Effects of colonization on aboriginal peoples of North America Essay

Effects of colonization on aboriginal peoples of North America - Essay Example The history of Canada shows that it might have had different geographic divisions if it were not for the influence and roles played by its aboriginal people on the land. As an example, Canada would not have existed and would have been part of the United States were it not for the crucial military role played by aboriginal populations in at least two significant historical events 2006). The aboriginal people formerly held sway and ownership over what we know today as Canada. This is an historical fact which is recognized by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and other treaties between three British governments and the Sovereign Aboriginal nation. These served as the basis for succeeding treaties. Ironically, it also gave the means by which Aboriginal land titles could be extinguished 2006). The Royal Proclamation of 1763 marked the beginning of efforts to remove the entire aboriginal peoples from their lands, resources and undermine their rights. This effort succeeded partly with military interventions but these armed conflicts were minimal compared to those waged in the United States. In contrast, American government efforts against aboriginal peoples policies and actions which were more militaristic. In Canada, the government approach was characterized by the political process of assimilation 2006). Although it may seem that the aboriginal population of Canada were peacefully cooperating as allies and business partners, underneath the surface was a prevalence of apartheid, assimilation, ethnic cleansing, infractions on human rights, racism, and oppression, which marked the last 350 years of Canadian aboriginal history. Though on the receiving end of much suffering and prejudice, the aboriginal population played a crucial role in the establishment and confederation of Canada. Aborigines were employed in military roles and their involvement during the attempts of the United States to annex Canada helped keep the balance in favor of the British. The Indian forces were also responsible for keeping Americans from succeeding in their persistent encroachments into Canada ( 2006). A modern society with a federal structure was established with the confederation of Canada in 1867. The initiative towards confederation began as early as 1858 and increased in pace in 1864 and 1866. Although the confederation delegates went into extensive discussions to hammer out the details of confederation, there was no time when the First Nations were included in the talks. Neither were they consulted nor their future roles in the federation publicly acknowledged. Their future was determined unilaterally and as the first prime minister, Sir John MacDonald said, "to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the inhabitants of the Dominion" (GENOCIDE & ASSIMILATION: Canada's Aboriginal People experience "Ethnic cleansing - Canadian-Style !" http://offreserve.tripod.com/articles.html). This was consistent with the British Empire's task of carrying the "white man's burden". This is to mean the civilizing of indigenous peoples within the empire, may they be Indian, Maori, Zulu, etc. The "white man's burden" also serves as the justification for the annexation of the lands and resources of these indigenous populations. For Victorian

Equity and trusts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Equity and trusts - Essay Example If Leonard and Nancy demonstrate to the court that they took all the necessary precautions consistent with the actions of an ordinary prudent man when exercising the trust fund, then their breaches will be discharged as exemplified in Speight v Gaunt (Kurt, Peter, Donald and Cecily 2011, p. 202-2012). In this case scenario, it is unlikely that an ordinary person with skills like those of Leonard would have managed the trust in the way he did by proposing the selling of some shares and retain the case. Section 3 (1) of the Trustee Act 2000 provides that trustee make investment decisions which he would have himself done if he was entitled absolutely to the trust assets of the trust. We could therefore say that Leonard would have made the same decisions had he been absolutely entitled to his trust assets and thus his suggestion can be considered to be reasonable. Despite this, his decision does not satisfy the set out standards like shown in the case of Cowan v Scargill where it was asc ertained that any decisions made should be wholly to the benefit of the beneficiaries and not the trustees (Sameera and Jill 2009, p. 202-210) And since this not the case in the study, then we can postulate that a breach of trust is evident. As for the case of Nancy, by the virtue of being a trustee under the trust, she will be also liable for the breaches of Leonard if it can be proved that he acted in a careless manner. From the demonstrations in case of Re Vickey, it was ascertained that a trustee can be found liable for recklessness if it is proved he did not give much regard as whether his act or omission amounted to a breach of trust. Since Nancy omitted in her duties by not raising objections to Leonard’s suggestions, we can say that he is careless and therefore he may be found to have breached his fiduciary duties. Additionally, just like it has been expressed by Abbas and Clements, the trustee is personally obliged to run the trust with part of the duty being to keen ly observe what other trustees are doing and raise objections if something wrong is being done (Antony 1999). Therefore, since Nancy did nothing to ensure that Leonard was exercising the instruments of trust as required, she is thus liable to a breach of trust. Consequently, as spelt out in Bahin v Hughes, there are sufficient reasons not to allow a trustee to escape liability by placing blame on another trustee or other trustees for anything that goes wrong (Bruce, Florin 2009). Nevertheless, if it can be approved that there was an exemption clause to that regard freeing her from the liability, then she shall not be in breach. Therefore, since in this case the trust instrument contains the clause, Nancy cannot be held liable for the breach of trust and should therefore not be sued. The beneficiaries are in a position to seek proprietary claim from Orlando’s property as it falls in the awarding against a specific asset which in this case is the swimming pool. Orlando clearly still is in possession of the swimming pool and thus the beneficiary can clearly assert proprietary claim to the swimming pool. We cannot determine if Orlando had the knowledge that the money she received from her mother was from the trust, but if Orlando had the knowledge then he clearly suffers from the liability to account to trust for value of property received, and