Introduction/Thesis statement
Even though the so-called Indian Act of 1985 is often being referred to, as such that benefits Native Canadians in several different ways (such as exempting them from taxes), there are certain doubts about whether it indeed happened to be the case. The reason for this is simple – this particular legislation, concerned with First Nations in Canada, appears to be deeply arrogant, in the discursive sense of this word.
The fact that the Act refers to Natives as ‘Indians’ can alone illustrate the validity of this suggestion. This, however, is not the worst thing about it. What seems to be especially troubling about the Act in question is that it continues to serve as the tool of subtle oppression against Natives.
Body of the paper
To confirm the soundness of the above-stated, one would not have to go far – according to the Act: “Subject to this Act, reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands” (Government of Canada A18). In other words, it is specifically the British Queen, who is endowed with the right to exercise the right of ultimate ownership over reserve-lands in Canada.
What it means is that there is always a theoretical possibility for Natives to be told to leave their reserves – simply because the Queen wishes so. In other words, despite having been ‘polished’ through the nineties to sound less racist, the concerned Act continues to emanate the spirit of colonialism. Given the realities of a modern living in Canada, this can be hardly considered appropriate.
Another indication that the Act is being conceptually erroneous can well serve the contained provisions of how a Native person can be distinguished from the non-Native one. According to them, it is namely the legally scrutinized specifics of the concerned person’s ancestry, which qualify him or her for the status-related rights and privileges. What it means is that, as it appears from the Act, one’s ‘nativeness’ is essentially a legal subject matter.
However, the Act’s implication, in this respect, appears utterly inconsistent with what Natives believe makes them different from the rest of Canadians. After all, it is namely the fact that they happened to be affiliated with the spiritually rich and environmentally friendly indigenous culture, which affects their stance in life more than anything else does. The earlier mentioned consideration is omitted from the Act altogether.
According to it, there is very little difference between non-Natives and Natives in Canada, except for the fact that the latter happened to be visually distinguishable and somewhat ‘odd.’ Therefore, there is nothing incidental about the fact that back in the past, the Act used to provide a legal back-up to the practice of having Native children separated from their families and sent to the so-called ‘foster homes’ (Frideres 76).
Nevertheless, the Act’s most negative effect upon the well-being of Natives is concerned with its intention to patronize First Nations. It is understood, of course, that the Act does make it possible for Natives not to pay taxes. However, this has been achieved at the expense of undermining these people’s willingness to strive to advance in life. As a result, many Natives end up becoming drug-addicts and alcoholics.
This simply could not be otherwise, as they innately feel that, instead of referring to them as the truly unique people, worthy of admiration, the Act refers to them in terms of a ‘nuisance.’ Therefore, I have no other option but to reinstate once again that the Indian Act can hardly be considered progressive legislation.
Works Cited
Frideres, James. First Nations in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Government of Canada 2014, “Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5)”. Justice Laws Website. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.