Laurier PhD student lectures in Guelph
World War One raged across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East — but what was its impact on Canada’s Indigenous communities? Eric Story attempts to answer that question in a talk on Oct. 19 as part of the 2017-2018 Military Lecture Series at the Guelph Civic Museum. We asked Story, a PhD student at Wilfrid Laurier University, about his research.
Sam Deschamps: What was the experience for Indigenous Peoples within the army itself?
Eric Story: The experience for Indigenous Peoples in the army was multifaceted, yet highly assimilating. Several soldiers spoke about the loneliness of being in the army, given that very few fellow comrades would have spoken their native language.That said, being a soldier did give them some freedom to practice traditions that were outlawed back home on the reserve. For example, one soldier from the Kainai First Nation in Alberta, in a particularly stressful situation on the battlefield, cut a piece of his skin off and sacrificed it to the sun. In many ways, this action was very similar to what was practiced in the Sun Dance ceremony, which had been banned by the federal government in the late nineteenth century.
SD: Did they face racial bias from the other troops or officers?
ES: Although I haven’t found any specific examples of Indigenous soldiers complaining of racial bias while fighting in the army, it certainly would have existed and been felt by many Indigenous soldiers who fought in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The initial recruitment policy from 1914 to 1915 was to exclude First Nations because, according to the Minister of Militia Sam Hughes, “While British troops would be proud to be associated with their fellow [First Nations] subjects, … Germans might refuse to extend to them the privileges of civilized warfare, therefore it is considered … that they had better remain in Canada to share in the protection of the Dominion.”
SD: Did the fact that they were Indigenous affect where they were stationed to fight or the tasks they were assigned?
ES: There is much debate among historians about the correlation between their Indigenous identity and a large number being sent to railway and forestry battalions (non-combat) during the war. I haven’t looked into the primary sources myself, so I do not wish to comment about whether there is a correlation.
SD: How did having fought in World War One impact Indigenous veterans’ experience when they returned home to Canada? Were they treated better for having fought in the forces or did they still face discrimination?
ES: Good question. I was actually misquoted in The Huffington Post a few months back, saying that Indigenous soldiers and veterans were treated fairly during and after the war. That is simply not the case.
In terms of government policy, little changed between the start of the war in 1914 and the end of 1918, even though several promises of equality for Indigenous Peoples were made by the deputy superintendent of the Department of Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott. When veterans began applying for pensions and allowances in the 1920s and 1930s, the Department of Indian Affairs administered the money on behalf of many Indigenous veterans, widows, and orphan children, assuming that these individuals were not responsible enough to take care of their own finances. Non-Indigenous veterans received their pensions directly unless they were found to be mismanaging their money, while Indigenous veterans were automatically assumed to be incapable of handling their own finances responsibly.The highly racialized stereotypes percolating throughout Canadian society of the laziness, shiftlessness, and untrustworthiness of Indigenous Peoples meant that they were assumed to be irresponsibly spending money if they had too much.
SD: There seems to be a correlation between war and an increase in political activism. Was this the case for Indigenous Peoples who returned home from the war? Did they become more politically active? If so, in what ways?
ES: Yes, it certainly was the case. The first national Indigenous political organization in Canada called the League of Indians of Canada was formed in 1918 by a veteran of the war named Fred Loft of the Six Nations of the Grand River, who cited the sacrifices of Indigenous soldiers and families during the war as reason for forming this organization. He strongly believed in Indigenous self-determination, and was an advocate of cooperation with the federal government. By 1923, there were 1500 delegates in attendance at the annual meeting of the League of Indians of Canada.
But it was not just the League that began to agitate after the war. Several veterans, widows, and orphans saw the treatment they were receiving in regards to their pensions and allowances as being unfair. They believed the sacrifice they had made warranted equal treatment, as many of them said, they fought, shoulder to shoulder, with non-Indigenous soldiers, so why should they be treated any differently? As a result, many veterans, widows, and orphans went on letter-writing campaigns to their local Indian agents, the members of Parliament in their respective areas, the prime minister, and even the king of England. Others who did not have the ability to write enlisted friends or other ex-soldiers to help them compose letters and agitate for treatment that was on-par with other veterans. Although many were ignored, some did succeed in having their pensions or allowances paid directly to them.But, in my view, it does not matter so much that these letter-writing campaigns succeeded or failed, but rather that they were agitating for change in the first place.In short, there were two legacies of the Great War for Indigenous communities. One was the continued paternalism of the Department of Indian Affairs. And the other is a significant rise in political agitation, whether in grand gestures such as the founding of the League of Indians of Canada, or in smaller instances, such as letter-writing campaigns by individuals.
Photo courtesy of Eric Story
Editor’s note: The print version and previous web version of this article referred to Eric Story as a PhD candidate rather than a PhD student. The Ontarion apologizes for this inaccuracy.