Aboriginal Treaty-Making in Canada - Term Paper Example

ABORIGINAL TREATIES RESEARCH PAPER Executive Summary The main aim of this study is to highlight the treaty making process between aboriginal people and the merchants from Europe that subsequently led to the establishment of the state of Canada. It examines all treaties signed from 1490s when the white traders first set foot in the country up to the 1920s. The study also interprets these treaties and showcases their impacts on the natives. 1.0 Introduction The development of the nation of Canada would not have been possible if it were not for the treaties between the First Nation and the outsiders. Ironically, the treaties that were supposed to unite them, segregated them further leading to conflict that has lasted to this day. Despite the relevance of these treaties, most Canadians do not know about them. This research goes into an in depth look into the treaties and how they impacted the native Indians. 1.1 Thesis Statement While the aboriginal people approached treaty-making as a way to create and maintain new relationship, the companies and the outsiders saw this as an opportunity to control the economic landscape of the area, including possessing of Indian land. Whereas some treaties were good and kept the natives demands first, others were completely marred with dishonesty and treachery that ultimately led to forceful grabbing of Indian land. The treaties, which were prepared in Anglophone and French languages, had hidden clauses that were either too complex for Indians to comprehend, or had no direct translation in the aboriginal languages, gave the white settlers an edge over the natives. They therefore abused the agreement for their own self advancement. 2.0 Methodology Since the research had no empirical connotations, the methods employed in this study were non-empirical. The primary sources of information were the online articles. The sources chosen were either scholarly or peer reviewed due to the fact that they were written by professionals in the field and also because the articles have evidences. The secondary source of information was interviews. I interviewed several prominent elders of native Indians to get their opinion on treaties. The interviews were recorded using an audio recorder. This method was however not as effective as I had envisioned. The interviewees were ignorant of all the treaties their ancestors signed. Instead of listing and breaking down the treaties, they concentrated on their grievances and the injustices their race has faced over the years. I also interviewed non-aboriginal citizens to get their take on the issue. Just like the native elders, none of them could provide anything meaningful about the treaties. Therefore, most of the information obtained was based solely from internet sources. 3.0 Results 1According to the Canadian government (2013), there were 15 official treaties made between the Indians and outsiders. The first official treaties were signed or enacted in the 1700s to early 1800s and are referred to as Peace and friendship treaties. The Robinson treaties and the Douglas treaties were signed in 1850s. The subsequent treaties had no names and I therefore gave them numerical values to distinguish them. There were two treaties in 1871, treaty 1 and 2. Other treaties include: Treaty 3 in 1873 Treaty 4 in 1874 Treaty 5 in 1875 Treaty 6 in 1876 Treaty 7 in 1877 Treaty 8 in 1899 Treaty 9 (1905- 1906) Treaty 10 in 1906 Treaty 11 in 1921 The Williams treaties in 1923 4.0 Interpretation 4.1 Peace and Friendship Treaties Though considered treaties, they were actually not treaties. This is because for a treaty to occur there must be an official document to seal it2. There were none in this case. Instead, there were rituals and celebrations that were performed between the aboriginals and the outsiders to come to terms with each other. This was mainly due to the fact that Indians had no form of literary skills and the only way to win their trust would be through ‘informalized’ treaty-making. The timeline of these treaties was between the 17th and 19th century and involved British and French companies trying to get monopoly of trade and control of the state. The two colonialists were therefore forced to conform to the wishes of the aboriginals since they were in charge of the fur trade, knew all the trade routes, would protect them against aggression and also because they were extremely hostile to enemies. These treaties were purposely made for trade and also for peaceful coexistence between the parties. 3These treaties can be looked in two ways: inter-tribal agreements between First Nation tribes and agreements between First Nation tribes and the European traders. The first form of agreement was facilitated by ecological variations in the country. That is, natives in an area would produce commodities that were richly available to them and trade them for goods they could not produce. For instance, the Huron produced corn while the Petun were the main suppliers of tobacco; Algonkians provided copper from the north and Mi’kmaq had a large supply of maritime resources. In order for the first nation tribes to trade they had to have peaceful relations. This was established and maintained through kinship ties. It is worth noting that Indians uphold friendship and peaceful coexistence. It is due to this reason that they had to have strong friendship relations with other parties before they transacted with them. They therefore did not transact with strangers until a form of relationship was established between them. Kinship ties were created through marriages and assimilation or adoption of strangers and prisoners of war into their tribes.4 Treaties between natives and trading companies had a lot of rituals and ceremonies involved. These repetitive ceremonies were done before trading took place and provided reassurance that no bad blood was brewing between the parties and that the relationship was still strong. Some of the practices include smoking of tobacco pipe and giving of gifts to chiefs. Although the treaties led to peaceful coexistence among the parties involved and the introduction of new commodities among the natives like iron, they also facilitated permanent residence of white residents in the region. Once the outsiders knew of the importance of gifts and ceremonies among the aboriginals, they constantly gave them gifts in form of oatmeal, clothes and tobacco. In the end they won the trust of these people and consequently, they acquired large tracts of land without any opposition from them. In the 1700s, there was mounting hostility between British and French settlers who were fighting for the control of the state. The French pitted her Indian allies against the neutral tribes and those affiliated to the British. This factor further weakened the first nations.5 4.2 The Robinson Treaties in 1850 6On 8th January 1850, William Benjamin Robinson was chosen by an executive council to have a land cession treaty with the natives at Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The urgency of this agreement came as a result of heavy hostilities the white settlers were facing in the region. The terms of the negotiations proved a major challenge for Robinson. He was to acquire the northern regions of Lake Huron and Lake Superior using only £7500, which included other expenses like travelling and upkeep costs. He was also not allowed to use gifts to appease Indian chiefs. This was a major problem considering the importance of gifts among Indians. However, Robinson successfully purchased more land than he was actually commissioned to. Aside from the amount paid for the land, the terms in these treaties allowed Indians to exercise their fishing and hunting rights on the lands. The chiefs were also allowed to select summer encampment lands. By signing Robinson treaties, the natives agreed to desist from meddling into the mining activities in the ceded regions. Though their hunting and fishing rights were in existence since the treaty in 1763, they were informal. Robinson provided the blueprint of formalized Indian land rights. 4.3 Douglas Treaties 7James Douglas, governor of Vancouver Island from 1851-1864 and one of the key players who facilitated Hudson’s Bay Company operations at Fort Victoria, organized a series of treaties that led to Indians surrendering their arable land for few blankets and small reserve lands. As more settlers began streaming into the country, there culminated land problems between them and the natives. To resolve the problem, Douglas decided to buy lands from Sooke, Songhees and Klannam tribes. These tribes forfeited their lands in exchange for small reserves, few blankets and the freedom to hunt in unoccupied lands. 4.4 Treaty 1 & 2 of 1871 8These two treaties were signed on the pretext of protecting Indians; in reality, they were aimed at assimilating them into the Canadian society. The terms were that the natives surrender their vast lands in exchange for reserved lands and the freedom to practice their occupation of fishing and hunting in unoccupied waters and land respectively, until the time these territories are sold by the crown. Unfortunately, fishing and hunting provisions were never incorporated into the document, though they were part of the agreement. The treaties had therefore implications since Indians felt they were being short changed by the Canadian administration. For instance, they had been promised farming supplies to enable them embark on agricultural activities, but the promise was not fulfilled. This prompted the Indians to start a series of complaints against the injustices they were facing. They even rejected annuity payments for their lands. Eventually, a memorandum was attached to treaty 1 to accommodate all written and unwritten promises granted to the natives.9 4.5 Treaty 3 of 1873 In a bid to acquire the Hudson Bay Company territories, the Canadian government had to involve Indians inhabiting the region. The terms of this treaty were to be in accordance with the extant British policy regarding the Indians. Therefore, native tribes were to be compensated fully for all deprived rights, they were to settled in reserves, they were to be given means to establish homes and also provided with agricultural supplies to engage in farming.10 It is also worth noting that this treaty was not solely based on compensating Indians. It also included the assimilative process. The government instigated ‘the elevation and improvement’ of Indian race using this treaty. Indians were as a result indoctrinated with Christian beliefs and given educational and industrial training. 4.6 Treaty 4 of 1874 11After successfully acquiring land using the three western treaties, the government wanted to build a railway network to the north-west. This would not be possible however until the demands of the Indians in the west are met. There was serious unrest in the western region as the Métis and Indians competed for the diminishing buffalo reserves. They therefore welcomed the idea of the treaty as it offered them security against loss of land and livelihood. The Crees and Saulteaux chiefs demanded same terms as those of offered to Indians at the north-west angle. Treaty 4 was therefore similar to treaty 3. 4.7 Treaty 5 of 1875 12This treaty was different from the previous ones because it involved land that was of less economic importance to the government. Indians at Lake Winnipeg did not enjoy higher annuities like the Indians covered by the third and fourth treaties; however they were also given exclusive rights to hunt and fish in unoccupied grounds. 4.8 Treaty 6 of 1876 13Indians and Métis at Alberta and Saskatchewan were unsatisfied by the government’s deliberate move to ignore them. As more outsiders settle in these places, the depleted buffalo resource was strained further. The natives and the half breeds were therefore uneasy as this was their main source of livelihood. They consequently blocked all geological and telegraphic constructions in their area and demanded an audience with the government. Just like in other treaties preceding it, Indians were promised reserves and rights to hunt and fish by the treaty commissioners. 4.9 Treaty 7 of 1877 As part of the agreement to convert British Columbia into a confederation in 1871, the government was to construct a trans-continental railway. The problem however was that the line was to pass through Indian territory and in the process, large scale immigration of the natives to the western prairies would be necessary. The government therefore had to come into a consensus with the Indians before the construction began. This led to the signing of treaty 7.14 4.10 Treaty 8 of 1899 During the Klondike gold rush, the government was forced to negotiate with the natives and mixed blood Indians at Great Slave Lake, Lake Athabasca and the Peace River to allow prospecting of gold and settlement. For the land, the government had to provide alternative lands for the Métis and Indians. Furthermore, their hunting, trapping and fishing rights were considered by the government.15 4.11 Treaty 9 of 1905-1906 16At the onset of the 20th century, the government decided to send surveyors at Missinaibi Lake on the northern parts of the country to expand the railway network. Economic viability of the region was further enhanced by the discovery of minerals on the northwestern part of Ontario, which made the lands more desirable to the government. However, the Cree and Ojibwa who inhabited the place sent the surveyors away and demanded a treaty before any settlement or mineral excavation could be carried out in their lands. The terms of the treaties were similar to those of treaty 8 with only one exception. In this treaty the Indians were not given a chance to select their reserve lands, instead the commissioner at Ontario was to select where to relocate them. 4.12 Treaty 10 of 1906 This treaty called upon the Cree and Chipewyan Indians to give up more than 200 square kilometers of land at the newly formed Saskatchewan province in exchange for reserves, annual payments, farming supplies, education and the right to hunt, fish and trap. The land had no economic significance to the government since it had not led out a plan yet for the construction of the railway, nor was it prospecting minerals in the region. However, the government was forced to negotiate with the Indians as per their own requests. The Indians were on the brink of starvation due to depleted food reserves in the region and they needed government assistance.17 4.13 Treaty 11 of 1921 18Initially, the government did not see the need to negotiate with Indians in the northern Mackenzie River Valley, as the region had no economic potential. However, the government changed its stance when oil deposits were discovered in the region. Apart from money and reserves, the Indians were promised fishing, hunting and trapping equipment, but no farming equipment as the region had no farming potential. This treaty was adopted from treaty 8, however Indians were not granted severalty or ownership of reserve lands as was the case in treaty 8. This would enable the government repossess these reserves whenever it saw fit. 4.14 The Williams Treaty of 1923 The land covering the southern and central parts of Ontario was of great importance to the government. The land, which was approximately 12.9 million acres was inhabited by the Chippewa and Mississauga Indians. The government was in need of the land for settlement of white settlers and for exploitation of minerals and lumbering. The Indians were compensated with reserves and annual payments; however, fishing and hunting rights were not included in this treaty. It is also worth noting that Indians were manipulated into selling large tracts of land for a quarter of its actual value.19 5.0 Conclusion Judging from the treaties above, Indians were short changed. The treaties did not put their interests first as they were made to believe. None of the Indian groups actually benefited from these treaties. They lost a large parcel of land in exchange for scraps offered to them by the government. It is worth noting that colonialists in Africa used the tactic of segregating Africans in unproductive reserves while they looted arable lands that were rich in minerals and good for agriculture. This is the same tactic they employed against aboriginals. Despite the fact that most of these treaties were in writing, all the subsequent governments have deliberately ignored them. As a result, most Indians in the country are grappling with serious economic problems. None of the terms are being upheld by the existing government. For instance, Indians are not allowed to enjoy their rights to fish, hunt and trap animals as per the terms of the treaties. It is therefore fair to assert that the terms of the treaties were not justifiable, as the benefits were skewed towards settlers at the expense of the real land owners. In fact, natives were tricked into reserves while the best lands were reserved for settlers. To make matters worse, the natives did not fully own the reserves since the government was entitled to possess them whenever economic viability arose in the areas. After their land had been taken away, the natives faced social, economic and political challenges posed by the settlers. Politically, they had no presentation in the government. Couple this with the fact that they were not allowed to vote until 1960, resulted to total marginalization of these groups. This is the reason the governments have blatantly ignored and broken their treaties. The natives were further crippled economically since their lands, rich in resources were taken away from them. They were also denied equal employment opportunities, as the government and settlers reserved menial jobs for them. Socially, their culture was deeply affected by the government. As spelt out in treaty 3 of 1873, the government laid out frameworks to assimilate Indians into the European culture and render their own backward and obsolete. They therefore took Indian children forcefully from their parents and locked them in boarding schools where they were made to denounce their culture; from their language to the way they dress. These new crop of Indians were rebels and were not obedient to their elders. Furthermore, Indians were denied to partake on fishing, trapping and hunting, which were very crucial in their culture. Despite all unjust treatment they have received over the years, the natives have grown stronger. The millennial-group of Indians has renewed hope among the people. Most are enrolling in Indian schools to learn the history and culture of their people. Hopefully, through these young, vibrant Indians will come their redemption. References 1. “Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.” Government of Canada. Last modified August 29, 2013. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028653/1100100028654. 2. Dennis F. K. Madill. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Eight (1899).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028809/1100100028811. 3. Dennis F. K. Madill. “British Columbia Indian Treaties in Historical Perspective.” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028952/1100100028954. 4. Hugh A. Dempsey. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Seven (1877).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028789/1100100028791. 5. James Morrison. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty No. 9 (1905-1906).s” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028859/1100100028861. 6. John Leonard Taylor. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Six (1876).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028706/1100100028708. 7. John Leonard Taylor. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Four (1874).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028685/1100100028687. 8. Kenneth S. Coates & William R. Morrison. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Five (1875).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028695/1100100028697. 9. Kenneth S. Coates. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty No. 10 (1906).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028870/1100100028872. 10. Kenneth S. Coates. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty No. 11 (1921).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028912/1100100028914. 11. Miller James Roger, Compact, contract, covenant: Aboriginal treaty-making in Canada, 3-32. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2009. 12. Robert J. Surtees. “The Robinson Treaties (1850).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028974/1100100028976. 13. Robert J. Surtees. “TREATY RESEARCH REPORT, THE WILLIAMS TREATY (1923).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100029000/1100100029002. 14. Wayne E. Daugherty. “Treaty Research Report Treaty One and Treaty Two (1871).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028660/1100100028662. 15. Wayne E. Daugherty. “Treaty Research Report- Treaty Three (1873).” Government of Canada. Last modified September 15, 2010. http://www.aadncaandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100028671/1100100028673. Read More