Settler colonialism in Canada refers to the process and effects of colonization on the Indigenous peoples of Canada. As colonization progressed, Indigenous peoples were subject to policies of forced assimilation and cultural genocide. Governments in Canada in many cases ignored or chose to deny the aboriginal title of First Nations. The traditional governance of many of the First Nations was replaced with government-imposed structures. Many Indigenous cultural practices were banned.
The relationship between Aboriginal Canadians and the Crown has been heavily defined by the effects of settler colonialism and Indigenous resistance.[1] Canadian Courts and recent governments have recognized and eliminated many discriminatory practices.
Government policies
Doctrine of Discovery
The Catholic Doctrine of Discovery is a legal doctrine that Louise Mandell asserted is a justification for settler colonialism in Canada.[2] The doctrine allowed Catholic European explorers to claim non-Christian lands for their monarch based on papal bulls.[3] The doctrine was applied to the Americas when Pope Alexander VI issued Inter caetera in 1493, giving Spain title to "discoveries" in the New World.[3] Spain, however, claimed only the Pacific coast of what is today Canada and, in 1789, established just the settlements of Santa Cruz de Nuca and Fort San Miguel,[4] both of which were abandoned six years later.
In the 2004 case Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that "the doctrine of terra nullius never applied in Canada". Aboriginal title is a beneficial interest in land, although the Crown retains an underlying title.[5] The court set out a number of conditions which must be met in order for the Crown to extinguish Aboriginal title.[6] The court, 10 years later, in Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, rejected all Crown arguments for Aboriginal title extinguishment.[2]
The Royal Proclamation of 1763, issued by King George III, is considered one of the most important treaties in Canada between Europeans and Indigenous peoples, establishing the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Crown, which recognized Indigenous peoples rights, as well as defining the treaty making process, which is still used in Canada today.[7] The Royal Proclamation also acknowledged Indigenous peoples' constitutional right to sovereignty and self government. Within the document, both sides agreed that treaties were the most effective legal way for Indigenous peoples to release control of their land. However, the Royal Proclamation was drafted by the British government, without any Indigenous input, which resulted in a monopoly over the purchase of Indigenous lands by the Crown.[8] The Proclamation banned non-Indigenous settlers from claiming the land that was being populated by Indigenous peoples, unless the land had first been purchased by the Crown and then sold to the settlers.[9] As time passed, non-Indigenous settlers became eager to establish their own communities and extract resources to sell, forgoing the guidelines set out in the Proclamation.
On appeal of St Catharines Milling and Lumber Co v R in 1888, the imperial Privy Council found native land rights were derived from the Royal Proclamation of 1763.[10] In 1973, Calder v British Columbia (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Indigenous peoples of Canada held an aboriginal title to their land, which was independent of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and was derived from the fact that, "when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries".[10]
Gradual Civilization Act of 1857
Assimilation was the goal for the Europeans for Indigenous individuals for much of history, this can be seen in the Gradual Civilization Act. This act was made in 1857 by CAct played on the idea of how Indigenous individuals were 'savages' that needed to be reformed by the 'civilized' Europeans, thus the act being called the Gradual Civilization Act. In some ways the Gradual Civilization Act was an extension of residential schools because it had the same goal but this Act was targeted towards Indigenous men instead of children. Thes Act made it so that Indigenous men, if they wanted to could become a part of the European-Canadian society, they were to give up many different aspects of their culture. The European-Canadian definition of being civilized entailed being able to speak and write in either English or French, and to be as similar to a white man as possible so that there were no discernible differences. There were commissioners that were tasked to make sure that these criteria were filled, and they examined Indigenous individuals to make sure that they were meeting the criteria. The outcome of this was that any individual that was deemed to meet the criteria could become enfranchised. The Act was a direct consequence of settler colonialism as the Indigenous individuals were forced to assimilate to the world views and customs of the settlers.[11]
These treaties came in two waves—Numbers 1 through 7 from 1871 to 1877 and Numbers 8 through 11 from 1899 to 1921. In the first wave, the treaties were key in advancing European settlement across the Prairie regions as well as the development of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the second wave, resource extraction was the main motive for government officials. During this time, Canada introduced the Indian Act extending its control over the First Nations to education, government and legal rights.[13] The federal government did provide emergency relief, on condition of the Indigenous peoples moving to the Indian reserve.[14]
Today, these agreements are upheld by the Government of Canada, administered by Canadian Aboriginal law and overseen by the Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations. They are often criticized and are a leading issue within the fight for First Nation rights. The Constitution Act, 1982 gave protection of First Nations and treaty rights under Section 35. It states: "Aboriginal and treaty rights are hereby recognized and affirmed."[15] This phrase was never fully defined. As a result, First Nations must attest their rights in court as the case in R v Sparrow.
In 1876, the Indian Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada and allowed the administration of Indian Status, reserve lands, and local Indigenous governance.[16] The act gave the Canadian government control over Indigenous identity, political practices, governance, cultural practices, and education.[17] One of the underlying motivations in the act was to enforce a policy of assimilation, to prohibit Indigenous peoples from practicing their own cultural, political, and spiritual beliefs.[16][18] The act defined Indian Status and the entitlement and legal conditions that accompanied it, established land management regimes on reserves, managed the sales of natural resources, and defined band council powers and electoral systems.
Gender discrimination within the act enforced gender bias as another means of extinguishing Indian Status, thereby excluding women from their rights. Under this legislation, an Indian woman who married a non-Indian man would no longer be Indian. She would lose her status, treaty benefits, health benefits, the right to live on reserve, the right to inherit property, and even the right to be buried with ancestors. However, when an Indian man married a woman without status, he retained all his rights.
In 1951, the act was amended, to lift the various restrictions on Indigenous culture, religion, and politics. This included removing bans on potlatch and sun dance ceremonies. Additionally, these amendments allowed women to vote in band council elections and Elsie Marie Knott was the first woman to be elected chief in Canada. However, these actions didn't eliminate gender disparity in status requirements. Instead of having "Indian blood", status was assigned through the Indian Register, where male lines of descent were still privileged.[16] In 1985, the act was amended again, through Bill C-31, in order to reflect the newly enacted Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendment allowed women who "married out" of their band to apply for their rights and Indian status to be restored.[19]
The Canadian Indian residential school system was an extensive school system that was set up by the Government of Canada and organized and ran by Churches. Residential schools began operation in Canada in the 1880s and began to close during the end of the 20th century.[20] Residential school's main objectives were to educate Indigenous children, by teaching Euro-Canadian and Christian values and ways of living to assimilate Indigenous children into standard Canadian cultures. The values that were taught in residential schools were brought to Canada from the colonial settlers who made up a majority of the Canadian population at this time.
Residential school in Middlechurch, Manitoba
In Canada over 150,000 children attended residential schools throughout the century that they were in operation. The Indigenous children that attended residential schools were forcibly removed from their homes and families. While at residential schools, students were no longer allowed to speak their own language or acknowledge their culture or heritage without the threat of punishment.[21] If rules were broken the students were brutally punished. Residential schools were known for students experiencing physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse from the staff of the schools.[20]Residential schools resulted in generations of Indigenous peoples who lost their language and culture. The removal of homes at such a young age also resulted in generations of peoples who did not have the knowledge or skills to have families of their own.
As settlers began to populate Canada, they brought their own Eurocentric views that believed that their civilization was the ultimate goal. Settlers saw Indigenous people as savage pagans that needed to be civilized, with the best means of doing so was through government mandated education. Residential schools did not as much result in the education of Indigenous peoples, as much as it did result in a 'cultural genocide' of Indigenous peoples.[22] The establishment of residential schools is a direct link to colonial settlers and the values that they brought, when they began to populate what we know today as Canada.
Ongoing effects of colonialism in Canada
Colonialism in current times
Colonialism is defined by its practice of domination which includes the subjugation of one people, the colonizers over another, the colonized. The distinction of settler colonialism is its goal of replacing the people already living there. Through colonization Canada's Indigenous people have been subject to the destruction against their culture and traditions through assimilation and force. It can be argued that Colonialism and its effects are still ongoing when looking at current events.[23]
Forced sterilization of Indigenous people
Forced sterilization is defined as the removal of a person's reproductive organs either through force or coercion, and is viewed as a human rights violation.[24] Its effect against Indigenous women has also identified it as violence against women and a form of racial discrimination.[25]Canada has had a history of sterilization which has disproportionately affected Indigenous women in the North. This has led to proposals on how healthcare can be better tailored to address the discrimination Indigenous women face when receiving healthcare.[26]
Indigenous women have reported to having found out that their fallopian tubes had been tied without their consent or were coerced into agreeing to it by doctors who assured them it was reversible.[27] The interference in Indigenous peoples reproductive lives were justified using the ideology of Eugenics. Although the Sexual Sterilization Act in Canada was repealed in 1972, the sterilizations of Indigenous people have continued. While the policies of coercive sterilization on Indigenous women have been recognized as sexist, racist and imperialist the extent to which it has systematically impacted Indigenous women is not an isolated instance of abuse. It can be looked at as a part of a larger context involving the colonization and racism Indigenous people face.[28]
Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls (MMIWG) is an ongoing issue that gained awareness through the efforts of the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) when it called for a national inquiry on missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada.[29] A 2014 report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, suggests that between 1980 and 2012 1,017 Indigenous women were victims of homicide with 164 Indigenous women still considered missing.[30] Statistics show that Indigenous women of at least 15 years of age are three times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be victims of a violent crime.[31] The homicide rates of Indigenous women between 1997 and 2000 were seven times higher than non-Indigenous women.[32]
Janice Accose's book, Iskwewak--kah' ki yaw ni wahkomakanak, draws a connection between racist and sexist depictions of Indigenous women in popular literature and violence against Indigenous women, which Accose claims led to the issue of MMIWG.[33] Notable to MMIWG is the Highway of Tears, a 725-kilometre stretch of highway 16 in British Columbia, that has been the location of many murders and disappearances beginning in 1970, disproportionately of which have been Indigenous women.[34]
Mass incarceration is an ongoing issue between Indigenous peoples and Canada's legal system in which Indigenous people are overrepresented within the Canadian prison population. Mass incarceration of Indigenous peoples results from a variety of problems stemming from settler colonialism that Indigenous peoples face daily including, poverty, substance abuse, lack of education and lack of employment opportunities. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided in R v Gladue that courts must consider the "circumstances of Aboriginal offenders."[35] This decision lead to the creation of Gladue reports which allow Indigenous people to go through pre-sentencing and bail hearings that consider the way colonialism has harmed the Indigenous offender including considering cultural oppression, abuse suffered in residential schools and poverty.[36] Thirteen years after the Gladue decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the decision in R v Ipeelee extending the decision to require courts to consider the impact of colonialism on every Indigenous person being sentenced.[36] These decisions were made to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in the prison population, however, the population has only been steadily increasing. Indigenous peoples in Canada only make up about 5% of the total population yet, in 2020 Indigenous people surpassed 30% of people behind bars.[37] Further, in 2020 Indigenous women accounted for 42% of the female inmate population in Canada.[37] Compared to non-Indigenous people, Indigenous peoples are less likely to be released on parole, are disproportionately placed in maximum security facilities, are more likely to be involved in use of force or self-injury incidents, and are more often placed in segregation.[37]
Two-Spirit Erasure
Before Indigenous colonization occurred in Canada, Two-Spirit people were highly revered in Indigenous communities.[38] Two-Spirit people had very distinct and important roles, as well as traditions, ceremonial roles, and stories.[38] Once settlers arrived in Canada, they brought ideas about heteronormativity and traditional gender roles.[38] Settlers used their religious agendas to push their ideas of only having two genders, and forced Two-Spirit people to conform to the roles carried out by people of the same assigned sex at birth.[39] Settlers forced Indigenous people to speak English, leading to the loss of traditional Indigenous terms for Two-Spirit peoples.[39]
When settlers arrived in Canada, they coined the term “Berdache” to describe Two-Spirit people.[40] This was a French term for younger partners in male homosexual relationships, and was extremely offensive and derogatory. This use of this term villainized Two-Spirit peoples, and erased traditional terms for Two-Spirit people.[40]
With the opening of residential schools, children were taught that there were only Two-Genders, as well as homosexuality being morally wrong. Children were punished heavily if they spoke of homosexuality, causing the topic to become feared.[39] Colonialism caused many Indigenous people to adopt homophobic ideas, causing many Two-Spirit people to face discrimination and shame in their communities. By the 1840s, many Two-Spirit traditions had been driven from Indigenous communities because of colonialism.[39]
The scholarly debate surrounding Indigenous genocide in Canada is a complex and contentious issue.[41][42] The majority of Canadian historians contend that the treatment of Indigenous peoples by European settlers and subsequent Canadian governments constitutes genocide,[43][44] while others question if the term is applicable in the Canadian context.[45][44] The debate centers around the definition of genocide as outlined in the United Nations Genocide Convention, which includes acts such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destructions.[46][44]
Academics, scholars and Indigenous leaders unanimously agree that the historic actions and government policies have had a devastating effects, however some historians and government officials argue that the term genocide doesn't apply, as legally, genocide refers to the systematic extermination of an "entire group".[44][47][48][49] Another point of debate is that focusing on the term genocide detracts from the multitude of crimes and ethnocide in which Indigenous peoples have endured, while others see the use of the term as a necessary acknowledgment of the gravity and culmination of atrocities incurred, and avoiding the word or debating a legal definition is a form of Indigenous genocide denialism.[50][51][52][53]
Many scholars and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada use the specific term cultural genocide.[54][50] The concept of "cultural genocide" and its relation to settler colonialism have led modern scholars to a renewed discussion of the genocidal aspects of the Canadian states' role in producing and legitimating the process of physical and cultural destruction of Indigenous people.[55][50][56]Patrick Wolfe's analysis of settler-colonialism, as a structure (rather than an event) premised on the elimination rather than exploitation of the Indigenous population, creating a "structural genocide" of the Indigenous people of Canada.[57]
Indigenous resistance
Indigenous mobilization against the 1969 White Paper
In 1969, Prime MinisterPierre Trudeau and Minister of Indian AffairsJean Chrétien proposed the White Paper, which recommended abolishing the Indian Act to extend full citizenship to Indigenous peoples after the Hawthorn report concluded Indigenous peoples were "citizens minus." If entered into force, Indigenous peoples would become an ethnic group 'equal' to others in Canada, therefore rendering Aboriginal title and rights 'unequal.' This policy espoused a liberal definition of equality in which legislated differences between Indigenous peoples and Canadians created inequities, rather than attributing inequities to the ongoing violence of settler colonialism. The White Paper indicated how colonial understandings of treaties as contracts differed from Indigenous understandings of covenants, as it would eliminate federal fiduciary responsibilities established by treaties and the Indian Act. Indigenous mobilization against the White Paper culminated in Harold Cardinal's Red Paper (also known as "Citizens Plus"). While the White Paper was not enacted, it was preceded and succeeded by further assimilation strategies.
Tk'emlupsemc, French-Canadian, and Ukrainian historian Sarah Nickel argued scholars marking the White Paper as a turning point in pan-Indigenouspolitical mobilization obfuscates both local responses and longer histories of Indigenous struggles by unfairly centering one settler policy.[58] Further, Indigenous women's organizations were marginalized despite claims of pan-Indigenous mobilization against the White Paper.[58] This diminished the continuous presence of Indigenous women undertaking political struggles, especially on intersectional issues of Indigeneity and gender, such as marrying-out policies.[58]
Walking with Our Sisters
Another ongoing movement in direct relation to MMIWG is Walking with Our Sisters. It is a commemorative art installation using vamps, the tops of moccasins, as a way to represent the unfinished lives of the Indigenous women who are murdered or missing.
One such art installation is Every One by Cannupa Hanska Luger, an enrolled member of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation who is of Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Lakota, Austrian, and Norwegian heritage.[59][60] This art installation, which was on display at the Gardiner Museum in Toronto, is a massive piece made from ceramic beads that make up the face of an Indigenous woman. The goal of the installation is to raise awareness of missing and murdered Indigenous women and to humanize Indigenous people.[61]
"No Consent - No Pipeline" Banner seen in Victoria, during Wet'suwet'en solidarity actions in February 2020
The Wetʼsuwetʼen First Nation, located in the northeast of British Columbia's central, interior region, has long been engaged in an ongoing dispute with the Canadian state over its rights and land. In the 1997 case, Delgamuukw v British Columbia, which expanded on the earlier Calder v British Columbia (AG) and helped codify the ideas that Aboriginal title existed prior to, and could exist outside of, Canadian sovereignty, the court determined that infringements against Aboriginal title by the Canadian state were possible.[citation needed] While several Indigenous groups negotiated terms of treaty with the Canadian Crown, the Wet’suwet’en reaffirmed their right to sovereignty and, in 2008, removed themselves from the treaty process with British Columbia altogether.[62]
^ abMandell, Louise (2017). "We Will Help Each Other Be Great and Good". In Ladner, Kiera L.; Tait, Myra J. (eds.). Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples Celebrate 150 Years of Betrayal. Winnipeg, Manitoba: ARP Books. pp. 414–435.
^ abReid, Jennifer (2010). "The Doctrine of Discovery and Canadian Law". The Canadian Journal of Native Studies. 30: 335–359.
^ abWatson, Blake A (2011). "The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand". Seattle University Law Review. 34 (2): 532–535.
^"Numbered Treaty Overview". Canada in the Making. Canadiana.org. Archived from the original on 9 April 2004. Retrieved 16 November 2009. The Numbered Treaties - also called the Land Cession or Post-Confederation Treaties - were signed between 1871 and 1921, and granted the Government of Canada large tracts of land throughout the Prairies, Canadian North and Northwestern Ontario for white settlement and industrial use. In exchange for the land, Canada promised to give the Aboriginal peoples various items, such as cash, blankets, tools, farming supplies, and so on. The impact of these treaties can be still felt in modern times.
^ abcJoseph, Bob (2018). 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act. Port Coquitlam, BC: Indigenous Relations Press. pp. 24–72. ISBN978-0-9952665-2-0.
^Hurley, Mary C. (23 November 2009). "The Indian Act". Library of Parliament.
^Branch, Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications (3 November 2008). "Indian Residential Schools". www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca. Retrieved 6 November 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^"Residential School History". NCTR - National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation. 21 December 2020. Retrieved 20 November 2024.
^Woolford, Andrew; Thomas, Jasmine (2011). "Genocide of Canadian First Nations". In Totten, Samuel; Hitchcock, Robert (eds.). Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: A Critical Bibliographic Review. Transaction Publishers. pp. 61–87.
^Dhamoon 2016, pp. 6–7. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDhamoon2016 (help)
^ abcNickel, Sarah (June 2019). "Reconsidering 1969: The White Paper and the Making of the Modern Indigenous Rights Movement". The Canadian Historical Review. 100 (2). University of Toronto Press: 223–238. doi:10.3138/chr.2018-0082-2. S2CID182502690.
Barker, Adam J.; Rollo, Toby; Lowman, Emma Battell (2016). "Settler colonialism and the consolidation of Canada in the twentieth century". The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism. Routledge. ISBN978-1-315-54481-6.
Bourgeois, Robyn (2018). "Race, Space, and Prostitution: The Making of Settler Colonial Canada". Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. 30 (3): 371–397. doi:10.3138/cjwl.30.3.002. S2CID150210368.
Coombes, Annie E. (2006). Rethinking Settler Colonialism: History and Memory in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Manchester University Press. ISBN978-0-7190-7168-3.
Denis, Jeffrey S. (2015). "Contact Theory in a Small-Town Settler-Colonial Context: The Reproduction of Laissez-Faire Racism in Indigenous-White Canadian Relations". American Sociological Review. 80 (1): 218–242. doi:10.1177/0003122414564998. S2CID145609890.
Grimwood, Bryan S. R.; Muldoon, Meghan L.; Stevens, Zachary M. (2019). "Settler colonialism, Indigenous cultures, and the promotional landscape of tourism in Ontario, Canada's 'near North'". Journal of Heritage Tourism. 14 (3): 233–248. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2018.1527845. S2CID150844100.
Harris, Cole (2020). A Bounded Land: Reflections on Settler Colonialism in Canada. UBC Press. ISBN978-0-7748-6444-2.
Hoogeveen, Dawn (2015). "Sub-surface Property, Free-entry Mineral Staking and Settler Colonialism in Canada: Mineral Staking and Settler Colonialism in Canada". Antipode. 47 (1): 121–138. doi:10.1111/anti.12095.
Paquette, Jonathan; Beauregard, Devin; Gunter, Christopher (2017). "Settler colonialism and cultural policy: the colonial foundations and refoundations of Canadian cultural policy". International Journal of Cultural Policy. 23 (3): 269–284. doi:10.1080/10286632.2015.1043294. S2CID143347641.
Preston, Jen (2017). "Racial extractivism and white settler colonialism: An examination of the Canadian Tar Sands mega-projects". Cultural Studies. 31 (2–3): 353–375. doi:10.1080/09502386.2017.1303432. S2CID151583759.
Simpson, Audra (2014). Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Duke University Press. ISBN978-0-8223-7678-1.
Wildcat, Matthew (2015). "Fearing social and cultural death: genocide and elimination in settler colonial Canada—an Indigenous perspective". Journal of Genocide Research. 17 (4): 391–409. doi:10.1080/14623528.2015.1096579. S2CID146577340.
.JPG)
.jpg)
.svg)
