Assignment 3.2: The Indian Act of 1876
Since the creation of the state of Canada in 1867, the federal government has used legislation and policies to formally exclude, marginalize, and discriminate against peoples perceived as “other” and racially and/or culturally inferior.
The Indian Act of 1876 is a prime example of the Canadian federal government forcing Indigenous peoples into a position of vulnerability to settlers through the use of statutes and policies.
The act continues to control most aspects of Indigenous life by setting the parameters for “Indian status, land, resources wills, education, band administration, and so on” (Montpetit). It only applies to First Nations, not Inuit and Métis individuals and communities.
While the Indian Act has been amended, its previous versions specifically aimed at the assimilation of First Nations individuals. For example, status women who married non-status men would lose their status, and status individuals who earned a university degree would lose their status.
Further, it was under the Indian Act that the government was legally justified in stealing seven generations of Indigenous children from their parents and communities and indoctrinating them in ill-run and ill-equipped residential schools. These schools were designed foremost to eradicate Indigenous languages, cultures, and ways of life. Further, the schools were sites of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse as well as disease.
Significant amendments in 1951 and 1985 have included changes to remove the most bold-faced discriminatory sections that prioritized assimilation of Indigenous cultures to the imagined Euro-Canadian nationality and culture.
While numerous leaders of First Nations communities have called on the federal government to repeal the Indian Act (including former Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo), many Indigenous people have an ambivalent relationship with the document. For, despite its paternal nature, the Indian Act includes government obligations to First Nations peoples and protects some rights of individuals with status, including the right to live on reserve land.
The Indian Act embodies a paradox. It has facilitated abuse and trauma, human rights violations, and significant social and cultural destruction to generations of Indigenous peoples; yet, it has also offered some protection and legal recognition of an individual’s distinct First Nations heritage.
Despite amendments, the Indian Act remains an outdated statute that resists change (The Canadian Encyclopedia). The contemporary document continues to outline numerous rules on reserves, management of band resources, elections, and other aspects of life on the reserve. Since the 1990s, many efforts to reform or abolish the act have been made, but these legislative attempts have been surrounded by controversy for many reasons, most prominently because First Nations groups were not fully and properly consulted. Rather than changing the Indian Act itself, other agreements have sprung up to allow First Nations governments higher autonomy, such as the First Nations Land Management Act of 1999.
The Indian Act has historically served to impose homogeneity by the state to create the ideal nation-state, as outlined in the CanLit guide. This statute has been seen to further the Canadian federal project of “white civility,” as analyzed by Coleman, by legally forcing First Nations governments and individuals to remain segregated from or assimilate into Canadian “whiteness as modelled after the British model of civility” (5). The paternalistic nature of the document highlights the privilege granted by the “fictive ethnicity” of whiteness as dominant and the norm in Canada to facilitate unequal relationships between First Nations people and white-settlers in government.
Works Cited
Coleman, Daniel. White Civility The Literary Project of English Canada. University of Toronto Press, 2014.
Henderson, William B. “Indian Act.” The Canadian Encyclopedia, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act.
“Introduction to Nationalism.” CanLit Guides, 15 Aug. 2013, canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/introduction-to-nationalism/.
Marshall, Tabith. “Shawn Atleo.” Shawn Atleo | The Canadian Encyclopedia, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shawn-atleo.
Montpetit, Isabelle. “Background: The Indian Act | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 14 July 2011, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988.
Rivera, Hermes. “flag of canada.” Unsplash, 27 June. 2018, https://unsplash.com/@hermez777.
Hi! How do you think the Indian Act should be changed by today’s attitudes and perspectives? Do you think the act should be abolished completely or remain intact with alterations? Also, I would love if you could expand on the portion on amendments. Do you think that those portions of the act have truly been amended or merely removed?
Hi Claire!
These are tough questions! Firstly, I want to acknowledge that my opinion on whether the Indian Act should be changed isn’t really important or relevant. Because I am a white settler and will never understand that paradoxical relationship with the Act, my ideas will be biased. What I think is crucial, is that First Nations individuals and governments that are impacted by the act should be thoroughly consulted, and then any changes made on the act should be made according to a democratic vote (or other accepted decision-making tool) among those groups. Any changes made should be determined by those whose lives are shaped by the act. First Nations peoples should be granted autonomy and given decision-making power when it comes to this document.
Regarding amendments to the Indian Act, you may find this timeline very helpful: https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Indian-Act-Said-WHAT-pdf-1.pdf
I am unfamiliar with the exact wording changes of the documents, but I think many clauses of the act have been either re-written or entirely removed.
Hi Georgia,
Thank you for a thorough and concise explanation of the Indian Act. I’ve learned more about the Act reading this blog post than I knew going into it, so thank you. Controversial topics such as the Indian Act remind me of the topic of legalization of marriage for LGBTQ+ folx. As someone who falls under this umbrella, I have a complicated relationship with marriage rights. I believe everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose, but at the same time I view marriage as an institute inherently heteronormative and homophobic and am curious why so many LGBTQ+ folx feel it’s important to partake in. I primarily view “gay marriage” as a way that LGBTQ+ people either consciously or not try to assimilate into “straight culture,” and that alone is concerning to me. So when I come across issues such as the Indian Act, I tend to feel hostile towards it, as I view it also as an assimilation tool that trap minorities. On the other, other hand (the foot?), who am I to say the Indian Act is bad for Indigenous people and should be abolished; as you mentioned above, there are Indigenous people who either enjoy the benefits of it or feel neutral about it. Anyway this was a bit of a tangent that I will end now, but wanted to thank you again for writing on this topic. I hope you’re having a nice weekend!
Hi Jacob,
Thanks so much for your response! I totally see what you mean, and appreciate you sharing your personal connection to the morally-grey and difficult to understand documents and conventions, including the Indian Act and LGBTQ+ marriage rights, that govern our society.
Even as a straight, cis-gender woman, the institution of marriage is a weird concept for me. Part of me has always looked forward to planning my dream wedding to mark the next step in a loving relationship and to formally recognize an oath to love and support a partner for life. BUT on the other hand, I am completely repulsed by the history of marriage as a passing of property (the wife) from one family to another, where she loses her self-identity and is simply passed to the control of a husband rather than a father.
Back to the topic: What I think is most important is that an individual has the autonomy to choose to participate in or abide by a policy or convention. If the Indian Act is amended or changed, it should be through a thorough consultation with First Nations groups, and changes should be made democratically.
I am having a lovely weekend! (Although I always have far too many readings than I’d like.) Hope you are enjoying your Sunday as well 🙂
Hi Georgia! Thank you so much for your interesting, engaging, and knowledge filled blog post. I have learnt a lot about the Indian Act and the history of assimilation and how it has changed and evolved over the years, and who it affected. I also enjoyed reading your point of view on how you view the Indian Act to be paradoxical, and I love how you include your own voice in this.
I have a question for you. What changes or amendments would you make to the Indian Act had you been given the chance? How do you think these changes would affect people?
Thanks!
Maya 🙂
hi, this is maya sumel. I posted it anonymously by accident!
Hi Maya,
Thanks for your kind response!
You ask an interesting question; however, I don’t think I can answer that. As a non-Indigenous person unaffected personally by the Indian Act, I could never change the Indian Act nor should I be the person to do so.
That being said, if I could make any change, I would launch a campaign or session that conducted a democratic debate and vote of all First Nations peoples to decide on what points to keep, remove, or amend. Changes should be implemented by those who live according to the act or are affected by the act in some way. I’m not sure how this would be arranged, but if I was granted the power to make change if would hand over that power, if I could, to those who truly understand what it means to live under the influence of the Indian Act.
I hope this makes sense!