Wondering if someone could read over this. I have a paper due on Thomas King’s “Inconvenient Indian” and answer the questions “What is King’s main argument?”, “Why does he focus on the year 1985 as a cut off point?” and “In your opinion, is King’s argument about indigenous history convincing? Why or why not?”. I am under the word count, but I have no idea what else to write about and if this is any good. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated thanks.
The Cut Off Point
Legislation to End Racism
Thomas King’s main argument in “The Inconvenient Indian” is that Bill C-31, passed in 1985, is a discriminatory piece of Canadian legislation that perpetuates historical prejudices towards Native people. He focused on 1985, because it was the year the bill was enacted, and it marks a significant shift in the way Native people are treated under the Indian Act. Prior to the passing of this bill, Native men with Status were able to pass their Status to any non-Status women they married, while Native women with Status were unable to pass their Status to any non-Status men they married. This created an inequity between Status Native men and women and perpetuated historical prejudices.
King then highlighted the “two-generation cut-off clause” which states that if a Status Indian marries out of Status for two generations, their children will lose their Status. He argued that this clause is a draconian measure that could lead to the eventual elimination of Status Indians in Canada if it is not addressed. He also pointed out that while Bill C-31 has closed the loophole of non-Native women gaining Status through marriage, who they marry can still affect their children’s Status. King goes on to explain how this works with a hypothetical example of two identical twins, both of whom have Status, and their daughters who marry two different men. While both of their granddaughters are Status, their grandsons are considered not to be.
King then went on to question why this has not been a heated issue for Indigenous organizations in Canada. He suggested that while there were discussions about amending the Indian Act to allow for more local autonomy and eliminating the Act altogether, nothing has come of it. He argued that eliminating the Indian Act would be beneficial, as it would allow for treaties to function without the legislation and would possibly even function better.
Indigenous History
The structure that King follows to make his story on Indigenous history makes one convinced. Learning to understand Indigenous cultures, languages and their history can open the door to enriching partnerships and relationships, while creating a respectful engagement. Indigenous cultures and the protocols that arise from these aspects, can vary widely and take some persistence to fully grasp.
Conclusion
King’s argument is an important one, as it speaks to the discrimination faced by Indigenous people in Canada due to the Indian Act. He put forth a compelling argument that this discrimination could eventually lead to the elimination of Status Indians in Canada if it does not get addressed. He also questioned why this has not been a heated issue for Indigenous organizations in Canada and suggested that eliminating the Indian Act would be beneficial and could possibly even lead to better functioning treaties. His argument is an important one, and it is one that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that Indigenous people are treated equitably and with respect.
The Indian Act should include the local communities in the discussion based on reconciliation. The Act should incorporate Indigenous chances to exercise fundamental rights like a free demonstration. The government should enact policies that bridge the gap between guidelines and practice and to reflect and allow Indigenous chances in residential schools. Finally, the Indian Act should embrace and enable the original community to enjoy all principles of law.
