Editing Potlatch (section)

===Potlatch ban===
{{Main|Potlatch Ban}}
Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the ''[[Indian Act]]'',.<ref>''An Act further to amend "The Indian Act, 1880,"'' S.C. 1884 (47 Vict.), c. 27, s. 3.</ref> To some extent, this was at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to 'civilized values' of accumulation.<ref>G. M. Sproat, quoted in Douglas Cole and Ira Chaikin, ''An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast'' (Vancouver and Toronto 1990), 15</ref> The Potlatch was seen as a key target in assimilation policies and agendas. Missionary [[William Duncan (missionary)|William Duncan]] wrote in 1875 that the potlatch was "by far the most formidable of all obstacles in the way of Indians becoming Christians, or even civilized".<ref>Robin Fisher, ''Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia, 1774–1890'', Vancouver, University of British Columbia Press, 1977, 207.</ref>

Sectors of native communities themselves also opposed the practices. In 1883 the department of Indian affairs received a petition<ref>National Archives, NA, vol. 3628, file 6244-1, 13 April 188[3]</ref> from the Coast Tsimshian and Nisga’a Chiefs at Port Simpson, Kincolith, Green Ville "praying that the system of Potlatching as practiced by many Indian Tribes on the Coast of British Columbia may be put down”.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bracken |first=Christopher |title=The Potlach papers: A colonial case history |date=December 8, 1997 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |edition=1st |pages=78}}</ref>

Thus in 1884, the ''Indian Act'' was revised to include clauses [[The Potlatch Ban (Canada)|banning the Potlatch]] and making it illegal to practice. Section&nbsp;3 of the Act read,{{blockquote|Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the "Potlatch" or the Indian dance known as the "Tamanawas" is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement; and, any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of same is guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment.<ref>''An Act further to amend "The Indian Act, 1880,"'' S.C. 1884 (47 Vict.), c. 27, s. 3. Reproduced in n.41, {{cite book|last=Bell|first=Catherine|chapter=Recovering from Colonization: Perspectives of Community Members on Protection and Repatriation of Kwakwaka'wakw Cultural Heritage|title=First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives|year=2008|publisher=[[UBC Press]]|location=Vancouver|isbn=978-0-7748-1462-1|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=avKUsA40Q0QC&pg=PA89|editor=Bell, Catherine |editor2=Val Napoleon|access-date=6 February 2011|page=89}}</ref>}}

In 1888, the anthropologist Franz Boas described the potlatch ban as a failure:
{{blockquote|The second reason for the discontent among the Indians is a law that was passed, some time ago, forbidding the celebrations of festivals. The so-called ''potlatch'' of all these tribes hinders the single families from accumulating wealth. It is the great desire of every chief and even of every man to collect a large amount of property, and then to give a great ''potlatch'', a feast in which all is distributed among his friends, and, if possible, among the neighboring tribes. These feasts are so closely connected with the religious ideas of the natives, and regulate their mode of life to such an extent, that the Christian tribes near Victoria have not given them up. Every present received at a ''potlatch'' has to be returned at another ''potlatch'', and a man who would not give his feast in due time would be considered as not paying his debts. Therefore the law is not a good one, and can not be enforced without causing general discontent. Besides, the Government is unable to enforce it. The settlements are so numerous, and the Indian agencies so large, that there is nobody to prevent the Indians doing whatsoever they like.<ref>[[Franz Boas]], "The Indians of British Columbia," [https://books.google.com/books?id=pc4WAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA636 ''The Popular Science Monthly''], March 1888 (vol. 32), p. 636.</ref>}}

Eventually{{when|date=January 2023}} the potlatch law, as it became known, was amended to be more inclusive and address technicalities that had led to dismissals of prosecutions by the court. Legislation included guests who participated in the ceremony. The Indigenous people were too large to police and the law too difficult to enforce. [[Duncan Campbell Scott]] convinced Parliament to change the offence from criminal to summary, which meant "the agents, as justice of the peace, could try a case, convict, and sentence".<ref>Aldona Jonaitis, ''Chiefly Feasts: the Enduring Kwakiutl Potlatch'', Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1991, 159.</ref> Even so, except in a few small areas, the law was generally perceived as harsh and untenable. Even the Indian agents employed to enforce the legislation considered it unnecessary to prosecute, convinced instead that the potlatch would diminish as younger, educated, and more "advanced" Indians took over from the older Indians, who clung tenaciously to the custom.<ref>Douglas Cole and Ira Chaikin, ''An Iron Hand upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast'' (Vancouver and Toronto 1990), Conclusion</ref>