Reconciliation, Sovereignty, Self-Determination

CDK
Submitted by ecoadmin on

This is the most important topic. Everything else depends on getting this right.

The Colonial Context:

British Columbia:

  • Most of BC was never ceded by treaty
  • First Nations have inherent rights to their territories
  • Land claims and treaty negotiations ongoing
  • UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) adopted provincially
  • Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued 94 Calls to Action
  • Progress: Real but inadequate

Oregon:

  • Nine federally recognized tribes
  • Treaty rights established but often ignored historically
  • Termination era (1950s-60s) devastated tribes — later reversed for some
  • Co-management of resources increasing
  • Progress: Better than many states, still much work

Hawaii:

  • Native Hawaiian sovereignty never legally extinguished
  • Kingdom of Hawaii illegally overthrown (1893) with US government complicity
  • US apologized (1993) but didn't return sovereignty
  • Native Hawaiians are NOT federally recognized as tribes (despite trying)
  • Land base: Hawaiian Home Lands (inadequate, mismanaged)
  • Progress: Contested, complicated, ongoing movements

The Fundamental Questions:

  1. Land: Who has rights to the land? How are those rights recognized and implemented?
  2. Governance: What level of self-governance should Indigenous nations have?
  3. Resources: Who controls resources on traditional territories? Who benefits?
  4. Culture: How are languages, practices, and knowledge protected and revitalized?
  5. Justice: How do we address historical wrongs? Is reconciliation possible?

Integration Implications:

If Oregon and Hawaii become Canadian provinces:

For Oregon Tribes:

  • Existing treaty rights must be honored
  • Transition to Canadian legal framework (may actually be better for some rights)
  • Nation-to-nation relationship with Crown
  • BC precedents could expand rights

For Native Hawaiians:

  • This is complicated
  • Canadian Indigenous framework doesn't map perfectly onto Hawaiian situation
  • But: Canada has UNDRIP commitment, reconciliation framework
  • Potential for federal recognition equivalent that US has denied
  • Self-governance possibilities

The Sovereignty Question:

Some Native Hawaiians don't want to be part of the US OR Canada. They want an independent Hawaiian nation.

We must be honest about this. "Adoption" by BC doesn't automatically serve Native Hawaiian interests. It could be seen as another colonial imposition.

Any partnership must:

  • Center Native Hawaiian voices
  • Not proceed without genuine Hawaiian consent
  • Not foreclose future sovereignty options
  • Recognize that Hawaiians have the right to determine their own future

This applies to First Nations and Oregon tribes too. Indigenous consent is not optional.

Concrete Possibilities:

Resource revenue sharing:

  • Significant portion of resource revenue to Indigenous nations
  • Not "benefits" — rights

Co-governance:

  • Indigenous nations as governing partners, not stakeholders
  • Haida model in BC as example

Land return:

  • Actual return of lands, not just acknowledgment
  • Hawaiian Home Lands expansion
  • First Nations treaty lands

Language revitalization:

  • Official language status
  • Immersion education
  • Funded programs

Justice:

  • Truth processes for historical harms
  • Accountability mechanisms
  • Reparations conversations

Discussion Questions:

  1. How do we ensure Indigenous communities aren't just "consulted" but are actual partners?
  2. What does reconciliation look like when the original wrong (land theft) hasn't been addressed?
  3. How should resource revenues be shared with Indigenous nations?
  4. For Hawaii specifically: Does Canadian provincial status serve Native Hawaiian interests, or is it another form of colonialism?
  5. What can BC's reconciliation framework offer to Oregon and Hawaii, and what needs to change?
0
| Comments
0 recommendations