The Segregation of
Native People in Canada:
Voluntary or Compulsory?
The Segregation of
Native People in Canada:
Voluntary or Compulsory?
By: Michèle DuCharme
From: Currents Summer, 1986, pp. 3-4
© 1986 Urban Alliance on Race Relations
From: Currents Summer, 1986, pp. 3-4
© 1986 Urban Alliance on Race Relations
The history of the Indian people for the last century has been
the history of the impingement of white civilization upon the
Indian: the Indian was virtually powerless to resist the white
civilization; the white community of B.C. adopted a policy of
apartheid. This, of course, has already been done in eastern
Canada and on the Prairies, but the apartheid policy adopted in
B.C. was of a particularly cruel and degrading kind. They began by
taking the Indians' land without any surrender and without their
consent. Then they herded the Indian people onto Indian reserves.
This was nothing more nor less than apartheid, and that is what it
still is today(1).
Thomas Berger, 1 November 1966
Apartheid has become synonymous with oppression, injustice and
racism. The resultant anti-apartheid movement has inspired
boycotts, demonstrations, marches and most recently, an 8-day arts
festival in the city of Toronto. Indeed, the image of the quiet,
complacent Canadian who hesitates over becoming involved in issues
of social injustice seems to have been replaced by the reality of
anti-apartheid advocates who have taken the festival slogan,
"Speak out. South Africa will hear us" very much to heart. In
short, the overwhelming degree of support and attention the issue
has received from the public, the government and the media is
nothing short of phenomenal.
The consensus of opinion is that action must be taken against
South Africa's racist regime. Yet as this powerful and
humanitarian collective voice continues to express its outrage and
repulsion over South Africa's segregational practices and
policies, it is important to remember that similar conditions have
existed in this country for over 100 years, and in many ways,
continue to exist in Canadian society today.
As we become more informed and concerned about the problems facing
South Africa's indigenous people, we cannot afford to be
oblivious, disinterested and/or condoning of the conflicts
affecting our own inhabitants. We can no longer close our eyes to
the history of separation and disadvantage by which Canada was
founded, or to the conditions of inequality and tragedy which
still permeate the lives of ethnic and racial minorities
today.
Perhaps the most severe and yet overlooked example of
discriminatory practices towards Canadians is to be found in the
treatment of our own indigenous people, the Native Canadians.
South Africa is not the only country where the Native population
has been set apart legally, geographically and economically on a
purely genetic basis. Canada also used a variety of strategies to
methodically remove Native people from their lands to make way for
immigrants, including actual physical extermination.
Newfoundland for example, Beothuk were completely extinct 1829, in
part because of a bounty system that encouraged systematic
massacre. For those who shy away from the suggestion that parallel
exist between conditions in Canada and South Africa, it is
important realize that "simply because the framework of
apartheidism is not written into a constitution does not mean that
it is not a component nor a reality nation."(2) Although the laws
and policies of the two countries are not the same as the
existence of racial repression which allies them, and not the
degree or extent to which it occurs. While the intensity of
personal oppression varies considerably, the result is the same as
in South Africa: "The native population has been herded on to
reduced territories in order to make way for others."(3)
Physical Barrier
The implementation of the reservation system in Canada and
South Africa has acted as a physical barrier between
Indians/Blacks and main- stream society, and has helped to
maintain the status quo in favour of the white establishment.
Canadian Indians were placed on Reserves in the late eighteenth
century in order to clear land for newly arrived European
immigrants and settlers from the U.S. Although these Reserves were
originally located within the areas which various tribes had long
occupied, the actual size of the enclosures greatly reduced from
their previous territories. Today, only 0.4 per cent of Canadian
land is set aside for Indians to live on, while 13.7 per cent of
South African territory forms its reserves for 74 per cent of the
population.(4)
Regardless of whether one refers to Reserves as homelands,
bantustans, national states or human dumping grounds, the fact
remains that these closed communities have "... not robbed
indigenous people of their land, but (have) perpetuated racial
injustices and inequalities. They (have) also created a sharp
social and political separation between colonizer colonized."(5)
The following table shows some aspects of the apartheid reserve
system which are common to both countries:
1. External legislation that legally controls the separation of
Natives and whites;
2. The establishment and utilization of reserves exclusively for
Natives;
3. Indirect rule via chiefs and tribal councils;
4. The suppression of Native nationalism and consciousness;
5. Reserve programs controlled exclusively by white
bureaucrats;
6. Racial separation through the use of social and cultural
institutions.(6)
Who is an Indian?
The passage of the Indian Act forced the Canadian government to
provide legal definitions of who was a Native and who was not. Yet
as Daniel Raunet points out, "to ask the question (who is an
Indian?) in legal terms is in it self discriminatory. One would
not dream of enshrining in a law a definition of the
Québécois, the English Canadian, or the New York
Jew. People do not need legislation to know their origin or place
on this earth. They know who they are, period. In Canada, however,
the lawgiver has not shied away from the murky half-truths of
racial definition. For him, an Indian is a person registered on an
"Indian register." In the federal Department of Indian Affairs,
there is a civil servant called "the Registrar" whose task is to
keep a record of certain people - a racial record - and whose
decisions are, by law, "final and conclusive."(7) Canadian
Indians, like South African Blacks, continue to live under the
shadow of apartheidism, born from a fundamental economic motive.
The Metis in Saskatchewan, the Haida in Vancouver, the Cree at
James Bay, like many other Native groups, have all been uprooted
and relocated for the sake of white development, resources, and
convenience.
British Columbia in particular seems to abound with examples of
"Native moves Canadian style".(8) For example, the Salish who
lived in Vancouver's Kitsilano area at the turn of the century
were "induced" to move because they were encroaching on a white
residential neighbourhood. The Songhees who lived in what is now
Victoria's Bastion Square were "induced" to move to Esquimault
because they were in the way of white development.
An Indian band at Fort St. John was relocated to make land
available for returning Second World War (white) veterans. Oil
later was "discovered" on the former Indian property. When did the
government learn about the oil?
Several Indian bands were relocated to make room for the flooding
of British Columbia's Williston Lake. Some received compensation.
The Indians of the Stulguate Reserve on northern Vancouver Island
were ordered to move because the Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs said their land was too remote for government
administration. The new land given them proved economically
disastrous. This move is described in a book called How People
Die.(9)
The struggles, injustices and stereotypes which have plagued
Native Canadians for over a century are still grim realities
today, and yet they seem more invisible and insurmountable than
ever before. Recent statistics from the Federal Department of
Indian Affairs resound with proof of past and present failures in
Canada's policies toward its 500,000 Native people. For instance,
the average Native income is two-thirds of the national average.
Fewer than 50 per cent of Indian houses are fully served with
sewer and water connections, compared with a national rate of 90
per cent. Almost 50 per cent of Indian families live in
overcrowded houses. Among the Indians living on reserves, 60 per
cent are on welfare. About 70 per cent of status Indians have been
incarcerated in a correctional centre by the age of 25; among
other Canadians, the rate is 8 per cent. Suicide among Indians is
six times the national rate and in fact, exceeds the rates for all
other racial and ethnic groups in the world.(10) One cannot help
but wonder at the lack of public outcry. However, the absence of
public protest may be partially due to misconceptions over the
"provisions" made by the Federal government for Native people in
this country as opposed to more violent measures which exist in
places like South Africa. History has proven that "the
liberalization of oppression, and the apparent equality granted to
the Indians, does not amount to a differ- ence in nature between
the Canadian reserve system and other forms of apartheid; they are
simply evidence of the fact that the elimination of the Native
population is more advanced in North America than elsewhere. The
only difference is one of numbers.(11)
Thus, it is imperative that we begin to acknowledge that apartheid
is not confined to any one people or country. It is not bound by
colour, religion or culture, nor is it a social condition
exclusive to South Africa. Apartheid breeds despair, violence and
injustice. Ideally, the momentum created by our exposure to the
crisis in South Africa can be used to remedy the segregational
conditions which continue to plague Native Canadians and racial
and ethnic minorities here in Canada.
