6B Practice Essay - B2 W6

Paper 3 topic - Civil rights and social movements in the Americas post-1945
Focus - Indigenous Movements
Time 40 Minutes + 5 mins reading

“Civil rights for indigenous peoples significantly improved after 1945.” To what extent do you
agree with this statement? [15 marks]
Indigenous peoples are ethnic groups native to a region that has been colonized or settled by another ethnic group. Indigenous
people have a separate cultural identity to the one of the country governing the land historically inhabited by them. The Americas, as
a continent, exhibit a plethora of indigenous people due to its colonial history. After becoming minorities following pervasive
European settlement in the continent, indigenous people were oppressed and relocated with attempts at assimilation being tried up to
the mid 20th Century. The social and political landscape for the indigenous people in the Americas was significantly impacted after
the end of the Second World War in 1945 as their rights began to be reconsidered. In this essay, ‘’civil rights’’ will be defined as the
rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality. It can be asserted that civil rights for indigenous people in the
Americas significantly improved after 1945 as greater autonomy was transferred to indigenous communities, land rights were
restored and the right to vote and the ability to hold political positions were given to them; therefore, being in accordance with the
statement provided by the question.

Civil rights for indigenous peoples in the Americas improved after 1945 as they were given greater autonomy to form their tribal
governments, marking a clear departure from former assimilationist policies conducted by the federal government. In the United
States, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, made the federal government recognize the
sovereignty of tribes and the exclusion of state law’s applicability to indigenous people as indicated in Article 1, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution. This marked a drastic change from the Dawes Act of 1887, which eliminated tribal landholding in favour
of an assimilationist policy based on the allotment of land, and the Termination Acts that started in 1953 which ended tribes’ legal
status and gave the federal government the right to assume legal jurisdiction over tribes without permission or even consultation.
The reversion of authority to indigenous tribes to rule over their population signified the end of an assimilationist policy that tried to
end the tribal culture and lifestyle of these people, which were seen as harmful and ‘’primitive’’. The fact that the indigenous people
of the United States were able to keep their culture and way of life was due to the creation of the National Council of American
Indians (NCAI) in 1944, which campaigned throughout the 1960s for the rights of American Indians. Therefore after 1945, the civil
rights of American Indians significantly improved as they were once again allowed to decide how to administer their funds and
control their welfare as well as being free to express their unique lifestyle on their native land. Similarly, in Mexico in 1992, the
1917 Constitution was amended to establish the country as a multicultural society, recognizing for the first time that a person could
be both indigenous and Mexican. Indigenous Mexicans were now respected for their culture and who they were and were not
constantly seen as being in a process towards assimilation into Mexican mestizo society. This amendment of the Mexican
Constitution overthrew the Indigenismo movement ideology present in the country since the 1940 First Inter-American Indian
Conference, which promoted the advancement of indigenous people by assimilating them through education and modern technology
into the mestizo culture as this was the only way by which they could become modern and productive Mexican citizens. The new
civil rights provided to indigenous Mexicans in 1992 allowed them to remain ethnically distinct, preserving their 60 different local
languages and remaining true to their ethnic roots. During the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s, similar events occurred
throughout most of the Latin American Countries, being influenced by the 1989 UN’s International Labor Organization (ILO)
Convention 169 which pushed for the ‘’recognition of the aspirations of these peoples to exercise control over their own institutions,
ways of life and economic development’’. This has led to constitutional amendments in Colombia in 1991, Peru in 1993, Bolivia in
1994 and Venezuela in 1999 recognizing the civil rights of the indigenous peoples. Throughout the Americas, the civil rights for
indigenous people have significantly improved after 1945 as federal governments have abandoned their attempts at assimilationist
policies in favour of the recognition and preservation of the cultural and social heritage of the indigenous peoples, as well as
granting them the autonomy to exist as sovereign tribal communities which have a legal separation to the federal government
instead of being subjugated into an oppressive and dominant system that does not adapt to their forms of living.

Moreover, civil rights for indigenous people in the Americas significantly improved after 1945 as land rights were restored to them.
In the United States, indigenous peoples were subjected to a continuous series of occupations and relocations since the 19th century,
being displaced from their historical land into reservations drawn up by the federal government to accommodate a greater influx of
European settlers. Indigenous people were stripped of their property rights through The General Allotment Act of 1887 which
eliminated traditional tribal landholding and cut up their ancestral land into small farming plots. This caused a massive reduction in
indigenous peoples’ land holdings and increased poverty levels as they were refused credit to purchase supplies. The American
Indians started to regain the ownership of their lands from the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 which ended the policy of
allotment and restored unallotted lands to indigenous tribes. Although the decision was taken before 1945, the reversion of the
ownership of reservation lands into the hands of American Indians was mostly completed in the late 1940s and 1950s as WW2
delayed the Act’s implementation and there were legal troubles in changing the status of trust land held by the government.
Reservation Trust Land which was leased to indigenous tribes for 25 years, after which it would need to be purchased by American
Indians as taxable Fee Land, was changed so that it would remain as Trust Land indefinitely, with the beneficial interest of the land
remaining with the indigenous tribes despite the federal government being legally the owner. Therefore, through the implementation
of the Indian Reorganization Act which took place mainly after 1945, American Indians became the ‘’de facto’’ owners of their
reservations, having the ownership of their ancestral tribal lands transferred back to them. This improved their civil rights as they
were compensated for the American Government’s unjust seizure of their historic land and were allowed to keep the land without
making it applicable to federal taxation or purchase policies. Similarly, in Canada, it was only in 1951 that the Indian Act was
amended to create a Land Claims Commission to return to the First Nations peoples the land that was seized from them by the
British Empire and the Canadian Government for the past two centuries. Land claims have been successfully resolved in Northern
Quebec in 1971, giving Cree and Inuit bands back the territory belonging to them that the government was seizing for the
construction of a hydroelectric plant. However, despite the many advancements in land rights for indigenous peoples after 1945 in
Canada and the United States, there are still some limitations regarding natural resource ownership, particularly in the USA. There
are different laws governing the extraction of natural resources on tribal land in the USA depending on whether the indigenous tribe
or the individual hold the beneficial interest. In most cases, a tribe cannot extract or utilize its natural resources without the federal
government’s approval. Despite the passing of new legislation as the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 making the federal
government’s intervention only needed when requested by the indigenous tribe, the Secretary of the Interior must still approve
Mineral Development Agreements between tribes and companies before they are passed; making the indigenous tribes still not self-
reliant in the management of the resources in their ancestral land. This limits their land rights and ability to operate as a separate
commercial entity to the government of the country they inhabit. Although indigenous communities in the Americas have limits
over the rights to extract the natural resources on their land, their civil rights regarding land ownership have immensely improved
after 1945, having regained the ancestral land stripped from them by the federal government; allowing them to operate their tribal
communities autonomously in the areas over which they have historical possession.

Furthermore, after 1945 governments of countries in the Americas gave their indigenous peoples the right to vote and the ability to
hold political positions, significantly improving their civil rights by giving them social equality and the ability to exercise political
power in the same way as all other lawful citizens of their countries. In Canada, the right to vote was given in 1960 to Status Indians
of the First Nations, enfranchising the entire Candanian Population for the first time. This can be attributed to the important role
First Nations peoples played in the Second World War. Furthermore, in 1978 First Nations communities started to mobilize in
favour of acquiring political representation regarding PM Trudeau’s desire to patriate the constitution. After the demonstrations of
the Constitution Express of 1980-81, Section 35 was added to the Canadian Constitution, recognizing and guaranteeing the civil
rights of all aboriginal peoples of Canada. The foundation of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in 1982 as a congregation of
indigenous tribal chiefs and representatives with the ability to negotiate provincial and federal aboriginal claims gave the indigenous
people of Canada the ability to hold political positions and to shape government policies, advocating on behalf of people that were
traditionally ignored in policymaking. By giving voting rights and political representation to members of First Nations communities,
the indigenous people of Canada had now political equality and freedom as all other citizens of the country, having the power to
select their leaders on a national level and a platform available to express their concerns and desires. Throughout Latin America
similar events took place, with laws including the right to vote for indigenous people who could not read Spanish being enacted in
Ecuador in 1979 and Peru in 1980. Furthermore, since the 1990s representatives from indigenous communities have been included
in the political structure of Latin American countries, giving them access to committees made by the government to ensure the
cultural maintenance of their communities. Bolivia serves as a remarkable example in the incorporation of indigenous peoples into
the government, with Evo Morales, an Aymara, being elected President in 2006. Civil rights for indigenous peoples have
significantly improved after 1945, with governments throughout the Americas granting the indigenous people the right to vote and
to exercise political positions, effectively conferring them with political and social equality.

However, it can be argued that civil rights for indigenous peoples living in the reservations did not significantly improve after 1945
as many indigenous groups have been kept from accessing their civil rights through economic barriers that are not properly
addressed by the government. In the United States in the late 1950s and through the 1970s American Indians living standards were
lower than the ones of every other social group in the country. They were the least prosperous ethnic group as well as the one with
less access to health care. On indigenous reservations, life expectancy was 20 years less than in the rest of the country, suicide rates
were 100 times higher and unemployment was ten times the national rate. Under these frail living circumstances, only limited
societal advancement can be achieved, despite the existing laws providing the indigenous peoples living on reservations with new
civil rights. The lack of employment opportunities in the reservations, accompanied by the small amount of economic interaction
with cities, virtually erase indigenous peoples from American society, leaving them neglected and without the possibility to exercise
the majority of the new civil rights available for them. Moreover, as land is held communally rather than individually by the
indigenous peoples, individuals do not have their houses as collateral assets in order to apply for loans, lacking the financial backing
needed to set up a business. Therefore, indigenous peoples often live nomadically within the reservation’s area as there are no
personal property rights. Within this impoverished structure which has not improved over time, indigenous peoples living in
reservations have no real possibilities of social mobility and very limited access to public opportunities. Therefore, many American
Indians are unable to enjoy their newly expanded civil rights, being in practice far from politically and socially equal to the rest of
the country’s population.

In conclusion, despite the poor living standards of indigenous peoples in reservations which inhibit their access to their civil rights;
it can be asserted that civil rights for indigenous peoples throughout Canada, the United States and Latin America significantly
improved after 1945. This is as greater autonomy and sovereignty, land rights and the right to vote and to hold political power was
given to indigenous communities. Therefore, I agree with the statement proffered by the question to a large, however not complete
extent.