I knew this act was trouble when I got to the section that defined “Indian.” According to the Indian Act, an Indian is “First. Any male person of Indian blood reputed to belong to a particular band; Secondly. Any child of such person; Thirdly. Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person” (Indian Act 18.3.3 emphasis mine). By the time I got to the section that outlined “half-breeds” I knew I was in trouble (Indian Act 18.3.3.e).
And just when I thought it could not get any worse, I read the following definition: “The term ‘person’ means an individual other than an Indian, unless the context clearly requires another construction” (Indian Act 18.3.3.12).
———————————————————————————————————————————-
The Indian Act of 1876 stipulates a variety of regulations for First Nations peoples. It regulates everything from individual identification (status), to reserves, to bands. The act is confusing because it enacts regulations that would protect reserve land and give First Nations peoples rights to reserve land while it establishes those regulations within a racist, prejudicial framework. The act defines what it means to be ‘Indian’ and how status is given and revoked. It establishes governance for reserves and establishes the consequences of trespassing. It sets out rules for timber and the exchange of resources (such as timber) for the infraction of unpaid dues. It locates the responsibility of financial transactions within the Governor in Council and the Receiver General and therefore out of the hands of the ‘Indians’ to whom the funds belong. It enacts regulations for who may vote and how long of a term Chiefs can lead for (three years) but rests grants the Governor in Council the authority of calling elections and deposing of any Chiefs perceived to be dishonest or corrupt. Any of the authority of making rules and regulations that the chiefs are given is tempered by a stipulation that any regulations must first be approved by the Governor in Council. In Manitoba, Keewatin and North West Territories, First Nations were not allowed to have farms (or homesteads). Indians were forbidden from using any kind of intoxicants (alcohol, drugs) and any use of intoxicants was punishable by imprisonment. Enfranchisement was encouraged by a number of clauses in the Indian Act. For example, if an Indian were to graduate from medical school, they would be automatically enfranchised and thereby no longer have status. The whole Act of 1876 may be accessed here (warning: it’s a PDF).
The Indian Act was amended numerous times for better and for worse, albeit until recently, mostly for the worse. In 1884 the government banned potlatches in the Indian Act and subsequently banned other ceremonies (Hanson). Another amendment in 1920 stipulated that every Indian child must attend residential school and rendered it illegal for Indian children to attend other educational facilities (Hanson, “The Residential School System”).
—————————————————————————————————————————–
The Act is therefore riddled with racist ideologies. The Act effectively redefines words in order to establish “a ‘fictive ethnicity’ [that]…occupies the position of normalcy and privilege in Canada” (Coleman 6-7). The Act is frequently described as “paternalistic” and it certainly does resonate as condescending. First Nations people, are clearly set apart as non-people, are therefore subjugated under the guise of being granted rights. Coleman’s argument that there was a “literary endeavor” to “formulate and elaborate a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” is demonstrated in the redefinition of words (5). The Act differentiates between an “Indian” and a “person” and therefore dictates that an Indian is different. An Indian is uncivil.
By banning potlatches, mandating educational practices, granting privileges yet limiting those privileges with caveats, the Indian Act attempts to strip the Indians of their culture. The Act “aimed to assimilate First Nations” by making stipulations that “people who earned a university degree would automatically lose their Indian status, as would status women who married non-status men” (Montpetit). Through enfranchisement, the Indian Act tried to amalgamate Indians into the “fictive ethnicity…[of Canada by representing the diverse peoples of Canada] as if they are a natural community” (Coleman 7). The Indian Act therefore support Coleman’s argument about white civility and fictive ethnicity.
The Act, “discount[s] people…but…[it] define[s] a community, and claim[s] land” (Chamberlin 45). Despite the racism inherent in the language of the Act, it “is historically and legally significant for Aboriginal peoples [in that] it acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada” (Hanson). Its existence bears witness to the problematic history between the Canadian Government and First Nations people. Also, in its differentiation between First Nations and the descendents of settlers, the Indian Act might be seen as a form of resisting assimilation. If the Indian Act were to be replaced or restructured as an “alternative political relationship…worked out between First Nations and the government…[Aboriginal leaders widely agree that] First Nations will need to be active participants in establishing it” (Hanson).
—————————————————————————————————————
Reading the Indian Act I couldn’t help but think of Robinson’s story about the twins who were in charge of creating the earth. The Indian Act, I imagined, might be like the “written document–a “paper”–[that the younger twin] had been warned not to touch” (Robinson 9). Insofar as the younger twin is dishonest and represents the ancestor of the eventual ‘settlers’ of Canada, it seemed to me that the Indian Act might have originated as a similar kind of trickery from the younger twin. The piece of paper of the Indian Act contains good things and terrible things. This duplicitous nature seems in line with the stories we have read about the twins and what to expect from the younger one. I thought this was an interesting connection.
Works Cited
AuroraKismet. “Potlatch 1.” Online Video Clip. YouTube. Youtube, 14 Dec. 2007. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd., 2004. Print.
Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Cited by Erika Paterson. “Lesson 3.1.” ENGL 470A Canadian Literary Genres: Canadian Studies. UBC Arts Department, 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Crey, Karrmen. “Enfranchisement.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Hanson, Erin. “The Indian Act.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
——. “The Residential School System.” Indigenous Foundations. UBC First Nations Studies Program, 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Montpetit, Isabel. “Background: The Indian Act.” CBC News. CBC, 30 May 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Robinson, Harry. Living By Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. Print.
“The Indian Act”. 12 Apr. 1876. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
I loved how you put your blog together. It really captured my attention the entire way through. When I was studying the Immigration Act of 1910, I too had the same reaction to the language used. It used language such as denying entry to idiots, epileptics, blind, infirm etc…
I tried to place myself in the time, when quite possibly it was appropriate to use such terms and classify people the way it does. However I think for me, in the Indian Act, the line that got me was “The term ‘person’ means an individual other than an Indian, unless the context clearly requires another construction” (Indian Act 18.3.3.12). I can not see it ever being o.k. for someone not to be classifies as a person just because they are Indian. It just shows how horrific and racist the government was.
I guess I just have a random question for you about this act. What do you think should be done to correct the damage that has been done by acts such as the Indian Act, and the Immigration Act of 1910? Do you think it should be scrapped and done over? Do you think a meeting like that of the Coyote and King would help to strengthen relations between the Natives and government?
Hi Jenny,
I agree that the language of the Indian Act is incredibly problematic. It is hard to imagine not recognizing people as people. I feel like I have encountered examples of racism in my life but I have never personally witnessed anything that goes so far as to suggest that someone isn’t a human being because of their difference. No wonder there has been so much damage when such violent mind frames have existed and been perpetuated by government.
I don’t think that the damage done by the Act can ever truly be fixed. It can be witnessed and it can be recognized and it can be built upon in a more positive way. I do think that the key in moving forward is dialogue. Government needs to work closely with First Nations people to figure out what will be beneficial and what would recognize the damage done and seek to remedy the situation and move forward. I understand from my readings that many First Nations people do not want to completely scrap the Indian Act because it is a part of their history with the government and because it serves as an example of how deep the damage runs. In my opinion, an open dialogue between First Nations people and the government is necessary in order to move forward from the history of abuse that the Canadian government has with First Nations people. This is a frequently quoted example but when they were structuring Apartheid in South Africa, decision makers looked to Canada and our residential schools as an example of what modalities to employ. Yet Apartheid has been railed against and drew world attention and outcry while First Nations people in Canada have had to really fight to be heard. To end the discrimination and emotional violence, the government needs to take initiative to engage with the people that they have historically oppressed to make the foundation for a viable future.
Hope that answers your question a little bit!
Hi Lauren,
Thanks for the informative post! It truly is astonishing how Canadian laws and acts were/are altered and changed overtime to exclude specific groups and peoples. Ranging from the Indian Act of 1876 you have articulately described to the Chinese Head Tax of 1885. The 1920 amendment forcing Aboriginal children into residential schools, in my opinion, was the most damaging to Aboriginal people because of how differently their culture teaches them how to learn and engage in education. These negative effects can still be seen today with Aboriginal children within the Canadian education system. It’s important to see the discourse within current Canadian immigration laws.
Arguably the Chinese Head Tax still exists albeit in a different form, the Investment Class. This policy enables Chinese immigrants to receive permanent residency in Canada, but only if they have a minimum net worth of $1.6 million.
If interested, more information on the Chinese Head Tax can be found here:
http://www.ccnc.ca/redress/history.html
And the investment class here:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/12/news/canada-chinese-immigration/
Hi Samuel,
Yes, it’s difficult to say what was the most harmful to First Nations people, although certainly the residential school will have continued repercussions for decades if not centuries. Residential schools have been referred to as a form of genocide, and it is not difficult to see why.
From that article you linked to, it sounds like the investment visa does not exist anymore, although Canada will seek to attract economically successful people to immigrate here. I don’t know if the investor visa is quite the same thing as the Chinese Head Tax or the Indian Act. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that wealthy individuals are encouraged to come to Canada as a means of economic growth. It also wasn’t specifically targeted at Chinese people, but rather, it sought to attract any foreign investors who met the financial requirements. Furthermore, it looks like other countries have similar options for wealthy foreign investors looking to immigrate. Ultimately, in regard to this visa in particular, I think there’s an element of choice. If someone is looking to immigrate, they consider their options. If you have the money to invest, and you wish to provide the loan to the Canadian government, that is one option available that makes it easier to immigrate. The immigration process is a difficult one so the government has specifications, certain options offer potential immigrants a bit of an easier route than the average person. If you are a skilled government worker, for example, your immigration process will look different than the process for a refugee. So I don’t neccessarily see the investment visa as an entirely negative, or discriminatory thing. Immigration is key to growth in our country and so to make the process easier is great. That said, it would be nice to make the process easier for people who have refugee status, rather than people who are already well off. From an economic standpoint though, I understand the need for people who will bring wealth with them.
The Chinese Head Tax, in contrast, was discriminatory as the rules did not apply to any other group of immigrants. It separated families. Again, I don’t know the specifics on immigration issues, but from the information you provided and what I’ve seen on my own, the investment visa is a bit of a different beast. Here is an article that may provide a bit more information about the investment visa.
Hi Lauren,
I fully agree with the fact that the investment visa is not entirely negative and all the economics surrounding the situation, I am also aware of the recent changes to the investment Visa and processes. I was in no way trying to state that the two were the same (Chinese Head Tax and Investment Class), and I was not relating it to the Indian Act in anyway. Like you, I don’t know all the immigration specifics.
The point I was trying to make was that the Canadian government understands that Chinese people immigrate to Canada in large numbers, through past data. This program is geared and popularized towards Chinese immigrants, who can and are willing to fast track citizenship making the policy fairly discriminatory. What I was trying to infer is that there are parallels with the Chinese Head Tax and Investment Class by the imposition of monetary regulations on a group of people trying to gain access into Canada; who in this case, by and large, happen to be Chinese.
THANK YOU for your excellent analysis of the Indian Act – and the wonderful dialouge inspired by your post 🙂 🙂