Colonialism and First Nations Women in CanadaEssay Preview: Colonialism and First Nations Women in CanadaReport this essayPART I: The Authors VoiceIn the article Colonialism and First Nations Women in Canada by Winona Stevenson, the author explains the struggle First Nations women had keeping their culture alive. Upon arriving in America the Europeans suffocated the natives with their rationalisation of female subjugation. Reluctant to give up their traditions and honour the native-American women put up a fight, but their efforts would not be strong enough to triumph over the European missionaries. Stevenson chronologically explains their contact with the Ðcolonial agencies.
The fur traders were shocked by the nature of the Native women. They were used to fragile, dormant women while the Aboriginal women were tough and carried a lot of qualities they considered Ðmasculine. This was unacceptable for the Europeans immigrants (mainly the French and English) and attempts to Ðcivilise the aboriginals began. The French employed many radical efforts to change the ways of the first nation woman, such as forcing young girls to French missionary schools.
The church and the state went to great lengths to create a negative picture of the native woman, she was uncivilised; a savage. Eventually the missionaries went as far as to deprive aboriginal women of food and clothes or publicly beat them if they did not confide with the Christian-European guidelines. The religious morals of Christianity and laws the state provided to back up the morals of the church were too powerful for the vulnerable Aboriginals.
The subject of womens suppression is a key topic in Stevensons argument. She explains how womens right dramatically changed between first contact and early reserve era. She explains how First Nations women of America were equal to the men. They were strong, capable and independent, which was the contrast of the European ideology. The European women were fragile and delicate; they were nurturers to the male members of their families.
By exposing the contrasting views of each culture Stevenson exposes that the ideal woman of today is possibly controlled by men. She argues what is familiar may not be correct, which so often is combined and confused. The ideal we all strive to live up to suppresses us as woman and puts men on a pedestal, for example a Ðperfect wife cooks, cleans and looks after the children so her husband can relax. Conceivably the First Nations women, before exposed to the submissive ideology, were on a better track than the Canadian women of the reserve era.
The Natives were also stripped of their culture and force to live abiding to Judo-Christian laws. Women rights, such as voting and divorce, were taken away without warning. The male dominated laws took away their independence. The aboriginal women were very reluctant to give up their customs but inevitably were overpowered.
By writing this paper Stevenson shows us the native alternate way of life that provides us of an example of woman with different rights, equal rights. The European view of woman is so internalized for many that it is hard to imagine that society wasnt meant to be this way. Stevenson shows us this way of life is not acceptable and should be questioned. The truth is women are not equal to men and Stevenson shows us how it became that way in Canada.
Stevensons article is persuasive in telling the reader that the Canadian female ideal for First Nations woman was more progressed then the modern woman; the Aboriginal women had equal rights. She shows the viewer the fact women were not always suppressed the way they are today.
PART II: An Evaluative VoiceTo evaluate Stevens paper I will study the construction of her arguments. By analyzing her evidence we can then validate her statements. The content of this article seems to be mainly unbiased. Stevensons uses facts to analyze the first nation womens journey through history rather than personal opinion or personal information. Also she uses a variety of different sources which all authenticate each other.
She frequently compares and contrasts the female ideology of the Natives and the Europeans. She focuses on how womens rights were removed and backs that information with proof: “Women were totally excluded from votingÐ [,]Ð…their right to divorce were violated in the 1876 Indian Act. [And it] also undermined female authority by denying them the right to participate in decisions concerning the disposition of reserve lands,” (Stevenson, 1999, 71-3). These arguments strongly back up her proposal, which makes her statements very hard to disagree with.
The subject of the repression of women is constant throughout her material and unarguably very convincing. The native women were robbed of their identity and that is hard to argue, but Stevenson seems to imply that European way of life was completely incorrect. This part of her argument seems a little biased. Although the Europeans obviously did not have the superior society or ideology for women but they did have a few good concepts to improve the form of society, such as a structured government.
Stevenson argues that First Nations women were categorized into two stereotypes; the “Indian Princess, a Pocahontas type who was virginal, naturally innocentÐ… [and] Ð… the Squaw Durdge, who lived the most unfortunate, brutal lifeÐ…” (1999, p57). This argument is hard to prove because it is a very subjective statement, it is difficult to know for certain what most of the individuals of that time thought and/or felt of the Native women. Stevenson tries to prove this case well, but leaves some statements unsupported. She stated that, “Aboriginal women, initially ambivalent and contradictory, became unambiguously negative and unidimensional when missionaries arrived on the scene,” (1999, p57) without any evidence to validate.
The Second and Third Differences in Status
In a post-conference meeting, several men with Native American backgrounds raised questions pertaining to the status of women who were missionaries, a practice that has been prevalent since the 1940s. These participants reported that one of the most important differences in status for white women was a decrease in female missionary experience and a decrease in percentage of women admitted as missionaries compared to white missionaries. Several participants who said they were missionaries reported the same amount of time as their white counterparts but reported that, as compared to their Native American counterparts, their white counterparts did not experience more of a reduction in missionary experience. And, some white men reported that, as compared to their Native American counterparts, the average age of a Native American woman was 25 years old and that women who were able to serve in a volunteer capacity in the Indian Service were 50 percent more likely to leave the service and become part-time missionaries. One man stated,
„ and that it is as simple as that. I understand the purpose of a volunteer position, but I don’t get paid very. And the truth is, you don’t pay your men. You just get paid. And that’s a great reason to stay home and be home and go backpacking, to be home with children who are going to need you. But you know what, my question would be, don’t give me money, don’t give me an attitude when I run away from home and go backpacking, going to work after a lot of work. What happens is you get cut off from my services and my paycheck. And you become an orphan, a survivor of a vicious abuse and the child of a man that was never my father, and he always knew how to hold his hands. ‟
In reply,
⅛ “I don’t get paid much to make a living, you understand? Your work as a member of the First Nations is no exception, & a long time ago the majority of the First Nationsmen that worked into the last century were slaves, & were brought up as if they were free, & were paid a lot of money, & were treated like other men, being ‘made servants of the majority.'”
“The most disturbing thing about this story,” said one of the elders of the First Nations, “is that many of the first few years were paid too much to live out their whole lives.” He then went on to explain how, from 1965 to 1980, at some rate fifty to sixty percent of the Indians who would serve in the field were paid less than 1 percent of the Native American men that were in the field working in that time (P. O’Connor & T. M. Moore, The Meaning of Violence (ed. P. O’Connor, 1975), p17), while the
The Second and Third Differences in Status
In a post-conference meeting, several men with Native American backgrounds raised questions pertaining to the status of women who were missionaries, a practice that has been prevalent since the 1940s. These participants reported that one of the most important differences in status for white women was a decrease in female missionary experience and a decrease in percentage of women admitted as missionaries compared to white missionaries. Several participants who said they were missionaries reported the same amount of time as their white counterparts but reported that, as compared to their Native American counterparts, their white counterparts did not experience more of a reduction in missionary experience. And, some white men reported that, as compared to their Native American counterparts, the average age of a Native American woman was 25 years old and that women who were able to serve in a volunteer capacity in the Indian Service were 50 percent more likely to leave the service and become part-time missionaries. One man stated,
„ and that it is as simple as that. I understand the purpose of a volunteer position, but I don’t get paid very. And the truth is, you don’t pay your men. You just get paid. And that’s a great reason to stay home and be home and go backpacking, to be home with children who are going to need you. But you know what, my question would be, don’t give me money, don’t give me an attitude when I run away from home and go backpacking, going to work after a lot of work. What happens is you get cut off from my services and my paycheck. And you become an orphan, a survivor of a vicious abuse and the child of a man that was never my father, and he always knew how to hold his hands. ‟
In reply,
⅛ “I don’t get paid much to make a living, you understand? Your work as a member of the First Nations is no exception, & a long time ago the majority of the First Nationsmen that worked into the last century were slaves, & were brought up as if they were free, & were paid a lot of money, & were treated like other men, being ‘made servants of the majority.’”
“The most disturbing thing about this story,” said one of the elders of the First Nations, “is that many of the first few years were paid too much to live out their whole lives.” He then went on to explain how, from 1965 to 1980, at some rate fifty to sixty percent of the Indians who would serve in the field were paid less than 1 percent of the Native American men that were in the field working in that time (P. O’Connor & T. M. Moore, The Meaning of Violence (ed. P. O’Connor, 1975), p17), while the
I found Stevensons article to be very long and wordy. Her article would have been more effective to the reader if it was more to the point. Much of the information of missionary and state objectives was obvious and unnecessary. Points such as “Recent studies on the impact of the transition to reserve life on First Nations women show that once under the thumbs of federal agents and local missionaries, the roles and conditions of women dramatically altered,” (Stevenson, 199, p66). are already implied throughout the text. Although that long sentence is credible, its dragged on.
Overall in writing her report Stevenson is ultimately persuasive in convincing the reader the “foreign missionariesÐ…