Indigenous-Inclusive Citizenship: The City and Social Housing in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia

Abstract

In spite of these numbers, urban Indigenous communities have a difficult time giving effect to the principle of self-determination in urban policyöin absolute terms, but also relatively speaking in comparison with counterpart communities in rural and remote areas (Andersen and Denis, 2003;Barcham, 2000). We use developments in urban social housing in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia as a means for engaging with urban Indigeneity and understanding how the`hegemony of exclusion' (Howitt, 2001) that keeps it outside of the shared urban experience can be overcome. This is an important piece in the overall project of urbanists worldwide to understand and facilitate the decolonisation of our cities, overcome a lingering fear of the`other', and embrace in practical ways a`politics of difference' (Sandercock, 2003).All three countries have a history of social housing initiatives that aimed to even out life-chances for all citizens by ensuring access to adequate and affordable housing. Within those initiatives, in all three countries, are a set of social housing programmes that were created specifically for Indigenous peoples. The extent to which these programmes supported urbanisation trends among Indigenous peoples varies. While each of the three countries has its own body of scholarship on Aboriginal (urban) housing (eg, Read, 2000;Waldegrave et al, 2006;Walker, 2008) ours is the first international comparative work across the three countries. We use an historic comparative examination of Indigenous social housing programmes, from the 1930s to the present, in order to understand how common social citizenship, Indigenous-inclusive citizenship, and the perceived legitimate place for authentic Indigenous cultures have intersected. We argue that the links between Indigenous-inclusive citizenship and common social

The Double Binds of Indigeneity and Indigenous Resistance

“…that "...avoids predominant indigenous populations living on the periphery of urban centers as a result of post-colonial migration" ( [111], p. 201). Ryan Walker and Manuhuia Barcham ( [113], p. 314) similarly note that struggles for autonomy and rights among urbanized indigenous peoples in Canada, New Zealand and Australia are impeded because "The place of authentic indigeneity in the public perception has remained outside of urban areas". That poverty among people who "qualify" as indigenous is often perceived as being different in character, more worthy or obligatory of remedial action, than poverty among other groups, such as indigenous people in urban contexts [114], signals both the continuing potency and problematics of the concept in its utility in indigenous struggles.…”

Indigenous residential segregation in towns and cities, 1976–2016

“…At the level of the suburb and the broader urban fabric, however, public housing policies reduced Indigenous segregation. In many cities and towns, Indigenous housing was scattered in a 'salt and pepper' pattern throughout Australians towns and cities (Memmott 1996, Walker & Barcham 2010. In the case of Sydney (about which most has been written), this policy was adopted specifically to 'discourage the formation of Aboriginal solidarities' facilitated by urban proximity (Morgan 2006(Morgan , 2008.…”

Left out? Housing insecurity for one‐person, low‐income, non‐senior households in Cape Breton Regional Municipality

“…As social housing became increasingly problematized (Hellyer ), the federal government supported the creation of over 200,000 non‐profit and co‐operative housing units between 1973 and 1992 (Suttor ) and incentivized the private sector to build affordable market rentals (Bacher ). Housing investments for Indigenous people living on‐reserve began in the 1960s, while the 1970s saw some commitment to non‐profit housing for Indigenous people living in cities (Walker and Barcham ; Belanger et al ).…”