For Dr. Paterson’s proposed questions for lesson 3.1, I have chosen to examine number two. That is, researching one of the state or governing activities “that excluded and discriminated against certain peoples based on ideas about racial inferiority and capacities to assimilate”. I have chosen to look research the Indian Act 1876 for many reasons – mostly driven by the feelings of anger and misunderstanding of this disgraceful piece of government legislation.

The Indian Act is a Canadian federal law that “authorizes the Canadian federal government to regulate and administer in the affairs and day-to-day lives of registered Indians and reserve communities” (Hanson). This act seeks ultimate control over Aboriginal affairs, in the form of inserting control over the ways and rights in which First Nations can practice their culture and traditions, as well as controlling land jurisdictions (reserves), and determining “who qualifies as Indian in the form of Indian status” (Hanson). Despite numerous amendments since the Indian Act’s introduction in 1876, the act remains dominantly in it’s original form. In whole, the Indian Act allows government control over essentially all aspects of Aboriginal life: land, resources, wills, education, status, and rights.

The Indian Act is the result of a consolidation of two separate pieces of legislation: the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857, and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. The Gradual Civilization Act was a failure on all fronts. Through this act, enfranchisement was encouraged in order to assimilate “Indian people into Canadian settler society” (Hanson). As enfranchisement was voluntary, this act did not receive wide, nor any, response for the intent set forth. Instead, the Gradual Enfranchisement Act was introduced, establishing the elective band council system that remains intact today, as part of the Indian Act. The Gradual Enfranchisement Act also enabled governmental control over status Indians, and which benefits were granted to whom. This act marginalized the entire Aboriginal society.

A lovely quote from John A. McDonald, 1887, speaks to the mentality and mindset in which this legislation was set out:

“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 most destructive aspect of the Indian Act is the “Potlatch Law”, which first banned potlatches, followed by the abolition of other important ceremonies, such as the sun dance. The importance of a potlatch focused on the distribution of wealth and was a marker for important ceremonies, especially for western coastal First Nations. Those in favour of assimilation felt that this form of wealth distribution was ineffective and wasteful. That is, shifting the economic happening to that of private property would be best for the culture – the opposite of what the potlatch stood for and represented. Please watch this video about the Kwakiutl  tribe, located on the western coast of Canada, specifically Vancouver Island.

The impact of potlatch bans is eloquently voiced by Judge Alfred Scow:

“This provision of the Indian Act was in place for close to 75 years and what that did was it prevented the passing down of our oral history. It prevented the passing down of our values. It meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have, and we did have forms of government by they oral and not in writing before any of the Europeans came to this country. We had a system that worked for us. We respected each other. We had ways of dealing with disputed.”

Relating back to lesson 2.3 regarding oral narratives and traditions, the results from banning these ceremonies is truly detrimental – history, traditions, and potlatch items (masks etc.) were all lost or seized from tribes. For 75 years some potlatch ceremonies were help secretly, therefore for illegally, and many individuals were jailed for attempting to continue cultural traditions.

Potlatch Dancers

If you find yourself with ample time and interest, the entirety of the Indian Act is available to read online.

Aligning the Indian Act with Coleman’s argument about the project of white civility, I do think the act supports his findings. The understanding which I gather from Coleman’s work is that Canadian whiteness stems from that of repeated literary personifications of the Canadian nation – a fictitious account in sorts, disregarding the actual foundations upon which the nation was built and founded. The concept of the Indian Act was to assimilate the First Nations culture with that of the rest of the nation (those “founders” which arrived well after the First Nations). As I spoke about regarding potlatches, the thought behind making these illegal was to ensure that the economic system by which the nation functioned was a private property system, not the group and shared wealth that First Nations cultures supported. Case in point – “they” wanted the First Nations culture to be merged with theirs to create one system, disregarding completely the history and traditions long established.

The residential school system is another prime example of this assimilation. Tens of thousands of First Nations children were forced into white school, taught differing religions, language, and traditions than that of their culture. This image was that of the “true Canadian”, projected, as Coleman discusses, through literature and accepted as the truth. The entire ordeal makes me extremely uncomfortable and truly sad. Although Prime Minister Harper has offered apologies and small financial compensation, it has done little to mend the destruction. A destruction of lost traditions, heritage, and culture, and can never truly be brought back.

Thank you for reading,

Gillian

Works Cited

Hanson, Eric. “The Indian Act”. UBC Indigenous Foundations. 2009. Web. <http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indian-act.html>

Montpetit, Isabelle. “Background: The Indian Act”. CBC  News Canada. 2001. Web. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988>

“Indian Act”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2006. Web. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/indian-act/>

Paterson, Erika. “Nationalism and Literature”. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. 2014. Web. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl470/unit-3/lesson-3-1/>

Question 1 that Dr. Paterson presents in Lesson 2.3 challenges the students of English 470 to “See if you can discover how this oral syntax works to shape meaning for the story by shaping your reading and listening of the story.” This is in relation to the story “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, in Harry Robinson’s Living by Stories. How does the oral translation of a story change, morph, add to, or take away, from a story? My ENGL 470 partner in crime, Samantha, was once again my go-to person to bounce this story off of, and the results that I took away from that experience were very interesting indeed.

After researching the importance of oral traditions in First Nation history and culture, a most interesting paradox became very obvious to me, and voiced by historians alike: Westerners, until recently and perhaps still, tend to think that a society without written history is a society without any history at all. This thought process could not, in fact, be further from the truth. I urge you to take a look at UBC’s very own Indigenous Foundations website, where in it are pages of wonderful readings and history.

A quote from Stephen J. Augustine, Hereditary Chief and Keptin of the Mi’kmaq Grand Council:

“The Elders would serve as mnemonic pegs to each other. They will be speaking individually uninterrupted in a circle one after another. When each Elder spoke they were conscious that other Elders would serve as ‘peer reviewer’ [and so] they did not delve into subject matter that would be questionable. They did joke with each other and they told stories, some true and some a bit exaggerated but in the end the result was a collective memory. This is the part which is exciting because when each Elder arrived they brought with them a piece of the knowledge puzzle. They had to reach back to the teachings of their parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents. These teachings were shared in the circle and these constituted a reconnaissance of collective memory and knowledge. In the end the Elders left with a knowledge that was built by the collectivity.”

A line from the middle of this quote jumps out at me the most. That is, “They did joke with each other and they told stories, some true and some a bit exaggerated but in the end the result was a collective memory.” Emile Durkheim noted that “societies require continuity and connection with the past to preserve social unity and cohesion.” (Britton). Although not using the term collective memory, all aspects of his notes reflect the importance of oral history, and the resulting collective memory produced from it.

In a fellow student’s blog discussing oral transmission of stories, the game of telephone was brought up in relation to how stories often morph dramatically through repetitive telling and re-telling. I was in strong agreement when reading this, as for anyone that has played the game of telephone knows that the word “car” can somehow become “monster” by the time it makes it from mouth to ear around the circle. Interestingly, the oral-based knowledge that is predominant among First Nations “must be told carefully and accurately, often by a designated person who is recognized as holding this knowledge.” Eric Hanson explains that the passing one of stories that may be told only during certain seasons, or in specific places, from generation to generation “keeps the social order intact” (UBC Indigenous Foundations). Because such stories are often integral in teaching lessons about culture, land, or environment, the person telling the stories “is responsible for keeping the knowledge and eventually passing it on in order to preserve the historical record.” Therefore, the oral telling of a story does not so much allow for large exaggerations or dramatic changes to the facts, but instead allows for a platform of education, passed down knowledge, and awareness of one’s culture and history.

Now, to Robinson’s story “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”. Through my first reading through, silently to myself, I was honestly very, very confused. Admittedly extremely uneducated about First Nations stories and culture I found it difficult to follow the sentences on the pages, to distinguish the “he” versus “they” in relation to the characters: “And he eat right there, And then they got a fire…” Robinson (64)

Whenever I write a paper or piece of literature for a class, I ensure that I read it allowed to myself before submitting it. I have found that this helps to alleviate any grammatical errors, or sentence structures that might make sense in my head, but certainly do not make sense to read. Paralleling this experience, when I read Robinson’s story allowed, the mysteries began to become slightly clearer than during my previous reading. I found that even adding changes to the pitch of my voice, or being able to noticeably pause at appropriate times to reflect allowed me to dive into the text. Yet, I realized I had some sort of mental block to the idea that Coyote could be perceived as a man: “Looks like a coyote but it looks like a man” (69). Perhaps a childish comparison, but this reminds me of “Little Red Riding Hood”, where the wolf dresses up as the grandmother to trick Little Red Riding Hood. (Looking back at the story this makes no sense, but neither do most childhood stories and tales). The point of this comparison is the mental block that one character could, in fact, be perceived as different versions of themselves, without the intent of evil or the elaborate description of the clothing put on to create the character. Instead, Coyote was simply seen as man.

“Oh! Grandmother, what big ears you have!”

The last stage of this experiment was to read the story to Samantha, and have her read it to me. For those of you who haven’t met this wonderful young woman, she has the ability to add… “pizzaz” if you will, to any situation. Therefore, reading it to her I found I was slightly timid because I was still failing to thoroughly grasp the entire story. Yet, Samantha read the story and although she way not have understood it thoroughly either, it was the oral syntax that she applied to it – the language used, the tones of voice, the pauses, and elaboration of certain parts that made the story what it was to listen to.

I hold true to the idea that having the ability to tell a story, both entertaining and engaging, is a gift. Even if one does not fully understand the significance or meaning of the story, sharing in the oral creating or telling of a story is a rewarding experience. For those that have not read “Coyote Makes a Deal with King of England”, I encourage you to follow the guidelines presented in Question 1 and see how each step changes your interpretation and understanding of it.

Thank you for reading!

Gillian

Works Cited

Britton, Dee. “What is Collective Memory?” Web. <http://memorialworlds.com/what-is-collective-memory/>.

Hanson, Eric. “Oral Traditions.” Indigenous Foundations. Web. <http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html>. 2009.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.