Keep in mind none of you have to read this (Erika excepted). In fact, maybe it’d be better if you didn’t. (Erika not excepted)
Preamble (feel free to skip)
I refuse to quote Foucault in my analysis of the Indian Act (1876).
“But aren’t you just allowing Foucault to shape your system of knowledge-production-through-discourse per absentiam?!” Yes, yes, I know, I just don’t care.
Foucault would be particularly useful in analyzing the Act’s creation of racial categories. I’ve just had to deal with it in almost every article in the last year (not an exaggeration) and I’m feeling constrained; I doubt I’ll be able to fully escape, but vive la résistance. On that note – categories don’t spring from nowhere. Someone has to write that legislation, and while they may be produced beforehand by something else, they are anthropogenic. It does us no good to play chicken-and-egg.
Terms I won’t use: knowledge production, discourse, agency, etc., etc..
Also, in my analysis, the ‘state’ is not a governed group of people but instead the (colonial) government. I’d say they held a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a territory (Weber, I think) but ‘legitimate’ is a bit much for me.
With the above (perhaps ridiculous) constraints in mind, let’s press forward.
“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.”
– John A. Macdonald, 1887
Start Reading Here
The Indian Act of 1876 is a unilateral federal policy that defines who is ‘Indian’ under Canadian law, governs the operation of bands and reserves and dictates the manner in which the Canadian government interacts with First Nations. It did away with direct engagement between aboriginal people and the state – inserting itself between them – and forbid ‘status Indians’ from taking others to court (this provision was lifted in 1951, along with the potlatch ban). The Act (consolidating Acts of ‘civilization‘ and ‘enfranchisement‘) was intended to compel the First Nations to renounce the status it assigned and join Confederation as agricultural / sedentary / Christian / propertied (non-communal) citizens. This objective (compulsory for adult males until 1967) was only voided in 1982; only one person voluntarily enfranchised.
The reserves created under the Act are a direct result of the drive for ‘civilization’ and were ostensibly meant to introduce the First Nations to sedentary agriculture, Christianity and a private-property economy. It has been argued that the “underlying motive for setting aside small tracts of land for Aboriginal peoples was to make available to newcomers the vast expanses of land outside reserve borders” (Erin Hanson); I find this argument quite persuasive.
The Act treated the First Nations as children and conferred foreign categories of sex and gender upon them to be used as mechanisms of control. Sexual orientation was not an identitarian marker (unlike dress, occupation, behaviour), but it was useful for colonization. The Act also sought to organize kinship models of relations into familial models, and excluded many people from ‘status’ – notably the Métis, Inuit and ‘non-status Indians’. The patrilineal inheritance of ‘status’ (note the gendered discrimination here) interfered directly with matrilineal systems of culture – inheritance, governance – and these provisions were lifted in 1985 so as to restore status to many who’d lost it under the patriarchal system.
I still cannot gain status despite two clear matrilineal lines of inheritance (not that I’ve tried). Even given the opportunity I prefer not to take part; I identify as First Nations and Canadian and have never felt a need to seek state acknowledgment of either. (Is this what decolonization feels like?) In fact, sometimes I think Trudeau might have had it right in ’69. Cue outrage.
The potlatch ban of 1884 was a cultural weapon of massive import. Media come into play here – the potlatch was a transmissive space for oral history, not to mention the redistribution of wealth. When it was challenged, the government instituted Section 141, preventing Indians from hiring counsel and therefore from legal recourse. This did not change until 1951, after the revelations of the Holocaust and WWII (disrupting fictive civility, I think).
I submit that the Indian Act and its amendments have been a cultural weapon, a tool of colonization and that even today they amount to apartheid. I would further submit that the Act should be kept in place (as it does enshrine certain rights and gives First Nations some political capital) until such time as legislation agreeable to all parties can be designed. While the Indian Act was meant to produce a ‘civil’ nation (Coleman’s fictive nation-building) it serves today to remind us of the brutality the Canadian state (and church – they were fairly synonymous, especially in Québec until the 70s) exerted on the First Nations.
not mentioned: residential schools (probably deserves its own blog), native identity, gender (to the substantive extent it deserves. just read Lawrence)
Worth taking a look at:
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996
The Act itself
Bonita Lawrence’s 2003 article (especially for the insights on American practices). For that matter, any of us unfamiliar with Manifest Destiny, Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears should have a look at those immediately. I found Canadian high schools to be pretty lacking in terms of American history, which is really quite embarrassing.
This (extremely helpful) UBC resource by Erin Hanson
Hey Joey,
To start my comment, just wanted to say I think this is one of the better one’s I’ve seen lately, if not ever (the first part is hilarious). I don’t necessarily have a major question to pose for you, but more so just wanted to say how crazy it is to learn about these policies and how they were put in place. The quote from John A. MacDonald sums up how crazy it is to me – ‘to assimilate the Indian people… as speedily as they are fit to change’. How can it be that policies such as these were created without a thought, and although the Native peoples obviously had major issue with them (but there was not much they alone could do) they didn’t see attention, let alone change, from Canada as a whole for ages. Anyway, just wanted to say great post, and love the satire.
Devon Smith
Cheers, Devon! Glad you liked it.
I’m not sure that the policies were put in place without thought – and I don’t like to attribute malicious intent!
It does seem pretty clear that aboriginal Canadians’ interests weren’t on the radar – in fact, that they were subverted at almost every turn. I do wish I’d had the budget to dig into residential schools – hopefully I’ll be able to get to that.
On the note of attention from the state – what did you think about the government’s apology? Wanna see me really bait an argument? I don’t think we should’ve apologized for what happened – we aren’t responsible. The people who instituted the legislation and allowed its continuation are.
I think we should’ve apologized for the racism and oppression that continues today, and I think we should have moved forward in collaboration with the First Nations beyond a TRC and into legislating a replacement for the archaic and controversial Indian Act, if the White Paper approach is unacceptable.
Thanks for your comment!
Hey Joey,
Great blog like Devon said! You’re a very creative and coherent writer and really bring originality to your writing! Personally I didn’t know much about the Indian Act until reading your blog. I knew the basics and obviously the severe discrimination but you bring to light some good information. As you note at the bottom, you could not possibly cover all of the information that needs to be covered but I think that actually works towards your blog. Instead of trying to sum everything up in snippets, focusing on one large section and simply mentioning the other as topics that we should go explore, encapsulated this topic as being much larger and more important than I had previously thought.
I was quite intrigued by the quote… “underlying motive for setting aside small tracts of land for Aboriginal peoples was to make available to newcomers the vast expanses of land outside reserve borders” (Erin Hanson)…that you found to be persuasive. I would agree that tries to put take a good guy spin on the situation, making people think that it is for the good of expanding and sharing the nation. Do you think that in todays day in age people might still try and use this “motive” as a way of defence for their actions of the past? Interested to hear your answer!
Sarah C.
Hi Sarah!
I actually interpret the quote the other way – in that the ‘vast expanses of land’ were being made available (to ‘civilized’ people) at the expense of natives. I would be surprised to see someone use it as a justification for actions of the past – we’re pretty firmly in the postcolonial era – although again I hesitate to make that connection; I’m not sure anyone alive today bears responsibility for what happened in the past.
You might be interested in looking into nation-building as a process, notably John A.’s railroad into the west; this was another example of ‘building on the backs of others’ (imported labour). Consider their justification for this – the United States were pushing northward and the Canadians wanted to defend their (mineral?) interest in what’s now B.C.. My history here is a little rough.
Thanks for reading, Sarah!