From the very outset, colonial governments set about to define, control and change the lives and cultural identities of the Anishinabe people and many other nations that exist on Turtle Island. Starting in 1850, successive colonial governments passed various pieces of legislation to destroy the culture of the Anishinabe Nations.
Canada has now acknowledged that its efforts amounted to "cultural genocide". Matheson et al (2022) write that the impact of Canadian policies on "the physical and mental health of Indigenous Peoples go well beyond cultural loss". The loss of millions of lives is far more than "cultural genocide".
Along with the loss of lives and the destruction of our communities, the Anishinabe culture was systematically destroyed by very deliberate actions that were fully intended to eliminate our culture.
The Gradual Civilization Act was a pre-Confederation law aimed at assimilating Indigenous peoples into settler society. It encouraged Indigenous men to renounce their legal status as “Indians” and become enfranchised citizens, giving up their land and treaty rights in exchange for a small parcel of private property and the right to vote. The law reflected the colonial belief that Indigenous cultures were inferior and that assimilation was the best way to “civilize” Indigenous peoples. However, very few Indigenous individuals chose enfranchisement, as it required them to abandon their cultural identity and traditional way of life.
The Indian was enacted in 1876, it gave the federal government control over almost every aspect of Indigenous life, including land ownership, governance, education, and cultural practices. The Act imposed the reserve system, restricted self-governance, and defined who was considered “Indian” under federal law. It also outlawed traditional ceremonies, such as the potlatch and sun dance, and established the residential school system, which aimed to assimilate Indigenous children by forcibly removing them from their families and communities. While amended over time, the Act continues to affect Indigenous peoples today, perpetuating systemic inequalities.
The enfranchisement provisions of the Indian Act were designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples by encouraging them to relinquish their legal status as “Indians.” These provisions targeted individuals who achieved higher education or military service, automatically stripping them of their status and, in some cases, their community membership. Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men were also enfranchised, losing their status and rights under the Act. This policy fragmented families and communities, eroding cultural continuity and identity.
The pass system was an unofficial but widely enforced policy that restricted the movement of Indigenous peoples on and off reserves. After the North-West Rebellion of 1885, the Canadian government implemented this system to suppress Indigenous resistance and control their mobility. Indigenous individuals needed written permission from an Indian agent to leave their reserves, limiting their ability to participate in economic activities, visit family, or engage in political advocacy. While never formally legislated, the pass system was a clear violation of Indigenous rights and was enforced for decades.
Though not a single legislative act, the residential school system was deeply rooted in Canadian policies and laws, including the Indian Act. The government, in partnership with churches, operated these schools to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Attendance was often mandatory, with parents threatened with fines or imprisonment for non-compliance. Children were prohibited from speaking their languages or practicing their traditions, leading to cultural genocide. The residential schools left a legacy of trauma that continues to affect Indigenous communities today.
While ostensibly intended to rectify gender discrimination in the Indian Act, Bill C-31 introduced further complexities that restricted Indigenous rights. The bill reinstated status to Indigenous women who had lost it through marriage to non-Indigenous men but created new categories of status (e.g., 6(1) and 6(2)) that led to the gradual loss of status for their descendants. These amendments perpetuated divisions within Indigenous communities, as status and non-status individuals were treated differently, undermining collective identity and governance.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.