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.
The original intention of the Indian Act of 1876 was to separate Indigenous people from Canadian citizens until they could be assimilated into Western society. One example of this is the process of enfranchisement. When an Indigenous person chose to enfranchise themselves, they lost their Indian status and became part of Western society. Until 1960, only those Indigenous people who were enfranchised could vote in Canadian federal elections. This process divided Indians and non-Indians, and suggested that there was no middle ground to be part of both communities. This most clearly supports Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility, along with the decades-long requirement for Indigenous children to attend residential schools where they were taught to read and write English.
Furthermore, the Indian Act displayed clear sexism. The rules for qualifying for Indian status have changed over the years through bills passed by the federal government of Canada. At one time, women who married men without Indian status lost their own status. However, men who married non-status women did not lose their status. In 1985, this was amended and women who had lost status because of marrying a non-status man were allowed to reapply. However, their children still could not qualify for status. The irony of this gender discrimination is not only its offence to feminist movements of the time, but that many Aboriginal communities follow a matrilineal line of descent, and the rules of the Indian act were in opposition to this, reflecting Western patrilineal lines of descent. While many bands are now in charge of defining their own membership rules, this does not necessarily mean all band members qualify for Indian status, and the government only provides funding to bands for their members with status.
I believe strongly that we need to move away from a race-based qualification for Indian status, and move towards a culture-based qualification. If a person is welcomed by a band to be part of their community, and chooses themselves to be part of that community, they should qualify for Indian status along with their band membership regardless of race. With the amount of race-mixing in our current time, it is not reasonable to define Indian status through this trait. Giving the benefit to mixed race children means that there may be an abuse of Indian status rights. For example, mixed race children with essentially no connection to Indigenous culture may apply for Indian status in order to evade taxes. While not paying taxes on goods and services is only applicable on reserves, this may still be a huge benefit in communities like West Vancouver where the upscale Park Royal mall is located on a reserve. On the flip side, denying mixed race children the benefits of Indian status can often mean leaving out individuals who are very much active participants of Indigenous culture.
The Indian Act has not been abolished despite attempts in 1969 by the Trudeau government and in 2012 by the Harper government. While I personally believe that these were both well-intentioned attempts intended to reverse the institutional racism against Indigenous people that Canada has been practicing since its creation, they displayed a degree of implicit racism on the part of the government. By trying to make the choice for Indigenous people whether the Indian Act existed, they were again showing that they, the federal government, are the supreme body that makes decisions for Indigenous nations. This blog written by a non-Indigenous person working and living on a reserve has an extremely interesting discourse on the abolishment of the Indian Act. The author makes the point that, “We can’t talk ourselves out of this situation without making structural changes, and we can’t make structural changes without talking to each other.” While the Indian Act certainly needs change if not abolishment, what it needs more so is conversation and agreement between both parties standing on equal footing.
The essential problem with the Indian Act, today and when it was created, is that it is a document filtered through the lens of the Western perspective.
–
Works Cited
Adler, Howard. “Indian Status: 5 things you need to know.” CBC News. CBC, 23 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.
Haifischgeweint. “4 Things Non-Aboriginal Canadians Need to Know About the Indian Act.” Haifischqeweint. N.p., 16 Sep. 2013. Web. 26 Apr. 2016