Colonial Despatches

Glossary of terms

Introduction

Footnotes

1. The term Aboriginal is defined in the Constitution Act, 1982 and includes all Indigenous Peoples in Canada including First Nations (status, non-status, and Treaty Indians), Métis, and Inuit.1 The term is slightly outdated and some individuals may be uncomfortable with it, but it is still widely used. However, Canada has Aboriginal Law in place and it is acceptable to use the term when referring to rights and titles of Indigenous Peoples.2 Additionally, the Indigenous Peoples of Australia actually prefer the term Aboriginal to Indigenous.3
2. Caitlyn Vernon argues that being an ally means knowing the past and bearing witness to the present, apologizing for our shared histories and taking responsibility for our own complicity, offering compensation and working together to build new relations.1 Settler allies must first educate themselves about oppressions faced by marginalized people, then task themselves with educating others and disrupting their biases against marginalized people.2 Settler allies must question their own motivations for allyship to ensure that they are doing this work for others and not for personal gain.3
   According to Vernon, settler allies must humble [themselves], learn the stories of the oppressed and learn [their] own family histories, listen to others with respect, challenge [their] assumptions of entitlement, and learn to work together, to take responsibility for both justice and sustainability.4 For Emma Lowman and Adam Barker, ally is something you do—a kind of relationship and action you practice—not something you claim to be.5 In order to build these foundational relationships, settler allies must address the balance of power and challenge settler colonialism.6
   Related terms to “ally” include “accomplice” and “co-resistor,” which can be found in the Indigenous Ally Toolkit, assembled by the Montreal Urban Aboriginal Community Strategy Network.7 Being an ally requires a person to show their understanding and commitment through actions, relations, and recognition.8
3. Assimilation occurs when a member of an ethnic minority group acquires the behavior patterns, lifestyles, values, and language of the mainstream culture.1 Although assimilation can be voluntary, colonial nations have a history of making deliberate attempts to destroy Indigenous cultures, languages, and religions.2 One example of deliberate assimilation is the Residential School System in Canada. When residential schools were made mandatory in 1920, Duncan Campbell Scott declared the following: I want to get rid of the Indian problem…. Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian left in Canada that had not been absorbed into the body politic.3 To read more about the legacy of assimilation in Canada, see Canada’s Residential Schools: The Legacy, in The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.4
4. The BNA Act, or the Constitution Act, 1867, united Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada as one Dominion under the name of Canada on 29 March 1867.1 The Act served as Canada’s constitution until 1982.2 The Act outlines the distribution of powers between the central parliament and the provincial legislatures.3 At that time, the Canadian government held power over Indians, and Land reserved for the Indians.4 Settler politicians did not consult Indigenous Peoples, nor was Indigenous land title considered during this process.5 David B. MacDonald observes that Canada was created as if Indigenous peoples did not matter.6 The Canadian government continues to govern Indigenous Peoples to this day, though many Nations exercise their own forms of self-government, and Canada recognizes that Indigenous peoples have an inherent right of self-government guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.7
5. The colonial project refers to the process by which colonizers claim Indigenous lands and enforce European policies and laws upon Indigenous Peoples. The colonial project was and continues to be the institutional violence of armies, law courts, and the prison-industrial complex that deprives Indigenous and racialized people of their Land and contributes to their disenfranchisement.1 Various tools, such as assimilation, have been used in the name of the colonial project to control and subdue Indigenous Peoples and dispossess them of their land.2 The colonial worldview is rooted in the misconception that Europeans are “civilized” and Indigenous Peoples are “savage”.3 This false narrative continues to perpetuate the belief that Indigenous Peoples are somehow lawless and therefore must be under the governance of the colonial state.4
6. Colonization is the process of settling or appropriating a place and imposing a system of power over a territory and its original inhabitants.1 Colonization is distinct from colonialism, which is an ideology; colonization is the achievement of this ideology. Canadian colonization policies have suppressed Aboriginal culture and languages, disrupted Aboriginal government, destroyed Aboriginal economies, and confined Aboriginal people to marginal and often unproductive land.2 Colonization is ongoing on Turtle Island because Indigenous land is still being stolen and Indigenous Peoples remain subject to the laws and norms of the colonizers.3
7. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada defines cultural genocide as the the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group.1 It is the intentional destruction of a culture and can include the eradication of cultural activities, artifacts, language and traditions.2 Some may argue that cultural genocide amounts to genocide because the destruction of Indigenous cultures contributes to the destruction of Indigenous lives.3 David B. MacDonald observes that the TRC’s Commissioners were not permitted to find illegal the actions of churches or the federal government, so the term cultural genocide was used to avoid the legal ramifications of the term genocide.4 See the Genocide glossary entry for more information.
8. Decolonization is the process of restoring Indigenous worldviews, cultural traditions, and perspectives by shifting the way Indigenous Peoples view themselves and the way non-Indigenous people view Indigenous Peoples.1 This shift includes unlearning colonial ways of being and eschewing the colonial status quo and by opening up to Indigenous Knowledges and practices. Indigenous communities are in the process of reclaiming the family, community, culture, language, history, and traditions that were taken from them under federal government policies.2 Decolonization, as described by Emma Battel Lowman and Adam J. Barker, is an intensely political and transformative process with the goal of regenerating Indigenous nationhood and place-relationships while dismantling structures of settler colonialism that oppose or seek to eliminate Indigenous peoples from the land, which means decolonization requires the commitment and action of non-Indigenous peoples.3
   It is important for all members of society to recognize and accept the reality of Canada’s colonial history in order for us to move forward and transform our ways of life.4 Rachel George asserts that decolonization cannot be motivated by an effort to maintain as much comfort or privilege as possible.5 Corntassel calls on us to change as individuals or the state will continue to perpetuate violence on Indigenous Peoples.6
9. European powers utilized the Doctrine of Discovery, a legal framework formulated in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, to erase Indigenous Peoples from their territories by forced assimilation, murder, and dispossession of land that was not previously inhabited by Christians.12 Nick Claxton and John Price observe that colonizers made “discovery assertions” on lands that were, in their view, unoccupied, as a basis of seizing lands.3 Colonizers used the Doctrine of Discovery to justify the colonization and theft of lands already inhabited by non-Christians.4
   European settlers believed that their religions, civilizations, governments, laws, and cultures were superior to all others.5 Their rationale was that because Indigenous Peoples were not Christians they were not truly human and therefore could be conquered because they did not own or improve the land, in a Lockean understanding of property rights.6 This justification furthered ongoing attempts to dominate Indigenous Peoples and disregard their rights.7
10. Enfranchisement is the legal extinguishment of a person’s Indian status.1 Enfranchisement is an assimilationist policy used by the Canadian government to revoke the rights of Status Indians.2 The Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 introduced voluntary enfranchisement with the intent of having Indigenous Peoples surrender their status and adopt Canadian citizenship.3 Sexism was built into the policy—if a man enfranchised himself, his wife and children would also lose their status.4 Voluntary enfranchisement was not a successful system because Indigenous Peoples did not want to abandon their rights and cultures.5
    In 1876, the Indian Act made enfranchisement compulsory.6 From 1876 onward, Indigenous Peoples serving in the army or receiving a university education began losing their status.7 The Act also removed Indigenous women’s status and required them to leave their communities if they married non-status men.8 The Indian Act was amended in 1951 and 1985, ending compulsory enfranchisement as an explicit policy.9 This change owed much to the hard work of Indigenous women who challenged the sexist policies of the Indian Act in court, as seen in AG v. Lavell, and more recently in R v. Bédard, Lovelace v. Ontario, and McIvor v. Canada.
    Bob Joseph connects “enfranchisement” to Indigenous dehumanization, noting that it needs to be recognized that ‘status Indians’ were not considered ‘people’ according to Canadian laws and did not become ‘people’ until the Indian Act was revised in 1951.10 See the Indian Act entry in this glossary for more information on the negative impacts of the Indian Act.
11. First Nations is the preferred term used to describe Indigenous Peoples in Canada that are neither Métis nor Inuit. This term came to use in the 1970s, replacing the derogatory terms “Indian” and “Indian band”.1 First Nations is used for status, non-status, and Treaty “Indians”. It is used either in plural or singular form, referring to either a nation or an individual. There are 634 First Nations communities in Canada.2
12. Polish/Ukrainian scholar Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, specifically in response to the Holocaust.1 His neologism is a combination of the Greek terms genos (meaning race or people) and cide (meaning killing).2 Lemkin intended to expand the definition of killing as a crime from an individual to a group, as defined by nation or ethnic origin.3 Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as

    any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
    a. Killing members of the group;
    b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
    destruction in whole or in part;
    d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.4
    In Canada and elsewhere, genocide against Indigenous Peoples commonly appears in the form of settler-colonialism.5 Settler colonialism and genocide work hand in hand, systemically and over time rather than as events, which is not typical of more widely acknowledged genocidal practices.6
    The term genocide can has been applied to Canada’s treatment of Indigenous people.7 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada first used the term cultural genocide in its 2015 Final Report.8 Four years later, The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released A Legal Analysis of Genocide: Supplementary Report a supplementary report probing the possibility of a Canadian genocide.9
    The Supplementary Report concludes that a state’s specific intent to destroy a protected group can only be proved by the existence of a genocidal policy or manifest pattern of conduct.10 The Inquiry examined legal literature and historical facts to conclude that a manifest pattern of [genocidal] conduct did in fact exist.11 The Inquiry found that Canada has displayed a continuous policy, with shifting expressed motives but an ultimately steady intention, to destroy Indigenous peoples physically, biologically, and as social units, thereby fulfilling the required specific intent element to be considered genocide.12
13. The legal term “Indian” describes an individual registered under the Indian Act.1 “Indian” is an outdated term and many consider it derogatory; it is used primarily in the legal sense because it appears in the Indian Act.2 Columbus used the term after arriving on Turtle Island;3 he believed he had landed in India, so he proceeded to call the Indigenous Peoples “Indians”.4
    In Canada, the term “Indian” has largely been replaced by “First Nations,” which does not include Métis or Inuit Peoples, though they are included under the Indian Act.5 The term can be broken down using “Status Indian,” “non-Status Indian,” and “Treaty Indian”.6 Treaty Indians are descendants of Indigenous Peoples who signed treaties with Canada and who have a contemporary connection with a treaty band.7 The term “Indian” was popular during the initial period of colonization and is used throughout the correspondence in the Colonial Despatches collection. See the definition of Indian Status for more information about who qualifies for Indian Status.
14. The Indian Act is a Canadian Federal Law that controls matters pertaining to Indian Status, bands, and Indian reserves.1 The Act contains highly invasive and paternalistic laws that allow the Canadian government to maintain overarching political control of Indigenous communities.2
    Efforts to abolish the Indian Act have been met with widespread resistance.3 As problematic as it is, the Indian Act is nonetheless one of the only pieces of legislation that acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship [Indigenous Peoples] have with Canada.4 The Indian Act has not and will not achieve its goal of getting rid of the Indian problem.5 Indigenous Peoples resist and continue to revitalize their cultures from the damage caused by the Indian Act. Bob Joseph argues that the Indian Act was designed for a specific purpose that no longer exists in a country committed to reconciliation and that we must move towards building the foundation for Indigenous communities to have self-determination and sovereignty.6
15. Indian Agents were federal employees on First Nations reserves from the 1830s to the 1960s.1 Indian Agents implemented government policy, [and] enforced and administered the provisions of the Indian Act.2 Indian Agents were expected to enforce the infamous “pass system,” which restricted First Nations individuals from leaving reserves without permission or a pass.3
    Indian Agents were almost all settler men and rarely expressed doubts about the necessity or desirability of assimilation.4 Officially, the Indian Agent position was eliminated in 1960, but the paternalistic nature of settler governments has a continued presence in Indigenous communities today. See the entry for pass system for more information.
16. The Indian Residential School system was established through an assimilation policy designed to integrate Indigenous Peoples into the Canadian body politic; state officials forcibly removed Indigenous children from their homes and communities in an attempt to minimize and weaken family ties and cultural linkages, and to indoctrinate children into a new culture—the culture of the legally dominant Euro-Christian Canadian society.1 The Government of Canada enacted and enforced this policy and authorized its administration by a variety of churches. Many children at the schools endured physical, sexual, and psychological abuse during their time at residential schools. About half of the children who attended residential schools died; those who survived suffer from trauma that forthcoming generations will endure.2 Richard Wagamese states that residential schools are the biggest single contributor to what many uninformed people still refer to as the Indian problem.3 Arthur Manuel compares his experience at residential school to that of his experience in a jail cell.4
    Before colonial education methods were imposed on Indigenous families, Indigenous children were educated by Knowledge Keepers and from the Land itself. During early contact, prior to the establishment of the residential school system, Indigenous children were educated by church missionary societies; these mission schools, in many cases, were absorbed into the Government of Canada’s residential school system. The first residential school opened in 1861, and the last one closed its doors in 1996. In 1920, the schools were made compulsory under the infamous Indian Act.5 The Family Allowance Act of 1945 was used to coerce Indigenous parents into sending their children to residential schools, as children had to be enrolled in school in order to collect the new baby bonus, known now as the family or child allowance.6
    Since the 1990s there have been three major national investigations into the well-being of Indigenous Peoples in Canada: the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
17. Indian Status is the Canadian federal government’s way of determining who is and who is not an “Indian.” Canada defines Indian Status, or who qualifies as an Indian, through the The Indian Act.1 Indian Status is a specific legal identity for certain First Nations individuals and does not include Métis or Inuit.2 Status Indians are considered, paternalistically, to be wards of the state.3 Indian Status can only be passed on for a few generations before being phased out.4 For more information see Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.
    Before 1985, a woman who married a non-Indian was not entitled to be registered under the Indian Act, resulting in many women being stripped of their identity as Indigenous Peoples.5 Women without Indian Status lost the right to live on reserve, or be buried with ancestors, along with treaty and health benefits and any inherited property.6 Despite Bill C-31’s amendment in 1985, gender discrimination continues to influence the Indian Act’s Status requirement.7 Today, if two generations of women marry non-status men, their children will be ineligible for Indian Status.8
18. The term Indigenous can be useful for creating connections between peoples globally, but it is imperative to understand that Indigenous is not a single culture, it is the collective of many distinct and separate cultures. The term Indigenous Peoples refers to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples in Canada collectively, and also [refers] to Indigenous Peoples worldwide collectively.1 It is considered more respectful to be specific, rather than to use a blanket term like Indigenous, when referring to an Indigenous community or member.
    In an example of general use of the term, you might say that the Indigenous people in Victoria have lived here for thousands of years. To be more specific, and respectful, consider saying that the Songhees, Esquimalt, and W̱SÁNEĆ Peoples have lived in the area we call Victoria for thousands of years.
19. Western methodologies and ways of knowing have often masqueraded as universal knowledges, shunning other ways of knowing, or appropriating such knowledges without due credit.1 Indigenous Methodologies offer a different way of reading our worlds and [their] constitutive social, cultural, political, and spiritual relations.2 Aspects of Indigenous methodologies include a deep spiritual connection to animals, plants, and other living things and stress relationality, connections, reciprocity, community building, appreciation, sharing, humility, social responsibility, and generosity.3
20. The Inuit are Indigenous Peoples that reside and have traditional territory in the Arctic. In Northern Canada they have traditional territory in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon Territory, as well as Northern Quebec and Labrador.1 Amongst the Canadian territories and provinces, Inuit also live in Alaska and Greenland, with close relatives residing in Russia and Scandinavia.2 The term Eskimo was used to describe the Inuit up until 1960, when the Inuit began to assert their own name for themselves.3
21. Knowledge keepers may be called different names such as Old Ones or Elders. Traditional Knowledge Keepers are the keepers of Indigenous knowledge that has been passed down from generation to generation since time immemorial.1 It is their responsibility to preserve this knowledge for their communities and to teach the young people…about the inherent spiritual ways of [Indigenous Peoples].2 These teachings include the need to have love, respect, patience, and compassion for all things.3 Read more about Traditional Knowledge Keepers in Authentic Engagement of First Nations and Métis Traditional Knowledge Keepers.
22. Manifest Destiny is an American ideology, spearheaded by powerful political and cultural actors, that rationalizes western expansion efforts.1 By definition it involved the displacement, eradication, or assimilation of native cultures.1 According to proponents of Manifest Destiny, colonizers were destined by God to expand their territory and to spread Western values across North America.3
23. Historically, the term Métis has referred to anyone who has mixed Indigenous and European Ancestry. This definition takes away from the distinct culture of Métis peoples. We choose to define the term Métis as a distinct people of historic Métis Nation Ancestry, with specific cultural traditions, and who are accepted by the Métis Nation.1
    The term Métis must be understood through its connection to a national core historically located in Red River and in the shared memories of the territory, leaders, events, and culture that sustain Métis people today.2 It is imperative to recognize that Metis is not a catch-all term for anyone who is Indigenous-but-not-First-Nation-or-Inuit.3
24. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls had a mandate to look into and report on the systemic causes of all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada.1 They included those women and girls who died under suspicious circumstances, as well as cases of sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence, bullying and harassment, suicide, and self-harm. The National Inquiry looked at culturally appropriate solutions for addressing this violence experienced by Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA folks.2
    Similar to the TRC, the National Inquiry held community hearings and statement gathering in order to complete their final report. Additionally, the National Inquiry held knowledge keeper and expert hearings, and institutional hearings where they examined the systemic causes of institutionalized violence.3
25. The term Native has been used to describe Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) for many years, but is slightly outdated and some people could take offence to the term, due to its broadness.1 Gregory Younging explains that the term is problematic because of possible confusion with its wider definition of a local inhabitant or life form, and because it does not denote that there are many distinct Indigenous Groups.2 However, the Indigenous Peoples in the United States are often described as Native American. The term was popular in the initial period of settling and colonization, as seen in many Despatches correspondence.
26. Indigenous nations maintain a historical record of their culture through the transmission of oral histories and teachings.1 This transmission results in the preservation of the culture from generation to generation.2 Although critics frame oral history as subjective and biased, academia is becoming more and more accepting of oral history as a legitimate and valuable addition to the historical record.3
    Oral history has also played a large role in establishing land title, specifically in the court case of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia in 1997.4 The Wet’suwet’en and the Gitxan who fought this court case were able to use oral history in order to establish their occupancy and use of their territory.5
27. Pan-Indianism is the generalization of Indigenous Peoples as a single culture. Although there may be some similarities between certain nations’ teachings it can be harmful to pool all Indigenous communities together when there is so much diversity between them. It is important to avoid blanket terms and it is respectful to refer to people by using the words individual people use themselves, and if you don’t know what words to use, ask.1 Doing so helps to recognize the diversity and distinctness of Indigenous Peoples.2
28. The Canadian government developed the pass system after the 1885 Northwest Rebellion to police the movement of Indigenous peoples, most notably within the Prairies.1 In order to leave their reserves any Indigenous person needed a pass signed by the Indian agent, stating when they could leave, where they could go and when they had to return.2 Breaking these rules would result in being arrested and brought back to reserve.3 Canada put this policy in place to prevent large gatherings, in effect preventing any further resistance.4
    Although the pass system was never officially a law, the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hayter Reed created the system and justified his actions with the claim that they were for the greater good.5 Prime Minister John A. Macdonald also supported the pass system.6 Although the government deemed the pass system illegal in 1892, the process lingered on until the mid-1930s.7 The pass system has had lasting effects on Indigenous communities, in part because it enabled the government to attempt to quash potlatches, the Sun Dance and other cultural practices.8
29. Reciprocity goes beyond a transaction or compensation.1 In any interactions with Indigenous Peoples or communities, reciprocity must not be a contractual arrangement but a disposition and [a] practice.2 Reciprocity is inseparable from responsibility and respect.3 Lawyer Roberta L. Jamieson asserts that Indigenous reciprocity is much more complex than a two-way exchange of favors…while the word reciprocity is not used often in our daily lives, it is deeply embedded in most Indigenous cultures.4
    The meaning of reciprocity may vary between cultures and the English language may fail to communicate its meaning within Indigenous languages; therefore, it is important to have an open dialogue about what reciprocity means to you and the people in your lives.5 Reciprocity should be seen as a journey, and not a fixed point on a map.6
30. True reconciliation is only possible if the government recognizes [Indigenous] land rights and their fundamental right to self-determination.1 Although many Canadians would like to see reconciliation and use the term, there is a lack of understanding about what reconciliation means.2 The government of Canada has used rhetoric around reconciliation to further control Indigenous Peoples across the country.3 In order to reconcile we must come to terms with the truth of Canada’s colonial history and ongoing violence and oppression perpetrated by the state.
    Some people view reconciliation as an end state while others argue that it is an ongoing relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples.4 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission defines reconciliation as an ongoing process of establishing and maintaining respectful relationships.5 Reconciliation will only come with the respect and affirmation of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to their lands: Leanne Betasomosake Simpson questions how we can reconcile when the majority of Canadians do not understand the historic or contemporary injustices of dispossession and occupation, particularly when the state has expressed its unwillingness to make any adjustments to the unjust relationship.6 Simpson adds that reconciliation is a process of regeneration that will take many years to accomplish.7
    There are many ways to interpret reconciliation, but some critics, like Tawinikay, suggest that the rhetoric of reconciliation has been used as a distraction while the Canadian government continues to steal lands and resources and ignore the pleas of Indigenous peoples; Tawinikay argues that criticizing reconciliation is not about shaming those elders and people that participated in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, rather, it’s about attacking a government that used a moment of vulnerability to bolster its global image.8 Reconciliation is not achievable so long as basic human rights are not respected.9 Reconciliation requires healing, and Indigenous Peoples need the land back in order to heal —by definition, reconciliation hinges on an idea that parties were once whole, experienced a rift, and need to be made whole again.10 Rachel Yacaaᘃa∤ George expresses that reconciliation must be grounded in self-determination.11 In order to achieve reconciliation, the government must be willing to share its power and decision making with Indigenous Peoples.12 Corntassel and Holder argue that Canada must first achieve decolonization and restitution in order to achieve reconciliation in the way justice requires.13 For us it is clear that reconciliation is not achievable so long as the state continues to criminalize Indigenous Peoples for being on our own land and practicing our own cultures as we have always done.14
31. Reserves are land allotments for Indigenous groups, or in the words of historical geographer Cole Harris, a reserve is the compartment into which whites relegated [Indigenous] people.1 These reserves are owned by the Crown.2 The Indian Act 1876 states the following: Reserves are held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the respective bands for which they were set apart, and subject to this Act and to the terms of any treaty or surrender, the Governor in Council may determine whether any purpose for which the lands in a reserve are used or are to be used is for the use and benefit of the band.3
    The Canadian government designed reserves to control and surveille, especially the movement of Indigenous Peoples.4 There are significant differences between reserves east of the Rocky Mountains to those in British Columbia, including the size of reserve-land allocation and state regulation of people on the reserves. Numbered treaty reserves east of the Rockies (and partially in northeastern BC), designed to support agricultural pursuits, are larger than reserves in BC. The pass system and policing of Indigenous movements were also more common on the treaty reserves than in BC. In BC, the settler population and their leaders such as Joseph Trutch, BC Commissioner of Lands and Works and first Lieutenant-Governor of BC, refused to recognize Native Title.5 This attitude encouraged the reduction of BC reserve sizes, which were diminished during Trutch’s tenure as Commissioner of Lands and Works in the late-nineteenth century as well as in 1912 during the McKenna-McBride Commission.6 Indigenous groups on the west coast have observed that the government created coastal reserves that were significantly smaller than interior reserves due to their attitude that Coast Indian people were not a land based people, and did not require a broad land base for economic survival.7 The destruction of the salmon-fishing industry has devastated small coastal communities.8 Harris argues that BC created small reserves to coerce Indigenous Peoples to participate in the settler workforce and contribute to the provincial economy.9
    While Indigenous Peoples whose ancestors signed treaties with Canada have often brought grievances of broken promises to the federal government, the majority of Indigenous Peoples in BC have never signed a treaty; some scholars see this as a clearer claim to land and resources as the extinguishment of Indigenous title to land in the majority of BC has never occurred.10 Many reserves in BC delimit the land that BC reluctantly set aside to protect from colonization as opposed to land reserved through negotiated treaties.
    Reserves should not be confused with the traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples.11 Despite the fact that the reserve system has been imposed upon many Indigenous communities, connections to traditional lands continue to this day: the reserve system has undermined Indigenous Peoples’ relationship to their traditional territories but did not destroy it. 12
32. This term refers to Indigenous resistance to colonialism.1 This can be centering Indigenous practices and thoughts in individual lives, and can extend to mass mobilization.2 Those who resist colonialism hope to inspire a radically different future than the one settler colonialism sets out.3 This requires acts of resistance to take on heteropatriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism, antiblackness, and actualizing Indigenous alternatives on the ground, not in the future but in the present.4 To Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, resistance is doing [the] work in the present so our kids know what freedom is like, so they know what it feels like to be from a particular Indigenous nation whether they are in downtown Toronto, in the bush, or behind a blockade, so they know what to fight for.5 It should be noted that those who resist colonialism are met with criminalization and over-policing—notable resistance movements against settler colonialism include the following: the Red River Resistance; Kanienkehaka resistance; Idle No More; Mauna Kea; and the Wet’suwet’en solidarity actions.
    Resistance is not only actuated in direct action and protest; as Jeff Corntassel, Taiaiake Alfred, Noelani Goodyear-Ka’Opua, Hokulan Aikau, Noenoe Silva, and Devi Mucina explain, while large-scale actions such as rallies, protests and blockades are frequently acknowledged as sites of resistance, the daily actions undertaken by individual people, families, and communities often go unacknowledged but are no less vital to decolonial processes.6 A common saying amongst Indigenous Peoples is “our existence is resistance.”7
33. According to Asch, Borrows, and Tully, resurgence is often used to refer to Indigenous peoples exercising powers of self-determination outside of state structures and paradigms.1 It can also refer to non-Indigenous solidarity and decolonizing activities.2 Resurgence may also include reciprocal practices of reconciliation in self-determining, self-sustaining, and inter-generational ways.3 Leanne Betasomosake Simpson adds that inherent theories of resurgence are transformative and revolutionary.4
    Jeff Corntassel stresses that in order to achieve resurgence we must strengthen our Inter-Indigenous relationships.5 Resurgence includes revitalizing and re-awakening Indigenous ways of being, and political theorist Michael Elliot says that it centres on three contentions: (1) that colonialism is an active structure of domination premised, at base, on Indigenous elimination; (2) that the prevailing normative-discursive environment continues to reflect this imperative; and (3) that Indigenous peoples must therefore turn away from this hostile environment and pursue independent programmes of social and cultural rejuvenation.6
34. To revitalize, is to imbue (something) with new life and vitality.1 Indigenous revitalization refers to the act of bringing life to traditions that were illegal and almost lost due to colonialism. It is the act of keeping Indigenous knowledge alive and thriving. The revitalization of culture is the revitalization of Indigenous identity.2
35. The Government of Canada established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in 1991 in the wake of a series of events such as the Kanienkehaka resistance, 1990, and the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, 1987, which both illuminated disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. According to the Library and Archives Canada, the RCAP was mandated to investigate and propose solutions to the challenges affecting the relationship between Aboriginal peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Métis), the Canadian government, and Canadian society as a whole.1
    Concluding in 1996, the Commission had completed and released a 4,000 page document examining the place of Indigenous peoples in Canadian society. Ultimately, the report found that Canada enjoys a reputation as a special place—a place where human rights and dignity are guaranteed, where the rules of liberal democracy are respected, where diversity among peoples is celebrated. But this reputation represents, at best, a half-truth.2 The report concludes by promoting a 20-year plan to mend the state’s relationship with Indigenous peoples through increased funding for infrastructure and cultural programs as well as the promotion of self-government.3
36. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is a document that guided European settlement of the Indigenous territory of what is now North America.1 When the British won the Seven Years War against the French for control over the continent, King George III issued this proclamation to claim Crown sovereignty over the land.2 This was the first time that Indigenous title to the land was recognized explicitly, stating that Indigenous land could not be settled unless purchased by the Crown prior to being sold to the settlers.3 This proclamation is recognized as the establishment of the British monopoly over Indigenous land.4 The Royal Proclamation stated that Indigenous Peoples living on these territories should not be molested or disturbed on their own land.5 However, the Proclamation enabled the Crown to extinguish the rights of Indigenous Peoples through treaties.6
    The Province of British Columbia has taken issue with the Royal Proclamation being imposed on the Indigenous Peoples of this land, as British Columbia had not yet been settled and was not part of British Empire at the time of the Royal Proclamation.7 Indigenous Peoples, including those in BC, however, have used the Royal Proclamation to their advantage in order to assert their sovereignty.8
37. Self-determination means that Indigenous Peoples have the right to make decisions about [their own] political status and development according to [their] beliefs, world views, priorities, traditions and aspirations for the future.1 The political status of Indigenous Peoples is equal to all sovereign peoples across the world.2 Arthur Manuel argues that the remedy against colonial oppression is the right to self-determination.3
    Moving forward, Canada must fully recognize Indigenous rights, including the right to self-determination as stated in Article 3 in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 asserts that Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.4 With this recognition Indigenous Peoples will [also] recognize the fundamental human right of Canadians after hundreds of years, to live [in Canada].5 Indigenous Peoples wish for the freedom to live our relational place-based existence and practice healthy relationships [which] embodies our nationhood.6
38. Settler is a collective term used to describe those who have immigrated to this land during and after the initial period of colonization; a settler is defined as all people not indigenous to North America who are living on this continent…on stolen land.1 Settlers inherently benefit from the displacement and the assimilation of Indigenous Peoples; however, settlers do not strictly identify with one codifiable set of cultural practices, political, or economic institutions, embodied expressions, or even languages or religions.2 Settlers are multi-ethnic people, encompassing vast disparities of wealth and economic opportunity, huge ranges of education and experience, and a massive variety of ways of identifying with respect to gender, sexuality and other overlapping markers of identity.3
    It is imperative to acknowledge that not all settlers are created equal and that white settlers benefit from the settler state much more than People of Colour. This term also does not apply to Black people who came here as a result of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and who came here unwillingly. Referring to Black people as settler is anti-Black and contributes to the ongoing violence and discrimination that Black people face at the hands of the settler state. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson identifies anti-Blackness as one of the pillars of settler colonialism on Turtle Island.4
    Identifying as a Settler is saying, we benefit from and are complicit with settler colonialism and therefore are responsible, as individuals and in collectives, for its continued functioning.5 Choosing to identify as a settler is an empowering action that demonstrates your commitment to making positive and decolonizing change.6 Indigenous Peoples are not asking settlers to move off their land, they are calling for settlers to actively participate in their inherent relationship with Indigenous Peoples and to recognize and respect Indigenous rights to land, sovereignty, and self-determination.7
39. Settler colonialism functions through the replacement of Indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty.1 Canada, the United States, Australia, and South Africa are all examples of settler colonial states.2 Settler colonialism differs from colonialism in that settlers wish to replace the current status of society, rather than ruling it from afar while extracting resources.3
    Settler colonialism can be defined as settler colonizers who come to stay.4 It is important to acknowledge that the settler colonial invasion is a structure, not an event.5 Settler colonialism is upheld by spatial constructs, power structures, and social narratives.6 These structures allow for settler colonialism to exist today.7 Leanne Betasamosake Simpson asserts that settler colonialism relies on pillars of white supremacy, anti-blackness, heteropatriarchy, and capitalism.8 Arthur Manuel describes [settler] colonialism as not just a behaviour but as the foundational system in Canada.9
    For an in-depth conversation on what it means to be a settler and how settler colonialism has influenced relationships between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous peoples, see Unsettling Settler Colonialism by Corey Snelgrove, Rita K. Dhamoon, and Jeff Corntassel.10 Simpson demonstrates how to actively decenter whiteness in order to dismantle settler colonialism in an individual’s own life in As We Have Always Done.
40. In addition to the Indian Residential School system, the Canadian government forcibly removed and adopted out Indigenous children from their homes and communities to non-Indigenous families as part of the assimilation process. Although started long before, this practise accelerated in the 1960s, which is why it is known as the Sixties Scoop.1 This policy furthered the destruction of Indigenous families and communities, and severely damaged the identity of the stolen Indigenous children.2 Indigenous children continue to be overrepresented in the child welfare system today due to the impacts of residential schools and the Sixties Scoop.3
41. Sovereignty refers to the condition of political independence and self-government.1 Within an Indigenous context, sovereignty’s foundation is non-interference and mutual respect.2 At the time of contact Indigenous Peoples were politically independent and self-governing under their own traditional laws.3 Despite this, their sovereignty was ignored and eliminated by the legal fictions of terra nullius and the Doctrine of Discovery.4
    The Canadian government has yet to fully recognize Indigenous sovereignty.5 To recognize Indigenous sovereignty is to [embrace] the notion of Nation to Nation relationship, one sovereign entity’s interaction with another sovereign entity.6
42. Systemic Racism refers to racism that is entrenched in established institutions within their policies and practices and does not require overt intent.1
    Systematic racism has a variety of manifestations, which include the following: “institutional racism” refers to the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin.2 An example of this is the lack of clean water in Indigenous communities across Canada. “Structural racism” refers to a system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity.3 Systemic racism allows for Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) to live under a constant state of exploitation.4
43. The Latin phrase terra nullius means an earth that is null or void.1 Early European colonizers considered terra nullius lands to be empty, waste, or vacant, and thus available for taking.2 This included lands occupied by Indigenous Peoples that, according to European standards, were not being utilized appropriately; the Europeans justified taking lands in order to put the land to better uses.3 Terra nullius as a concept and practice is linked intrinsically to the Doctrine of Discovery.4
44. Time immemorial is period of the distant past not defined by historical dates and is often used to describe the long-lasting relationship Indigenous Peoples have had with the territories in which they have resided for the entirety of their group’s memory.1
45. Treaties are generally understood by Indigenous Peoples as diplomatic processes for negotiating relations of non-violent and generative co-existence between living beings in shared geographies.1 In contrast, the government of Canada defines a treaty as a legal agreement made between the Government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples.2 The treaty process has been abused by the Canadian government and used as tool to strip Indigenous title from most of the lands in Canada; the Canadian government has also ignored treaty obligations.3 Not only has the Canadian government ignored treaty obligations but they have also strategically built treaties to sustain Indigenous dispossession and marginalization.4 There are two different types of treaties, historic and modern.
    There are 70 government-recognized historic treaties in Canada, signed between 1701 and 1923.5 In nearly all cases in Canada the verbal agreements that surrounded the treaties were far different from cession, release, or surrender of land that was put down in writing.6 The signing of historical treaties occurred often under coercion, with the colonizers threatening to take Indigneous lands without purchase if Indigenous Peoples did not agree to the transaction.7 In other cases Indigenous Peoples were under the impression that they would still be able to use the land, especially for hunting and fishing.8
    British Columbia stands out from other Canadian provinces because, other than Treaty 8 in the north-east portion of the province, and the 14 Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island, Colonial officials offered no treaty to Indigenous Peoples prior to the creation of the colony, land settlement, and confederation with the Dominion in 1871. In 1973 the Calder v. British Columbia Supreme Court case recognized Aboriginal rights, leading to the creation of the Comprehensive Lands Claim Policy and the modern treaty making process.9 Specific land claims address Indigenous grievances over the failure of the federal government to keep promises made to them in the Indian Act, historic treaties or other agreements,10 whereas comprehensive land claims focus on land-title questions regarding unceded territories.11
    The process of treaty making remains flawed, with some Indigenous Peoples arguing that the government uses the imagery of treaty making to hide old patterns of colonization including co-optation of Indigenous elites, dispossession through the extinguishment of Indigenous rights and cultural genocide.12 As the treaty relationship between Indigenous Peoples and the Canadian state evolves, the recognition of Indigenous rights is essential and treaty rights must be stable, mutually agreed-upon, and [include] shared jurisdiction.13
46. Canada mandated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Schedule N of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, the result of several lawsuits against the Canadian government and relevant churches by survivors of the Indian Residential School (IRS) system.1 In 2008 the TRC commenced with a five-year mandate, led initially by Justice Harry S. Laforme of the Ontario Court of Appeal and later chaired by retired Justice the Honourable Murray Sinclair.2 The Commission’s mandate was later extended and it published its Final Report in 2015.3 The TRC’s primary objective was to contribute to truth, healing and reconciliation.4 The TRC had a big task in trying to heal the 80,000 survivors of Indian Residential Schools.5
    The Commission released 94 Calls to Action, which calls on the Government of Canada and all Canadians to move towards reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. The TRC took on the responsibility of educating Canadians about Indian Residential Schools and asserted that abuses within them did not end when residential schools closed: this violence against Indigenous Peoples is part of a larger, ongoing colonial project.6
47. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the United Nations in 2007.1 Initially, 144 states were in favour, with 4 states against the Declaration including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, all settler colonial states; these states have since changed their stance and support the Declaration.2 The Declaration recognizes the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.3
    UNDRIP contains 46 articles that define and uphold the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples across the world, with specific articles containing language about self-determination and free, prior and informed consent, which would revolutionize the nation-to-nation relationship Indigenous Peoples have with the Canadian government if it were to be honoured.4 The implementation of UNDRIP is meant to be the framework for reconciliation for Canada, should the Canadian government choose to follow the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action. On November 26th, 2019, the Province of British Columbia adopted UNDRIP into legislation.5 See the full text of UNDRIP for more information.
48. Robin DiAngelo defines “white fragility” as a state in which even a minimal amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering defensiveness from those who are white, white-passing, or those considered as aligned with whiteness.1 Whiteness is often used as a universal reference point to represent humanity, meaning that people consider white to be “normal” while everyone else is “abnormal”.2 Challenges to this perspective, or accusations of racial insensitivity towards white people, can lead to the white fragility DiAngelo explores.3
49. “White privilege” can be described as a built-in advantage, separate from one’s level of income or effort that is contingent on one’s ethnicity.1 This term is not a suggestion that white people have never struggled, or intended to make the assumption that everything a white person has accomplished is unearned.2
    Whiteness does not define a white person’s identity in the same way that blackness defines a Black person’s identity within the social structures of white supremacy. To not have your skin tone be a defining characteristic is a privilege. For example, white people are less likely to be followed because they look suspicious and their skin tone will not be a reason people hesitate to trust their credit or financial responsibility.3 These are just some examples of advantages that white people have simply because of their skin colour.
    Privilege comes in many different forms, gendered privilege, socio-economic privilege, and heterosexual privilege.4
50. “White supremacy” is an ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior to people of colour.1 This ideology was brought to North America by colonists and was backed by misguided scientific studies of physical differences on the basis of race.2
    White supremacy remains in our world today and is evident in the fact that [white people] maintain a structural advantage over people of color in nearly every aspect of life.3 It is ingrained in our social structure, institutions, our worldviews, beliefs, knowledge, and ways of interacting with each other.4 White supremacy groups still exist in North America; we also see white supremacy in the over-policing of People of Colour and the lack of protection for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls/2 Spirit people in Canada.5 Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour’s lives are forecefully defined by the white supremacist state of the world for generations.6
    White supremacy differs from white privilege in that white supremacy more precisely describes and locates white racial domination by underscoring the material production and violence of racial structures and the hegemony of whiteness in settler societies.7 White privilege is the result of social benefits of whiteness granted by the structures and systems of white supremacy.8 Arthur Manuel observes acts of white supremacy in Canada in legislation such as the Indian Act and the entire reserve system, and further describes Canada as a country built on the dominance of one race over another.9

Places in this document

British Columbia

Red River

The Rocky Mountains