Lawless Lawyers: Indigeneity, Civility, and Violence
Abstract
On 8 June 1826, young members of the Family Compact—allegedly disguised as “Indians”—raided William Lyon Mackenzie’s York office, smashing his printing press and throwing his types into Lake Ontario, to protest defamatory editorials. This essay investigates how the cultural memory of “Indian” disguise emerged by asking what this memory reveals about the performative and political dynamics of this protest. At first glance, the performance conventions and disciplinary function of the Types Riot allow it to be compared to folk protest traditions such as “playing Indian” and charivari. However, the Types Riot differed from these popular performances because the participants were members of the provincial elite, not protestors outside of the structures of power. The rioters’ choice of how to perform their “civilized” authority—through an act of lawless law legitimated through citations of “Indigenous” authority—demonstrates inherent contradictions in how power was enacted in Upper Canada. Furthermore, by engaging in a performance that resembled charivari, the rioters called their own civility—attained through education, wealth, and political connections—into question by behaving like peasants. The Types Riot demonstrates that the Family Compact’s claim to authority based on its members’ civility—their superior values, education, and social privilege—was backed by the threat of uncivil violence. The riot revealed a contradiction that the Upper Canadian elite would, no doubt, have preferred remained private: that in the settler-colony, gentlemanly power relied upon the potential for “savage” retribution, cited through the rioters’ “Indian” disguises.Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
1. The Editors will be responsible for the usual functions of copyediting on this article. The Author will be given an opportunity to review the final version of the article (prior to typesetting), but if (s)he fails to return it by the date requested, production and publication will proceed without the Author's approval.
2. The Author undertakes that permission to publish the article has not been assigned previously elsewhere.
3. The Author agrees to provide copies of letters of permission to reproduce material from other publications in this contribution where such permission is required.
4. The Author agrees to secure all permissions required for the printing of photos or illustrations.
5. The Author is entitled to two free (print) copies of the issue in which the article appears.
6. The Author agrees to refer to the Editors any subsequent requests to publish the article or substantial portion thereof in any printed or electronic publication. The Journal will normally obtain a standard fee for reprinting, the amount of this fee to be fixed from time to time; this fee will be divided equally with the Author. The Editors will accede to any requests by the Author to use part or all of the article in a work published under the Author's exclusive or joint authorship or editorship, provided that suitable acknowledgment of its first appearance is made, and in such cases no fee for reprinting shall be payable to the Journal. The purpose of this clause is to protect both the Author and Journal from unauthorized or illegitimate use of the article.
7. If requested by the Author in advance in any particular case, the fee for reprinting may be waived by the Editors.
Additional or Alternative Clauses: Subject to the above conditions, and in consideration of the Publisher undertaking to subsidize costs of the publication of the article, the Author assigns to the Journal the exclusive world rights to the article in its present, or substantially its present form (in both print and electronic publication), and the parties agree upon the foregoing terms for themselves and their respective executors, administrators, assigns or successors.
