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.

Hi everyone!

I hope that your day is going well! I have learned about the “Indian Act” in Canadian History and Sociology classes I took previously. The “Indian Act” began in 1876. This legislation intrigued me for many reasons, propelling me to do further research, which I am happy to share with you in this post!

First off, the “Indian Act” (Government of Canada) is Canadian legislation that governs registered “Indians,”  their bands, and reserves. The first line in the Act reads, “An Act respecting Indians.” However, there is much controversy involved with this Act among Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people. The act was created in 1876, so it’s understandable that it was called the “Indian Act,” but I find it strange that, even though the government has made amendments to the act, they kept the name. Today, it is considered disrespectful to call an Indigenous person an “Indian.” Perhaps this is to keep history in tact, but it doesn’t sit well with me, because it’s a derogatory term.  Why is there an “Indian Act,” but not an act for other ethnicities? (There were many other discriminatory laws in Canadian history (Décoste), which were done away with over time.) Even though Canada has a reputation of being welcoming and accepting to people of a variety of ethnicities, Canada has a dark history and is still not as welcoming as people may believe, including the way in which it has treated its own Indigenous people. It seems to me this act separates Indigenous people from everybody else in Canada, creating an us versus them dichotomy. After all, according to John A MacDonald (Joseph), “The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.”

One of the issues I have with the “Indian Act” is that it dictates who is considered “Indian” and who is not, keeping non-status “Indians” from joining bands. I know I am part English, Swedish, and Russian. What if someone were to tell me that I am not one of those? It would be like stripping away part of my identity. I believe, even if someone is only half Indigenous, that person should be allowed to become a member of a band if they want to be close to their Indigenous roots. Another problem I have with this Act is that it states that bands are governed by Her Majesty and the Governor in Council, but I question why Indigenous people can’t govern their bands themselves.

A very big talking point (Crey and Hanson) with the Act, and one that is considered both prejudice as well as sexist by many people in Canada, is that up until 1985, if a woman with “Indian” status married a non-status man, she and her children, if any, would lose status. However, if a status man married a woman with no Indigenous ancestry, the woman and her children, if any, would gain status. This meant that the woman who lost status would not be allowed to be with her Indigenous community and have access to the same rights as Indigenous people. After 1985, a woman was then able to apply for Indigenous status again, but I believe that the damage had already been done, and it’s hard to take back something that has already been done or said.

Another important talking point (Hanson) is that the “Indian Act” forced every “Indian” child to attend residential school. This was created to assimilate (CanLit Guides) them into the dominant culture of Canada. The children who attended these schools faced much abuse, were forced off their lands, and stripped of their languages and culture. On June 11th 2008, the government of Canada, under Prime Minster Stephen Harper, finally formally apologized. “Two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child.” Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.”

I believe that my findings support Dan Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility. “The Indian Act” is all about power and control. The British people’s attitude of superiority combined with the belief that they were more civil than Indigenous people resulted in brutality during colonization and beyond. When people have an image in their mind of Canada, they automatically think of white people, because the British constructed a “fictive ethnicity,” which “still occupies the position of normalcy and privilege in Canada,” says Dan Coleman. And in this way the “Indian Act” still dictates onto Indigenous people, treating them in a way that makes them seem like children who can’t take care of themselves. It’s unfortunate our culture is built on British civility. This has been shifting gradually since the 1950’s, but there’s still a long way to go.

Crey, Karmen, and Erin Hanson. “Indian Status.” Indigenous Foundations. The University Of British Columbia, 2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

Décoste, Rachel. “The Most Discriminatory Laws in Canadian History.” The Huffington Post. N.p., 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

Hanson, Erin. “The Residential School System.” Indigenous Foundations. The University Of British Columbia, 2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

“Indian Act.” Government of Canada Justice Laws Website. N.p., 02 Apr. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

Joseph, Bob. “21 Things You May Not Have Known About The Indian Act.” Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. N.p., 02 June 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

“Nationalism, Late 1800s–1950s: Canadian Immigration and War.” CanLit Guides. N.p., 4 Oct. 2016. Web. 28 Oct. 2016.

In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: “Contrapuntal Cartographies” (468 – 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke’s analysis of what Judge McEachern might have meant by this statement: “We’ll call this the map that roared.”

When Chief Justice Allan McEachern unpacked the map showing the land claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People he said “We’ll call it the map that roared.” Now that statement could be understood in many ways, but given that the land claims the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People made were huge and were not taking into account anything brought to British Columbia through the colonization (McCullough) and subsequent undertakings such as boundaries, streets, power lines, towns or any other non-natural things it seems likely to assume that Chief Justice Allan McEachern said what he did, knowing that this map would stir up a lot of friction between the government and the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People. Not only was the area big, but the total disregard for all things brought to British Columbia through the colonization would make any agreement even harder to achieve because for either side there was a lot to lose.

Chief Justice Allan McEachern later decided that while evidence based upon oral traditions could be presented in court, and the map was just that, a depiction of the oral tradition, oral traditions on their own, without any other form of evidence that could be recognized by the court are not enough to successfully make a claim. Therefore, no decision was made regarding the claimed land. One could argue that seeing the map the Chief Justice already knew, that a decision would be impossible just based on those claims, because the ramifications would be huge and arbitration could easily take decades. His statement could be interpreted in a way that he perfectly understood the huge meaning of this map but that in the end it would be nothing more than a “roar” because nothing would be coming from it. By now the Supreme Court of Canada overturned McEachern’s judgment and has thus opened up the possibility of a new trial (The Supreme Court). But even without a new trial, which could take a very long time given the amount of things that have to be taken into consideration it is now possible again to have talks and find solutions for the problems.  It is my opinion however, that even though it is now easier to litigate the claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People, in the end they will have to give up big parts of their claims.

As so many times before in history Indigenous People will have to yield to the modern world. And it might not just be pure malevolence doing that, it is just not feasible to move complete settlements or even towns which are now located in areas claimed by Indigenous People. For the future it will be important to see that the claims of the Gitxsan and the Wet’suwet’en People will not be dismissed lightly. Yet they have a hard stand, as their culture and heritage is not shared by most of the people with the power to at some point make these decisions. Getting fair rulings will not be easy when there is this enormous bias.

Works Cited

McCullough, J. J. “Early Canadian History.” JJs Complete Guide to Canada. J. J. McCullough, 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.

The Supreme Court of Canada. “Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.” Supreme Court Judgments. Decisia by Lexum, 11 Dec. 1997. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.

1. We began this unit by discussing assumptions and differences that we carry into our class. In “First Contact as Spiritual Performance,” Lutz makes an assumption about his readers (Lutz, “First Contact” 32). He asks us to begin with the assumption that comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants is “one of the most obvious difficulties.” He explains that this is so because “one must of necessity enter a world that is distant in time and alien in culture, attempting to perceive indigenous performance through their eyes as well as those of the Europeans.” Here, Lutz is assuming either that his readers belong to the European tradition, or he is assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances – than the other way around. What do you make of this reading? Am I being fair when I point to this assumption? If so, is Lutz being fair when he makes this assumption?

Regarding your assumption, I would say Lutz is not assuming that his readers belong to the European tradition, nor is he assuming that it is more difficult for a European to understand Indigenous performances.
What he is trying to say is, that because this first contact took place between the Haida people and Spaniards, the outside observer needs to be able to see the interaction through the eyes of the Indigenous Haida people, as well as through the eyes of the Spanish (European) visitors. A task that, in his opinion, can only be achieved partially (Lutz 32).

That being said, it is my opinion that Lutz is right when saying that cultural differences between the Haida people and Spaniards make it hard for both sides to communicate. Without a shared reference frame, it is hard for the Europeans to understand what the Haida are trying to say with their performances. On the other hand, the Haida would have problems judging the Spaniards reactions to their performance for the same reason.

The cultural background of a person is important for many aspects of communication. Not only is it likely that people will speak different languages, but they might also use different signs, gestures, and idioms; have vastly different social values and standards; and, depending on their culture, a different technological level. A good example of cultural differences is the perception of colours. While Canadian and Japanese people see colours in the same way, they do not always agree on how to call a specific colour. Canadians would say that lawns and leaves are green, but Japanese people would call the colour “Ao” (青), the Japanese word for blue (Backhaus).

There can also be differences in gestures that could lead to possible misunderstandings. Even things like shaking your head to indicate “No” are not as universal as one might assume. In Bulgaria shaking your head indicates “Yes” instead of “No,” and nodding your head indicates “No” instead of “Yes” (Kruschewsky).

So Lutz is right when he is saying that the most obvious difficulty is comprehending the performances of the Indigenous participants.  The Spaniards can never be sure that the way they perceive a gesture is the correct way and is indeed meant to say what they are understanding. It is a process of learning from each other and interpreting each other’s reactions to gestures, signs, and language.

Given that two cultures are far apart, not only different in language and in the way they use gestures, but also in their technological level and social values and standards, that opens up the process of first contacts to a lot of misunderstandings with a possibly bad outcome. Yet with the two groups interacting over time, both parties get to know each other better and communication will slowly get more fluent with less chances for a random destructive misunderstanding. However, since even a slight misunderstanding can possibly have very real and bad consequences, there may always be a chance of misunderstandings, although prolonged contact would hopefully establish trust and cancel out the bad effects of possible misunderstandings.

Works Cited

Backhaus, Peter. “The Japanese Traffic Light Blues: Stop on Red, Go on What?” Japan Times RSS. Japan Times Ltd., 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Kruschewsky, Gabriela. “19 Simple Gestures That Might Be Highly Misunderstood Abroad.” BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed Inc., 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2016.

Lutz, John S. “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance.” Myth and Memory: Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Vancouver: UBC, 2007. 32. Print.

It was interesting to go through many of the assignments. I noticed many of them share a common motive (theme) that appears over and over again, albeit in little variations.

The leitmotif in many stories was the connection of the place perceived as home with experiences and memories (Fish) rooted there. And while the memories were different for everybody, the place called home is mostly connected with happy memories. This connection with happy memories was also true for people who called more than one place their home, making new—and good—memories (Prince) seems to be the initial event that leads to the perception of a new place as home. On the other hand, bad memories can taint a place and make the perception of a place as home impossible.

Once a place is established as home, most people seem to regard it as a safe place, protecting them and rooting them to a specific place (Prince).

Canada itself, more specifically the multi-cultural nature of Canada, played a role for people to feel at home here. They feel accepted, an important factor to feel at home in a place.

Another thing that plays a role in establishing a home are the people around you. Many people mentioned family and friends (Lee) as an important factor of the “home” experience.

Going through the different blogs, it becomes apparent that the basic concept of home is very similar for most people. How different factors are weighed can be different, but, for most people, home is the place they feel safe (Lee) due to the many good memories they connect with the place, how it connects them to the place they are living, and their social bubble of family, friends and co-workers.

Homes can be very different, and people may have different expectations, but, in the end, all those things have a similar core of a safe place that makes one feel comfortable, mostly through good experiences and memories, as well as through the social bubble it provides.

Works Cited:

Fish, Colleen. “What home is….for me. – Assignment 2.2” N.p., n.d. https://blogs.ubc.ca/colleenfish/2016/09/30/what-home-is-for-me-assignment-2-2/. 03 Oct. 2016.

Lee, Chloe. “2.2 Home.” ENGL 470A. N.p., n.d. https://blogs.ubc.ca/470chloe/2016/09/28/2-2-home/. 01 Oct. 2016.

Prince, Hope. “LESSON 2:1 – ASSIGNMENT 2:2.” English 470 Canadian Studies Blog. N.p., n.d. https://blogs.ubc.ca/hopeprinceengl470a/2016/09/28/lesson-21-assignment-22/. 01 Oct. 2016.