This book explains the failures of Canadian Indian policy in terms of underlying deficiencies in development theories. The author shows how seemingly diverse theories in economics, sociology, planning and other disciplines can all be reduced to a fundamental dichotomy between liberal assimilationist doctrine, which "blames the victim" for their own problems, and the nationalist autonomist doctrine, which contrarily externalizes all blame for Indian "underdevelopment" on the state.
Until recently, most government policy makers have been committed assimilationists. Beginning in the 1840s, Canadian governments instituted increasingly oppressive attempts at social engineering to destroy Indian cultures and to assimilate them to Western liberal ideals. These unsuccessful policies only served to fuel a reactive Indian nationalist movement which first coalesced to defeat the 1969 White Paper proposals for extinguishing native rights. The subsequent deadlock between state inaction and strident Indian nationalistic demands have left a policy vacuum, which has been filled by dependency-creating welfare programs. Autonomist theorists, while effectively criticizing assimilationism, ignore that contemporary Indian leaders often play a role in perpetuating this dependency.
Rather than viewing Indian development from one polarized viewpoint or the other, the author promotes a new relational approach to explain how development problems are often simultaneously internal and external to Indian communities, and urges local community action to reduce their dependency on the central welfare state.
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1996; revised with new preface)
Until recently, most government policy makers have been committed assimilationists. Beginning in the 1840s, Canadian governments instituted increasingly oppressive attempts at social engineering to destroy Indian cultures and to assimilate them to Western liberal ideals. These unsuccessful policies only served to fuel a reactive Indian nationalist movement which first coalesced to defeat the 1969 White Paper proposals for extinguishing native rights. The subsequent deadlock between state inaction and strident Indian nationalistic demands have left a policy vacuum, which has been filled by dependency-creating welfare programs. Autonomist theorists, while effectively criticizing assimilationism, ignore that contemporary Indian leaders often play a role in perpetuating this dependency.
Rather than viewing Indian development from one polarized viewpoint or the other, the author promotes a new relational approach to explain how development problems are often simultaneously internal and external to Indian communities, and urges local community action to reduce their dependency on the central welfare state.
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1996; revised with new preface)
