Hi Jim...
-> LP> Whoever framed the [Gradual Civilization] Act was apparently
-> Eurocentric enough to hope that native Indians would jump through
-> hoops to prove themselves Europeanized, followed by participation in
-> the privatization of communally-held lands.  It's not surprising that
-> they didn't go for it.
-> JC> Sure, if the land to be broken up was communally-held land. Makes
-> sense to me. BUT... Keep in mind that in the U.S. there are all kinds
-> of precedents such as the various Homestead Acts, Oklahoma Land Grab,
-> immigration, etc. Offer seemingly desparate indiviuduals "free" land
-> or a "fresh start" and a LOT of them will _jump_ at the chance
-> without even considering the consequences or who might be "hurt" in
-> the long run.
I guess I didn't give enough detail about this legislation.  From
Professor Miller's account, it seems that it was directed at native
Indians only, and that they would cease being 'Indians' and would be
given the vote and ownership of some reserve land after they had proven
themselves.
This was an attempt at social engineering, and it differs from what was
expected of white homesteaders, I think.  I think European settlers had
to 'prove' 40 acres within a certain period of time and then the land
was theirs.
My father's family were homesteaders on the Canadian prairie.  I grew up
with stories about the hardships of pioneer days.  (And of course it
took me many years to grasp the fact that my father was trying to teach
me some real history.) I don't think there was any stipulation about
being educated or debt-free in order to qualify for land.
Here's a quotation from Professor JR Miller, Professor of History at the
University if Saskatchewan (Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens, 1990, p 112):
'...the chiefs of Canada West had made it clear in a meeting at Orillia
in 1846 that they wanted no part of provisions that would allow the
conversion of lands that bands held in common to individual plots held
in freehold tenure.  The Gradual Civilization Act deliberately ran
counter to those wishes by making provision for the conversion of
reserve lands into alienated plots in the hands of men who would cease
to be Indians upon enfranchisement.  The reaction of the Indians to at
least these provisions of the act was swift and blunt.  It was, said a
tribal leader, an attempt 'to break them to pieces.' It did not, he
continued, 'meet their views' because it ran counter to their wish to
maintain tribal integrity and communal land ownership.  Equally
revealing was the response of the Indian Department:  'the Civilization
Act is no grievance to you,' it replied brusquely...it was giving an
answer that only a government embarked on legislated coercion of Indian
peoples would have thought appropriate.'
-> JC> I seriously doubt that anyone who came out West on the Oregon
-> Trail ever considered the possibility that the land was not the U.S.
-> Government's to give away.
I see two subjects here:  1. The pesky Gradual Civilization Act, which
was a device of the Canadian government meant to turn land already
designated as reserve land into land plots owned by individual Indians
(who would then be Indians no longer).  2. Settlement of white settlers
on now-disputed land.  I guess this comes under the vexed heading of
'aboriginal rights', which are the topic of constant bickering to this
day.  The very subject makes my head ache and my ears ring.   Have
you a view on 2.?
--- PCBoard 15.2
(1:134/10)
---------------