Question 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.
Summary of the Indian Act (1876)
The Indian Act was administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). Indigenous self-identity is not necessarily recognized by Canadian law. The federal government recognizes an “Indian” only when they fit imposed Canadian standards of government regulation. The Indian Act naturalizes a conceptual framework which organizes modern Native life. The Indian Act is “highly invasive and paternalistic” because it gives the Canadian federal government authority to regulate Indigenous affairs, lifestyle and even who “qualifies as Indian” through Indian Status (Erin Hanson).
The Indian Act gave the Canadian federal government the power to: govern Indian status, bands and Indian reserves; impose band councils as forms of government in Indigenous communities; control Indigenous rights to practice culture, traditions and language; and determine land where Indigenous can live, which was to be reserves (Hanson).
The Indian Act is part of a long assimilation policy history to “terminate the cultural, social, economic, and political distinctiveness of [Indigenous] peoples by absorbing them into mainstream Canadian life and values”.
The Indian Act has been amended many times since 1876 but largely remains the same (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
State legislation that discriminates against Indigenous based on ideas about racial inferiority/capacities to assimilate
[The History of The Indian Act]
The Indian Act 1876 is a consolidation of separate, earlier colonial legislation, such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857.
The Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 is a homogenizing and paternalistic Act which bestowed the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs with threatening control over status Indians. The abusive power dynamics inherent in this legislation enabled discrimination against Indigenous peoples based on ideas of racial inferiority.
The Gradual Enfranchisement Act did the following:
1) Gave the superintendent the power to decide which Natives were of “good moral character” and deserved certain rights or benefits
2) Superintendent could decide if the “widow of an enfranchised Indian” is respectable and therefore allowed to keep her own children after the death of the father
3) restricted the governing authority of band councils, “regulated alcohol consumption and determined who was eligible for band and treaty benefits”
4) gender-based restrictions to status which marginalize Indigenous women by excluding them from their status rights in the Indian Act
5) Homogenize distinct and separate Indigenous tribes under one law (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
[The “Potlatch Law” & Section 141]
Under the Indian Act, in 1884 government banned potlatches. The following years saw an extension of bans against cultural ceremonies such as the sun dance. “The potlatch was one of the most important ceremonies for coastal First Nations in the west, and marked important occasions as well as served a crucial role in distribution of wealth.” Colonists and missionaries knew how vital the potlatches were to sustaining Indigenous cultures, but they wanted to completely wipe out Indigenous economic systems of redistribution in favor of private property ownership. The purpose of this devastating cultural and economic blow was assimilation into mainstream Canadian society.
The Potlatch Law is vitally important both for economic and for cultural purposes. The Potlach Law “prevented the passing down of [Indigenous] oral history. It prevented the passing down of [Indigenous] values. It meant an interruption of the respected forms of government [Indigenous peoples] used to have”. This prohibiting of ceremonies resulted in legacies of loss in “cultural practices, traditions, and oral history” still felt today (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
[Section 141]
Section 141 is the Federal government addition to the Indian Act in response to extensive Indigenous political organization and land claim pursuals in the 1920s. This policy outlaws Indigenous right to hire lawyers and legal counsel. Effectively, Indigenous peoples were deprived their right to fight, for their rights through the legal system. Section 141 laws further expanded until virtually all Indigenous gatherings were criminalized, this presenting a serious blockade to Indigenous political organization (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
[Bill C-31 and gender discrimination]
Bill C-31 employs a gender discrimination which specifically targets Indigenous women and has problematic roots in the cross-section between not only gender, but also colonization. For whether an Indian Status woman marries an Indian man or a non-Indian man, she stands to be forcibly “separated from her own family and community, as well as her connections to her heritage”.
Under Bill C-31: Indian status women who marry non-Indian men lose their status. With the loss of status, these women would lose “treaty benefits, health benefits, the right to live on her reserve, the right to inherit family property, and even the right to be buried on the reserve with her ancestors”. An Indian status woman who marries another Indian status man must rely on becoming a member of his band, as she automatically ceases to be a member of her own. In the case of an Indian status woman being widowed or abandoned, she would lose her Indian status and become enfranchised. Her children may also be forcibly enfranchised. However, a non-Indigenous woman who marries an Indian man would achieve status.
In each case, an Indigenous “woman’s status was entirely dependent on their husband.”
The House of Commons recognized the exemption clause of the Indian Act from Canada’s Human Rights law as a recognition of injustice and in 2008, the Bill C-21 repealed this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 1985, Bill C-31 reinstated the status of those who lost it. However, there are still problems “as those who have their status reinstated can only pass it on for one generation” (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
Legislation that tries to rectify early policies of exclusion and racial discrimination
[The White Paper]
The 1969 “White Paper” policy aimed to try and rectify early policies of racial discrimination against Indigenous peoples. Prime Minister Trudeau proposed to abolish the Indian Act and disassemble the Department of Indian Affairs. “Indians would essentially become like other Canadian citizens”.
There is no questioning that the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act are problematically controlling, grant the Canadian government too much power over the day-to-day lives of Indigenous peoples, allow Canadian officials to take children away from Indigenous women in disproportionate statistics, are rooted in a history of assimilation and margination and are altogether horrible.
That being said, “the Indian Act is historically and legally significant” for Indigenous peoples. It acknowledges and affirms “that the federal government has a unique history, relationship with, and obligation to, First Nations”. For this reason, the “white paper” proposal to abolish the Act, as made without any input from Indigenous voice, is a solution without accountability and has been met with widespread Native resistance.
Harold Cardinal expressed the spirit in 1969:
“We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isn’t. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation” (Hanson).
_________________________________________________________
Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility:
Coleman argues that White Canadian culture obsessively frames its own civility as the defining factor in Canada’s national maturity (Coleman 5). “White civility” is a literary project based on the British model of civility. This romanticizes white gentlemen who demonstrate “courtesy and fairmindedness” to the other, such as Indigenous peoples in Canada (Coleman 169). This immediately creates an ‘us versus them’ narrative. White civility is naturalized and positioned with the “moral high ground” to extend courtesy to Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples are positioned both as “beneficiaries” and as objects to manage in the national quest to reiterate Canadian maturity (Coleman 170-171).
I agree with Coleman’s argument because the project of white civility is undeniably present in Canadian-Indigenous relations. White civility is particularly palpable in both (1) the reasoning behind the Indian Act amendments and (2) how amendments were drafted without Indigenous input.
(1) White civility in the motivation behind Indian Act amendments
The 1951 amendment exemplifies how gentlemen Canadian citizens “demonstrated fairmindedness” to Indigenous peoples in Canada (Coleman 169). As it was Canadian citizens’ public opinion which successfully lobbied for the 1951 amendment, white civility is positioned with the “moral high ground” to improve laws for Indigenous peoples, positioned as “beneficiaries” (Coleman 170-171). “After the participation of First Nations soldiers in the war”, many Canadians were troubled by the victimization and marginalization of Indigenous peoples in Canada (Hanson).
“The more oppressive sections of the Indian Act” were revised and removed. They removed the oppressive ban on Indigenous cultural practices and ceremonies, such as the potlach. At this point, Indigenous peoples were allowed to leave their reserve in ceremonial dress “without permission of the Indian Agent”. The restrictions against Indigenous peoples being allowed to hire lawyers and organize in groups was removed. Indigenous women could now vote in band councils. “The federal government’s general purpose for the amendments at that time was to move away from casting Indians as wards of the state and instead facilitate their becoming contributing citizens of Canada” (Hanson).
Canada’s pledge to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is another significant factor behind pushing for Indian Act reform. After the atrocity of World War II, Canadian citizens became very concerned with the concept of human rights. In this way, the Indigenous are positioned as objects to manage Canadian national maturity (Hanson).
(2) White civility is present where there is no Indigenous presence during amendment drafts
When Prime Minister Trudeau was drafting “The White Paper” and did not consult Indigenous opinion, he represented the Canadian federal government. Not consulting Indigenous opinion draft, despite being well-meaning, is a reflection of how White Civility is positioned with “the moral high ground to extend courtesy to Indigenous peoples”. Because they did not help make the proposal but were merely offered it, Indigenous peoples were positioned as “beneficiaries” in an ‘us versus them’ narrative as opposed to peoples with agency to find common ground.
_________________________________________________________
Works Cited:
Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous Foundations, University of British Columbia, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_indian_act/.
Milloy, John. “Indian Act Colonialism: A Century of Dishonour, 1869-1969.” Research Paper for the National Centre for First Nations Governance, 2008.
Sterritt, Angela. Racialization of Poverty: Indigenous Women, the Indian Act and Systemic Oppression: Reasons for Resistance. Vancouver Status of Women, 2007.
Treaty 9 Indigenous men at Fort Hope in Ontario, 1905. (Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs / Library and Archives Canada). Photograph.