2] In this lesson I say that it should be clear that the discourse on nationalism is also about ethnicity and ideologies of “race.” If you trace the historical overview of nationalism in Canada in the CanLit guide, you will find many examples of state legislation and policies that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate. – and in turn, state legislation and policies that worked to try to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination. As the guide points out, the nation is an imagined community, whereas the state is a “governed group of people.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to research and summarize one of the state or governing activities, such as The Royal Proclamation 1763, the Indian Act 1876, Immigration Act 1910, or the Multiculturalism Act 1989 – you choose the legislation or policy or commission you find most interesting. Write a blog about your findings and in your conclusion comment on whether or not your findings support Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility.

From the moment of its very inception “The Indian Act” seems to represent a piece of legislature that could never ‘get it right’. It’s every revision since the initial implementation in 1876 has been met with resistance from Native bands which, in more recent years has largely been as a result of lack of consultation (Henderson n.p.). This, among many other, much more controversial reasons, leads me to think that Canada would have been much better off if those early proclamations which began to bring the ‘Indians’ under colonial control, had never been. But with sadness we must admit that, like King’s retelling of how Evil came into the world, these stories, once told, cannot be taken back.

“The Indian Act” has gone through many many revisions since its inception. Initially each new version added laws or amendments which intensified European dominance over the Aboriginals. It’s principle goal was to assimilate Indians into European life by eliminating their traditional governments and cultural practices, beginning slowly by offering land and the right to vote in exchange for relinquishing their Indian status (enfranchisement). Gradually this escalated to mandatory enfranchisement, creation of residential schools and banning of the potlatch ceremony. After the 1950’s the amendments were to slowly take away these laws, which had so brutally marginalized the Natives (Henderson n.p.). But, as we know, this process has been slow and relatively unsuccessful. Even today The Indian Act reveals some unfair and racist legislature such as, disallowing true ownership of land, even on a reserve without written permission from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs (20:1), and that the Crown may take control of reserve land without permission if it is for “public use,” and any payment agreed upon for that land is to be given to a government trustee in charge of Indian moneys, not to the actual Band themselves (35:1,4).

Such blatant unfairness is what caused subsequent legislature such Pierre Trudeau’s “White Paper” which attempted to eradicate this “separation of Canadians” (“Canada” 6) of any one particular group. I can only imagine that from Trudeau’s perspective, he was trying to create equal treatment for all Canadians and eliminate government-sanctioned racism. Reading through the document, we can see that they had good intentions: “This Government believes in equality. It believes that all men and women have equal rights. It is determined that all shall be treated fairly and that no one shall be shut out of Canadian life, and especially that no one shall be shut out because of his race” (“Canada” 6). Instead, we learned that Aboriginals do want to be treated differently, but not in the way that they had been getting. They wanted respect for their tradition and culture and room to practice it, and felt that removing “The Indian Act” would also remove any need to acknowledge their differences at all. Harold Cardinal put it so succinctly when he wrote in his book The Unjust Society that “The Indian Act” was “a lever in [their] hands . . . we would rather continue to live in bondage under the Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights” (qtd. in Hanson n.p.).

Coleman’s analysis describes the creation of a Canadian national identity as a ‘project’ and I feel this is the perfect word. ‘Project’ implies a long process with many steps and possibly a ‘go with the flow’ attitude where you don’t really know if the process you’re taking is going to be successful or not. The fact of it’s many revisions and missteps gives “The Indian Act” a very ‘project-y’ feel. Especially in the early years when each move was an intensifying measure, it gives the impression that Europeans were always working step-by-step to a greater end goal. In more recent years, the project of national identity has been more of two party negotiation. European descendants are trying to rectify their mistakes, but by asking the Natives to kindly ‘forget’ what has happened in the past and allow us to move forward, again, as a nation: a unified community under Canada that unfortunately isn’t all that unified yet. Coleman’s commentary is as complicated as the issue at hand, but at it’s heart he makes a good observation that our ‘Canadian’ national identity was truly created  out of a British understanding of civility and perpetuated, essentially, through story, or in this case, unfortunate legislature.

Works Cited:

Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs. Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy. Ottawa: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, 1969.

Hands Holding the Land. Digital image. Stories From the Road. Bryan Creech, Apr. 2014. Web. 08 July 2016.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous Foundations. First Nations and Indigenous Studies UBC, 2009. Web. 08 July 2016.

Henderson, William B., and Zach Parrott. “Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, 02 July 2006. Web. 05 July 2016.

“Indian Act .” Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada, 17 June 2016. Web. 08 July 2016.