Social 30-1 Unit 3

Unit 3 – To what extent are the principles of liberalism viable?

We will explore:1. How liberal foreign policies have been challenged

by both past and currently global events2. Domestic and global examples of the complexities

of liberalism including sources of resistance3. If liberalism is to remain viable, it must provide a

solution to a range of contemporary issues – what is this solution?

Chapter 9 – Imposing Liberalism

Unit 3 Social 30-1

Imposing liberalism• Imposition (or imposing) means forcing

something on people whether they want it or not.

• Liberalism has been imposed on people at various points in history, sometimes with negative consequences.

Liberalism & Aboriginal CultureEver since early colonial settlement, Canada’s indigenous people were progressively dispossessed of their lands, resources and culture, a process that led them into destitution, deprivation, and dependency, which in turn generated assertive and, occasionally, militant social movement in defence of their rights, restitution of their lands and resources and struggle for equal opportunity and self-determination.

-Rodolfo Stavenhagen

Imposition of Liberalism on Aboriginal Groups• Despite Canada’s reputation as land of

economic freedom and social responsibility, the nation has been criticized, both nationally and internationally, for its treatment of Aboriginal peoples.

• Canada’s history contains many examples of illiberal treatment of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples.

• Although recent governments have taken measures to address the problems that Aboriginal communities face, there is still much work to be done.

Liberalism & Aboriginal Culture• As we know, contact between First Nations in

Canada and European settlers presented conflicting worldviews and ideologies. Most European settlers brought with them liberal values and beliefs, while many First Nations believed in collectivist ideas

• Subsequently, values of liberalism would be imposed on Aboriginals in an attempt to assimilate them into “mainstream” Canadian society

• Assimilate – when the majority group absorbs the minority group resulting in the loss of a group's native language and culture.

• Historically indigenous populations were settled in Canada for thousands of years before the arrival of the European Settlers.

• These aboriginal groups lived harmoniously. They had an economic system in place that worked for them with use of natural resources to make goods for trade and the idea of “living off of the land.”

• The system of self-government maintained happiness among the citizens.

• By 1812, European settlers outnumbered Aboriginal peoples by a ratio of 10 to 1 in eastern Canada.

• Self-government is referred to as an “inherent” right, a pre-existing right rooted in Aboriginal peoples’ long occupation and government of the and before European settlement.

• The idea of modern liberalism is government regulation and interference in the economy.

• Aboriginal self government challenges this by having a population operate under their own distinct identity within a country.

Conflicting ideologies

• Relations between the early European settlers and the Aboriginal peoples were complicated by differing culture perspectives.

Differing Perspectives – Aboriginal

• A good example of these differing perspectives is the question of land ownership.

• To the Aboriginals, a person does not own land – he or she is part of it, in much the same way as he or she is part of a family or tribe. The land and the people essentially belong to one another.

• The settlers, of course, had different views.

Differing Perspective - Europeans• The Europeans viewed the

Aboriginal peoples as primitives or savages.

• Treaties were often ignored because the Europeans viewed themselves as superior to the Aboriginals, so their land could be taken without bothering with treaties.

• Many believed that it was their duty to assimilate the Aboriginal peoples into European religion and culture.

• By the time of Confederation in 1867, 123 treaties and land surrenders had already been negotiated in British North America. And by 1975, there were 500.

• Many contemporary conflicts between First Nations and Canadian governments have resulted from some of these agreements.

Conflicting Land-Holding Ideologies

First Nations Government of Canada

Treaties are agreements made between sovereign nations, upheld by oral tradition

Treaties are agreements made by interested parties, upheld by a written document

Relationship with land is collective, spiritual. Land provided by Creator, and people exist in harmony with the land

Land is a resource that can be owned by individuals for their own use

Treaties were established to share the land with newcomers

Treaties were established to clear way for European settlement

• Some of the reasons for these conflicts include:– The British insisted on European-style written and

signed treaties as they did not trust oral agreements and traditions. First Nations groups were often not governed by a hierarchical leadership that could command a population to follow a leader’s decisions. A chief could sign for their immediate band but not an entire population.

– There was a language barrier that required translators. The translators were often not honest or did not totally understand the agreements themselves. Land ownership had no equivalent in First Nations culture.

– Eurocentrism (European superiority) called the legal status of the treaties into question, despite the written documents. Europeans believed that the First Nations were not sovereign nations and ceased to consider the treaties valid.

• Resistance by Aboriginals to liberal values was not accepted by the Canadian government. This led to policies of assimilation, a plan to impose adherence to liberal goals on Aboriginals

• Under these policies Aboriginals were supposed to give up their distinct cultures and traditions, such as the potlatch

Assimilation• When Canada first became a nation, the

government decided to “civilize” Canada’s Aboriginal peoples.

• This was done by assimilating the Aboriginals into Canadian culture; in order words, making them abandon their native religious and cultural practices and join mainstream Canadian society.

• Essentially, the First Nations were treated as children in need of proper education and a firm hand – paternalistic acts.

• This treatment of the Aboriginal peoples was formalized in the Indian Act of 1867.

The Indian Act of 1876

• This act was used by government to control the behavior of First Nations peoples and remove their traditions and customs. They were encouraged to leave their Indian status to become “full” citizens of Canada. They were seen as “children” who needed to be taken care of

• The Indian Act took away their collective rights through its policies of assimilation into the more individualistic liberal society

The Indian Act Reforms• Since 1876, the Indian Act has been amended several

times, but has never been abolished. • Some examples:

– 1884 – prohibited religious ceremonies (potlatch, etc.)– 1951 – loss of Indian status for women who married non-status

men– 1969 – The White Paper proposed by Tudeau– sought to

abolish all treaties between Canada and First Nations. Tudeau and his gov’t failed to consult with First Nations and Inuit. The paper had a hostile reception on their part – further assimilation.

– 1969 – Aboriginals took a stand against assimilation by publishing the Red Paper, which objected to what they saw as the government’s attempt to impose liberalism on them through the White Paper

– 1985 – Women could keep or regain their status even after marrying a non-status man and children of such a marriage were granted status.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

• Canadian gov’t formed the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1991 to:– Examine “government policy with respect to the original

historical nations of this country.• After 5 years of inquiries and public hearings the

Commission announced a number of recommendations:– Creation of legislation recognizing the sovereignty of

Aboriginal Peoples– The creation of institutions of Aboriginal self-government– The creation of initiatives to address social, education,

health, and housing needs.

• Since 1996, many people have been critical of what they see as a lack of government action to address some of the recommendation’s concerns

• One positive result of the Commission’s recommendations was the creation of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Its mission is to encourage and support Aboriginals in their recovery from physical and sexual abuse that many suffered in the residential school system. To accomplish this, more than $400 million was awarded to various programs across Canada.

Residential Schools• One of the major

methods of assimilation was the residential school system.

• Under this system, Aboriginals were to be educated in European culture, science, history, language and religion with Aboriginal culture being phased out.

• Conditions at the schools were terrible. • Aboriginal students were forced to

attend; they were often moved from their families and housed in walled residences.

• If they spoke their native languages or practiced their own religion, they were beaten.

• They were not allowed to miss class, even if they were severely ill, and this contributed to the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis among the students.

• In severe cases, students were subjected to sexual abuse.

• These experiences disrupted and damaged the students, their families, and their communities.

• In 1998, the government acknowledged the excesses of the residential school system and began the process of reconciliation and resolution with those who had been forced to attend.

• In 2008, in an address that was broadcast nationally, Prime Minister Stephen Harper formally apologized for the creation of the residential school system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ryC74bbrEE

Bringing Liberalism to the World

• What if another country invaded Canada, took control here, and tried to impose an ideology on Canada?

• This sounds unlikely, yet millions of people around the world has experienced a similar situation. Some people in war-torn countries welcome peacekeepers, others do not

• Why should liberalism be imposed on those who do not want it?

• Two main reasons why one country may try and impose liberalism on another:

National interest: imposing liberalism to eliminate or reduce terrorist threats or for reasons of economic interest

Humanitarianism: imposing liberalism for moral or ethical reasons, such as to improve living conditions or to stop human rights violations.

Imposing Liberalism for National Interest

• At the end of WWI, U.S. President Wilson insisted that Germany and its allies had to agree to establish democratic governments as a condition of the peace treaties. His view was that democracy and self-determination had to be established in Europe as a basis for peace

• Today, protecting national interests in our increasingly globalizing world is an important part of American Foreign Policy.

• One of the most common arguments for establishing liberalism through intervention is economic self-interest.

• According to this argument, exporting liberal democracy has both economic and security benefits.

• If liberalism can be fostered in a country where it is not present, it will benefit the economy of the country, which will in turn encourage trade with other countries, including liberal democracies.

Self – Interest War on Terror

• Some believe that if more countries embraced the ideology of liberal democracy, then the world would be a safer place.

• This belief was used to justify the “war on terror” after the 9/11 attacks.

• The U.S. and allies invaded Afghanistan (oct 2001) to take the Taliban regime out of power (they had aided the 9/11 terrorists)

- The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 based on the same premise. However, the war in Iraq did not receive international approval.

Imposing liberalism Humanitarian Reasons

• Some people believe that liberal countries should not tolerate non-liberal countries that deny their citizens’ human rights. Is intervention justified in these cases?

• Forceful intervention in a foreign country does not always guarantee improved living conditions for the citizens of that country.

• The U.S.-led war on terror was partly based on human rights issues. Under the Taliban, Afghan women were denied basic human rights, and Saddam Hussein’s reign over Iraq was characterized by fear, crimes against humanity, and brutal torture tactics.

Reactions to Foreign Liberalism

• The imposition of liberalism is not always successful.

• Democratic elections are often hailed by political leaders of liberal Western countries as necessary prerequisite to peace and good governance.

• However, when they are held in an unstable political climate, elections do not always improve the situation.

Rwanda Genocide • After 20 years of rule under Major General

Habyarimana, in 1992, the Rwandan regime established a multi-party system and became a coalition government, partly in response to pressure from Western governments.

• Some believe that this coalition government, which was made up of conflicting ethnic groups, eventually created the circumstances that allowed the 1994 Rwandan Genocide to take place – 800, 000 people died.

• Coalition is a pact or treaty among individuals or groups, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause

Why can Liberalism Fail?• It is important to remember that Liberalism was not

adopted overnight by countries such as The United States or Canada.

• Other countries cannot maintain similar institutions themselves once a freely elected government is in power.

• As the democratic election of Hitler in Germany demonstrates, liberal democracy has difficulty surviving conditions such as unemployment, inflation, and civil unrest in a country without an existing liberal democratic tradition.