The Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67

The Indians of Canada Pavilion at Expo 67:
An Expression of Colonialism1
Cécile Capela-Laborde
ARCH 355 – Winter 2010
Architectural History IV
Prof. A. Adams
March 29th, 2010
1
I would like to thank Sr. Delisle for his participation in an interview, Prof. A. Adams for
her supervising and valuable comments on my draft, and Mr. O. Vallerand for his advice
on references.
During his visit to the 1967 Montreal World’s Fair on July 3rd, an ordinary
Montreal native visitor, Meredith Dixon photographed Queen Elizabeth II being greeted
outside the Indians of Canada pavilion, thereby capturing a unique intersection of
colonial histories (Figure 1). Canada’s bond to the British Crown on its centennial
intersects with the complex history of relations between the Canadian government and
the Indigenous people, while reminding us of the still-existent importance of the Crown
in 1960s Aboriginal politics of Canada. Building a separate pavilion for the First Nations
people was not planned at the outset, and was thus an unexpected outcome of Expo 672.
The initial plans for Expo 67 were for the stories of Aboriginal groups to be included in
the narrative of a single Canada pavilion, as in previous fairs3. This initial conception,
unlike the historical complexity that Dixon’s photograph illustrates, reveals a
“conventional, totalizing vision of Canada history in which distinct groups within the
population were subsumed as “contributors” within a unified and linear historical
trajectory”4. Moreover, the initial plans were to portray, within the Canada pavilion, the
lives of the Indigenous people in pre-confederation time; “some Indian artifacts [would]
be dimly spotlighted amidst a dreamworld forest”5. This seemed intended to preclude the
Native people from the celebration of the one hundred year anniversary of the
confederation that Expo 67 commemorates. The later decision, taken at the end of 1965,
to construct a separate pavilion for First Nations people under the auspices of the federal
2
Ruth
Phillips,
“Commemoration/ (de)celebration: Super-shows and the Decolonization of
Canadian Museums, 1967-92”.
3
Department of Indian Affairs and North Development Archives, “Letter of June 1963, from
H.M. Jones, Acting Deputy Minister, Indians Affairs, to J.A. Roberts, Deputy Minister,
Department of Trade and Commerce”.
4
Ruth
Phillips, “Commemoration/ (de)celebration: Super-shows and the Decolonization of
Canadian Museums, 1967-92”, p.103.
5
Department of Indian Affairs and North Development Archives, “Storyline, Government of
Canada Pavilion, Montreal 1967”.
2
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (DIAND) can be seen as the result of the
mounting pan Aboriginal movement and empowerment in the 1960s6. The Indian
Advisory Committee set up by the DIAND, however, had to threaten federal bureaucrats,
denouncing them to the press for their interventions and occasional acts of censorship, in
order to be delegated with control over the design and storyline of the pavilion’s
exhibits7.
Ruth Phillips claims that the “Indians of Canada Pavilion constituted a moment of
dramatic rupture with many key conventions of colonialist representation”8. Unlike
previous exhibitions which were curated by non-Indigenous people and which focused
almost exclusively on pre-contact and earlier contact times as the locus of authenticity,
the Indians of Canada pavilion also exhibited contemporary Canada Indian art and
cultures, and as the exhibition brochure told the visitor, the installations presented the
answers to the question: “What do you want to tell the people of Canada and the world
when they come to Expo 67?”9. As the Official Expo Guide states, “the presentation pulls
no punches”10; Native people were able to speak their minds on extremely controversial
topics and denounce the historical and contemporary abuses of the Canadian government.
However, I disagree with Philips’s former claim and will argue that, despite the Native
Canadian people’s control over both the architectural design and the exhibitions of their
pavilion at Expo 67, the Indians of Canada pavilion cannot be considered as an
6
In 1960, Native persons possessing Indian status obtained the right to vote in federal elections,
and revisions of the Indian act marked a new era of opposition to the government’s assimilationist
policies.
7
Ruth
Phillips, “Commemoration/ (de)celebration: Super-shows and the Decolonization of
Canadian Museums, 1967-92”.
8
Ibid, p. 107.
9
Indians of Canada Pavilion, p. 3.
10
Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition. Man and his World, p. 94.
3
expression of post-colonialism because the architectural design of the pavilion and its
ornaments remained an expression of colonialism. The pavilion paraphrases the historical
form of a teepee, and its ornaments are traditional Aboriginal art. Firstly, I will elaborate
on the importance for colonial and post-colonial theory to engage with the materiality of
spaces, the built-environment and design, rather than simply with analyses of
representation and discourses. Secondly, I will show how the design of the pavilion,
being based on the traditional hide teepee and its juxtaposed totem pole, reproduce a
colonial space (figure 2). Lastly, I will compare the Indians of Canada Pavilion to the
National Museum of American Indians (NMAI) designed by the Native architect Douglas
Cardinal as it is considered to be an example post-colonial Native American
architecture11 (figure 5).
In broad terms, colonialism is a practice of either direct or indirect forms
domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another. This domination
can take place at the political, economical, and cultural levels. Post-colonial approaches
aim to reconstruct the colonized identities transcending colonial legacies and presences of
imperialism. Philips believes that the pavilion is a “critique of historical and
anthropological discourse” of the dominant society12. The art exhibition and the messages
presented allowed Native people to freely speak out and communicated the
contemporaneity and multiplicity of Aboriginal cultures, thereby destroying the colonial
fiction of homogenous Indianness. However, Philips’s conclusion is problematic because
it does not take into account the material forms and spaces in which issues of identity,
11
In
a personal email, Delisle wrote that “the design by Douglas Cardinal of the NMAI reflects
the post-colonial architecture of the Indian people” (19 March 2010).
12
Ruth
Philips, “Show times: de-celebrating the Canadian nation, de-colonizing the Canadian
museum, 1967-92”, p. 127.
4
meaning, and agency are embedded. “It is these which act as vehicles for the exercise of
subaltern agency”13. The spatial and material environments are not simply signifiers of
power and control; they are “real spaces in which the authority of colonial power and
control is effectively contested”14. Thus, the architectural design of the pavilion and its
ornaments need to be considered to designate the pavilion as an expression of
colonialism, or post-colonialism.
The Indians of Canada pavilion of Expo 67 cannot embody a radical rupture from
colonialist forms of representations if we also consider its architectural design and
exterior decorations. As our carefully composed photograph by Dixon reveals (figure 2),
when the ordinary visitor arrived at the Indians of Canada pavilion, he or she was
overwhelmed by references to what was considered in popular-culture to constitute
Indianness. At the entrance, the exterior wood facades were ornamented with traditional
paintings, and the forecourt featured a Totem Pole, carved by Kwakiutl artists Tony and
Henry Hunt (figure 1). The pavilion itself was a set of interconnected hexagonal volumes
clad in cedar and decorated by notable Aboriginal artists, including Alex Janvier and
Norval Morisseau (figure 2). The cedar-clad forms culminated in the aforementioned one
hundred feet high Teepee-like structure, forming the basis of another hexagonal volume
at the center (figure 3). While technological innovations were almost de rigeur at Expo
67, the pavilion did not take part of this trend, marking its anchorage in the past.
Moreover, in contrast to the pavilion’s program of specially commissioned contemporary
art inside, the ornaments on the pavilion façade, the Pole totem and the ‘stereo-teepeecal’ structure of the building define Indian cultures as it was in colonial times. The
13
King,
14
Ibid,
“Cultures and Spaces of Postcolonial Knowledges”, p. 48.
p. 57.
5
architecture of the pavilion does not break away from colonialist representations, as it
presents Native American architecture of pre-contact and early colonial times15.
Besides, the notions of mimicry and hybridity, which characterize colonial
discourse16, have their referents in the spatial form of the Indians of Canada pavilion. The
pavilion mimics the traditional Native architectural design of the teepee. It is not,
however, identical to the traditional teepees; rather, it is a hybrid. The pavilion is a
‘paraphrase’17 of the traditional teepee; that is, a translation that takes cues from the
traditional form of the teepee and that is freely interpreted in modern materials. Instead of
being made of wood, the poles of the pavilion were made of steel, and the sides of the
teepee structure were covered with vinyl sheets to represent traditionally used canvas.
Another characteristic of colonial discourse which is conveyed in the pavilion’s
architecture is the homogenization of Indigenous cultures. The teepee-like structure of the
pavilion reduces the representation of Native American architecture to a very particular
type of Indian architecture. Only the Aboriginals of the Great Plains, who predominantly
inhabited land that is part of the United States, used teepees. Therefore, it is an inaccurate
representation of traditional Native American architecture, and a particularly erroneous
representation traditional Native architecture in Canada. Native American architecture is
far from reducible to the ‘stereoteepee’ structure; the traditional Native American
building design varied according of the tribes’ ways of life, their environments, their
religion, and importantly with the functions that they performed18.
15
Nabolov
and Easton, Native American Architecture.
“Cultures and Spaces of Postcolonial Knowledges”.
17
Krinsky, “Paraphrases”.
18
Nabolov and Easton, Native American Architecture.
16
King,
6
The fact that this particular design was chosen and agreed upon by Native chiefs
across all of Canada only reinforces the thesis that the Indians of Canada pavilion is an
expression of colonialism. Since J.W. Francis, who designed the pavilion, was a
government architect from the Indian Affairs Branch19, Native control over the design of
the pavilion has been questioned. However, in my communication with Sr. A. T. Delisle,
the former chief of the Kahnawake Mohawks and the commissioner general of the
Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo 67 confirmed that Native people had complete control
over its storyline and design. Recounting his job as a member of the Indian Advisory
Committee, he wrote in a personal email:
I visited many Native communities across the country in order to get an idea of
what we were presenting and also to get the approval of our design and content, we
were involved in curating the exhibit as well as creating the messages posted. We
interviewed and selected the artists who provided for the content and the external
facade. Of course the pavilion originated from the INAC20 simply because they had
the money to do it… the design and content and everything associated with it were
approved by the chosen reps of all Indians in Canada21.
Echoing the words of J.W. Francis who wrote that he came up with a design for a tall
conical building intended to resonate with the Plains teepee, as it was the “Indian
dwelling that would be uppermost in the public’s mind”22, Sr. Delisle wrote that “the
architectural design of the pavilion was an excellent design for the occasion as it
presented a face of the Indians of Canada that was most familiar to the visitors and could
be distinguished from other Canadian and European designs”23. The fact that the Native
people purposely choose this charismatic design to speak to the world precisely
19
Kalin,
Expo 67: Survey of Building Materials, Systems and Techniques, p. 26.
Department of Indian and North Affairs is now referred to as Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada (INAC).
21
Delisle, personal communication.
22
Francis, “Indians of Canada Pavilion – Expo 67, Press Conference – Ottawa, July 1966:
Presentation of Theme and Design Concept”.
23
Delisle, personal communication.
20
The
7
demonstrates that Native peoples were tacitly forced to use the language of the colonizers
to assert their own identities. This demonstrates through its architecture that the Indians
of Canada pavilion still employs the cultural and broader ideological legacies that
characterize colonialism. To be an expression of post-colonialism, the architecture of the
pavilion would have to question Western knowledge itself. Because the architecture of
the pavilion employs the language of the colonizers, it is not “clearly positioned as on the
margin of the utopic space of the Canada Complex” as Rogers argues24.
In contrast, the design of the NMAI reflects what post-colonial Native American
architecture is25. Unlike the Indians of Canada pavilion which reproduces one of the
stereotypical forms of Native American architecture, the design of the NMAI does not
replicate pre-contact/early post-contact Native designs, nor is it a “confluence of
peripheral localities” such as a conglomeration of teepee and longhouse forms. The
design of the NMAI is post-colonial not simply in that it is representative of most Indian
tribes. Rather, it is considered post-colonial Native architecture in that, instead of
‘paraphrasing’ Native historical forms, it employs principle-based abstractions or
‘commonalities’ derived from the concerns of Native constituents to inform the design of
the NMAI26. This new genre is more conceptual than specifically formal; architects carry
concepts out in form. The design criteria of the NMAI were identified through
consultation with Native local communities; the meetings were organized to determine
‘commonalities’ in the traditions and conceptual approaches of these diverse
24
Rogers,
Man and His World: An Indian, a Secretary and a Queer Child. Expo 67 and the
Nation in Canada, p.21.
25
Delisle, personal communication.
26
Ostrowitz, “Concourse and Periphery, Planning of the National Museum of the American
Indian”, pp. 84-127.
8
communities27. The following concepts emerged as ‘commonalities’ from the meetings
and were expressed architecturally: connection with nature, directional symbolism, and
circularity.
As Douglas Cardinal emphasizes in his book Of the Spirit, the concept of oneness
with nature, and thus with all living beings and the land in the sense of environment, is
one of the defining principles of Indian cultures. The word ‘Native’ comes from natus;
“the native people are the people of nature, of birth, of organic life”28. Architecturally,
this connection to the nature is conceived through the NMAI’s citation of natural forms,
textures and colours. The curvilinear building is constructed to resemble natural stone
formations. The exterior walls are made with gold-colored Kasota limestone from
Minnesota. This limestone texture and the undulating structure recall the effects of
geological processes, expressed in a series of stacked, curvilinear bands (figure 5).
Moreover, the working waterfalls that flow down from the building itself, the use of
‘natural’ materials such as granite, bronze, copper, maple, cedar and alder, and the
museum’s 4.25 acres landscape that features a hardwood forest, meadows, traditional
croplands, ‘grandfather’ rocks, and wetlands29 are explicit quotes of nature. Although the
Indians of Canada pavilion was surrounded by a small lake, trees, shrubs and rocks that
marked its connection to nature, the shape of the pavilion and the materials used for the
teepee itself did not make any reference to nature (figure 6). Instead of embodying
abstractions from Aboriginal cultures, the pavilion paraphrases a specific historical form;
namely, the teepee.
27
Ibid.
28
Melnyk,
“Douglas Cardinal: Architect of the Spirit”.
Museum of American Indian, “Architecture and Landscape”. Refer to the webpage for
more details of the Native plants that are used in the museum’s landscape.
29
National
9
Another key-principle that is outlined in the museum’s landmark document, The
Way of the People (1993), is the marking of the cardinal directions. The museum’s
cardinal direction markers are four stones placed on the ground along the north-south and
east-west axes. Those axes cross at the center of the ‘Potomac’ area, connecting the four
directions to the circle of sandstone that marks the figurative heart of the NMAI. The
stones symbolically honor the culture of the East, the West, the North, and the South, as
each stone comes respectively comes from Maryland, Hawai’i, Canada, and Chile. This
subtle yet significant design concept is inexistent in the Indians of Canada pavilion.
The last abstract key-principle that was considered as commonalities among
Native American cultures at the consultative meetings preceding the construction of the
NMAI is the form of the circle. The circle represents the cycle of life, the wholeness of
nature, the whole ethic, politics and religion of Aboriginal cultures; the “circle is balance,
harmony, equality and unity as expressed by the natus people”30. Architecturally,
circularity is first apparent in the curvilinear form of the building, in the accompanying
water features that parallel curvilinear paths, in its domed vault (figure 7), and in the
outdoor dance circle, called the Welcome Plaza (figure 8). Inside the building, circularity
is marked by the large multifunctional space, named the ‘Potomac’31(figure 9):
The Potomac is literally the base of the museum’s atrium-like core. It is
encircled on the ground level by a copper screen with basketry-like features
and this circularity I echoed by the swirling balconied floors above it and
the huge stepped dome with an oculus at its apex. In fact, the entire
experience of the interior of the museum is characterized by the curvilinear
traffic pattern that walls and halls dictate32.
30
Ibid,
p. 12.
word comes from the language of the Piscataway group, and means “a place where rivers
and people come together and where the goods are brought in” (The Way of the People I in
Ostrowitz, “Concourse and Periphery”, p.111).
32
Ostrowitz, “Concourse and Periphery, Planning of the National Museum of the American
Indian”, p.111.
31
This
10
One may object that the circular forms of the NMAI is not an abstraction from Indian
cultures, and argue that rather it is an icon borrowed from the architecture of Occidental
contemporary art museums, such as the Guggenheim and the Whitney museums.
However, circularity can be seen as both an abstraction representing Indian cultures and a
clamor for the world stage. This lack of opposition between the colonizers and the
colonized embedded in the architecture is characteristic of post-colonialism. On the other
hand, the circularity that one may attribute to the sections called the “Drum” and the
“Future Area” of the pavilion does not result from an abstraction of Native American
cultures. Rather, their circular shapes come from the pavilion’s teepee-like form.
The comparison of the Indians of Canada pavilion and the NMAI, which is
Delisle considers to reflect what post-colonial Native American architecture is, confirms
that the Indians of Canada pavilion is an expression of colonialism. Although both the
exhibits and the architectural design of the pavilion were under the control of the Native
American people, the teepee-like structure and its traditional ornaments undeniably mark
the pavilion as colonial. Using a teepee design not only misrepresents the variety of
Indian architectural forms and places the Indians in colonial times, it also demonstrates
the necessity for Indigenous groups to describe themselves according to the indexing
criteria and perceptions of outsiders. As the NMAI clearly highlights, post-colonial
Native architecture does not consist of ‘paraphrasing’ specific historical forms. Rather,
the design should embody abstractions or key-principles, selected and expressed as
‘commonalities’ of Indian cultures during a consultation process. This paper’s approach
just goes to show that architecture can contribute to new perspectives that mere historical
analysis cannot supplement.
11
Bibliography
Canadian Corporation for 1967 World Exhibition. Terre des homes. Man and His World.
Montreal: Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, 1967.
Department of Indian Affairs and North Development Archives, “Letter of June 1963,
from H.M. Jones, Acting Deputy Minister, Indians Affairs, to J.A. Roberts, Deputy
Minister, Department of Trade and Commerce”, 1/43-3, v.1.
Department of Indian Affairs and North Development Archives, “Storyline, Government
of Canada Pavilion, Montreal 1967”, December 1963, 1/43-3, v.1.
Francis, J. W. “Indians of Canada Pavilion – Expo 67, Press Conference – Ottawa, July
1966: Presentation of Theme and Design Concept”. 3. NAC, RG 71. v. 447.
Indians of Canada Pavilion, Indians of Canada Pavilion – Expo 67, 3. Canada: Controller
of Stationery 1967.
Kalin, I. Expo 67: Survey of Building Materials, Systems and Techniques. Ottawa: The
Queen’s Printer, 1969.
King, Anthony “Cultures and Spaces of Postcolonial Knowledges”. In Spaces of Global
Cultures: Architecture, Urbanism and Identity, edited by the author 45-63. Canada:
Routledge 2004.
Krinsky, Carol “Paraphrases”. In Contemporary Native American Architecture: Cultural
Regeneration and Creatvity 81-117.New York: Oxford University Press 1996.
Melnyk, G. Introduction to Of the Spirit, by Douglas Cardinal 9-22. Canada: NeWest
Press 1977.
12
Nabolov, Peter, and Robert Easton Native American Architecture. Oxford: Oxford
University Press 1989.
National Museum of American Indian, “Architecture and Landscape”, National Museum
of American Indian,
http://www.nmai.si.edu/subpage.cfm?subpage=visitor&second=dc&third=landscape,
accessed on 29th of March 2010.
Ostrowitz, Judith “Concourse and Periphery: Planning the National Museum of the
American Indian”. In The National Museum of the American Indian: Critical
Conversations, edited by Amy Lonetree and Amanda Cobb 84-131. Lincoln and London:
University of Nebraska Press 2008.
Phillips, Ruth B. “Commemoration/ (de)celebration: Super-shows and the Decolonization
of Canadian Museums, 1967-92”. In Postmodernism and the Ethical Subject, edited by
Gabriel Ilcan 99-124. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press 2006.
Philips, Ruth B. “Show times: de-celebrating the Canadian nation, de-colonizing the
Canadian museum, 1967-92”. In Rethinking Settler Colonialism, edited by Annie E.
Coombes, 121-139. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006.
Rogers, Randal A. Man and His World: An Indian, a Secretary and a Queer Child. Expo
67 and the Nation in Canada. Master thesis, Concordia University, 1999.
13
Illustrations
Figure 1. Queen Elizabeth II being greeted in the forecourt of the Indians of Canada
Pavilion. (Photo courtesy of Meredith Dixion and McGill Libraries).
14
Figure 2. Indians of Canada Pavilion. (Photo courtesy of Meredith Dixion and McGill
Libraries). This is the picture I choose to base my essay on.
Figure 3. Arial view of the Indians of Canada Pavilion (Photo courtesy of Archives
Canada)
15
Figure 4. Indians of Canada Pavilion Floor Plan. (Photo from Katlin I. Expo 67: Survey of
Building Materials, Systems and Techniques. Ottawa: The Queen’s Printer, 1969.)
16
Figure 5. The National Museum of American Indians and its wall fountains (Photo
courtesy of Schmap Inc.).
17
Figure 6. North side of the Indians of Canada Pavilion (Photo courtesy of Canada
Archives).
18
Figure 7. Arial view of the NMAI showing the dome
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmericanIndianMuseumDomeview.jpg)
Figure 8. Welcome Plaza of the NMAI (http://64.38.12.138/news/images/welcome4.jpg)
19
Figure 9. NMAI – Interior of the Potomac room with domed ceiling (Photo from A.
Lonetree and A. J. Cobb, The National Museum of the American Indians: Critical
Conversation. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press 2008).
20