Canadian Salad
A No-Nonsense Podcast On Culture And Immigration
Canadian Salad
An Act Never To Follow: Facing The Indian Act
In this episode, we dig into one of the most damaging colonial tools in Canadian history: the Indian Act. Born out of control and oppression, it continues to shape Indigenous lives today. We explore its bans on ceremonies, the pass system that restricted movement, and the dehumanizing definitions of “Indian status.”
Drawing on Indigenous voices, Bob Joseph’s 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act, and lived reflections, we ask: What is our responsibility as settlers and immigrants to understand this legislation and resist colonialism? How can we move beyond ignorance toward dismantling harmful systems, while supporting Indigenous sovereignty and cultural resurgence?
This episode is an invitation to face the truth, listen deeply, and recognize that reconciliation begins with education — and action.
Content Warning: This episode discusses the Indian Act and its ongoing impacts, including cultural erasure, family separation, and systemic discrimination. Some of the material may be difficult or triggering. We share these truths with care, knowing they are important to understanding and reconciliation. Please listen in a way that feels safe for you.
Let us know what you think of this episode! Text us!
Go to Canadian Salad Website for all sources cited in this episode.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay connected: https://www.canadiansalad.ca/contact
And please refer us to your friends, family and that racist uncle that just doesn't get it.
Follow us on TikTok and Instagram
Theme music by Nver Avetyan from Pixabay.
A Janklin Production.
Hello, Canadian salad listeners. Before we begin, we have a content warning. This episode discusses the Indian Act and the harms of colonial policies in Canada, including cultural erasure, forced separation of families, and systemic discrimination. These stories and details can be painful and triggering, especially for Indigenous listeners and those affected by these daily and historical realities. We share this with care and responsibility because knowing the truth is part of reconciliation. Please, from our hearts, we ask that you listen in a way that feels safe for you.
SPEAKER_03:I like salad. Do you like salad?
SPEAKER_01:Welcome to Canadian Salad, a fun, factual, and friendly podcast about culture and integration in Canada.
SPEAKER_02:I'm one of your hosts, I'm Ho Shen Ho from China, currently living in unceded territory of Muskram's Waminch and 712 Nations.
SPEAKER_01:And I'm Andrea McCoy, an immigrant from the United States, broadcasting you from the unceded traditional territory of the Matungan people, the Song Muslim inspiring First Nations. And you're listening to Canadian Salem. Have you ever heard of Let's Go to the Mattresses?
SPEAKER_02:I have never heard of that one. It's kind of sane.
SPEAKER_01:It's from The Godfather.
SPEAKER_02:Oh, I didn't watch The Godfathers.
SPEAKER_01:It was quoted in a movie that I saw. So the movie was quoting the movie The Godfather. I don't know. Let's go to the mattresses.
SPEAKER_02:Anyway, we're not Did you ever watch The Godfathers?
SPEAKER_01:Yes, yes. And I was traumatized. Yeah, yeah. I have not watched that. No, I will Yeah, I'll remove, I won't say any of the gross details of violence. But anyway, thankfully, this podcast is not about The Godfather.
SPEAKER_02:Um The Violin was, you know, is is kind of violence is tied to this, yes, yes.
SPEAKER_01:So today's topic, yeah. The today's topic, yes. And in light of Truth and Reconciliation, um, and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, September 30th, we thought it appropriate to actually talk about something that I honestly don't know if a lot of people still realize exists, but we're going to talk about the Indian Act. Yeah. Yeah. And that it's an act that, well, there's there's just, yeah, we're gonna unpack it a little bit and just recognize maybe what indigenous voices have to say about it, but then what is our role as uninvited guests, uninvited settlers, immigrants to Canada in advocating and using our own culture and our own education and awareness to resist colonialism and to work hard towards self-governance and self-autonomy that is essential for Indigenous people here in Canada. So that is our episode. So I do want to do a quick disclaimer. I am going to be reading excerpts from the Indian Act, which can be quite jarring and triggering. We're saying Indian Act because that is the term in the actual legislation that is currently alive and well in Canada. Um but we'll unpack that Indian name uh a little bit later. So, Hoshin, when I'm curious actually, because I didn't learn about the Indian Act until three or four years ago.
SPEAKER_02:Oh, really?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Even though I was been here for like six years at the time, I hadn't known about it. Had you?
SPEAKER_02:I mean, yeah. I mean, in Royal Rose, I remember the one we talk about like First Nations here, we have talk about like Indian act. Even I remember there with this discussion about lineage and having like an identification to prove your Indian heritage.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, okay, okay.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I remember that. And then I remember it was like, and they said something, oh, that kind of there's a specific requirement or something in the Indian act. Oh wow, you have a whole act to tell to how to keep track of your lineage. That's crazy. Right. I just remember thinking that way, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:I so I was in the same class with you. I just don't, I think I remember some of the more jarring information that we were given about what indigenous people endured. But for me, I attended a community development workshop with the Victoria Native Friendship Center. And I was in the room along with police officers, just nurses, regular everyday folks who were a part of this cohort. And we talked about the Indian Act, we talked about healing from and moving forward and what reconciliation looks like. Anyway, and that was where it was really, really unpacked for me much later. So we're gonna unpack what is the Indian Act. Um, we're gonna talk about uh some some different indigenous voices and and how they perceive or have which perspectives they have regarding the Indian Act, and then some broader reflections as it relates to our responsibility um with truth and reconciliation, but also the importance of culture. And much of what we're gonna talk about is based on two books that I think especially everyone needs to read. So the first one, I'm gonna hold it up as though people are watching, but the first one is 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act. This is written by Bob Joseph, and he just came out this year with a sequel called 21 Things You Need to Know About Indigenous Self-Government. Um, so it's a conversation about dismantling the act. Um, but I highly recommend both of these, Bob Joseph. I don't know if you've read these Hoshan, but highly recommend it. And I got an autographed copy of his second one. So I know Okay, yes, okay. Bob, I don't know you, but I'd love to do lunch sometime. Um so, okay, so the Indian Act, according to Bob Joseph, it was one of the most damaging colonial tools ever enacted. Um, but understanding it is really, really key to dismantling the Indian Act, he says. So it originated in 1876, and it was a consolidation of colonial policies into one ginormous act, right? Essentially, it was designed to control every aspect of indigenous life, including land, governance, identity, culture, education, health, lineage, social structures, self-governance, all of that was completely controlled by early European colonizers. And I want to highlight three key harms that really kind of paint. There's there's like a lot in the Indian Act. There's a lot of harms. Oh my gosh, too much, too much. But we're gonna highlight three because I don't know that people understand other components of it. I think many of us have maybe heard about residential schools. We have heard about reserves, we have these basic concepts, but there's some other things that are really, really essential that really, really um destroyed uh cultures and communities and people. So, first one is bans on ceremonies, which would be like potlatch and sundance. Okay. And these weren't just like, you know, oh, we're gonna get together and have like a wine and dine. Um, these were really instrumental culturally. They were for the passing of names, of titles, for distributing wealth. They were establishing ranks of certain people within the community, celebrating weddings, births, or marking the passing of elders and leaders and chiefs. It was one of their core components of self-governance. You would come to potlatch, you would come to Sundance, and these key decisions or key events would happen that would shape the community. And it wasn't just like one person, kind of like what we imagine in colonial contexts where you have just like one crusty old white guy just up there reading his policies and laws. Like it was very communal, it was very distributed. Um, many voices from the community would participate in this. It wasn't like this very different structure that we have now.
SPEAKER_02:I think, I think, yeah, I mean, ceremonies. Imagine if like now we cancel like a Sunday Mass on Christmas, for example, uh, or just Sunday Mass in general. Sure. Or any kind of gathering for Christmas, or your, you know, Christmas morning present giving, all this are cancelled. You know, I think people are gonna be really pissed too.
SPEAKER_01:They would be, yeah. If you if you told all the patriots of Canada that, you know, we're gonna abolish uh Canada Day, and we're not gonna be celebrated, no fireworks. In fact, if you are caught, you will go to jail, you will serve prison time. If you celebrate, they'll probably beat you up. Yeah. Yeah. And that's exactly what was done if it was found out that people were observing potlatch, if they were going to sundance. So many people, when this when the Indian Act came into place, uh, many of them they went underground. Children in residential schools were told that potlatches actually lead to poverty. Like you're poor because you you observe potlatch. And this is one that makes me so angry, coming from a Christian background, but also not surprised. Um, but they also said that Christianity would fill the void from not observing potlatch. Like, okay, so you can't observe potlatch, but guess what? We have Christianity, and that's gonna fill the void, which goes to show they completely did. I mean, they did and they didn't know exactly what potlatch was, like how foundational it was to for sustaining their community and establishing governance, um, in the sense of like to equate Christianity and like you know, that kind of um structure. Um they they don't know, yeah. They think it's the same thing.
SPEAKER_02:They think it's interchangeable. Yeah, it's the same thing.
SPEAKER_01:It's not, it's not. Um and so I want to read this quote. It's from um Jude Alfred Scow in 1992. He says this about um the uh ban on ceremonies. Quote, this provision of the Indian Act was in place for close to 75 years. And what that did was it prevented the passing down of our oral history, it prevented the passing down of our values, it meant an interruption of the respected forms of government that we used to have. And we did have forms of government, be they oral and not in writing, before any of the Europeans came to this country. We had a system that worked for us, we respected each other. We had always we had ways of dealing with disputes, end quote. So it was values, it was governance, it was law, it was like all of these things, and to take that away, that generational governance and just the legacy and the history and the language, of course, was also gone too. Because I think in many of us, or in even my mind, in in just my ignorance and not being aware, I think of oh, well, the residential schools were like huge about like, you know, completely whitewashing education, memory, um, completely eradicating any kind of history, cultural, or oral traditions that indigenous communities had. It did that, but then it was also so much more on the community level. Like the children was one thing, and then the community was an entirely other thing.
SPEAKER_02:The outer, yeah, the elder also had to, yeah, like forbidding, as you said, bend them to passing down any of that information, also forbidding any kind of gatherings for any of this conversation to be had. Um, it's definitely a multi-faceted approach to eliminate, in some sense, their culture, their identity, any of the ways they pass down any of this knowledge is they were, yeah, they were eliminated.
SPEAKER_01:And it's very anti-community, which is a way that many colonizers would would default to is like the more that we can control the narrative, the more we can separate people and keep them minimal numbers, the less chance they'll have of revolting, of revolution, yeah, of any kind of thing, right?
SPEAKER_02:I mean, it's normal, right? That that if you, you know, I want to control this new group, I definitely try my best, would not let this group to congregate. Because whenever there's congregation, there's chance they can negotiate talk about how to like revolt, like you should mention how to like gather together and then you know fight back, right? Right. So I think, yeah, as lingerizer, you have to make sure that none of these people can congregate.
SPEAKER_01:Right, right. Which I think goes to show they knew exactly what they were doing was wrong. They knew exactly. Like, like literally definitely do.
SPEAKER_02:Oh my gosh, would they not know?
SPEAKER_01:Like you don't do something and be like, oh yeah, it's gonna be great. Roses and cherry blossoms. Yeah, some oopsia. You're upset. Of course they would be upset, and that's why they did what they did. Oh, anyway, so that's oh uh that's yeah.
SPEAKER_02:One more thing is this is like I hate also, it's a very normal, there's a very normal kind of a nar narrative that oh, these conanized trying to educate them because they are uncivilized. We are trying to trying just to tell give them another civilized way to deal with things. And I think that it's just a BS excuse because as we just you know talked about, they definitely know what they are doing. The civilized is just an excuse. Not to mention they already civilized. In many ways, I feel like it is you're the barbaric one. You here put a flag on the f on on the land and they're saying claim it is yours. Like I don't know who's moving.
SPEAKER_01:Who is civilized in this story? The one that who's committing genocide or the one who's like not? Sorry, I think the people who are civilized are the ones who are not. Um, you're absolutely right. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:It's um I just think the excuse.
SPEAKER_01:It's a it is, it is an excuse. And and to say, well, oh, they didn't know. Well, no, they did.
SPEAKER_02:They did. They did. We're not sexy ourselves, okay? No, we're not going to be able to do that. We know what's happening. Yes.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Yeah. Um, the second um harm that we're gonna highlight is um the past system to control movement. So a past system was created to monitor and control the movement of indigenous people, and this was largely done through creating what they would call quote unquote Indian agents. So you would have government officials who would be stationed at these like headquarters or cabins in certain parts of Canada, and certain communities living on certain reserves had to report to that Indian agent in order to pass, go visit family. Um that kind of a thing. It was designed to one, keep people just very separated, right? Like you stay on reserve. Um in 1889, uh, parents uh were required to have passes to visit with their children um interned at resid residential schools. So if they wanted to visit their kids, they had to get an approved pass. That pass may not be approved. Because it was all depending on whether they got a hold of that Indian agent or if he was maybe in a good mood that day. There's there's no telling. Um so this is out of the book, uh Bob Joseph's book. He says that Indians would occasionally have to travel many days by foot to the Indian agent's house, not knowing if he would be there when they arrived. If the agent was away, they would either have to camp and wait or return home. The PASS system was also a means of maintaining a separation between Indians and the European farmers, which seems illogical considering the government's goal of assimilation. It's hard to achieve assimilation if the target population is isolated on reserves. The pass system restricted Indians' access to local towns in order to prevent Indian farmers from wasting their time when they should be tending their crops, which they were restricted from selling. So basically, this pass basically just again, it was another means to isolate and to control. Um if you violated that, if you said, let's say, I didn't get a pass, I'm gonna go see my kid, certain privileges that you were given, quote unquote, um uh were withheld, um, or rations because, of course, limiting food um was also something that uh colonizers did. So then maybe they wouldn't give or allow you to hunt a certain amount of meat that week because you violated um the pass system. Um, but more often people were arrested if they violated this. Um when it comes to parents meeting with their children, they could only meet them four times a year. Oh that's it. If they had a pass.
SPEAKER_02:But uh like what you just said also in that quote makes me angry that like I feel like a lot of excuses were used, part of this, you know, no whether it's residential school or little banning or ceremonies. Again, they were trying to, oh, we're trying to civilise, we're trying to educate them, we're trying to like assimilate them, we're trying to teach them what is the better way to live. But then at the same time, like this past agreement, yet another example of not helping them to assimilate or learn your way. Is you try to isolate them in many way, you try to kill them both you know, culturally and also not letting them socially and even um economically, like for you know all the farming as well. You are not help like quote unquote helping them in any way, no matter what whatever excuse you want to use about civilize, you know, start civilize them or assimilate them. The rules in India acts was not showing that you're trying to do that, right? You're trying to murder them in every way possible, in every way, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Suffocating every ounce of identity, of belonging, of community, culture, language, tradition, uh, family uh possible.
SPEAKER_02:Every ounce of it.
SPEAKER_01:Everything, everything. Um so this is um, I'll just read a little bit of the quote. This is by Hayter Reed. He was an assistant Indian commissioner in 1885. Um and and this is a part I want to just prepare our audiences so this could be a triggering quote. Um, but I think it's important because this is the complete attitude of our government at the very beginning. Many people will say, Sir Johnny MacDonald, he was our first, you know, prime minister. You know what? He was the genocide king.
SPEAKER_02:Genocide king.
SPEAKER_01:That's how I remember him. Um, and what he designed and what many people designed um is reflected in this quote. Um, so the quote is Um No rebel Indians should be allowed off the reserves without a pass signed by an ID official. The dangers of complications with white men will thus be lessened, and by preserving a knowledge of individual movements, any inclination to petty depredations may be checked by the facility of apprehending those who commit such offenses. End quote.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:It's heavy, but it's very heavy.
SPEAKER_02:Is very heavy.
SPEAKER_01:Deep breath. Deep breath. Yeah. Um, but this was one aspect that is in the Indian Act. And while there have been amendments and there have been, you know, changes to that, much of this is still in law today. Um we're gonna get into Indian title um and the name Indian uh and status. So the third harm I'm gonna highlight is defining, quote, Indian status. In 1876, an Indian was, quote, any male person of quote Indian blood, uh, and were reported to belong to a particular band. Um an Indian was any child of such a person, an Indian was any woman who is or was lawfully married to such a person. Um the term uh was basically based on genetics, right? So if you look Indian, you're yeah, but it was subject to the colonizers, right? You're Indian, you're other. It was very much designed to put them into a basket just like they did with Chinese people or Japanese people, um, right? Prior to 1951, the act actually defined a person as quote, an individual other than Indian, end quote. So indigenous people were not considered a person, which is really key to understanding because the only avenue by which an indigenous person would be recognized as a person is if they did not register their Indian status.
SPEAKER_02:Status.
SPEAKER_01:This still happens today. We read about it or hear headlines where um people because there's many, there are some legal benefits and there are some legal commitments that the government of Canada has made within the Indian Act. Um, but basically having recognizing that anyone who is not Indian is a person, basically it's a way for that person to only give up their Indian status, but it is also known as voluntary enfranchisement. So once uh an indigenous person became a person or a people, they assumed all the other rights as other Canadians, but it also meant that people had to give up associated legal rights, benefits, and restrictions of being a status Indian. So the fact that even because we you've probably heard about even in the states, like in in during the time that uh colonizers there were enslaving African and um Caribbean people, um, in the Declaration of Independence, uh enslaved people were still three-fifths of a man. Um, they weren't considered a whole person. This is the same kind of rhetoric in the Indian Act that you're not a person if you are Aboriginal, if you are Indian, if you are indigenous, right? And we're the ones who determined that essentially. Um and so this has been a very um I think of as my hairdresser who is Metis, and he moved from Alberta to BC. But what happens is when you leave the province that you're registered in, you have to reapply to be acknowledged or registered as an Indigenous person in BC. It doesn't carry over.
SPEAKER_02:Any thoughts before we move on to indigenous perspectives of I personally think like I remember I had a conversation with a person, this lovely lady. I so forgot her name. I only met her once. Because we both invited to like um like a chat, like a talk show or something. And then we were both being interviewed, and then so I had a little brief conversation with her. She is half, at least she she said she's uh half, one of her parents is uh indigenous, the other parents white, and then she got adopted by white parents, okay, but she still has her indigenous status, and that at that time, and then I again at that time I didn't really know what it means to have indigenous status. I was like, Yeah, so do you mean like you just your car showed that you are indigenous? I was like, Yeah, we indigenous people like people had a specific ID that proved that they are indigenous. I was like, Why do you need a different ID? Like, what would that do? Why like under Canada? Because again, I was assume, like I just assume we all like we're all the same. Like, why would you need a different ID? You're Canadian, right? I said, Yeah, I'm Canadian. Then why you have a different ID than the others? Why would that be any difference? Um she didn't want to get into it. She just said, Well, you know, being, you know, you are, you know, being Indian in Canada, you're subject to certain benefits but also restrictions. And then um yeah, and some people just need to carry it because either you carry it, you know, to some people carry to honor the in the indigenous traditions because that's who they are, who they are proud of. Uh, because to give it up means you know, you you you admit at some in some sense you admit you're not indigenous, like official, like on record. Right. And it's like, okay, like the record gonna deny your your heritage is yeah, anyway, yeah, and then that conversation was a very confusing for me. I remember just but on the colonial sense, I understand, is also a way to like in some sense to dehumanize um or like give them these kind of like uh degrading terms. I think there's also there's a level of complexity on it about identity too, right? Yeah, complexity about like some people really want because I am like you don't you can't, and you to give it up and sometimes also it's like like what she says, to to deny now I to deny that I'm not no longer one, right? And some people are proud, really proud indigenous, like they really want that. Yeah, um, so I think there's a lot of complexity into that comp like uh topic.
SPEAKER_01:It is, and we're gonna get into even the complexity of the perspective of the Indian Act by Indigenous people because the reality is it is complex, and identity is the like no, there's no broad brush stroke that you can just paint, well, you know, all Indigenous people think this way, all Chinese people think this way, all Mexican people think this way. That's that's not there's complexity, there's give and pull, there's tug and war, there's lots of gray, and there's lots of things in between. Um so yeah, and and I will say, you know, this is based off his book and what I've read. So forgive me, I don't, I am not claiming to be at all um the in um part of the indigenous community of Canada, but it is something that in reading the book, um, it really paints a bigger picture, and that's why reading his book is really, really important for our education um to really understand. In 1969, the subject of the Indian Act was really at the forefront of politicians at that time and a lot of um Aboriginal circles. There was a white paper that was written about um the complete demoralization of the Indian Act, the inhumane and human rights abuses of it. And this was under Justin Trudeau's dad, uh Trudeau. Um and so Pierre, yes. So Pierre, quote, wanted to eliminate all of the special arrangements for status Indians and wished to have them absorbed into the broader Canadian political community, end quote. Which on paper, maybe that sounds like, oh yeah, united for all, there's no distinction, like kind of this color blindedness. Um and so it might sound good on the surface, but then there was widespread opposition to having this happen, to abolishing the Indian Act, because this idea led to the fact that there's actual legal, there's things that the government of Canada is legally bound to that is outlined in the Indian Act itself. And to abolish that removes the government's legal obligation to communicate, to take care of, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Right?
SPEAKER_01:For contribution or not that they've actually, you know, held up their end of the deal for the most part. Um, but there are there are guarantees in there. Um the other, it's the Proclamation Act of 19 or 1873 with King Charles. Um, King Charles made this declaration that the indigenous people are to have their own, you know, self-governance and that they are just a people in and of themselves. And if you get rid of like an old white guy, crusty English declaration like that, like you're actually eliminating something that was so crucial, especially around that time. Yeah. So, um, so uh basically it it was very much that the Indian Act had legally distinguished between First Nations and other Canadians, and it acknowledged that the federal government had a unique relationship with and an obligation to First Nations. Okay. Um, but it was Harold Cardinal who was he headed the Indian Association of Alberta. He actually opposed the white paper and the call to abolish the Indian Act, and he said, quote, we do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isn't. It is discriminatory from start to finish, but it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation. But we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights.
SPEAKER_02:Well, that's weird well well verse.
SPEAKER_01:It's kind of like this it it it sounds like a paradox, but I love what he says. Like it is a it is an embarrassment to the government as it should be. And to get rid of it is to, in some sense, get rid of the embarrassment that you as a country, you as a government have done.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. I know it's to get rid of the proof that you are this ugly, ugly, you know, uh entity to impose this kind of thing. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:I agree. I also especially love that about the prefer that to bondage, give away their sacred rights. Yeah. I think that's also something that I should mention is the paradox of it. Um, to to give up to to abolish acts, and one way is give cult give themselves freedom, but which not completely is freedom because this so-called freedom is to completely immerse themselves or assimilate to the you know the white colonial way, which you have to give away their right to self-governance and their own traditions of how decision how they make decisions in their communities. So the only way, as a right now, I think, for now, is to keep the act so that they don't have to give away that right.
SPEAKER_01:Well, and I just to kind of tag on that, I think his last line of saying um then surrender our sacred rights, kind of what you were saying, it's almost this elevation of like our rights are sacred by creator, they are not sacred by your government. Like you don't give us the right to be who we are. We give us the right. Creator gives us the right. And so it is this kind of like you may have this piece of paper, this does not define us, right? Our rights are bigger than that. Um so, but but it is. I mean, and and there's lots of different voices on this. I mean, there's lots of advocates who still who do want it abolished. And I think, you know, uh, it's not my job to police anyone's perspective on on this act of legislation because I was not never had to live under the hand of it. Um at the same time, like I think it's very colonial to say, like, well, what's which side of the argument are you on? Which side of the fence are you on? You know, what are you gonna take? And that's not black and white. No, it's not a big thing.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, it's not black and white. Yeah. As you said, like, yeah, it's really such uh like a disgusting thing to have this kind of act, but then also the act also gives them that legal right and that you know legal framework for them to continue the things that that that not like self-governance, self-governance, the thing that they know is inherently their right, that that the right that they take them how they want to be with their people, how they want to do with their own people. Um so it's not black and white in many ways.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah, exactly. Um, the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, um, on self-government and replacing the Indian Act, he says, quote, we must eliminate First Nations poverty and ensure fairness and justice for the first peoples of this land. Reconciliation means there will be an end to First Nations poverty and the discriminatory funding policies and practices of the federal government towards First Nations governments, communities, and citizens. Replace the Indian Act regime with true self-government. End quote. And this is this is Bob Joseph's sequel. It's like what you need to know about indigenous self-government and dismantling the act. I think there's a big difference between abolish and dismantle. And I think that's where I think sometimes I wrestle with because I'm just like, you know, abolish guns, you know, I like like like in the states, or if there's any law that's like hurting people, it's like, well, just abolish it. And I think there's a time and a place for sure to have that. And then I hear people like Bob and even my business mentor, and they're all about let's transform the system rather than burn it down. Let's dismantle it, let's rebuild it, let's do something that we're not completely, you know, annihilating it in our path. Um, but there will be voices, absolutely, who are justified to say, let's burn it all down, because they've lived through hell under this act and they've experienced things that we can't even imagine.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. I think I can see both. I understand like abolish is like completely, as you said, burn it to the ground. Dismantle is like taking it piece by piece down and see whether we can make these pieces at least like more gradual and in many ways um less dramatic uh approach of transforming something. But the thing is, um they both is they both the goal of both, both things is to make something make something go away and put something new on it. Something new, a more better version of it to be on it. Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:And that's I think that duality is so important to remember, especially when we advocate or when we educate ourselves, because I think it's really easy to just go to you know, polar opposites of one after the other, yeah. Right, instead of like, okay, I need to sit kind of in the middle. I need to hold both of these together. And maybe the other ones in between that we haven't even, you know, touched on. Um right. There was another gal married two acts early. Um, she uh fought against the act uh discrimination against gender discrimination because if you read it, it's very much like it strips women away of so many rights, um, which many indigenous cultures were matriarchial, right? They had the matriarch, right? So women then all of a sudden became even more colonized in the sense that like her identity belonged to being in marriage with her husband, which within many indigenous cultures that was not necessarily all the case, right?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, I thought and isn't ind indigenous like status, the lineage also follows the male line rather than a female line.
SPEAKER_01:Um that's a good question. I think it it probably varies, but I do know like the colonial mindset was very much the patrilineal. It's it goes through the husband, right? Um, but she she did, she introduced in 1985 Bill C31, which restored status to women and children unfairly stripped of it, because um there were conditions that happened that basically, well, then you are no longer Indian status because the male is no longer around or alive or things like that. So uh very discriminatory. Um, but she she resisted and she reframed it and she introduced a bill and it got passed, you know. Um, so there's there's ways to dismantle it and work within the system in order to change the system. Um I think if we're shifting away from the harm, like it still is obviously in effect today. Like, you know, reserves, a lot of people, I think it was my brother who's like, oh, reserve is just where indigenous communities live, right? And I'm like, no, it's like the forced location of many of them. Um many people don't realize that reserves were created by the government for this, you know, absolute control over people. Um, status still just determines access to rights and services. Um some people may not be able to register their status because of bureaucracy or because of change in political power or laws. Um, we're seeing a lot of infrastructure um bills coming through the liberal government right now, and a lot of them are bypassing indigenous self-governance or indigenous consultation, which is outlined in the Truth and Reconciliation Act, which in the UNDRIP, right, which is what Canada has committed to. Um there's also constant legal challenges regarding um, you know, what you know, what's legal anymore and what what isn't, and this is 21st century. Um, and then these piecemeal amendments sometimes um can get glossed over. So they might ignore, you know, well, this act, this part of the act was amended and actually says this now, you know, where with like land rights and stuff, and it's like, well, we're just gonna ignore that and kind of work out our own thing. Um but regardless of how the act continues, indigenous people are still resisting today. They resisted when the colonizers first came, they resisted when the heavy hand of colonization was upon them, and they're still resisting today. They're still using courts and international law like UNDRIP advocacy and and even a lot of uh net international human rights agencies to basically say these are our rights as recognized by international law. Um they are resurging their cultural practices. So the First People's Cultural Council of BC, it's a crown organization, meaning that it has money directedly directly funded from the Crown to populate projects and to fund projects for cultural revitalization, language revitalization, um bringing back cultures and traditions, drumming circles, whatever it takes for communities to bring that back because it was eradicated for so long. Um indigenous people doing that. Um, you know, uh that that language piece too, which I think many people, if you look down the generations, one or two people in many communities only know the actual language of their original ancestors because they didn't have that language knowledge. So, so ways to like record it and have conversations because some of some people who know of those language holders or knowledge keepers are 80 years old, 90 years old. And so these projects are ways in order to bring that back um and to honor it. Um and and and even their ceremonies, like reviving ceremonies. Um, you know, I was at Red Barn, uh, which is a grocery store here on the island. Um Red Barn. Yeah, but Alberta may not have it. Anyway, Red Barn, if you're listening from Alberta, thank you so much. Um, but but yeah, there was a lady there, and and she and I have talked every now and then. I said, Oh, how is your weekend? She's like, Oh, we did our canoe, our canoe journey. And I was like, Oh my, tell me more about that. I'd love to hear. And so she told me about this canoe journey and how uh specifically important it is for her people. Um, it's it's it's a ceremony um uh marking extreme significance. And I was, and so you just hear like those things are happening again, and they're not, I hope they're not being punished. I mean, land offenders are being punished in in many ways, some communities are still being punished, but those ceremonies are reviving and people are practicing this again and and coming back to their ancestral roots. Um, so that's really, really important. Um, I think if we were to reflect on Joseph's view, um resistance to colonization and resistance to even the Indian Act, it's not solely about the rejection of the law or the act, but it's reclaiming that sovereignty and that identity. Because you can you can abolish the act, go for it. But what are you gonna do to revive the people, their identity, their language, their culture, um, their own sovereignty and their own self-governance? Like the two cannot happen without each other. And so that's that's kind of my takeaway from Joseph's book. Um and I think if you know, I'd love to hear Hoshan from you, but I think if if we're thinking about broader reflections, I think a few things. Um culture is a huge way to resist colonization, and it still is a way to resist assimilation and oppression. It's leaning into the things that you identify with in your own culture, right? It's it's the um lunar new year, it's the observance of Dia de los Muertos for me. It is those pieces that make you who you are, not just, you know, I'm Canadian now, so I don't really do this. You know, it's no, this is what I've done and this is who I am. Um, I also think that um even though the Indian Act tried to erase culture, culture has become the place where resistance and survival has um immortalized itself. The culture might be eradicated, but it is cultural practices that helped culture revive itself, if that makes sense.
SPEAKER_02:Um cultural practices, yeah, to within the culture, yes.
SPEAKER_01:Yes, yes, yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_02:I agree with you. I think yeah, culture is always a great form of um resilience and and and rejection, even or colonization, right? Because colonization itself is colonized, you know, they're trying to take away and and and erase whatever you had before. So to be able to practice it, to be able to keep that culture itself is the biggest like you know, like f you to colonial itself. Because yes, you're trying to take us down, but we are not. We're still standing here, we're still practicing practicing that culture one way or the other. And still live through our, you know, I live through our blood, our minds, and through our generations. Um so I think it's always important to remind ourselves that to don't give in to colonization and just as you even you what you just said, right? I that I think would be correct, is it's not because you live in Canada now that you don't need to practice all the other culture, the culture that you that you brought in here with you. I think um more actually more important because you are immigrant and moved here now, is way more important for you to practice the culture that you are from because it's part of you, unless you really want to strip away what I for culture identity you have before you coming here, unless that's your intent, then yes, then don't practice any of that. If but if you want to maintain who you are and you know maintain that route that you have with your family back home, with your friends back home, then you have definitely to need to take more time and practice your culture, reconnect with it.
SPEAKER_03:Right.
SPEAKER_02:And find like minded folks to have, you know, find space to, you know, to to create the space even um to gather, to social, to share.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Yeah. No, that's really, really good. And I think I hope that our listeners and even us, we just continue to realize that, you know, ultimate self-autonomy, self-governance, um, the agency to decide who you are for yourself is a right deserved by all people. And the more we educate ourselves on what was and what is, the better we will be able to dismantle, change, renew systems in place to make them better for everyone. And so that's my call to action for everyone is just to educate yourself, like honestly, honestly. Under the book. To read that book, listen to Indigenous parties. Two books, actually. Yeah, media. Yeah, two books, exactly. And they're really pretty. I really love the graphic design on these. Um, but uh, but yeah, so just educate yourself and understand that it's an incredible gift that we have that we can actually read this, understand this, have access to this information, this truthful history about this country, and change it. So for the better.
SPEAKER_02:Anyway, that's our episode. Yeah, thank you, Andrea. But now let's go to Canadian pop quiz. If you're new to our episode, we always do a little pop quiz uh related to the topic today, and folks don't know what we're gonna ask, obviously. That's true. Um yeah, and so now see if it has our knowledge of yes, it is our knowledge.
SPEAKER_01:Our Andrea can go first. Yes, yes, I would love to. Um, okay. What percentage of the population of a country is needed to make sustainable, lasting, and successful change?
SPEAKER_02:What percentage of population of a country?
SPEAKER_01:Of a country, yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Okay, so it's a general statement then. Um 20%.
SPEAKER_01:20%. Okay. Is that your final answer?
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. The actual number is 3.5%.
SPEAKER_02:Three point you only need 3.5 and some mobile.
SPEAKER_01:3.5% of the population if mobilized um and they're participating in active resistance. Historically speaking, that's all that is required to successfully sustainably make change. So this is out of, I highly recommend the TED Talk. It was from Erica Chenowith. She's a political scientist at Harvard University, and she studied over 400 civil uh uh or basically conflicts around the world, um, and basically found that it didn't take much of the population to make something changed.
SPEAKER_02:To change a country. Okay. Yeah, good to know.
SPEAKER_01:So when you think about like things like Palestine, or you think about like advocacy for indigenous people, we're not talking large numbers, we're talking 3.5% of the population. Like it can be done.
SPEAKER_02:You, you can be that 3%.
SPEAKER_01:Yes, be the 3.5%. That's right.
SPEAKER_02:Always be on the 3.5%. That should be the logo.
SPEAKER_01:That should be.
SPEAKER_02:Always be you can be the 3.5.
SPEAKER_01:That's right. You 3.5. And the decimal could be your face. So three, you, face, three, five. Anyway, that's my question. There you go. And we'll put the link in our show notes. Yes. From BBC article. Yep.
SPEAKER_02:Uh, mine is very, I think, easy, I guess. There's also another, not called India, but you know also an act. It's a um a declaration on the rights and of Indigenous People People's Act.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:Promoting indigenous rights to self-def um determination, culture, and autonomy, which is very different than the Canadian Indians Act, and sometimes even opposite. Um, this act is uh established by UN.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:Um, I just want, do you know which year they published it?
SPEAKER_01:Is this the UNDRIP or is this a different one?
SPEAKER_02:It is the UNDRIP.
SPEAKER_01:It's the UNDRIP, okay.
SPEAKER_02:The UN, yeah, UNDRIP.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_02:United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. 2015.
SPEAKER_02:It's 2021.
SPEAKER_01:2021.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:You know what? We're there. We got it. Like if you think about everything that people have been through and we're just now, but we're here. So, so thanks be to God. Yeah, wow. It's only four years old.
SPEAKER_02:I I know we mentioned the undrip, we never really said what it was. We just undrip, yes.
SPEAKER_01:Yes, the undrip. If you don't know the undrip, you need to have a me. Now you know what you educate yourself. That's right. You can even type in undrip in Google and it'll it'll show you. It's not you should listen. Yeah. Yes. Thank you so much, everyone, for listening. If you're new to us, thank you so much. We really, really value new listeners and we value your reviews of our podcast so that we can spread the love, spread the fun, and spread the truth telling that we like to bring to this podcast. So please, if you're listening on Spotify or wherever you're listening, uh please leave a review, share with your friends and family. And if you'd like to find us, we are on social media Instagram, TikTok, and Blue Sky. And we'd love to uh yeah, just hear what you have to say. Let us know. Leave a comment. Yeah, leave a comment. Let us know. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02:Tell us how amazing we sound.
SPEAKER_01:So amazing. Yes. And and, you know, uh whether or not you want to be our friends, because we like be meeting new friends.
SPEAKER_02:So um I have a lot of friends already.
SPEAKER_01:Too many. Sorry. I don't.
SPEAKER_02:I'm kidding.
SPEAKER_01:So you can email me, hello at Canadiansalad.ca, or visit our website, CanadianSalad.ca, for more information. Um, that's my shameless plug. Thank you so much. Um I hope everyone takes time and takes care for Truth and Reconciliation Day. And we will see you. Yes.
SPEAKER_02:Maybe we should our truth and what is Conciliation Day, we should all go buy a book or two. Yes. And you know, go to the go to the beach or grass, whatever, at home. We little think something about the Indigenous Act.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, absolutely. And think of if you have Indigenous friends or people who have been impacted by the Indian Act residential schools, just provide a lot of care and check in on them. Thank you so much, everyone. We'll talk to you next week.
SPEAKER_02:And talk to you next week. Bye. Okay.
SPEAKER_01:Bye.
SPEAKER_02:Bye.
SPEAKER_00:Canadian salad is written and produced in British Columbia, Canada by Ho Shin Ho and Andrea McCoy. The music is by Nimber of At Yun from Pixabay.
SPEAKER_03:This has been the good drinking production.
