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.
Hello!
I really enjoyed reading your post.
I went to the Bob Joseph link you shared, and was very disturbed by the information. For instance, the idea that Native peoples were unable to leave reserves without written authorisation or that they were unable to vote is so extremely discriminatory. I found a YouTube video that compared the Indian Act to South Africa’s Apartheid and Nazism in Germany.
In relation to last week’s lesson on Nationalism, I was wondering if you felt that one trait of extreme nationalism is the exclusion of specific demographics within a nation?
Hey Tillie!
Thanks so much for the comment! I agree, that Bob Joseph’s post is very much disturbing! There’s so much discrimination in Canada’s past, and even present, that it’s sickening. That certainly sounds like an interesting Youtube video. I’d be interested in watching that!
I totally agree that one trait of extreme nationalism is the exclusion of specific demographics within a nation. If you exclude one specific demographic, you’re basically saying you’re not just more superior, but that you dismiss them entirely. That to me, is downright wrong.
wow, great blog post. your arguments depicted very clearly how the indian act discriminates and causes harm. i think you are exactly right when you say it is an issue of control that “british civility” feels it has the authority to decide who can make decisions for themselves and who can’t, based purely on ethnicity.
playing devils advocate i try to imagine why it was done, and i feel like i can understand it, being that the first people were so foreign to the organization that the settlers knew. it doesn’t lesson the crime and atrocity of it.
if we saw a first nations man or woman walking down the street in tribal dress speaking only their native tongue today would we respond in much the same way? of assuming this person were of lesser ability to understand our world and thus of lesser ability to make their own sound decisions in it? and so what if they were foreign to our ways of doing something? would we consider this person vulnerable and in need of support as they interact with a different population? would we try and connect with them to give them directions or help them on their task if we saw that? or would we see an opportunity to take advantage of.
i believe that the first people of canada were very vulnerable when the settlers came. the settlers had come from large nations that had access to advanced technologies of various sorts. and although they came to a new place, once they developed town centers and trading posts they coerced the first people into playing by their rules in order to have access to the technology they had.
Hey Stephanie!
Thank you for the comment! You’re right. Probably a big reason why European colonizers used this discrimination so much is that Indigenous people were so different from the European people in their culture.
Sadly, as much as we want to say that Canada has changed and is less discriminatory, I think if someone saw an Indigenous person walking down the street in tribal dress speaking their native tongue, they may stare at them, and still not fully understand them.
I also agree with you; Indigenous people had less technology. They lived off the land and had a mostly hunter-gatherer society, whereas European colonizers had more technology and used it to their advantage to control Indigenous people.