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.

While reading through the  CanLit guide on nationalism I was very interested in the assimilationist perspective the Canadian government took in the 19^th century. I feel that much of Canada’s societal, institutional and systemic oppression of marginalized groups comes from its early history of settlers with racialized ideals of the necessity of assimilation and the grandeur of ‘white civility’. An example of how this white ideation functioned in the construction of Canadian society is through exclusionary or assimilation driven laws, such as the Indian Act of 1876; which is the act that I have chosen to research and discuss for this assignment.

The Indian Act was a consolidation of a variety of acts and statues governing the relationship between settlers and Indigenous peoples, their land and their rights. This Act essentially allowed the Canadian government to take control of Native people and their communities. Section 2 states:

“The Minister of the Interior shall be Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs, and shall be governed in the supervision of the said affairs, and in the control and management of the reserves, lands, moneys and property of Indians in Canada by the provisions of this Act” (The Indian Act).

The Indian Act not only gave the “Superintendent-General” the power to strip Native peoples of their land, moneys and property, it also allowed him to rob them of their culture, their traditions, their children and even their ethnic identity. An example is in section 3 – where the act defines who is and is not an “Indian” – subsection C denies Native women their “Indian” status if they marry anyone “other than an Indian or a non-treaty Indian” (The Indian Act). This Act set out to assimilate Indigenous people by controlling, marginalizing, and robbing them of their sovereignty. The Act, despite the diversity, treaty rights and interests of Indigenous peoples, granted the Canadian government devastating authority and control over First Nations communities. I think Eric Hanson, from the First Nations and Indigenous Studies Department of UBC, accurately summarizes this Act, as a “homogenizing and paternalistic” act that “effectively treated Aboriginal people as children” by “making them legally wards of the state” (Hanson).

This Act reinforces Coleman argument, 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’ (5)” (Colman qtd. in Patterson),  through demonstrating the early Canadian government’s concern and drive to assimilate and/or eradicate Native peoples, culture and traditions. The provisions of the Act demonstrate the entrenched preference that the Canadian government had for white British culture and society.

I think one of worse things I learned about this act is that it still exists, which also corroborates Coleman’s argument that the ideation of whiteness “‘still occupies the position of normalcy and privilege in Canada’ (7)” (Colman qtd. in Patterson). In my research I found that rather than correct the segregating and discriminatory consequences of this Act, the Canadian government has simply been adding provisions and amendments, and have left the onus on Indigenous peoples to attempt to correct the wrongdoings of this Act by challenging them through the Canadian judicial system (Hurley 8).

I think it is high time that all Canadians band together to assist Indigenous peoples in their fight against oppressive legislation that denies them their fundamental right to “active[ly] [participate] in defining and establishing” their own governance (Hanson).

Works Cited

Canada. Indigenous and Northern Affairs. The Indian Act 1876. N.p.: House of Commons of Canada, 1876. Web.

CanLit. “Nationalism, Late 1800s–1950s: Canadian Immigration and War.” CanLit Guides. N.p., 9 Aug. 2013. Web.

Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous Foundations. First Nations and Indigenous Studies Department UBC, n.d. Web.

Hurley, Mary. The Indian Act. N.p.: Library of Parliament, 23 Nov. 2009. PDF.

Patterson, Erica. “Instructors Blog.”  English 470 Course Website. 2016. Web