Assignment 3:2
2)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.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a document issued by King George 111, which established principles for governing Indigenous populations, and the “constitutional negotiation of treaties with the Indigenous populations” (Hall 2019). It also provided the framework to assimilate French populations with the British, after British acquisition of Quebec.
Some of its specific assimilation policies included that the governor, who was appointed by the British government, would be the authority in Quebec. All French laws would be replaced by English (criminal and civil) laws, and Catholics (French majority) would not be able to run for public position.
What is important to recognize of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is that, “all land would be considered Aboriginal land, until ceded by treaty” (“Royal Proclamation, 1763,”). As well as, First Nations’ land could only be bought by the Crown, and settlers could not claim land from Aboriginals. This document is recognized as a stepping stone into recognizing Aboriginal rights and acknowledgment of their land.
Does the Royal Proclamation of 1763 support Coleman’s arguments of the project of white civility?
Now that I’ve done my fair share of research into the Royal Proclamation of 1763, it’s time to get into the nitty gritty and declare whether this Proclamation supports or negates Coleman’s arguments of the project of white civility… unfortunately, I do believe it does.
For example, although Aboriginal rights were beginning to be acknowledged by this Proclamation, it clearly dictates a British monopolization of the land. No one but the Crown could purchase lands from the First Nations, which clearly restricts Indigenous rights and ownership of the land. Also that the governor who has authority over Quebec, is appointed by the British government, paves the way to instill British values and customs, into the governed. Also, the restriction of Catholics into public positions, is also creating a white, British superiority amongst the population. Canadian Nationalism was born by rejecting non British values (replacement of all French laws), and creating a governance of its populations and monopolizing the land, by claiming everyone is under British protection. White civility is evident in these circumstances, because this Proclamation creates the framework to dictate what is above the law, and who is above the law, in this case, the British above all others. An article I found, highlighted the significance of white civility as tool; laws could be implemented, in order to “contain communities of colour” (Bates, 2019). The people of colour, in this case, mainly the Indigenous populations, are given the illusion of rights and land, handed down as a gift by the British, which in turn creates a relationship that is “unequal, racist and undemocratic” (Bates 2019).
Overall, the goal of this Proclamation seemed to be to assimilate the bands of the Indigenous groups and French settlers, in newfound British authority of Quebec. Assimilate in the sense, is washing away Indigenous culture, and French power, to assimilate to “white civility” as put forward by British standards.
Works Cited
Bates, Karen Grigsby. “When Civility Is Used As A Cudgel Against People Of Color.” NPR, NPR, 14 Mar. 2019, www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/03/14/700897826/when-civility-is-used-as-a-cudgel-against-people-of-color.
CanLit Guides. “Reading and Writing in Canada, A Classroom Guide to Nationalism.” Canadian Literature. Web. April 4th 2013.
Hall, Anthony J. “Royal Proclamation of 1763.” Royal Proclamation of 1763 | The Canadian Encyclopedia, Canadian Encylopedia, 30 Aug. 2019, www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763.
“Royal Proclamation, 1763.” Indigenous Foundations, UBC, indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/royal_proclamation_1763/.
Hello! I thought your blog post was really interesting. When I was reading it and you brought up the quote “all land would be considered Aboriginal land, until ceded by treaty” (“Royal Proclamation, 1763,”), and this made me surprised as I thought “oh I did not realize that people back then were starting to recognizing Aboriginal land rights”. But like you mentioned later in your blog post “although Aboriginal rights were beginning to be acknowledged by this Proclamation, it clearly dictates a British monopolization of the land” (Weerasundara). I feel like that the since the British made this proclamation they are still acting like they are the authority as they get to decide what happens to this land. And this made me think that maybe not much has changed when it comes to Indigenous land rights as nowadays even though there are ways for Indigenous people to claim back their land they have to go through a system that is all controlled by the Canadian government. Do you agree with my thinking? Why or why not, I am really interested to see your thoughts as you have done much more research on this topic compared to me.
Hi Sidney, thanks for the comment! You’re right not much as changed currently. Instead of British authority, we now have the Canadian government controlling Indigenous lands. The pipeline protests are a prime example of the government choosing to use Indigenous land as they see fit.