2 pages caohan

Gender_and_Womens_Studies_Second_Edition_Critical..._----_CHAPTER_34.pdf

Home >Political Science homework help >2 pages caohan

In Canada, a history of gender discrimination in the Indian Act has created an ongoing conflict within Native organizations and reserve communities around notions of individual and collective rights, organized along lines of gender. It is crucially important, then, to understand the central role that the subordination of Native women has played in the colonization pro- cess, in order to begin to see the violation of Native women’s rights through loss of Indian status, not as the problems faced by individuals, but as a collective sovereignty issue.

GENDERING INDIANNESS IN THE COLONIAL ENCOUNTER

The nation-building process in Canada began to accelerate between 1781 and 1830, in what is now Southern Ontario, when the British began to real- ize the necessity of bringing in settlers on the lands where previously they had engaged in the fur trade, to secure the territory they claimed against the threat of American expansion. Settlement of the area was only made possible as individual Anishinaabe (Ojibway) bands were gradually induced to cede, in small pack- ages, the land immediately north of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie to the British. Many of these land surren- ders were framed as peace treaties, to ensure that the British would be allies to the Ojibway against the

CHAPTER 34

Regulating Native Identity by Gender

Bonita Lawrence

Bonita Lawrence (Mi’kmaw) is an associate professor in the Department of Equity Studies at York University. She is a founding member of the undergraduate program in Multicultural and Indigenous Studies, and of the upcoming graduate program in Indigenous Thought. Her research focuses primarily on urban, non-status, and Métis identities, federally unrecognized Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal peoples and the criminal justice system, and Indigenous nationhood and justice. Her well-known book “Real” Indians and Others: Mixed-Blood Urban Native Peoples and Indigenous Nation- hood from which the following chapter is taken, explores many of these themes.

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 325 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

Gender and Women's Studies, Second Edition : Critical Terrain, edited by Margaret Hobbs, and Carla Rice, Canadian Scholars, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umanitoba/detail.action?docID=6318365. Created from umanitoba on 2020-11-15 22:29:39.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

326 Part 3 Gendered Identities

possible northern encroachment of American settler violence; on this basis, only male leaders or represent- atives were asked to participate in treaty negotiation and the signing away of land (Schmalz 1991, 120–22).

In negotiating only with men, the British deliberately cut out the stabilizing presence of older women and the general authority that was given to their voices in major decisions concerning the land. As Kim Anderson has written, traditional Native societies were often matrilineal in very balanced ways (2000, 66–68). Even in societies where men made the decisions about which lands to hunt on each year, clans organized along the female line frequently controlled land inheritance. To bypass older women in traditional societies effectively removed from the treaty process the people centrally responsible for regulating land access.

Moreover, the British were confident in their knowledge that, as Major Gladwin articulated, “The free sale of rum will destroy them more effectively than fire and sword” (Schmalz 1991, 82). The “chem- ical warfare” of alcohol, deliberately introduced north of the Great Lakes after the Pontiac uprising of 1763, had an immediate and devastating effect on Ojibway communities in the Toronto and southwestern Ontario region, whose social disintegration and their resulting dependency on the British were devastating (Schmalz 1991, 87). In such circumstances, as the abilities of the men to make good choices for the future were increasingly destabilized by alcohol, it was frequently the women whose decision-making capabilities became crucial for the survival of the society as a whole. The fact that the women invariably spoke with the future of the children always in mind meant that “choices” being forced on the men, such as surrendering the lands they could no longer hunt or trap on in exchange for the promise of assistance in the transition to farming (or later, of jobs in resource development), were most strenuously resisted by the women, who saw holding on to the land base as the only way in which the social fabric of the society to nurture the next generation would survive at all.

Finally, as Kathleen Jamieson has noted, most of the early land treaties and Indian legislation were premised on the Indigenous peoples the English were most familiar with—the Anishinaabe (Ojibway) and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) peoples. Especially in Haudenosaunee society, female-led clans held the collective land base for all of the nations of the confederacy. Removing women, then, was the key to privatizing the land base. For all of these reasons, a central aspect of the colonization process in Canada would be to break the power of Indigenous women within their nations (Jamieson 1978, 13).

It is also important to take into account not only the concerns of British colonial administrators, for whom Indian administration was but another post of the empire, but the fears of the growing body of white settlers, where colonial anxieties about white identity and who would control settler societies were rampant. As Ann Stoler has noted, the European set- tlements that developed on other people’s lands have generally been obsessed with ways of maintaining colonial control and of rigidly asserting differences between Europeans and Native peoples to maintain white social solidarity and cohesion (Stoler 1991, 53). Colonial societies have had to invent themselves as new groupings of individuals with no organic link to one another, in settings that are often radically different from their places of origin. They have had to invent the social institutions that will then define them as a society—and they have to be capable of rationalizing or justifying their existence on other people’s lands and the brutality through which their presence is maintained. The very existence of white settler societies is therefore predicated on maintaining racial apartheid, on emphasizing racial difference, both white superiority and Native inferiority.

This flies in the face of the actual origins of many white settlements in Canada—which frequently began with displaced and often marginal white men, whose success with the fur trade or settlement, and often their very survival, depended on their ability to insin- uate themselves into Indigenous societies through

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 326 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 34 Regulating Native Identity by Gender 327

intermarriage. The early days of European–Native contact frequently involved negotiated alliances with local Indigenous communities, often cemented through marriage. […]

Meanwhile, the entire structure of the fur trade, in both eastern and western Canada, involved “coun- try marriages” between European men and the Native women that the traders depended on so heavily for their survival—and a growing reliance on the mixed- blood children of these marriages to fill specific niches in the fur trade—which meant that, as time went on, the boundaries between who should be considered European and who should be considered Native (and by what means) have not always been clear. By the mid-nineteenth century, the presence of numerous mixed-blood communities in the Great Lakes area made it difficult for Anglo settlers to maintain clear boundaries between colonizers and colonized.1 Social control was predicated on legally identifying who was white, who was Indian, and which children were legitimate progeny—citizens rather than subjugated Natives (Stoler 1991, 53). […]

Moreover, fur trade society in western Canada, in the years before the 1885 Rebellion, was in many respects highly bicultural. Many settlements consisted primarily of white men married to Cree women, raising Cree families. While the language spoken in public was English, the language spoken in many of the homes was Cree. Clearly, if a white settler society modeled on British values was to be established, white women had to take the place of Native women, and Native women had to be driven out of the place they had occupied in fur trade society, a process that would continue through successive waves of white settle- ment, from the Great Lakes westward across the con- tinent. The displacement of Native women from white society, and the replacement of the bicultural white society that their marriages to white men created to an openly white supremacist society populated by all-white families, was accomplished largely through the introduction of punitive laws in the Indian Act concerning prostitution and intoxication off-reserve.

These laws targeted Aboriginal women as responsible for the spread of venereal disease among the police and officials in western Canada and therefore increas- ingly classified urban Aboriginal women as prostitutes within the criminal code after 1892 (Carter 1997, 187).

* * * * *

GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN THE INDIAN ACT

Many of the legal disabilities for women in the Indian Act have existed as much by omission as by explicit statement through the use of the constant masculine term in the legislation, even though a separate legal regime has existed for Indian women with respect to marriage, childbirth, regulation of sexual conduct, exclusion from the right to vote or otherwise partake in band business, and rights to inherit and for a widow to administer her husband’s estate. Because of the constant use of the masculine pronoun, confusion has existed at times in various communities as to whether Native women actually have any of the rights pertaining to men in much of the Indian Act legislation (Jamieson 1978, 56). Finally, definitions of Indianness have been asserted in such a patriarchal manner as to be fraught with discriminatory consequences for Indian women.

[…] Legislation in 1850 first defined Indianness in gendered terms, so that Indian status depended either on Indian descent or marriage to a male Indian. With the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869, not only were wives removed from inheritance rights and automatically enfranchised with their husbands, but Section 6 began a process of escalating gender dis- crimination that would not be definitively changed until 1985. With this section, for the first time, Indian women were declared “no longer Indian” if they mar- ried anybody who lacked Indian status. On marrying an Indian from another “tribe, band, or body,” she and her children now belonged to her husband’s tribe only (Jamieson 1978, 29–30).

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 327 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

328 Part 3 Gendered Identities

Prior to 1951, some recognition on a local basis was given to the needs of Indian women who were deserted or widowed. Indian women who lost their status were no longer legally Indian and no longer formal band members, but they were not considered to have the full rights that enfranchised women had. These women were often issued informal identity cards, known as “red tickets,” which identified them as entitled to shares in treaty monies and recognized on an informal basis their band membership, to the extent that some of them were even able to live on the reserve. It was not until 1951 that women who lost their Indian status were also compulsorily enfran- chised. This meant that they not only lost band mem- bership, reserve residency, or any property they might have held on the reserve, but also access to any treaty monies or band assets (RCAP 1996, 19:301–02).

Section 6, governing loss of status, was only one of the many aspects of the 1869 legislation that lim- ited the power of Native women in their societies. Particularly in the context of matrilineal practices, this act ripped huge holes in the fabric of Native life. The clan system of the Iroquois was disrupted in particularly cruel ways. Not only was the matrilineal basis of the society (and therefore its framework of land tenure) threatened by legislation that forced Native women to become members of their husbands’ communities, but the manner in which white women received the Indian status of their husbands resulted in the births of generations of clanless individuals within reserve communities, since clan inheritance passed through the mother. Finally, in addition to these processes, which subverted and bypassed the power of Native women in matrilineal societies and opened up their lands for privatization, Native women were formally denied any political role in the governance of their societies. For example, when the 1869 legislation divided reserves into individual lots, married women could not inherit any portion of their husband’s lots, and they lost their own allocations if they married non-Natives. After 1884, widows were allowed to inherit one-third of their husband’s lot—if

a widow was living with her husband at his time of death and was determined by the Indian agent to be “of good moral character” (RCAP 1996, 4:28–29). Meanwhile, in 1876, the Indian Act prevented Native women from voting in any decisions about surrender of reserve lands. The many ways in which Native women were rendered marginal in their commun- ities by patriarchal colonial laws not only made it more difficult for them to challenge the tremendous disempowerment that loss of status represented—it made land theft much easier.

From the perspective of the colonial admin- istration, the 1869 legislation had two primary goals—to remove as many individuals as possible from Indianness and, as part of this process, to enforce Indianness as being solely a state of “racial purity” by removing those children designated as “half-breed” from Indian communities. At the same time, however, if reserve residents were to grow increasingly mixed- blooded, it would facilitate their enfranchisement, as individuals who were “too civilized” to be Indians. In this respect, it is, of course, important to note that when white women married Native men, they also produced “half-breed” children, who neverthe- less were allowed to stay in Native communities as Indians. Because of patriarchal notions that children were solely the products of their fathers, these chil- dren were not recognized by colonial administrators as half-breed. However, communities where there was a great deal of such intermarriage were often reported on approvingly, as when glowing comments were made about Caughnawaga (Kahnawake) in the 1830s that “there is scarcely a pure blooded Indian in the settlement” (Jamieson 1978, 23).

It is clear from the government debates at the time that this legislation was also aimed at under- mining the collective nature of Native societies, where lands, monies, and other resources were shared in common. By restricting reserves only to those who were granted location tickets, by externalizing the Indian women who married white men and their children, and by forcing exogamy on Native women

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 328 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 34 Regulating Native Identity by Gender 329

(where the custom in many communities was that Native men would join their wives’ extended family, who controlled the land along clan lines), most of the collective aspects of Native society were to be subverted or suppressed.

In 1874, legislation altered and elaborated upon the definition of the term Indian, making Indian descent solely flowing from the male line. With this act, the status of the illegitimate children of Native women was also continuously subject to changing standards at the whim of the superintendent of Indian Affairs, depending on whether the father was known to be Native or not. The superintendent was also given the power to stop the payment of annuities and inter- est to any woman having no children, who deserted her husband, and “lived immorally with another man” (Jamieson 1978, 45). Other legislation criminalized Indian women further, targeting them as prostitutes and providing them with penalties of one hundred dollars and up to six months in jail. […]

The 1920s legislation that evicted or jailed Native “squatters” on band lands had severe implications for women who lost their status and were increasingly rendered homeless, especially if their husbands were not white but were, rather, nonstatus Indians or Métis, or if their marriages to white men failed, or they were widowed (Jamieson 1978, 51). […]

While the 1951 Indian Act represents a less- ening of colonial control for Indian men, it actually heightened colonial regulation for Indian women in general and especially for those women who married non-Natives. The membership section became even more elaborate, couched in almost unreadable bureau- cratic language, which spelled out not only who was entitled to be registered as an Indian but who was not. The male line of descent was further emphasized as the major criterion for inclusion—in fact mention of “Indian blood” was altogether removed. The areas of the act that dictated who was not an Indian included Section 12(1)(b), which removed the status of any woman who married a non-Indian (which included American Indians and nonstatus Native men from

Canada), and Section 12(1)(a)(iv), also known as the “double-mother” clause, which removed the status of any individual whose mother and paternal grand- mother lacked Indian status prior to their marriages to Indian men. […]

The major change for Native women who “mar- ried out” was that from the date of their marriages they were not only automatically deprived of their Indian status and band rights, but by order of the governor-in-council they were declared enfranchised. Enfranchisement for these Indian women, however, did not involve the same conditions as those that had been experienced by Indian men and their families either through voluntary or involuntary enfranchise- ment. Individuals who enfranchised, voluntarily or involuntarily, had to have sufficient resources to survive off-reserve. No such condition was considered necessary for Indian women compulsorily enfran- chised, since they were assumed to be, effectively, “wards” of their husband. […]

The financial losses experienced by Native women due to loss of status have been considerable. When enfranchised, the women were entitled to receive a per capita share of band capital and revenue, as well as the equivalent of twenty years’ treaty money. Since the treaty money is either four or five dollars a year, depending on the treaty, the women were therefore entitled to receive either eighty or one hundred dollars. However, during the interval when large numbers of women were being enfranchised and “paid off,” most Native communities had relatively few assets and rev- enue available to provide meaningful shares to the women. Many of those bands subsequently received significant monies from resource development, to which the enfranchised women and their children never had access.

Another series of financial losses that Native women experienced when they lost their Indian status included the lack of access to postsecondary- education funding, free day-care provisions in some communities, funding for school supplies and social schooling programs, housing policies that enabled

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 329 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

330 Part 3 Gendered Identities

on-reserve Indians to buy houses with assistance from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Indian Affairs, loans and grants from the Indian Economic Development Fund, health benefits, exemption from taxation and from provincial sales tax, hunting, fishing, animal grazing, and trapping rights, cash distributions from sales of band assets, and the ability to be employed in the United States without a visa and to cross the border without restrictions ( Jamieson 1978, 70–71). Finally, Indian women were generally denied access to personal property willed to them, evicted from their homes, often with small children and no money (especially when widowed or separated), and generally faced hostile band councils and indifferent Indian Affairs bureaucrats ( Jamieson 1978, 72).

However, it is the personal and cultural losses of losing status that Indian women have most frequently spoken about. Some of the costs have included being unable to participate with family and relatives in the life of their former communities, being rejected by their communities, being culturally different and often socially rejected within white society, being unable to access cultural programs for their children, and finally not even being able to be buried with other family members on the reserve. The extent of penalties and lack of compensation for losses suffered has made the forcible enfranchisement of Indian women “retribution, not restitution,” what Justice Bora Laskin, in his dissenting opinion in Lavell and Bedard, termed “statutory banishment” ( Jamieson 1978, 72).

Finally, in terms of Native empowerment generally, it is important to note that this “bleeding off ” of Native women and their children from their communities was in place for 116 years, from 1869 until 1985. The phenomenal cultural implication hidden in this legislation is the sheer numbers of Native people lost to their communities. Some sources have estimated that by far the majority of the twenty-five thousand Indians who lost status and were externalized from their communities between

1876 and 1985 (Holmes 1987, 8) did so because of ongoing gender discrimination in the Indian Act.2 But it is not simply a matter of twenty-five thousand individuals. If one takes into account the fact that for every individual who lost status and had to leave her community, all of her descendants (many of them the products of nonstatus Indian fathers and Indian mothers) also lost status and for the most part were permanently alienated from Native culture, the numbers of individuals who ultimately were removed from Indian status and lost to their nations may, at the most conservative estimates, number between one and two million.

By comparison, in 1985, when Bill C-31 was passed, there were only 350,000 status Indians still listed on the Department of Indian Affairs’ Indian register (Holmes 1987, 54). In comparing the poten- tial numbers of people lost to their Native commun- ities because of loss of status with the numbers of individuals still considered Indian in 1985, the scale of cultural genocide caused by gender discrimination becomes visible. Because Bill C-31 allowed the most recent generation of individuals who had lost status to regain it, along with their children, approximately one hundred thousand individuals had regained their status by 1995 (Switzer 1997, 2). But the damage caused, demographically and culturally, by the loss of status of so many Native women for a century prior to 1985, whose grandchildren and great-grandchildren are no longer recognized—and in many cases no longer identify—as Indian, remain incalculable.

THE STRUGGLE TO CHANGE THE INDIAN ACT

Given the accelerating gender discrimination in the Indian Act created by the modifications of 1951, Mohawk women in the 1960s created an organization known as Indian Rights for Indian Women, which attempted to address the disempowerment of Indian women, particularly with respect to loss of status. In

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 330 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 34 Regulating Native Identity by Gender 331

1971, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bedard, two Indian women who had lost status through their marriages, challenged the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act in the Canadian courts. […]

Lavell challenged the deletion of her name from her band list, while Bedard, in a separate case, chal- lenged the fact that her reserve was evicting her and her children from the house which her mother had willed to her, even though she was no longer married to her husband. Both women lost at the federal court level, but were successful at winning appeals, and their cases were heard together in the Supreme Court. Their argument was based on the fact that the Indian Act discriminated against them on the basis of race and sex, and that the Bill of Rights should therefore override the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act with respect to membership. […]

In 1973, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four decision, ruled against Lavell and Bedard. Among other reasons, the decision noted that since not all Indians were discriminated against, only Indian women who married non-Indians, then racial dis- crimination could not be said to exist; and since enfranchised Indian women gained the citizen- ship rights that made them equal (in law) to white women, then gender discrimination could not be said to exist. While this judgment clarified none of the issues, it did assert that the Bill of Rights could not take precedence over the Indian Act. Because of this decision, the Indian Act was exempt from the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977 (Holmes 1987, 5).

The Maliseet community of Tobique was the next focus of resistance. The women at Tobique began their struggle over the issue of homelessness—the manner in which their band council interpreted Indian Act legis- lation to suggest that Indian women had no right to own property on the reserve. As the women addressed the problems they faced, their struggle slowly broad- ened until their primary goal became changing the Indian Act (Silman 1987, 119–72). Since the decision in Lavell and Bedard had foreclosed any possibility of

justice within Canada, the Tobique women decided to support Sandra Lovelace in an appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Lovelace argued that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act was in vio- lation of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for the rights of individuals who belong to minorities to enjoy their culture, practice their religion, and use their language in community with others from the group (Beyefsky 1982, 244–66). In 1981, the United Nations determined that Sandra Lovelace had been denied her cultural rights under Article 27 because she was barred from living in her community. Canada, embar- rassed at the international level, at this point stated its intention to amend the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act. After some degree of consultation and proposed changes, Bill C-31, An Act to Amend the Indian Act, was passed in 1985.3

The violence and resistance that Native women struggling for their rights faced from male-dominated band councils and political organizations during this interval cannot be ignored.4 For example, when Mary Two-Axe Early and sixty other Native women from Kahnawake (then known as the Caughnawaga band) chose to focus international attention on their plight by bringing their organization, Indian Rights for Indian Women, to the International Women’s Year conference in Mexico City in 1975, they were all served with eviction notices in their absence by their band council (Jamieson 1979, 170). Meanwhile, when the Tobique women, protesting homelessness in their communities, occupied the band office in order to have a roof over their heads and draw attention to their plight, they were threatened with arrest by the band administration, physically beaten up in the streets, and had to endure numerous threats against their families from other community members.5

It has been the children of Native mothers and white, nonstatus Indian, or Métis fathers who have been forced to become urban Indians and who, in their Native communities of origin, are currently being regarded as outsiders because they have been

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 331 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

332 Part 3 Gendered Identities

labeled as “not Indian.” Gender has thus been crucial in determining not only who has been able to stay in Native communities but who has been called mixed- blood and externalized as such. In this respect, gender discrimination in the Indian Act has shaped what we think about who is Native, who is mixed-blood, and who is entitled access to Indian land. These beliefs are only rendered more powerful by the strongly protec- tionist attitudes toward preserving Native culture as it is lived on reserves at present, where outsiders may be seen as profoundly threatening to community identity.

This history has even deeper repercussions, however, for Native communities today. Because the subordination of Indigenous women has been a central nexus through which colonizers have sought to destroy Indigenous societies, contemporary gender divisions created by the colonizer continue to sub- vert sovereignty struggles in crucial ways. And yet, almost inevitably, when issues of particular concern to Native women arise, they are framed as “individual rights,” while in many cases, those who oppose Native women’s rights are held to represent “the collective.” In a context where a return to traditional collective ways is viewed as essential to surviving the ravages of colonization, Native women are routinely asked to separate their womanness from their Nativeness, as if violations of Native women’s rights are not violations of Native rights.

NOTES

1. Recent research has documented the presence of mixed-

blood communities at no fewer than fifty-three locations

in the Great Lakes region between 1763 and 1830 (RCAP

1996, I:150).

2. These figures include both those individuals who were

enfranchised and those who lost their status because

of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. However,

the numbers of individuals who lost status due to

enfranchisement only reached significant levels for a few

years during the 1920s and 1930s, and the policy was ended

for everybody but women marrying non-Natives in 1951. By

comparison, for over a century, the majority of individuals

who lost status were Indian women who married out.

3. In April 1985, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came

into effect. The identity legislation within the 1951 Indian

Act was in violation of Section 15(1), which prohibited

discrimination on the basis of race and gender, as well as

other particularities. Because of this, when Bill C-31 came

into effect on 28 June 1985, its amendments to the 1951

act came into legal effect retroactively back to 17 April

1985, the date that the charter came into effect (Gilbert

1996, 129).

4. At the time of Lavell and Bedard, there were no women on

the National Indian Brotherhood executive council, and

the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, which first

enlisted the help of the solicitor general and turned the tide

against Lavell, represented twenty thousand Indian men

(Jamieson 1978, 91).

5. The American Indian Movement, with long experience in

defending traditional and grassroots Native people against

“puppet” Indian governments, offered their assistance to

the Tobique women. The women declined, however, for fear

that the situation would escalate still further if AIM entered

the reserve to support them (Silman 1987, 129–30).

REFERENCES

Anderson, Kim. 2000. A Recognition of Being: Reconstructing Native Womanhood. Toronto: Second Story Press.

Beyefsky, Anne F. 1982. The Human Rights Committee and the Case of Sandra Lovelace. In The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 20.

Carter, Sarah. 1997. Capturing Women: The Manipulation of Cultural Imagery in Canada’s Prairie West. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Gilbert, Larry. 1996. Entitlement to Indian Status and Membership Codes in Canada. Toronto: Thompson Canada Ltd.

Holmes, Joan. 1987. Bill C-31—Equality or Disparity? The Effects of the New Indian Act on Native Women. Background Paper. Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 332 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

Chapter 34 Regulating Native Identity by Gender 333

Jamieson, Kathleen. 1978. Indian Women and the Law in Canada: Citizens Minus. Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women and Indian Rights for Indian Women.

Jamieson, Kathleen. 1979. Multiple Jeopardy: The Evolution of a Native Women’s Movement. Atlantis 4, no. 2:157–76.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). 1996. For Seven Generations: Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Vols. 1–5. Ottawa: Government of Canada.

Schmalz, Peter S. 1991. The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Silman, Janet. 1987. Enough Is Enough: Aboriginal Women Speak Out, as told to Janet Silman. Toronto: Women’s Press.

Stoler, Ann. 1991. Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Gender, Race, and Morality in Colonial Asia. In Gender at the Crossroads: Feminist Anthropology in the Post-Modern Era, edited by Micaela di Leonardo. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Switzer, Maurice. 1997. Time to Stand Up and Be Counted. The First Perspective (December):2.

Source: Lawrence, Bonita. (2004). Excerpted from

“Chapter 2: Regulating Native Identity by Gender.” In

“Real” Indians and Others: Mixed Blood Urban Native

Peoples and Indigenous Nationhood (pp. 45–63).

Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

GenderWomenStudies2e-interior-final.indd 333 4/24/2018 12:12:25 PM

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

8. C

an ad

ia n

S ch

ol ar

s. A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed