Canada: A Country Built on Indigenous Genocide

“Today, we would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered here upon the unceded territory of the Musqueam First Nation,” “…of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation,” “…of the Algonquin First Nation,” “…of the Mi’kmaq First Nation.”

Canadians hear this phrase time and again at assemblies, protests, social events, and parades, and yet seldom pause to reflect on its meaning. For many, it has become akin to your average greeting, tuned out until the presenter gets to the meat of their speech. The single sentence has little face value when it is so often the extent of one's exposure to Indigenous issues in Canada.

Today, however, I would like to urge you to consider the significance behind these words. Because while at first glance they may seem like a measly formality—and indeed to many a corporate speaker they may be, if not followed by tangible positive action—they should more often be understood as one part of a greater effort to shed light on the systemic injustice on which Canada was built.

Indigenous peoples in Canada have been failed ad nauseum by government and public alike. Ancestral lands have been appropriated for public infrastructure. Traditional cultural practices have been stamped out through bigotry and paternalism. And Indigenous concerns have been repeatedly disregarded by those meant to serve all Canadians.

Put lightly, this is a national crisis—one that began contemporaneously with the creation of what we now call Canada.

Indigenous peoples in Canada have been failed ad nauseum by government and public alike.

An Overview of the Language

Before approaching the historical piece, it is worth briefly discussing some common terminology that often sparks confusion. "Indigenous" is currently the most appropriate term to describe the original inhabitants of these lands and their descendants. It has largely replaced "Aboriginal" in social and legal circles, though "Aboriginal" is still used to describe legal concepts in notable sources of Canadian law, such as the Constitution Act.

Both "Indigenous" and "Aboriginal" are umbrella terms that, in Canada, encompass three distinct groups: "First Nations" (communities that have been living in what is now Canada since time immemorial), "Métis" (communities of mixed European and Indigenous ancestry established before European control), and "Inuit" (communities that have been living in the Arctic since around 1050 CE). First Nations people were incorrectly called "Indians" when Europeans first arrived in North America. "Indian" remains a legal term describing someone who has status under the Indian Act but often carries with it a derogatory connotation when used outside of its limited legal context.

Now, with terminology addressed, on to the history.

A History of European Control

When England’s King George III issued his 1763 Royal Proclamation declaring present-day Canada to be under the dominion of the British Empire, he explicitly acknowledged usufructuary Indigenous land title; that is, Indigenous peoples could continue using and occupying their traditional lands thanks to the goodwill of the Crown. To be clear, the King was not recognizing the reality that Indigenous peoples had lived on their ancestral lands since time immemorial and were therefore its rightful occupiers. Rather, his decision was highly calculated, with a view for stabilizing British overseas colonies.?

In the years leading up to 1763, Odawa chief Obwandiyag (commonly known as Pontiac) had captured 10 British military settlements standing on traditional Odawa lands. Totalling just 70,000, North American Brits were still massively outnumbered by Indigenous peoples and believed that diplomacy would be cheaper and safer than continued conflict.

By Canada’s confederation in 1867, the white population had risen to over 3 million through extensive British immigration. Meanwhile, the region’s Indigenous population had been reduced through war and disease to just 125,000. Increasingly, the sanctity of Indigenous rights was becoming an impediment to Canada’s western expansion. For newly minted Canadians, greater population, resources, and military force also meant greater coercive power. Enter the 1876 Indian Act.

According to drafters, the goal of the 1876 Act was to promote policies that would compel so-called “Indians” to renounce their Indigenous status in favour of Canadian citizenship. They dubbed this process “enfranchisement”: a not-so-subtle pseudonym for forced assimilation. Without first renouncing their status, Indigenous people were legally barred from voting or even retaining a lawyer.?

The Indian Act: Genocide in Practice

Most significantly, the Indian Act laid the foundations for the creation of reserves, regulation of cultural traditions, and residential schools, measures often cited by human rights lawyers as genocidal.

For context, Article 6 of the Rome Statute, the highest authority for international criminal law standards, defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This can include (1) “Killing,” (2) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and (3) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Each of these practices occurred under the Indian Act.?

Reserves

Firstly, reneging on King George’s original promise of Indigenous land title, the Indian Act designated a small tract of land, called a "reserve," to each First Nation and required First Nation members to live on their designated reserve. Prior to European arrival, First Nations had understandably settled in environmentally fertile areas, establishing strong relationships of mutual support with their traditional lands and water; reserves were a means to remove First Nations communities from these territories, thereby ensuring the most fertile lands for white settlers. While most First Nations still have their own reserve, reserve land is not actually owned at law by the First Nation or its members. Members are instead assigned certificates of possession, which lack the same absolute ownership rights as land deeds.

Today, First Nations members are no longer confined to reserves. Still, reserves continue on—more than 3000 of them, home to over 40% of the First Nations people in the country—and they continue to be among the most underfunded, resource-depleted living areas in Canada. In fact, more than 140 years after their creation, a number of reserves continue to suffer from long-term ‘do not drink’ water advisories, a trend so prevalent that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau twice ran on the campaign promise to lift all such advisories by 2021 (a promise he did not fulfil).

Given the basal cultural significance of land to Indigenous peoples, to deprive them of their ancestral territories is likely sufficient to fulfil the second of the Rome Statute Article 6’s criteria. The Indian Act did not, however, stop there.?

Regulation of Cultural Traditions

An 1880 amendment to the Indian Act criminalized the hosting of potlatches, major cultural ceremonies held by many First Nations to celebrate the passing of names, the induction of a new chief, the distribution of wealth, and many other important events. In the late 19th century, local authorities were recorded as calling potlatches “debauchery of the worst kind.”

Influential anthropologists from around the globe, among them Franz Boas, vociferously opposed the ban, citing the detrimental effects of enforced cultural uniformity on Indigenous identity and well-being. Boas even went so far as to help some bands hold potlatches in secret, and a number of other bands did so of their own accord.?

Still, many First Nations were ultimately jailed for continuing to hold potlatches, with 135 charges laid in a five year span between 1918–1922, around half of these resulting in convictions. Countless invaluable cultural items were seized by police in potlatch raids. Most are still missing, lost to untraceable paths of private artifact collecting.

From a more conceptual perspective, the Indian Act went far beyond banning potlatch in its cultural regulation. By creating the notion of "Indian status," a legal status with strikingly arbitrary criteria that brings with it certain entitlements and obligations, the Indian Act sought to define what it means to be Indigenous. Even today, the convoluted, paternalistic conditions the Act places on Indian status present a significant hurdle for many First Nations people to become official members in their own communities.

By creating the notion of "Indian status," a legal status with strikingly arbitrary criteria that brings with it certain entitlements and obligations, the Indian Act sought to define what it means to be Indigenous.

Residential Schools

In 1884, the Indian Act was again amended to require that all First Nations children attend residential schools: boarding academies which, as acknowledged by the Canadian government in 2008, sought to “kill the Indian in the child.” The schools were designed to be run as cost-efficiently as possible, providing the bare minimum in education and herding Indigenous children toward careers in low-paying manual labour.?

Residential school survivors recall being stripped from their families upon reaching primary school age and taken to prison-like institutions, where they were inculcated with Christian beliefs; prohibited from speaking their native language and practicing their native traditions; fed gruel for weeks at a time; and physically, sexually, psychologically, and emotionally abused. Over 2,800 Indigenous children died in residential schools, with countless others lost to suicide after returning home. The last residential school operated until 1996.

To be perfectly clear, the International Criminal Court, tasked with upholding the Rome Statute, will likely never prosecute a Canadian. In addition to the fact that all of the Canadians who instituted genocidal practices have since passed away, the ICC effectively exists to maintain the ethical and legal supremacy of the Global North. Of the 28 individuals prosecuted by the Court to date, none have been from the Western world.

Make no mistake, however: Canada has killed, sought the physical destruction of, and stolen the children of, Indigenous peoples. This is genocide, indictment or not.

The Legacy of Anti-Indigenous Racism in Canada

After over 150 years of anti-Indigenous sentiment, the lasting effects are glaring.

When Vancouver farmer Robert Pickton was found guilty of the first-degree murder of six Canadian Indigenous women, he was sentenced to the maximum prison term under Canadian law. Soon after, the 43 other murders he subsequently confessed to, many of them also against Indigenous women, were dropped.?

For decades in the lead-up to the trial, Canadian police had ignored pleas to investigate from victims’ worried family members. The disappearances were seen by authorities as unrelated, likely a result of the so-called dangerous line of sex work in which many of the women were employed.

In reality, these murders are part of a larger, graver trend. In the last 40 years alone, the Native Women’s Association of Canada estimates that 4,000 Indigenous women have gone missing or been murdered in Canada.?Indigenous women are more likely to go missing or be murdered than any other ethnicity, a testament in part to how Canadian authorities protect against and investigate crime targeting Indigenous people.

This is just one furtive way in which ingrained, governmental anti-Indigenous racism continues to manifest itself. Today, compared to non-Indigenous people, Indigenous individuals of all genders are disproportionately more likely to be subject to criminal violence, police brutality, mental illness, and acute physical illness. Meanwhile, they are less likely to have access to adequate healthcare, proper food and water, and education of all levels.

And while just 3% of non-Indigenous Canadians report having attempted suicide, the number stands at 16% for Indigenous people.

Within a system founded on subjugation, it is unsurprising that the subjugated suffer chronic and disproportionate injustices. Indigenous discrimination is, and has always been, more than a social issue. Similar to Black discrimination in the United States, Indigenous discrimination is inextricably laced into the very fabric of Canada’s politico-economic being, a systemic contagion perpetuated first and foremost by centuries of racist leadership.

Indigenous discrimination is inextricably laced into the very fabric of Canada’s politico-economic being.

Ultimately, elected leadership responds to public opinion. Law and policy change, but often only as fast as societal values. The last thirty years have arguably seen more positive developments in Indigenous reconciliation than the previous two centuries, thanks in large part to persistent outcry and patient public education by Indigenous advocates and a plethora of other allied individuals and organizations. In spite of that, there remains a massive amount of work still to do. So, when the MC at your next event acknowledges the fact that you are gathered on unceded Indigenous territories, this should not be understood as a vacant pleasantry, but a subversion of the social, political, and economic status quo. To understand the historical connotations of these words is to take an important step in the movement to rectify Indigenous injustice.