in mainstream politics. Under the UN Human Development Index, there is also greater social stratification within Canada’s indigenous population, particularly among the Métis. Furthermore, land acknowledgments are now often read in Canadian schools before singing “O Canada” to recognize the land’s original inhabitants. In an interview with the HPR, Sophie Pierre, tribal chair of the Ktunaxa Nation Council in British Columbia, cited the past electoral cycle as an example of how Native American issues are “barely heard in U.S. political rhetoric.” Yet, much of Canada’s progress remains symbolic, based in government recognition as opposed to policy.
Political Self-Determination
Canada’s federal policies lag behind those of the U.S. in a key area: recognition of political autonomy or self-determination. In 1975, the U.S. government passed the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Under the “Treatment as State” clause, the U.S. federal government recognizes the Native American tribes’ right to self-determination, or sovereignty within their boundaries, with the autonomy to collect and spend their own tax dollars, to provide their own education, judiciary, and law enforcement, and to self-govern without the interference of federal agents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs .
Zoltán Grossman, professor of geography and Native studies at Evergreen State College, attested to the Self-Determination Act’s impact. Following its passage, “tribes have a right to control the budget now, instead of the feds,” he explained in an interview. The tribes “were able to have a more equal relationship with the states … instead of the state lording over the tribes as they had been.” Leonard Forsman, chairman of the Suquamish Tribe in Northwest Washington, said that the greatest overall impact was “the empowerment and recognition of the tribal governments.” He added, “Most importantly, it allowed our tribal leadership [and] tribal expertise to be able to work full time on providing programs and being out there helping our citizens achieve their visions.”
On the other hand, the Canadian government still operates under the Indian Act of 1876, which defines First Nation citizenship and regulates the establishment and affairs of reservations. The Act establishes “a ward-guardian kind of relationship” and controls “so many of the aspects of even daily life,” according to Grossman. Most crucially, there is no universal acknowledgment of the right to self-determination, and treaties are individually negotiated between the federal government and each nation, resulting in a highly variable, piecemeal approach.
Pierre affirmed that between these two approaches, “the U.S. is further ahead, recognizing sovereign nations within the U.S. governing structure. Canada does not have a blanket recognition of the sovereign nations, except in certain circumstances where they’ve been forced to negotiate.”
Economic Development
Prior to the recognition of self-determination, tribal councils were run by volunteers; now, U.S. federal funding can be used to employ citizens to run their own government and establish an office. These changes “allowed some of our people … to work exclusively on tribal government programs full-time, rather than having to do it on weekends and taking days off of work,” Forsman of the Suquamish Tribe explained. As some tribal governments have served as major local employers, this process has eased patterns of urban flight, retaining young people who have increasingly been leaving reservations for urban centers, according to Joseph Kalt in an interview with the HPR.
Kalt, professor emeritus at Harvard Kennedy School and head of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, said that by the 1990s, some tribes particularly poised to take advantage of their newly-recognized sovereignty experienced “phenomenal economic growth, with income rates growing five times faster than the average household.” While this progress varied across the country, Kalt pointed to the remarkable economic development of the Tulalip Tribes north of Seattle, which profit not only from the Tulalip Casino, but also from other business enterprises, such as the Quil Ceda Outlet Mall. Additionally, sovereignty provided tribes with the freedom to allocate their budget towards purchasing more land.
Another important U.S. act, the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, limited states’ abilities to regulate gaming. According to Kalt, only around half of the Native American tribes are involved in gaming, but the act allowed Native American reservations who did choose to run their casinos more freedom. These casinos provide tribes with additional revenue sources, with some tribes located on highway corridors or heavily-trafficked areas benefiting substantially. Lastly, political sovereignty allowed Native American tribes to allocate their budget towards land purchases. For tribes with “checkerboard reservations” or whose land was broken up by predatory land policies, repurchasing land allowed for greater unity and development.
In Canada, however, without political sovereignty, First Nations are still fighting for more land, direct access to revenues from resource extraction on their lands, and the diversification of income generation. Simply comparing the size of reserves, Grossman said, “I look at the map of the United States, and there are large reservations … and on the Canadian side, there are small specks, tiny reserves.” Pierre explained that reserves were historically kept small for “us to die out in them.” Thus, ongoing Ktunaxa Nation treaty negotiations focus on “ensuring lands that will be able to provide the economic future for our people.”
Meanwhile, while all Native American tribes tax and collect revenue from their reservations directly, resource extraction occurring on some First Nations soil “is taken from the government and given back to us piecemeal,” said Pierre. While some nations have indeed secured direct revenue from resource extraction on their land via their individual treaty negotiations, the Ktunaxa Nation is still fighting for direct payments. Thus, not only are reservation territories often severely limited, but even revenue extracted from the resources they do possess is divided and reapportioned by the federal government.
Lastly, there is no Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act, allowing provinces to retain a much greater right to regulate casinos. As a result, there are only 18 casinos on First Nation reserves, generating less revenue compared to the U.S. ‘s 450 tribal casinos. Thus, an inability for all First Nations to govern their own reservations, diversify their income sources, determine their budgets and purchase more land, and benefit fully from the lands they do own all demonstrate how the absence of political sovereignty has hindered economic growth.
Public Welfare and Social Programs
Tribal economic growth can translate rapidly into political impact and cultural revitalization. Denny Hurtado, former chairman of the Skokomish Tribal Council in Northwest Washington, told the HPR that John McCoy, one of the first Native Americans elected to the Washington State legislature, was supported “a hundred percent by the Tulalip Tribe … a tribe with a big casino and a lot of money, and money talks, so that’s basically how he got in.” Once in, McCoy “continued to get bills passed, to give more authority to the tribes to focus on our history, culture, and language,” including a mandatory curriculum, “Tribal Sovereignty in Washington State,” taught in all schools. Hurtado credits much of the recent policy changes and cultural revitalization to the increase in Indian legislators voted in, but also to the freedom of budget allocation.
Similarly, in the Suquamish tribe, political sovereignty allowed tribes to supplement insufficiently-funded federal programs, such as the Indian Health Service, with their own funds, as well as hire community health workers. In addition, federal funding for the construction of community centers was allocated to build museums and promote cultural preservation. However, in Canada, without a guarantee of recognizing localized governance, First Nations leaders are still fighting for the jurisdiction of their own social programs.
Moreover, contrary to public perception, economic growth for indigenous tribes on either side of the border has not occurred at the expense of retaining cultural traditions and historical roots. “When resources are built up through economic development, Indian nations always put it towards the betterment of its people,” said Pierre. Simultaneously, economic growth is associated with higher rates of native language use in children than their parents, indicating intergenerational language acquisition and the increasing prevalence of traditional culture elements. This, in fact, can form a virtuous cycle in which higher rates of native language use can predict improved business performance: Research Director at the Native Nations Institute of the University of Arizona Miriam Jorgensen finds that the quality of forest management by indigenous tribes was superior in tribes of higher native language use. Cultural cohesion within tribes, in turn, fosters better accountability and economic performance, perpetuating this cultural economic cycle.
On the other hand, the suppression of cultural identity can lead to harrowing consequences beyond economic productivity or even cultural flourishing. A seminal study in the Journal of Experimental Psychiatry found that in Canadian First Nations with fewer cultural centers, claims to land, or independent management of their education and health services, there were higher rates of suicide in youth. The very necessity of community belonging and self-identity can be drawn from this correlation.
Canadian Symbolism as a Front
Given these major disparities in economic, social, and cultural development stemming from a lack of recognition of political sovereignty, it’s worth reconsidering how such a large gap has emerged between public perceptions and the stark reality of indigenous peoples in Canada and the U.S. Certainly, a portion of this misconception can be attributed to what Grossman characterized as the generally “starry-eyed view in the United States, especially among liberals, of Canada as the peace-dove to the North with a handsome prime minister.”
Still, Kalt pointed to the Canadian government’s attitude of “benevolent paternalism,” which has undergirded both the paradoxical increase in symbolic recognition and the lack of substantive political action. Ironically, liberalism can often be caught up in the trap of benevolent paternalism, where lawmakers assure indigenous peoples that their best interests are being advocated for, yet replicating the hierarchical nature of dependency maintained with centuries of colonization and genocide. Pierre of the Ktunaxa Nation states that “‘benevolent paternalism’ is the Canadian way… we apologize for things, but I don’t know that we get any more done.”
In fact, in “Red Skin White Masks,” Glen Sean Coulthard, an assistant professor in the First Nations Studies Program and Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, argued that the government promotes ‘forgiveness’ or ‘reconciliation’ to situate government abuses “firmly in the past.” “In these situations, reconciliation itself becomes temporally framed as the process of … overcoming the harmful ‘legacy’ left in the wake of this past abuse, while leaving the present structure of colonial rule largely unscathed.
By focusing on apologies and symbolic forms of recognition, government policies that appear progressive and conciliatory can, whether intentionally or unintentionally, mask underlying, substantive policy neglect.
The Difference Between Words and Actions
“But it is my hope that in apologizing today — in acknowledging the past and asking for forgiveness — that as a country, we will continue to advance on the path of reconciliation together.”
Trudeau ended a 2017 address to former students of the Newfoundland and Labrador residential schools with this uplifting, conciliatory message of putting the past behind them and forging a path ahead towards the future.
Such a transparent, honest, and humbling acknowledgment of past atrocities is sorely absent in American politics. However, it is important to remain mindful of the disparities that may emerge by assuming that symbolic remarks honestly reflect differences in policies. It is vital to note that there is tremendous variation between tribes. So, too, is it imperative to acknowledge that federal policies of self-determination are necessary but insufficient to the economic and cultural flourishing of indigenous peoples. Yet, without nation-wide recognition of political sovereignty and the fundamental right of First Nations to govern their own citizens, there is no foundation upon which localized policies can be built, social programs developed, incomes diversified and reinvested, healthcare systems improved, or lands maintained, expanded, and conserved.
So as Americans face increased disillusionment and distrust towards their government in the face of admittedly egregious mismanagements by the past administration, it is important to remain skeptical as frustrated pleas for the greener grass of other countries abound. Closer examinations can often unearth ambiguous complexities, and straightforward comparisons to other countries are anything but simple. The progressive facade, indeed, can disguise a much darker interior.
“Standing Buffalo First Nation Powwow” by Greg Huszar Photography is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Correction: A previous version of this story left out the title for Miriam Jorgensen. Jorgenson is the Research Director at the Native Nations Institute of the University of Arizona.
