« Settler self-indigenisation: Adam Gaudry, Chris Andersen, ‘Daniels v. Canada: Racialized Legacies, Settler Self-Indigenization and the Denial of Indigenous Peoplehood’, Topia, 36, 2016, pp. 19-30
Indigenous peoples as forever ‘children in the faith’: Emma Anderson, ‘”White” Martyrs and “Red” Saints: The Ongoing Distortions of Hagiography on Historiography’, American Catholic Studies, 127, 3, 2016, pp. 9-13 »

Again on the Daniels decision: Chelsea Vowel, Darryl Leroux, ‘White Settler Antipathy and the Daniels Decision’, Topia, 36, 2016, pp. 30-42

08Nov16

Abstract: In this short response to Daniels v. Canada, we set out to accomplish two tasks. First, we provide an overview of the decision, with a focus on clarifying its limited reach. In particular, we distinguish between jurisdictional questions under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which Daniels addresses directly, and Aboriginal rights as encoded in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which is outside the reach of Daniels. Second, after confronting the confusion brought forth by Daniels, we examine several different cases of nascent organizations in Québec claiming Aboriginal rights as either self-declared Métis or non-status Indians, and analyze some of their responses to the Daniels decision. We proceed to argue that in their reliance on antipathy towards Indigenous peoples, these organizations exemplify settler nativist tactics that ultimately undermine Indigenous self-determination.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed