Word definitions confusing

Page 4

The definitions of words commonly used don't always best describe their true meanings. Definitions are usually relevant to some period in history and are still accepted and believed to be true in later generations.

Problem! Understood definitions are cured and hardened as concrete, set in time. For example, consider the term civilize and the term civilization. Civilize is defined as the endowment of law and order and the conditions favorable to the arts and sciences - to refine the manners and taste of. However, civilization is defined as making or becoming civilized. So, to enter civilization you must become civilized. what standards or conventions is civilization measured? those civilized in an existing civilization

I'm a little confused these terms, yet their definitions are generally accepted. But I'm probably not as confused as the Indians of the 19th century who felt obliged to participate in the "get civilized" campaign initiated the government to refine and endow law and order. The Gradual Civilization Act was one of those subtle movements to encourage Natives to conform.

This act is probably better understood as assimilation. Indians, at a time in history when their cultural ways were undesirable, were encouraged to get educated, become Christians, abstain from alcohol, and prove to be model citizens. The reward for this adjustment was an opportunity to receive a parcel of land and become a member of civilization.

Such a deal!

Parameters of behavior were dictated the reigning government and the Indians had to prove they met those standards. It would be interesting to know how many of the English and French citizens of that era met the criteria of being acceptable as worthy citizens.

The Gradual Civilization Act was a neat package aimed at promoting assimilation. This form of de-tribalization was designed to individualize the Indian people, give them land, a place in society and a chance to join the ranks of the colonists. The candidates that actually qualified were few. The Gradual Civilization Act failed in promoting civilization. Too few candidates had the desire to "get civilized."

Is the Chartered Lands Act another civilization act? Is is another attempt to individualize each community and give them all the characteristic of mainstream society?

If bands choose to "opt in" can many of the reserve lands be used as collateral bands trying to become economically viable?

What happens to these communities when they can't meet their financial obligations? Do they surrender their land to the mortgage holders or back to the Crown and try surviving in mainstream society?

I guess to be accepted into civilization we must behave as the civilized. The choices haven't changed much over the past century; we are still offered "assimilation or die" tactics. This body of civilized people, called a government, is still trying to civilize us.

Now I understand the gradual part.