Indian act wasn’t about treaties. Supreme Court has done a better job upholding the rights and treaties of indigenous folks in recent years than the any government assigned “Indian Agents” ever did.
It reduces all indigenous people down to “Indians”. It was put in place with the intent to control and “civilize the savages”. It’s racist and an insult to the intelligence and abilities of people like Wab Kinew, P.J. Akeeagok, Jody Wilson-Raybould and many more to pretend like the Indian Act accomplishes anything positive.
Indian act wasn’t about treaties. Supreme Court has done a better job upholding the rights and treaties of indigenous folks in recent years than the any government assigned “Indian Agents” ever did.
It reduces all indigenous people down to “Indians”. It was put in place with the intent to control and “civilize the savages”. It’s racist and an insult to the intelligence and abilities of people like Wab Kinew, P.J. Akeeagok, Jody Wilson-Raybould and many more to pretend like the Indian Act accomplishes anything positive.
No, I get that, it’s a horrible peice of dates law that should never have been put in place
My question is more: do any modern rights that the indigenous rely on arise from it, and if so, dont we need it to ensure they maintain those rights?
https://lemmy.ca/post/72945602/26034469
/u/Riverview_Legal explained it better than I ever could.