Diamond J enness and 'useful ' in Canada 1930-1950

Diamond Jenness ( 1886-1969) was a Anthro­ From left: Grace Jenness, New Zealand-bom anthropologist pologist who conducted research in Canada among Indians Diamond Jenness , May BaUantyne holding baby AUan. and and . Towards the end of his career he devoted himself Andrew BaUantyne on Goodenough Island, Canada, 1911. [BaUantyne Family] to research with policy implications. Tite Anthropology De­ partment at Victoria University ofWeUington is named after ship status, and contributed to their sub-standard living Jenness. conditions, economic marginality, low educational achieve­ ment, and welfare dependency. BARNETf RICHLING Indians did not herald the White Paper as a blueprint for In June 1969 a revolution began in Canadian Aboriginal liberation. Instead, they condemned it as the old national affairs. The recently-elected Liberals under P.E. Ttudeau set policy of assimilation wrapped in a thin cloak of egalitarian things in motion by releasing a statement on federal Indian rhetoric. They argued that the policy repudiated the special policy, the aptly-named White Paper'. They proposed an all­ Aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's , rights new course for relations with Indians, a course consistent they believed essential to social and cultural survival and to with the high ideals of the Prime Minister's Just Society and their proper status as 'citizens plus'.' Far from a cure-all for aimed at righting the cumulative wrongs of the past. Declar­ a persistent social problem, the White Paper actually ener­ ing that equality alone was the solution to the nation's 'Indian gized widespread protest among Aboriginal peoples, spawn­ Problem', the Government proposed makin g Indians ordi­ ing a new era of ethnopolitics aimed at the constitutional nary citizens by doing away with the complex legal and entrenchment of Aboriginal rights. Government withdrawal administrative apparatus that underlay their historic ward- ofits policy was an early victory, but the revolution continues.

STOUT CENTRE REVIEW 5 WhenNewZealand-bomanthropologistDiamondJenness given to religious than secular-pragmatic views, he equated died on 29 November 1969, this revolution was barely five useful work with human dignity and advancement. This was months old. Though illness slowed him in his last years, borne out in early field experiences in the D'Entrecasteaux both mind and wit remained sharp, as did his career-long Islands (1911-12) and the Alaskan and Canadian interest in the past, present, and future ofCan a dian Aborigi­ (1913-16), both settings where the result of clashing 'primi­ nal peoples. 'I have thrown away my pen', he explained to tive' and 'civilized' worlds would surely be determined by the fellow New Zealander Harry Hawthorn, 'having done more extent to which the colonisers afforded the colonised equita­ than enough mischief in my lifetime .. .'.' Yet he doubtlessly ble and practicable means to partake in the fruits of'progress'. followed reaction to the White Paper' in the press. Though These decidedly liberal ideas were later reflected in his only nowhere recorded, his views would be of great value to us published theoretical statement on cultural evolution and the now since his ideas about Canadian Native administration causes of'backwardness' amongAborigina!NorthAmericans, anticipated by 30 years several premises later embodied in published in 1937 under the title The Indian Background of the Government's 1969 initiative. Canadian History'. He argued here that culture contacts, not Drawing on extensive, frrst-hand knowledge ofthe Domin­ the determinism of biological race or temperament, are 'the ion's Indians and Inuit as a National Museum of Canada most potent forces in driving man [sic] upward from savagery ethnologist between 1913 and 1947, Jenness witnessed the to civilization.. .'. 5 Jenness often cited the Maort as a shining effects of state administration on them and had strong illustration of this viewpoint, arguing that an integrative opinions ofwhere the system was leading. He pessimistically approach to race relations in New Zealand enabled them to predicted 60 years ago in the Indians of Canada that social stand as citizens 'on an equal footing with whites'. • As and economic forces had already foreclosed on the cultural discussed shortly, the Maori example ftgured prominently in (and, for some, even physical) survival ofnearly all Aboriginal his thinking on Canadian Native policy reform. peoples.3 Assimilation, in some form, awaited. But on its Jenness's interestinlndianaffalrs deepened in the thirties present course government practice, inJenness's estimation, out of concern for the worsening crisis among Native peoples was more likely to hinder than help people achieve full benefit wrought by the Depression and the effects ofalong-outmoded of Canadian citizenship. And unlike the bureaucrats who government policy of'Bible and Plough'. Turned down in 1932 preferred coercion and control to accomplish policy objec­ to succeed D.C. Scott as the country's ranking Indian Affairs tives, Jenness advocated Aboriginal peoples' direct participa­ bureaucrat, he sought alternative means to influence policy­ tion in processes of change. If change were inevitable, as he making. Finally in 1936 he became a special consultant to the believed it to be, than the educational, economic, and social Indian Affairs Branch, a position that gave official status to his opportunities and tools needed to comprehend, and ulti­ proposals for change. He wasted little time in lobbying Branch mately to embrace it, must be made widely and generously officials about the need for sweeping reforms. available to all Indians and Inuit. These were stepping-stones Central to Jenness's criticism of existing policy was the to social equality. assertion that Indian reserves perpetuated a 'system of In the light of Aboriginal nationalist consciousness after permanent segregation' that thwarted the very objective they 1969, some critics have understandably branded Jenness's were designed to achieve: the gradual integration of Indians ideas reactionruy, racist, and anti-Native. From a 'presentist' into the 'larger life ofcivilization'. In effect, the reserves robbed perspective much ofhis work clearly warrants the taint of old­ Indians of their morale, health, and sense of well-being, line assimilationism for advocating termination of special making them a 'dejected, prison-like population' and the status and 'liquidation' of reserve lands. Yet from the early objects of Euro-Canadian prejudice. 7 In later years he used thirties when he began to delve into 'useful anthropology', even stronger language, likening Indian administration to Hawthorn's euphemism for research with policy implica­ apartheid, the legalities of wardship status its colour bar, tions,' Jenness was less an apologist for government than a reserves its 'bantustans'.8 In a series of official memoranda staunch critic of it, putting forward proposals on policy and written in the thirties and again in the 'forties during testi­ administrative reform whose purpose was to make Aboriginal mony before a Senate-Commons Committee investigating the peoples full participants in modem Canadian life. Indian Act, Jenness steadfastly advocated the urgent need for The political and philosophical roots ofJenness 's interest measures to insure Indians equal opportunities in education in policy Issues and of his thought on solutions to the 'Indian and economic life. He reasoned that such steps would restore Problem', run in many directions. To begin, his New Zealand their self-esteem and sense of purpose, and assist them in upbringing disposed him toward the values ofhumanitarian­ entering the mainstream as full citizens. Unsympathetic to ism, social equality, and Victorian respectability. Born into a Indian calls for unconditional self-determination, Jenness middle class Methodist family in Wellington in 1886, his asserted that de facto self-determination would follow only parents were Rechabites and an older sister, May, served with where institutional impediments to social mobility were dis­ the Methodist Overseas Mission in British New Guinea. Less mantled and alternatives to legislated dependency put in

6 STOUT CENTRE REVIEW Sekani Indians: McLeod Lake, British Colwnbia, 1 924. Maori problem' because they held full rights ofcitizenship and {NatiDnal Musewns of Canada] were not a colonised people. Citing the absence of reserves, place. To this end he recommended the closure of separate wardship status and other forms of institutional segregation, Indian schools and their replacement by integrated ones, the participation ofMaori in national affairs, including gov­ support for promising students to obtain advanced education ernment, and the lack of racial discrimination in private and and training, money for local economic development and public life, he drew nothing but the most unsatisfactory of improvement ofliving conditions, and so on. Finally, he urged comparisons between the New Zealand and Canadian expe­ constructive use of enfranchisement provisions in the Indian riences. Yet even In portraying his homeland's accomplish­ Act to encourage entire communities to become self-reliant ments in racial integration as worthy of emulation, assimila­ and to jump-start the process of integration. Raising the tion, not integration alone, remained its national goal. Asked spectre ofenfranchisement, however tempered by progressive by a committee member whether Maori "are being rapidly educational and economic reforms, was destined to lead absorbed into the general stream of life, ... [so that] in a Jenness into murky waters. Then, as now, Native peoples saw reasonably short space of time there will be no such thing as the process as anathema to the special rights arising from a Maori', Jenness simply replied: 'Exactly'. 9 their status as First Nations. The centrepiece of Jenness's testimony to the Committee In the early forties Jenness began looking at Canadian was his oddly titled 'Plan for Liquidating the Indian Problem Native administration in comparative terms, making particu­ Within 25 Years', frrst drafted In 1943. He prefaced its lar reference to the record ofMaori affairs. Though he had last presentation with comments on the consequences, rather visited New Zealand on a brief wedding trip in 1919, he kept than the causes, of that Problem. Returning to the theme of abreast of current developments there through correspond­ segregation first raised a decade earlier, he likened the encewith government officials, includingWalter Nash, an old situation ofCanadian Aboriginal peoples to that ofthe masses acquaintance. Youthful impressions of Maori-Pakeha rela­ of European victims of Nazism - internees in concentration tions now figured prominently in his thinking, favourable camps and camps for displaced persons, slave labourers - all impressions of friendships with Maori schoolmates and of of whom endured isolation from 'world currents ... from the everyday experiences with neighbours in Wellington and the life and society all around them', developing debilitating Hutt Valley. In his mind Canada could do no better than to psychological dependencies on their warders and 'warped emulate the New Zealand model ofrace relations. And in 1947 mentalities' in the process. Canada's reserve system, he he testified to that effect before the joint Senate-House argued, has had a similar effect on Indians, fostering perva­ Committee, unequivocally stating that New Zealand had 'no sive dependency on the state, undermining their will to escape

STOUT CENTRE REVIEW 7 their 'confmement camps' and making them pariahs in the afewyears before: no problem exists, he asserted, because the eyes of Canadians at large. 10 two peoples are on 'equal footing' as citizens. The Plan, largely a restatement of earlier proposals, had In the end, little of a practical nature came of Jenness's three principal objectives: dismantling the institutional foun­ proposals on policy reform in the early post-war period. dations of Indian special status; providing social, educa­ Seemingly unwilling to relinquish its old-style control despite tional, and economic opportunities comparable to those the rhetoric of'equal citizenship' that permeated the pages of enjoyed by non-Natives; insuring full and equitable citizen­ the Special Committee's fmal report to Parliament, what few ship tights. Jenness believed his scheme would assistlndians changes the government did make over the next decade were regain self-respect and self-reliance and overcome the irrel­ mainly symbolic: the transfer of Indian Affairs in 1949 to a evance foisted upon them by the reserve system and other newly-created Department of Citizenship and Immigration, trappings of the outmoded Indian Affairs system. replacement of mission-run residential schools with state­ The testimony's most tangible result was to encourage run (but not integrated) day schools, entitlement to state­ government to take a further look at the Maort case. When supported social welfare benefits including pensions, unem­ they learned of his plans to holiday in New Zealand in late ployment insurance, child allowances, and universal health 1947, therefore, Indian Affairs officials quickly enlisted care. Above all else, the next twenty years witnessed enor­ Jenness's cooperation in carrying out a fact-finding mission mous growth in the size of the Native Affairs bureaucracy and on their behalf. This was to be his first 'fieldwork' devoted to in public expenditures on its various programmes. In spite of administrative and policy issues. How ironic that it should all of this, on the most pressing questions of social and take place in New Zealand; after all, he had been calling on the economic development and equitable access to the main­ government to initiate this type of study among Canadian stream, little had changed. And measures to implement self­ Indians since the thirties, to no avail. determination, of course, were still beyond official counte­ More on the order ofa brtefsurvey than detailed fieldwork, nance. Only ten years after the Joint Committee concluded its the work entailed investigation of Maort education and cur­ work the government convened another to look into the very rent social and economic conditions. Reaching Wellington in same issues. A version of this paper was read at the Stout the early winter of 1948, Jenness had occasion to meet with Centre on 21 August, 1991. More thorough treatment of his a number of high government officials, including Piime work on Canadian Native policy is to appear in my biography Minister Peter Fraser who, at the time, held the Native Affairs of Jenness, now in progress. portfolio, and then conducted a tour of North Island schools. A formal report of his findings, submitted to Indian Affairs Footnotes later that year, was widely circulated among personnel in­ I. Harry Hawthorn. 1966. A Survey of the Contemporary Indians volved with Native education and welfare. The most favour­ of Canada: Economic, Political. Educational Needs and Policies. Vol.l. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, p.3. able comment arising from it was reserved for the high 2. Jenness to Hawthom, 17.1.1969: University of B.C. Archives. standards and degree ofintegration already achieved in Maort 3. Bulletin 65, Anthropological Series 15. Ottawa: National Museum education. This was an objective Canada would soon attempt of Canada, p.264. to reach by replacing residential schools with federally-run 4. Sally Weaver. 1976. The Role of Social Science in Formulating local day schools and by revamping the curiiculum to comply Canadian Indian Policy: A Preliminary History of the Hawthom­ Tremblay Report. In J . Freedman, Ed. Proceedings No.3. with national standards. Canadian Ethnology Society. Hamilton: McMaster University, Positive mention ofthe Mao xi Land Courts system was also p.86. made. No special mechanism to resolve land disputes would 5. Bulletin 86. Anthropological Series 21. Ottawa: National Museum be in place in Canada until 1974 when an Office of Native of Canada, p.16. Claims was set up in the Department of Indian Affairs. 6. Canada. 1947. Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons Appointed to Continue and Complete the Overall, official enthusiasm for the New Zealand expert­ Examination and Consideration of the Indian Act. Minutes and ence was tempered by a less-than-favourable assessment of Proceedings of Evidence No.7. Ottawa: King's Printer, p.309. Maort ' progress' in society at large. Referring to one of 7. Jenness to Charles Camsell, 25.8.36: National Museum of Jenness's observations, an internal Indian Affairs memoran­ Canada. dum explained 'while there is legal equality, there is still 8. Diamond Jenness. 1964. Administration: 11 Canada. Montreal: Arctic Institute of North America, pp.93-4. considerable antipathy to Maorts shown by Europeans. This 9. Canada. Special Joint Committee. p.314. has made it difficult for many Maorts to obtain positions in 10. Ibid. pp.307-09. some ofthe cities and towns other than as domestics or casual 11. D. MacKay to Deputy Minister, 20.11.1950: National Archives labourers. Racial disciimination, though not officially coun­ of Canada. tenanced, is still practised, but there appears to be evidence that barrters are being broken down.' 11 This was a far cry from Bamett Richling teaches anthro[XJlogy at Mount St Vincent the high marks Jenness gave to Maori-Pakeha relations only University, Nova Scotia.

8 STOUT CENTRE REVIEW