Module 3: Understanding Colonialism
Module Introduction
Colonialism is a structural determinant of Indigenous peoples’ health. In our readings for this week (posted below), we will learn about the ways in which colonialism impacts other determinants of health, as well as its connection to trauma and health outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. One core component of colonialism is the Indian Act, which directly and indirectly controls the lives of First Nations people.
The Indian Act has been used as a tool for assimilation and cultural genocide, which is illustrated through Canada’s historical and current utilization of its provisions. The Canadian Government uses the Indian Act to regulate who is and is not considered a “Status Indian” (a term that was introduced by the Act in 1876). In the Module 3 Notes, I outline some of the historical and current provisions in the Indian Act. These are examples and not an exhaustive list, so (as always) I encourage you to do additional research to learn more about the Indian Act. I have also included a link to the current version of the Indian Act in the Module 3 notes, if you would like to reference it in its entirety.
I also want to acknowledge that the incredible work of many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities in terms of exerting their rights to self-determination and self-governance is not reflected within the notes, as well as the readings. The emphasis on deficit-based determinants of health throughout the first several modules is something that I am mindful of, but I also know that this is new material for many of you and that it is important to illustrate a clear picture of the basics of colonialism (which largely involves speaking about very negative things).
An Indian Game (Juggling the Books) by Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun (1996), private collection of Michael Audain. – Rachel Topham/Vancouver Art Gallery photo
MODULE 3 | Overview & Learning Objectives
Learning Objectives
By the end of this Module, you will be able to:
Understand how colonialism is an important determinant of Indigenous peoples’ health
Outline how the Indian Act controls aspects of Indigenous identity, land, and community
Critically reflect on aspects of the Indian Act that have discriminated against Indigenous women
Readings
You should complete the following readings prior to continuing with the Module Notes:
Articles (Attached to Module)
Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism as a broader social determinant of health. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 2.
MODULE 3 Notes
In our readings from this week, Karina Czyzewski (2011) writes, “Colonialism is the guiding force that manipulates the historic, political, social, and economic contexts shaping Indigenous/state/non-Indigenous relations and account for the public erasure of political and economic marginalization, and racism today” (p. 4). This statement summarizes our focus for the next couple of weeks, looking at the use of the Indian Act, the Residential School System, Indian Hospitals, and the Sixties Scoop (among others) for colonization.
Before we dive into the understanding the Indian Act, we need to understand what holistic health is. This is important because we will be looking at how different determinants of health shape all aspects of Indigenous peoples’ health and wellness.
What is holistic health?
Holism involves a balance between the emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical aspects of health and wellness (or body, mind, and spirit). Holistic health also represents a shift away from biomedical models, which tend to focus primarily on physical notions of health.
The concept of inter-connectedness can be applied to our own holistic health. Also applies to notions of collectivity, incorporating all people (families, communities, Nations) and the land. We can incorporate the concept of holism in taking care of ourselves through holistic self-care (balancing our physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual wellness)
Self-care Activity (not for marks): Think of some ways that you ensure that you have balance in your life. It can be helpful to think about balance by using four quadrants: physical, mental, spiritual, and emotion and brainstorming self-care activities for each area. Are there other strategies that you would like to incorporate? There is an example below (physical distancing edition), prepared by Secwepemc Child and Family Services:
The Indian Act
After Canada became a country, the Department of Indian Affairs was formed to administer policies related to First Nations people (using the legal term, “Indian”). The Indian Act was first created in 1876, consolidating all previous legislation regarding First Nations people, and it gave legal power for the government to control the lives of First Nations across Canada. Although it was created nearly 150 years ago, the Indian Act is still in force today. Similarly, the Department of Indian Affairs is still active, but they have gone through several different names; currently they are called Indigenous Services Canada.
The Indian Act has gone through several amendments (discussed below), but it remains relatively untouched since it was initially passed. You can read the current Indian Act here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/
The Indian Act is a highly invasive law. As part of the Act, Indigenous people have been subjected to a number of oppressive policies, including the use of Indian Agents: federal employees who enforced the rules of the Indian Act. The Indian Act controls who is (and is not) considered Indian under the law (i.e., it regulates identity through the provision of status), as well as matters pertaining to bands and the reserve system.
Indian Status
Indian Identity as of 1876 was limited to:
Any male person of Indian blood, belonging to a band
Any child of such person
Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such person
If an Indian woman marries a non-Indian man she will cease to be an Indian
No ‘half breed’ shall be included
Using these provisions, the Indian Act denied women status through what is referred to as the “marrying out rule.” This discriminatory aspect of the Indian Act impacted Indigenous women in far-reaching ways. If a woman with Indian status married a non-Indigenous man, she would lose her status and with that, she would no longer have any health benefits, she could no longer live in her reserve, and she could not inherit any family property. On the flip side, any woman (regardless of her ancestry) who married a man with Indian status would also gain Indian status. In both of these scenarios, it is clear that the outcome for women was completely dependent on who they married. As a result of hard-fought battles led by Indigenous women in the 1970s and 80s (both nationally and internationally), the Indian Act was amended to remove this aspect of gender discrimination (more on this later).
As per the Indian Act, “Status Indians” were considered wards of the state (this legally means that they were under the control of government), and it was not until 1951 that they were not considered to be “people” under the Indian Act.
The Indian Act also determined ways that First Nations people could lose their Indian status. This process is called enfranchisement. For example, status First Nations people would become enfranchised if they went to university, became lawyers, or fought in the military.
Overall, it is important to note that the power to determine First Nations (Indian) identity was assigned to non-First Nations people. In this way, the Indian Act negates the complexity of Indigenous communities and kinship by categorizing people as either having or not having status. The Indian Act is the only current piece of government legislation in the world that regulates an individual’s heritage.
The Reserve System
Following the creation of the reserve system, the Indian Act has been used to allocate and control the use of reserve lands (1850s – Present).
Indian Agents, who enforced the Indian Act, restricted First Nations people from leaving the reserve through the Pass System, which was in place from 1885 until 1951. Indigenous people were required to get permission slips in order to leave their reserve (see example below).
Some provisions also protected reserve lands from further intrusion, however. George Manuel, a prominent Secwepemc leader and former president of the Assembly of First Nations, has noted that “The main value of the Act… was that it was the one legal protection of our lands, and spelled out the basic rights and privileges of living on the reserve. But it also included a price tag” (cited in Kelm & Smith, p. 5). By ‘price tag’, George Manuel is referring to the ways in which the government is able to control and use reserve lands, as needed. In fact, the Indian Act allows for expropriating reserve lands for public purpose: they can take away portions of reserve land for building roads, railways, hydro and other public infrastructure (1867 – Present).
Band Councils
The Indian Act sought to tear down Indigenous forms of governance and self-determination (as part of a larger assimilation strategy). This approach involved imposing a foreign form of governance. Instead of traditional forms of decision marking and leadership, the Indian Act involved the imposition of the band council system (1869 – Present). The legislated band council system involved elections every three years and only men could vote in these elections. These gender-based provisions existed until 1951 and effectively eliminated the role of women in decision making in communities. This approach had a significant negative impact on many communities that were previously considered Matriarchal societies.
Indian Agents were also given power to direct said band councils, meaning that community decision making could be controlled by the Department of Indian Affairs (this existed until the 1960s).
An example of provisions in, and amendments to, the Indian Act (past and present)
While this is certainly not a definitive list of the various provisions of the Indian Act, it is important to understand some of the lengths that were taken to sever Indigenous peoples’ rights. The Indian Act impacted the economic independence of First Nations people and communities by prohibiting participation in commercial fishing (1871 – 1923). An amendment in in 1920 also made it mandatory for all First Nations children to attend a residential school (more on this in Module 4). The Indian Act also prohibited:
The sale of alcohol, ammunition, and other things to First Nations people (1884 – 1985)
Gatherings of “three or more Indians or halfbreeds” (1884 – 1951)
First Nations people from hiring legal counsel to fight for their rights (1920 – 1951)
First Nations people from entering pool halls (1930 – 1951)
First Nations from voting in federal and provincial elections (until 1960)
In what is considered one of the most detrimental assimilationist provisions of the Indian Act, ceremonies, spirituality, and cultural practices were all declared illegal (e.g., the Potlatch Ban, 1884 – 1951). During this time, many cultural items were stolen from Indigenous communities; these items were often either sold or destroyed (note that some of these cultural material items can be found in private collections and in museums today, while others have been repatriated to communities). The Indian Act also forbade First Nations people from speaking their traditional languages (until 1951).
In 1951, there was a major amendment made to the Indian Act, representing the reversal of some of its oppressive policies. As part of this amendment, the ban on ceremony was finally lifted, meaning that it was no longer illegal for Indigenous peoples to participate in their cultural practises.
Bills C31 and S3: gender-based discrimination in the Indian Act
Bill C31 (A Bill to Amend the Indian Act) was passed into law in 1985. It addresses the sex-based inequities regarding women’s status under the Indian Act. It represents the first of the Indian Act amendments that address gender-based discrimination against First Nations women. Bill C31 allowed for some First Nations women to regain their Indian status (in cases where there was evidence of “forcible enfranchisement”), though it was criticized for having generational limits and restrictive understandings of enfranchisement. With Bill C31, the “marrying out” rule was removed from the Indian Act and replaced with two different types (or in a sense, classes) of status which are laid out in Section 6 of the Indian Act. In a nutshell:
6(1) status can be passed on to the next generation
6(2) status can only be passed on to the next generation if both parents have status
This is a complex system that did not, in fact, fully counteract gender-based discrimination in the Act. An article that I find helpful in further breaking down this system can be found here: https://apihtawikosisan.com/2011/12/got-status-indian-status-in-canada-sort-of-explained/
More recently, Bill S-3 (An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada) was approved in 2019, credited to hard-fought battles led by First Nations women. Bill S-3 removes the generational limit (or 1951 cutoff), meaning that women who lost their Indian status prior to 1951 due to marriage are now able to re-apply for Indian status. The implementation of Bill S-3 will become more apparent over time.
In response to this decision, Kukpi7 Judy Wilson, Secretary-Treasurer of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs has stated: “Indigenous women in Canada face an enduring system of discrimination, violence, and injustice. As the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls to Justice affirms, substantive changes are needed to support our women and girls. The removal of the sex-based hierarchy entrenched in the Indian Act is a pathway forward to achieving this and properly recognizing and respecting the Indigenous women who are at the foundations of our cultures, communities, governments, and nations” (Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 2019).
The Indian Act as a tool of assimilation
The Indian Act has sought to disrupt First Nations peoples’ systems of governance, family and community cohesion, and their connection to land.
The Federal government has used the Indian Act and its policies of enfranchisement to “reduce the number of those considered Indian” (Kelm & Smith, p. 4). We will see this as an ongoing theme across Canadian policies of assimilation as we continue to explore our history in Canada, as well as current events.
Additional References
Kelm, M. & Smith, K. D. (2018). Talking back to the Indian Act: Critical readings in settler colonial histories. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Union of BC Indian Chiefs. (2019). 143 years of sex-based discrimination through the Indian Act finally comes to an end after decades of advocacy. Retrieved Dec. 29, 2019 from https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/143_years_of_sex_based_discrimination_through_the_indian_act_finally_comes_to_an_end_after_decades_of_advocacy