I found it fascinating reading the first sentence of the CanLit Guides: Introduction to Nationalism defines “a nation” versus “a state.” The test defines, “A nation is a group of people who regard themselves as sharing the same culture; a state is a group of people governed by the same laws and political institutions” (Introduction to Nationalism, CanLitGuides.ca). This definition applies to how Canada developed because we are legally defined as a “nation” but carry out as a state due to the lack of cultural unanimity and division between Canada’s ethnic groups. The 1876 Indian Act is a textbook example of systemic injustice over certain racial groups that played a crucial role in constructing Canada due to the amount of political control the state leaders had overall Indigenous groups in Canada. The two sections of the Indian Act 1876 I want to discuss throughout this post are Sections 141 and sections 12 which correlate to Daniel Coleman’s argument in White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada.
Although this legislation today is viewed as the historical beginning of a constitutional relationship between the Canadian government and Indigenous communities, it is evident that the Act did try to propel a “white civility” ideology that Coleman describes. Coleman defines that in Canada, we remain a white civility state due to the fact we continue to be a fictive ethnicity as a critical principle to building our nation (Canada) along with systemically forgetting our nation building’s past to retain that fictive element within Canadian society (Patterson, para. 8). Thus, Canadian institutions have a historical trend of implementing policies in legislation like the Indian Act that targets specific racial groups in Canada.
Section 141 of the Indian Act 1876 is a policy that made it illegal for any Potlach celebrations to carry out among Indigenous communities. The policy is deemed today as a racial policy due to its intentions to assimilate cultural traditions that were necessary to First Nations communities. Potlach’s were critical to Indigenous communities across Canada because it was an opportunity for different First Nations groups to share and distribute their wealth across regions (Indigenous Foundation, arts.ubc.ca). Section 141 is a critical policy in the developing foundation of Canada’s historical racial footprint of Nationalism. From Coleman’s perspective, this was the Canadian government’s fictive approach to “forget” other cultures across Canada through suppression and spread colonial traditions brought over from Europe to create the “Canadian Identity.”
Section 12 of the Indian Act 1876 is another policy that contributes to Canada’s dark nation-building past of racial and gendered approaches through targeting Indigenous women by revolting their First Nations status legally if they were to marry a man with no Indigenous heritage. This policy did not apply to Indigenous men though if they chose to marry a non-Indigenous woman, they would keep their status (Milloy, 2008). It was not until 1982 when the UN finally reviewed and stated the Act was in violation of human rights and was removed after the Indian Act was amended.
While more policies can attribute to the historic systemic racism Canada is guilty of, these two policies were a clear indicator of the colonial system’s intent to create a national identity through an “imagined community.” The fictive ethnicity is what ties into the “imagined community” because, in Canada, we tend to unite ourselves around the “flags, national anthems, dances, food, folk tales, and venerated works of art and literature all contribute to the feeling that one belongs to the nation” (Introduction to Nationalism, CanLitGuides.ca). However, through these cultural traditions, we built as a nation, we tend to forget how we permanently affected other cultures through destruction in an attempt to construct our own “imagined identity.”
Works Cited:
The Indian Act. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/the_indian_act/
Introduction to nationalism. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from http://canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/introduction-to-nationalism/
Milloy, J. (2008). Indian Act Colonialism: A Century Of Dishonour, 1869-1969. Retrieved from https://fngovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/milloy.pdf
Montpetit, I. (2011, July 14). Background: The indian act | cbc news. Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/background-the-indian-act-1.1056988
Potlatch. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/potlatch#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20a%20policy,and%20wasteful%20of%20personal%20property.
Women and the Indian Act. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/women-and-the-indian-act#:~:text=As%20section%2012%20(1)(,and%20inherit%20property%20on%20reserves.
Hello Kyle. Here’s a thought regarding your closing sentence, “However, through these cultural traditions, we built as a nation, we tend to forget how we permanently affected other cultures through destruction in an attempt to construct our own ‘imagined identity.’” I see what you mean about “imagined identity” but only on a conscious level. I suggest that the colonizers were really exporting, unconsciously and more significantly, the independent and exploitive orientation of the Industrial Revolution, which clashed, and still clashes, with the interdependent family-tie orientation of the Americas’ ancient peoples. That’s not meant as an excuse; the colonizers were wrong, but they were naively wrong, and so is mainstream Canada wrong today—except Canada’s not so naive anymore; nowadays we’re just plain guilty. /joe
Hi Joe,
Thank you for the insightful comment, and I think you make a good point regarding colonizers naively exporting an economic system that is “independent and exploitive orientation of the Industrial Revolution,” which led to our guilty conscience our country carries. Not only as a nation do we understand that we are plain guilty, but our institutions also continue to act like we “forget” and fail to recognize the negative relationships we carry on with Indigenous communities nationwide. For example, when you look at the health care for Indigenous versus non-Indigenous communities, the life expectancy of an Indigenous person in Canada is nearly a decade lower than a non-indigenous person in Canada due to the ongoing systemic policies within that fail to share the same quality of health care in indigenous communities. I have attached an interesting MacLean article below on the matter, but my point is that you are right; we are just guilty today, but it seems that we continue to act naïve to the problem.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/indigenous-people-must-become-full-partners-in-canadas-health-system/
Hi Kyle,
I would like to thank you for your thoughtful response and I thought it was great how you brought in the Indian act and how it has impacted not only the Indigenous people but also Canada as a whole.
You the fact that Indigenous peoples are still healing, and the rest of Canada is unlearning the systemic racism that it forces upon so many people.
Therefore, at some level, provided a false sense of cohesive identity as a nation. But with this being said. How will Canada create one identity, when there are so many other ethnicities and cultures present in our country?
All the best,
Lenaya
Hi Lenaya,
Thank you for the response, along with the insightful comments and is an excellent question; however, I am not sure if the answer I provide is correct, but it opens up a good discussion! In a place like Canada, it is unpredictable what the hegemonic identity will look like shortly because our country is unique for being culturally diverse for a long time. We are also unique because the population is so spread out into dense metropolitan areas and small towns I think each region/municipality will have dominant cultural identities based on its population diversity. For that reason, I think we will not have as strong of a national identity; instead, we will have multiple sub-identities based on the dominant cultures of each densely populated region. I want to hear your thoughts though!
KO
Hi Kyle!
Jumping off what you and Lenaya were discussing regarding Canada’s national identity: I have always liked to think that there is the potential for Canada’s national identity to be more than the sum of its parts. The metaphor I remember (though I couldn’t tell you where I learned it!) is that Canada is like a mosaic, not a melting pot; instead of requiring “outsiders” to change into something “Canadian,” your own cultural attributes can become a piece of the mosaic that makes up Canadian identity.
It goes without saying that this is an overly idealized sentiment (as exemplified by your analysis of the Indian Act, for a start!), but I remain hopeful that it represents a path forward to a unified Canadian national identity. A mosaic creates something new and beautiful out of scads of different pieces; each piece works to enhance the overall artwork. I’d like to believe that some day Canadians could be proud of our national identity as a nation that lauds our differences as pieces that combine to create a rich, beautiful mosaic. However, a great deal of work and change is required to get there!
Do you think that the concept of a national identity based on accepting and interweaving cultural differences is a plausible concept?
Hi Magdalena!
Thank you for the insightful comment, to answer your question I would argue that it is a very plausible concept that Canada embraces it’s vast cultures across the nation as a formation of our identity. It’s not common to see countries like Canada where we are becoming increasingly multicultural and for that reason I think it would be within Canada’s best interest if we embraced this unique identity. As we move into the post-colonial era the first step Canada would need to take is to openly admit to our past mistakes and become more transparent with minority cultures with our approach to reconciliation.