white state of affairs – ‘us’ and ‘them’

2] 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.

The statement “state or governing activities” does not scream freedom and liberation to me, what about you? It’s one of those phrases that I hear and go “yuck, government stuff”. This question has promoted me to think a little beyond that, perhaps from a different perspective, perhaps through a lens of state versus nation, and power relations. I chose to examine the Indian Act of 1876 and in my research; I was drawn to certain ideas worth connected back to Daniel Coleman’s White Civility: The literary Project of English Canada.

Daniel Coleman makes it clear in the introduction to his work that early nation builders were looking to “formulate and elaborate a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” (Coleman 5). ‘Whiteness’ you may ask? In an annual report by the Canadian Department of the Interior in 1876, it is quoted in saying “Our Indian legislation generally rests on the principle, that the aborigines are to be kept in a condition of tutelage and treated as wards or children of the State” (Makarenko). This so-called ‘State’ was conveniently a group of seemingly elite Europeans. As opposed to nation-building, the State seemed concerned with titles given, borders created and groups segregated from others, and the Indian Act of 1876 is a prime example of this. Automatically, there seems to be a connection in the instilling of whiteness and the extreme power of the State. The phrase ‘white power’ rings a bell? As far as I’m concerned, the State seemed adamant to have power lie in the hands of the ‘white’, for the white sake. Coleman argues that readings such as the Indian Act 1876 invoke a sense of a solely white Canadian nation building project, and “mediated and gradually reified the privileged, normative status of British whiteness in English Canada” (Coleman 6-7).

Reading some of the actual parts of the Indian Act 1876, I got an understanding of Coleman’s standpoint regarding this issue of ‘whiteness’. There seems to be a deep concern with defining the term “Indians”, what it means, who applies and who does not. Instead of instilling nation-building and unity, there is a concern with dictating who people were, who they were considered to be, and what they had the right to be and own. You may argue that this kind of segregation could be for the sake of organization and smoother logistic operation of a state and nation, but for literary sake, the language does not seem to support unity and fairness among the ‘white’ and the ‘Indian’. The Indian Act 1876 goes to extensive lengths in defining different ‘kinds’ of Indian, and what each identity entails, creating a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. I’ll be the first to say I did not get the feeling the Indian Act was racist by any means, but rather worthy of study in relation to a sense of power hierarchy between the ‘White’ and the ‘Indian’, instilling of ‘whiteness’, or I argue, perhaps between the ‘State’ and the ‘Nation’. With those in power drafting this Indian Act, this power is already enacted and performed. More importantly, the power of the State begins to dictate how the nation is constructed and maintained. Perhaps this power of white civility is the kind of “brutal histories” that Coleman claims is now inherent in Canadian history (Coleman 9). Sad, but true?

I see the Indian Act of 1876 as what Coleman would describe as a “project that began with colonialism and continues in the present” (Coleman 45). There is a sense that this project is fueled by efforts and intentions to rule, govern and dictate power. I could not quite juggle myself, but perhaps you could help:

What is the difference between the building of the ‘State’, and ‘Nation’ building?

Does the increasing power of the ‘State’ overshadow and overthrow the power of the ‘Nation’?

Is there something inherently ‘white’ about ‘State’ building and not ‘Nation’ building in how we understand and process these terms?

Cheers.

Works Cited

Coleman, Daniel. White Civility: The Literary Project of English Canada. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2006. Print.

“Indian Act 1876.” N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015 <http://www.tidridge.com/uploads/3/8/4/1/3841927/1876indianact.pdf>.

Johnson, Eric M. “On the Origin of White Power | The Primate Diaries, Scientific American Blog Network.” Scientific American Global RSS. Scientific American, 21 May 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2015. <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2014/05/21/on-the-origin-of-white-power/>.

Makarenko, Jay. “The Indian Act: Historical Overview | Mapleleafweb.com.”The Indian Act: Historical Overview. Mapleleafweb, 2 June 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2015. <http://mapleleafweb.com/features/the-indian-act-historical-overview#civilizations>.

“Understanding Whiteness.” Understanding Whiteness. Calgary Anti-Racism Education, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2015. <http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/whiteness>.