“Fictive ethnicity” describes, “how nations of diverse peoples are represented, both in the past and future, as if they are a “natural community” (Paterson, Lesson 3:1)

The Indian Act is the Canadian federal law that defines and administers Indian status, deals with First Nations governments/bands, and orders the management of reserve lands. The act was first passed in 1867 and served as a “consolidation of previous colonial ordinances that aimed to eradicate First Nations culture in favour of assimilation into Euro-Canadian society” (Henderson). This paternalistic-like Act grants the Canadian government authority to regulate and administer in the affairs and day-to-day lives of registered Indians and reserve communities. This Act not only represents the political control that the government hand over the First Nations of Canada, but it also represents the common idea that the ‘Indian’ is in need of civilizing, and that they should be grateful for this gift that the ‘white-man’ is bestowing. Even John A. MacDonald proclaimed in 1887, that “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” (Hanson). The ultimate aim was elimination of ‘Indian-ness’ and a complete assimilation into the western European societal norms.

A particular policy that I found quite interesting within the Indian Act is the “Potlatch Law.” In 1884, under the Indian Act, the Canadian federal government banned potlatches and other ceremonies; Coastal First Nations and the those of the west believed that potlatch ceremonies were one of the most important ritual for their bands. These ceremonies marked important occasions as well as served a crucial role in distribution of wealth. Colonial leaders felt that these rituals impeded the full assimilation, and they wanted the First Nations peoples to practice private property ownership, rather than economic redistribution. This Potlatch Law “prevented the passing down of our oral history. It prevented the passing down of our values. [And] it meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have” (Hanson). The impact of this law to the First Nations communities was so damaging to their culture and the affects of this can still be seen today.

Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility notes that “beginning with the colonials and early nation-builders, there has been a “literary endeavor” to “formulate and elaborate a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” (Paterson, Lesson 3:1). It can be said that the idea of nationality in Canada is defined by ‘fictive ethnicity,’ where Canada is representative of the ‘white-washing’ of our culture. Our nation is, and has been, made up of numerous cultural identities, but it is perhaps our state systems and legislations that have historically excluded some cultures in an attempt for white assimilation. I think whats important to note with his argument is that regardless of our current day attempts to become more inclusive in our Canadian nationality as very multicultural, our country still represents the historical assimilation and extermination of cultures through legislation. I found this short reading interesting on the meaning of multiculturalism in Canada, and the relationship with the First Nations and the government.

Works Cited:

“Canadian Multiculturalism: An Inclusive Citizenship.” Government of Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Communications Branch. Government of Canada, 19 Oct. 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous.foundations.arts.ubc.ca. University of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

Henderson, William B. “Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

“Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, C. I-5).” Legislative Services Branch. Government of Canada, 20 Oct. 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.

Sebastian, Troy. “IMMIGRANTS IN OUR OWN LAND.” Voices. VICTORIA IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE CENTRE SOCIETY, 1998. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

‘It was one such map of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory (Exhibit 102) that Chief Justice Allan McEachern was beginning to unfold when he declared, “We’ll call it the map that roared”‘ (Sparke, 468).

In the article, Sparke discusses the themes of property and colonialism; we see the histories of disputes over land claims, and the repression of the First Nations with regards to their rights. But what we also see is the beginning of Canadian Native rights with the turnaround of a cartographic based trial of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en territory.

Sparke analyses this quote by Judge McEachern as evoking the resistance in the First Nations’ remapping of the land. We moreover see this association of a “roaring map” with that of a roaring tiger, who is battling these outside forces in hopes of maintaining its property and placement. This statement by Judge McEachern gives a lot of imagery into the though process of the colonizers. In their eyes, they are attempting to fix, maintain, and essentially westernize this land that has been ruled and organized by ‘animals’. The reader sees this idea of a roaring animal that is attempting to breaking out of its cage. It is the First Nations who are demonstrating their “roaring refusal of the orientation systems, the trap lines, the property lines, the electricity lines, the pipelines, the logging roads, the clear-cuts, and all the other accoutrements of Canadian colonialism on native land” (Sparke, 468). The image by cartoonist Don Monet, “A Map that Roared,” really explains this idea of breaking away from the imposition of the Western idea of mapping and colonization.

I think that there are separate ways of looking into this statement by McEachern. From his perspective, the roar is seen as just complaints and changes of Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en with regards to their version in mapping the territory. It is merely a complaint but nothing that he is worried about, whereas Don Monet’s illustration gives the idea of powerful First Nations peoples that are willing to stand up to the colonial order. This roaring tiger is breaking apart from the map it was placed onto and is roaring for a return to its original order.

What is so interesting to me is that land claims are still occurring throughout Canada. In BC, there are some final agreements that have only just come to a end within the past couple years. I wonder if the trials and discussions today are similar to that of Canada’s beginning? Are the First Nations still oppressed by the government with regards to their territories, and their claim to ownership? I would be interested to look into this further.

Works Cited:

Government of Canada. “British Columbia – Final Agreements and Related Implementation Matters.” Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications Branch. N.p., 05 Apr. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

Sparke, Matthew. “A Map That Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88.3 (1998): 468-70. JSTOR. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

“That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories.”

I think that King has created these dichotomies for us to examine the two creation stories because he wants to emphasize the importance of telling and the importance of the audience. He gives us this option of the more story-like creation story with Charm, or the story of Genesis which is told with authority. He is asking us to contrast the ways in which these particular stories are told, in an effort to help the reader understand how stories can vary depending on several factors. This analysis that he gives us pairs up these two opposing believes and asks the reader to think about ‘what makes them different?’ and ‘how are they similar?’ maybe even ‘why are they different?’ Are they different because they are told differently or are we listening to them differently? Are we understanding these stories in a particular light because of our own upbringing and understanding? I believe that King is trying to show us the possibilities of change within a story – and in the telling of it.

In the lesson, we learn that stories give us a way to connect, and the stories which the Indigenous and First Nations tell, or ones of possession and ownership. Their stories reflect the histories and agreements that they have made with each other as peoples, and they represent how they all connect with each other. I think that King’s use of dichotomies helps the reader to understand why the two creations stories are different; the two creation stories represent two different values and connections. The story of Genesis is authoritative and allows there to be only one high being, whereas the story with Charm shows the values of togetherness and understanding. King has provided these oppositions to demonstrate the differing ways in which stories are told, based on their teller’s value system.

I personally enjoy the ways in which our First Nations and Indigenous peoples tell their stories – their stories evoke emotion and connection. I watched this video on Youtube of the Kaha:wi Dance Theatre’s interpretation of the age-old Iroquoian Creation Story by Santee Smith. I found this excerpt of the full dance performance so wonderful. I fully enjoyed watching it and really connected to the themes and values that it was trying to convey. I actually also found this video while on Youtube, another very interesting video about storytelling of the First Nations people and The Real Story of the Quileute Wolves. These stories give a history of the natural orders within the world, and the importance of working together with all inhabitants of this worlds – something that I find more within the First Nations story-telling then in the stories by the Europeans.

Works Cited:

Kahawidance. “A Story Before Time.” YouTube. YouTube, 16 May 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

SmithsonianNMAI. “Native Storytelling Festival: The Real Story of the Quileute Wolves.” YouTube. YouTube, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

Reading through my peers blog postings on their own personal feelings about home, I have come to understand that many of us feel the same way. For many here, home is more than just the four walls that keep us warm, and that home is more of a feeling than a physicality. Like others, I have found that home hold the potential to physically change, and yet remain the same; in essence, home can have multiple forms because it is the emotions that spaces bring, rather than the physical locations, that constitute home for many people. I have come to understand that I am fortunate in feeling that I have multiple homes, and that I have felt at home in the many spaces in which I have lived throughout my life. I now understand that although many of us feel a similar way about what constitutes a home, my peers and I have all taken various routes to arrive at this understanding. We have all had different influences, and hold differing values, and yet a majority of us hold true that a home is a space which brings comfort and the feeling of being content.

The differences that I did see, were things that come from individual upbringing, and ones own history. I feel as though our differences are not that stark but rather a variation of opinion. I think that although many of us found the sense of home outside of the four walls in which we lived, it was specifically what brought us home that was often different. It just goes to show that the definition of home to various people is often a spectrum different meanings.

Commonalities:

• home is represented through feelings and memories
• home has the potential to change and evolve, and thus is not necessarily one specific place
• home is a feeling of belonging somewhere
• home is where one can feel culturally connected
• country of origin
• a place unknown

Differences:

• the idea of home as associated with music and art
• home as being frightening or sad
• trying to find the meaning of home, and teaching oneself what home could be
• pursuit of reality

I fully enjoyed reading everyones blog postings this week, and I really appreciated everyones ability to display personal emotions and experiences – something that isn’t always easy to do. This assignment was really thought provoking and eye opening for me, as I had not really thought about how I personally would define home. This is a very interesting Ted Talk, which I believe a Chloe Lee posted on her blog. I’m glad I got to watch this! I liked this idea of being able to choose ones sense of home, and that we are no longer limited to only one definition.

Works Cited:

Pico Iyer: Where is home?. TED Global. TED, 2013. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.

Lee, Chloe. “2.2 Home,” My Exploration of Canadian Literature, https://blogs.ubc.ca/470chloe/2016/09/28/2-2-home/. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.