“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.