The Aboriginal and Treaty Rights - Essay Example

Introduction The Anishinabe-Ojibwe people are the second largest tribe in North America. They are evenly spread out acrossthree Canadian provinces and five American States; they have occupied a large geographical area than any other tribe. The Anishinabe are woodlands people, and they have nineteen tribes within them who share similar worldviews and cosmologies, this made them to share similar threats from Americans and Europeans. Their main threat was the federal Indian policies that were designed to end their culture and identity as aboriginals and also separate them from their land. Unity drives Anishinabe life and living in harmony with all created things. They believe that they cannot be separated from the land since it would create an imbalance with the environment (Larner, Committee and Society). Anishinabe is an Ojibwe word that means one of the people, and this is how the Ojibwe people identified themselves. The Ojibwe can be found in the Rocky Mountains, Newfoundland, the Hudson Bay and North Carolina. Today, most of the Ojibwe people still reside on their ancestral land although it has been drastically reduced. They regarded their land as a gift, given to them by the Great Spirit. They believed that the land belonged to every tribesman; they loved their land and would fight with anyone who tried to drive them from it. After making the first contact with the European settlers, they considered them outsiders. They believed that if the Europeans wanted rights, they could only seek it from them since they were the first settlers. The peace and friendship treaties were created as a way of establishing bonds between them and European settlers (Larner, Committee and Society). They aimed to establish the groundwork for equal resource sharing but the white settlers used this as a ploy to get the most benefits and hurt the aboriginals. Peace Treaties by the First Nations and the European Settlers Peace and friendship treaties between the first nations and the European settlers namely the English, Dutch and the French were signed as a result of commercial activities. The Europeans were trying to establish commercial links namely the North American fur. The only way that they could be able to pursue commercial objectives was by maintaining good relationships with the aboriginals. The diplomatic agreements between the Europeans and the first nations were created on pre-contact foundations. By signing these agreements, the Europeans would inherit the relationship and rivalries of the aboriginal people they signed with. The European countries sought the indulgence of first nation tribes as comrades and allies in arms by means of the treaty relationship. The first treaties between the first nations of the Northeast woodlands and the French, Dutch and English involved warfare (Miller). The European powers were vigorously aiming to gain control of the territory and trade. There were decades of on and off fighting and by 1750 the fighting had caused adverse consequences to the natives and the newcomers. The British came up with new tactics of dealing with first nations. Most dealings between the British and the American natives occurred between 1755 and 1763. This new era of peace and friendship treaties had significant consequences for both natives and newcomers (Miller). The American Natives had a history of creating political agreements among the local tribes using kinship and ritual. One example is the Horun Confederacy and the Iroquois League. The principle purpose of this Confederacy was for the Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac to end the blood feuds that were causing inter-tribal wars. This alliance introduced a new council of headmen from all the feuding tribes who came together to end the bloody disputes. They also took part in feasts and discussions that would bring common interests. The Confederacy did not produce a military force since the indigenous groups were aiming to avoid coercion. The first nation’s organizations had limited degree of political organization (Miller). The Ojibwe Contact with the Europeans The Anishinabe made contact with the Europeans in the year 1615 when Samuel de Champlan, a French explorer came to Lake Horun. Some of the Ojibwe tribesmen resided there at the time of his arrival. In the year 1622, Etienne Brule, one of Champlan’s juniors made further explorations and came across other Ojibwe groups to the west. Many Ojibwe groups resided at the rapids of St. Mary’s River, and the French referred to this group as Saulteaux. In the year 1641, the French made their way to the rapids of St. Mary’s River and established a Christian mission in 1667 (Mpm.edu). The Ojibwe were later forced westward from the year 1640 when the Iroquois League started to attack other tribes to control the fur trade. The Ojibwe did not suffer significantly and won some significant confrontations with the Iroquois. As a result, the Iroquois League sued for peace with the French together with the Indian allies in 1701. The Ojibwe were not different from any other Indian tribe; they allied themselves with the French so as to benefit economically and militarily. They carried out trading activities with the French people who entered the Great Lakes from the year 1660. The Ojibwe desired the European trade goods, and this made them expand westward up to Lake Superior for richer fur bearing lands (Larner, Committee and Society). This is where they met with the Eastern Dakota or Santee Dakota, who were commonly referred to as Sioux. During the period of 1730, the Dakota, and the Ojibwe groups started to fight over the lands of the western parts of Lake Superior and the Mississippi River headwaters. These battles lasted up until the 1850s; the Dakota were defeated and pushed into North and South Dakota and even up to Minnesota. The Ojibwe decided to settle in Wisconsin at the Chequamegon Bay of Lake Superior. In the year 1745, the Ojibwe grew in numbers and started to move into more parts of northern Wisconsin where they set up a permanent village at the Chippewa River headwaters. They later expanded to Lac du Flambeau or lake of the flames. The area got this name because the Ojibwe went fishing at night using torches that were attached at the back of their canoes (Ajic.mb.ca). It was in this age of expansion that the Ojibwe sided with the French, especially during the Britain and France wars of 1689 to 1763. The Ojibwe were active participants in the final conflict for seven years; this was in 1754 to 1763. France lost the Midwest and Canada to the British between the period of 1761 and 1763 and it made the Ojibwe lose trust in their colonial overlords. The British were not kind towards the aboriginal people and treated them with disdain and contempt; this made an Ottawa chief to lead a rebellion against them in 1763. The Ojibwe, who were situated in the straits of Mackinac along with some Sauk, attacked the British army and killed them all. On the other hand, the Ojibwe who were living in the Southern parts of Lake Superior and Northern Wisconsin failed to take part in the rebellion. John Baptiste urged them, a French Canadian trader not to attack. British troops suppressed the revolt in 1765, but the revolution was somewhat successful because it made the British to change tactics and take a more conciliatory approach. Their change in tactics made them improve their relations with the Ojibwe tribes (Ajic.mb.ca). Involvement of the United States The fur trade that occurred in Lake Superior region prospered during Britain’s tenure. The United States gained every land situated south of the Great Lake after the American Revolution that ended in 1783 with the Paris treaty. But the British traders in Canada such as the North West Company continued to hold trading posts in the Ojibwe territory of Minnesota and Wisconsin until 1815. The United States became highly concerned with the developing British influence within that region. An expedition that was led by Lieutenant Zebulon M. Pike between 1805 and 1806 attempted to end the Ojibwe-Dakota wars and undermine British influence, but it was not successful. French Canadian and British traders continued to operate in the county of Lake Superior and the war continued (Mpm.edu). Like the other Indians, the Ojibwe sided with the British since they believed that the United States would forcefully take their land. Many Ojibwes became followers of Tecumseh and Shawnee; these were prophets who preached the message of resisting Americans. Many Ojibwe from the Detroit region fought against the United States, but those of northern Wisconsin did not participate (Ajic.mb.ca). After the end of the war in 1814, the Northern Wisconsin Ojibwe continued to hate the Americans and traded with the British across the Canadian border. They still despised the Dakota tribe, and this intensified the war in the early 1800s. The United States made two treaties between the Ojibwe and Dakota. The first settlement occurred at Prairie de Chien in the year 1825 and the second one at Fond du Lac in 1826. In British North America, there existed the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which followed the seven year confrontation; it governed the secession of land by purchase or treaty. On the other hand, France gave up most of the land situated at Upper Canada to the British. The United States and Britain failed to uphold the Jay Treaty that was introduced after the American Revolutionary War. British, who were still pre-occupied with her war with France, ceded most of her territory in Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Northern Minnesota (Smith and Kugel). In the year of 1807, the Ojibwe joined Potawatomi, Odawa and Wyandot tribes in signing the Treaty of Detroit. The agreement between the four tribes and William Hull handed the United States Southern Michigan and Ohio, the tribes retained small parcels of land in those areas. In Canada, most of the land cession treaties that were made between the British and the Ojibwe people provided for their rights to continue fishing, hunting and gathering natural resources even after the land sale (Self.gutenberg.org). States Ignores the Rights The early treaties created the groundwork for cooperative resource sharing between the settlers and the Ojibwe people. Canada and the United States viewed the later treaties that offered land cession as providing a terminal advantage. The Ojibwe people did not understand terms of land cession in the same manner as the white settlers. This lack of understanding the use of land occurred because of cultural differences. The United States government took land as something of great value that could be freely purchased, owned and sold. The Ojibwe believed that land was a freely shared resource; they compared it with sunlight, water, and air. At the time of the treaty councils, the aboriginals could not get separate land sales or exclusive land ownership. In the present day, both the United States and Canada are faced with many legal arguments in the treaty rights and interpretations. This brings to light the differences in cultural understanding of the terms of the treaty and its obligations (Mpm.edu). One example whereby the state ignored the rights of the Ojibwe people was at Wisconsin. The Ojibwe had the rights to fish and hunt on lands that they had ceded between the years of 1837 to 1842. The state of Wisconsin ignored these provisions in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The state of Wisconsin even went further to make attempts to regulate fishing in the reserved land of the Ojibwe. Ojibwe people have been continuously arrested for instance; John Blackbird, who was taken in custody for fishing on the Bad River, reserved lands. The federal courts ruled that the state had no power to regulate hunting and fishing leading to his release. However, the decision of the federal court failed to address fishing and hunting rights in territories ceded in the 1837 and 1842 treaties. The Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled the 1908 findings of the Federal Court while handling another fishing case. They ruled that the state had no power to regulate fishing and hunting rights of Ojibwe reservations. Later in 1933, the court modified this ruling by saying that regulation can only occur on privately owned reservations (Mpm.edu). The Indians preferred to negotiate through a bilateral and consensual process since they were used to this strategy. They had used this strategy even before the Europeans entered into their territory. The white settlers noted the importance of this process to the Indians and took advantage of the situation. It is clear that the Indians negotiated for what they could but faced people whose main aim was to obtain signatures no matter what the cost. The Europeans view of the importance of the treaty was different from the Indian’s perception. The Europeans primary objective was to have control of the land, settle and facilitate the development by using the available resources. In negotiating these treaties, they provided fewer benefits in return for peace and land control. The white settlers even made verbal promises as a way of reassuring the Indians, but they intentionally failed to include them in the written versions. The aboriginals agreed to give up their land rights but not their rights for self-governance. The aboriginals thought that the agreements were for land sharing just as they did with other groups and animals. They did not understand the European version of land sale agreements because it was foreign to their culture (Ajic.mb.ca). Broken Promises The American Indians had strong territorial concepts; they acknowledged the individual occupation of land. But, they viewed land as something that cannot be divided, surrendered, destroyed, transferred or owned to the extent of denying others entrance. To them, the land was the source of life; therefore, it was meant to be shared. Today, the Native Americans have the belief that the treaties have ended up as broken promises. In hearings, American Indians speak of their understanding of the treaties and the manner in which they were treated as a result of being in these agreements. For instance, the aboriginals who reside in Manitoba believed that they entered into the Crown as a way of retaining their land, culture, identity, religion, language and ways of life. This also included their system of governance and laws, but all these things have been denied to them (Ajic.mb.ca). The reserve land that was set aside for the American natives is full of frustrations. The reserve should be perceived as land for which the American natives retain their original title. The government still maintains that they surrendered the land to the Crown, who later gave it back to the aboriginals. The American natives should have been equal partners with an equal say inside the crown, but that has also been denied to them. The promises that were drafted in the treaties were explained and understood by the Aboriginals in conceptual and general terms. These treaties were to include economic developments of the reserves so as to benefit the whole community. The treaties were also supposed to respect the tribe’s original forms of governance. According to the American Indians, the treaties were agreements on land sharing and respect for each group’s autonomy. The Native Americans wanted to be the ones to choose how the white settlers would influence them, but this too was denied to them (Ajic.mb.ca). Today, the treaties are still crucial to the American Natives since they are a representation of how the government went against their promises. The Aboriginals still hold that the Crown should take into account the intent and spirit of the people not just the written terms. Periods of 1970 to 1984 marked significant promises to the aboriginals fight for equal rights with favourable rulings by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling stated that they can no longer be held by the prejudices and biases of another era. The ruling also said that the statutes and treaties in regards to Indians should be closely studied and resolved to favor Indians. Currently, the Indian Act is up for amendment to remove the discriminatory clauses (Ajic.mb.ca). In conclusion, the American natives were driven by unity and lived in harmony with the surroundings. They had great respect for their land which they believed gave them life. Contact with the Europeans clearly shown the differences in culture and their perception of the world. They signed treaties, traded and even fought hand in hand with the settlers with the aim of protecting their communities, for instance, the Ojibwe, and the French. The involvement of the United States gave rise to land cessions that the aboriginals signed with the belief that they were just signing the land. What they did not know was that the white people had ulterior motives, and many indigenous communities lost their land to settle in reserves. Individual States even went further to regulate the activities within their reserved area. Through persistence to get equal rights, affirmative rulings have been made, and I believe that the government should acknowledge all the wrongs done and create steps to favor the American Indians. Works Cited Ajic.mb.ca,. The Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. N.P., 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. Larner, John W., Ojibwe Curriculum Committee, and Minnesota Historical Society. The Ojibwe: A History Resource Unit. The History Teacher 8.2 (1975): 296. Web. Miller, J. R. Compact, Contract, Covenant. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Print. Mpm.edu,. Ojibwe History - Indian Country Wisconsin. N.P., 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. Self.gutenberg.org,. Ojibwa | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - EBooks | Read EBooks Online. N.P., 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. Smith, Susan, and Rebecca Kugel. To Be The Main Leaders Of Our People: A History Of Minnesota Ojibwe Politics, 1825-1898. The Journal of American History 88.1 (2001): 192. Web. Read More