Book: The Aboriginal History; A Reader Article in the book which needs written response is Gaudry, "Respecting Metis Nationhood &Self-Determination" (pp, 150-162) + Metis Registration Guide
Week 1 – May 5 to May 11, 2021
Introduction to the Course & Pre-Contact Origins, Worldviews and Cultures
Readings:
- Bastien, “Indigenous Pedagogy: A Way Out of Dependence” (pp. 15-26) –
1. According to Bastien, "Power lies in the understanding that truth is contextual to the science and methods of a culture."(p.18)In Euro-entered concept of culture self is considered separate identity from the universe and nature around, in these phenomenon difference made in between what is self and what is not self, and this theory also objectify the existence of others form of human being and the also humanity (p16). But as for Siksikaitsitapi, the self is spiritually connected to the universe, one should always be aware of the universe around them and care for that too (p16).
2.According to Bastien, "Siksikaitsitapi view nature as connected to the human being through the spiritual forces, which are coming from Ihtsipaitapiiyopa (p.18)." They explained how parts of the universe are interconnected to the people around, but if you see Euro-entered way, it is completely different, they distinguishes human beings as the separate form natural world (p.17).
3. Yes it has, as "Euro-centered self-image and concept of power automatically victimizes tribal people since these conceptions continually reconstruct powerlessness, victimization deficiency inferiority as characteristics of Indigenous people (p.16)." Many indigenous, the self has now been dissociated from the natural world. In this experience self is considered as an activity which is related to the one's intellect which is located in the intelligence of human kind, and science is considered as isolated and objective existence in which the self is separated from the rest of the world (p.16).
Watts, “Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour!)” [Nexus] –
An example of Indigenous epistemology in Watt’s article is the Haudenosaunee cosmology. The Haudenosaunee cosmology explains that a woman fell from the sky and lies on the back of a turtle, she is not only the creator of the land but becomes a territory herself. In turning out to be land or domain, she turns into the designator of how living creatures will sort out upon her. The relationship between humans and animals (non-human) seems to be deeply integrated with each other. Human and non-human relationship derives from a holistic worldview and is necessary on maintain balance within the society. Indigenous societies depend on balance to survive; therefore, it requires coexistence between humans and other forms of life. In contrast, the Euro-Canadian view on this whole cosmology is stated as ecosystems or habitats.
(Optional) Vine Deloria, Jr., Sam Scinta, Kristen Foehner, and Barbara Deloria, "Chapter 5: Ethnoscience and Indian Realities"
Week 2 – May 12 to May 18, 2021
Contact, Fur Trade & Conflict
Readings:
- Richter, “Imagining a Distant New World” (pp. 29-42)
In the reading of Richter, "Imagining a Distant New World" the author imagined a documented events that encountered between the Europeans and the Indigenous people in North America according to the perspective of the Indigenous people. These events create lots of challenges and misunderstandings between the two groups sometimes it becomes difficult for one group to understand that what the other group is saying, for instance: in one imagined scenario a woman is telling her granddaughter about the first meeting between the Europeans and the Native People she says that they give them woods to eat and cups of human blood to drink, at first they found it tasteless and useless. They used to call Europeans woodworkers. Thus, we can see that these are the imagined things that made Native people to think about the Europeans.
Richter also used the word "Indians" to address the Indigenous community and also shared his view about the first meeting of Europeans with Indigenous people. His views clearly describes that he isn't using his unbiased mind, on the contrary his views were quite biased and favourable for the Europeans. He also believes that Indigenous communities are not capable of taking care of their lifestyle's and there children, thus which resulted as more influence of Europeans on the lives of Indigenous people. I would recommend that his views are not neutral thus speaks about only one side of the story, and completely ignores the other side, which is the side of Indigenous communities.
The change of behaviour in both the communities was happened when the Europeans gave gifts to the Indigenous community. The gifts which were offered by the Europeans were confused and also depicts their perceptions about the Indigenous people. The gifts were disrespectful, and also misrepresents the culture of Indigenous communities. This behaviour of Europeans was confusing for Indigenous people.
- Vibert, Wretched Fishers & Manly Men: Meanings of Food in the Plateau Fur Trade” (pp.121-134)
Elizabeth Vibert's reading showed a really great perspective of the Indigenous vs. Britain controversy on food during the Plateau Fur Trade. I viewed it as a controversy mainly because the way the British, French, and Indigenous valued food was different and the lack of them seeing eye to eye contributed to some of it. This had to do with the direct form of racism towards Indigenous peoples. But because fish and meat were some of the main drivers during the fur trade, it put a high value/status on who would get to eat what, causing a divide between poor and rich. The poor would eat Salmon, whereas the wealthy and even those who were considered harder laborers (ie: soldiers) than others would have the privilege of eating meat. I think that during this time of the fur trade, the modernity of certain food items would place a much higher value/demand for the food, causing it to be more important. Especially meat and fish, as even till this day they are both popular delicacies and can range from well priced to quite expensive. However, considering the circumstance in which both indigenous and British communities faced during the fur trade, fish and meat served importance for both parties.
The way salmon was hunted for and then later ranked as a poor food item, definitely shows an unfair way of valuing the food itself and the people who hunted, fixed, and ate it. I think the value Britain put on fish and those who hunted and ate it, shows a lack of respect on their part considering that they viewed fish as feminine because it was delicate and light, whereas meat was heavier and tougher to digest, meaning they viewed meat as a more masculine food item. This mentality wasn't fair to the hunters, who were mainly Indigenous. The raking of food, I find, is quite odd and I don't agree with it. Food is something that should be valued, especially when someone is hunting and cleaning it for consumption. I feel like the Europeans may have taken the trade way out of context by putting a value on certain food items instead of understanding exactly what meat and fish would do for them physically in a nutritional context, as well as how grateful they were to even have soldiers available to hunt the items for them. Vibert also mentioned how the plant-based diet saved a lot of Indigenous peoples from starvation during the trade, which could've also been added to the list of foods that were of higher value because vegetables also provide great nutritious qualities as well. This can be proved in the many plant-based or plant-oriented diets out there today.
- (Optional) Rushford, “Slavery, the Fox Wars, and Limits of Alliance” (pp. 93- 105)
Week 3 – May 19 to May 25, 2021
“Indian” Policy, pre- and post- Confederation
Readings:
- Shewell, “Dreaming in Liberal White: Canadian Indian Policy, 1913-2013 (pp. 183-198)
he explores the Canadian Indian policy within the years 1913-2013. Shewell argues that the duration of these 100 years showcases the increase as well as the establishment of the bureaucratic First Nations administration and management.
The policies implemented by Scott's were mostly based on taking away most of the rights from indigenous people, like Shewell
mentioned that it was focused on land surrenders and transfer to commercial and settler interests (p.187). Also in those policies Scott wanted indigenous people to blend with the general population and disappear their own culture (p.186), which i believe could be the one of the reason of the issues that we face today.
2.Penner report was about making separate government for indigenous people or making a representative who deal with all governmental affairs of indigenous people (p.192), which i believe could be an effective way because first the report reflected first nation point of view it heard and endorsed their voice and second it recognized their inherent right to have self-government(p.192)
3. I agree with the statement as it obviously a police matter but later on Shawell mentioned that Harper refused to take the responsibility of the issue which i think is not good as government, because as a government no matter what ever the issue people are facing they have to step forward to resolve it, which is the only way i think we can improve this ongoing issues
- Lawrence, “Identity, Non-Status Indians, & Federally Unrecognized Peoples (pp. 215-226) - (Optional) Cidro, “Stuck at the Border of the Reserve: Bill C-31 and the Impact on First Nations Women (pp. 228-240)
In her article, “Identity, Non-Status Indians, and Federally Unrecognized Peoples”, Bonita Lawrence discusses the impacts that colonization has had on Indigenous cultural identity. Focusing on how enacted legislation attempts to force all Indigenous peoples into one category, “Indian”, while also deciding who does and does not fit into this category.
Lawrence begins the article stating that cultural identity is an integral part of Indigenous nations. When legislation creates a divide between individuals and their cultural identity this can have a huge impact on one's self concept. The impacts of legislation on Indigenous women is touched on in this article. Like many traditions, such as children receiving their fathers last name, the declaration that Indigenous women who married someone who lacked “Indian” status was no longer considered “Indian” revolved around a European concept of gender norms. This could be seen as an attempt to decrease the Indigenous populations through inter marriage and an attempt to conform Indigenous society to the European way of life. In this article there is an emphasis on the barriers and struggles that unrecognized peoples face to become federally recognized. Bonita Lawrence writes as a woman of both Mi’kmaw and English background, who grew up poor and “white” in Montreal.
Week 4 – May 26 to June 1, 2021
Treaties: Historic & Modern
Readings:
- Miller, “Canada’s Treaty-Making Tradition” (pp. 62-75) + Excerpt from the Treaties
Miller's (2016) article is a excellent in-depth analysis of the evolution of treaty-making in Canada. The author argues that in the early stages of treaty formation in Canada, Europeans formed treaties with First Nations due to Europeans dependence on them as well as adopting the first Nation's practice of kinship relationships. However, As time moved on colonialists began to drift away from kinship relationships and ultimately took control their lands and rights
Initially, the Britishers signed treaties with First Nations to build a faithful relationship. Treaties were used as a tool, to get permission from First Nations so that they can use their land for trade, and farming. In the readings, we discovered that the treaties helped Britishers to get a sense of being superior to the First Nations. Because of the treaties, First Nations respected Britishers and also traded with them in regards to other goods, and First Nations were promised safety and hunting rights as well on their lands. According to the Cheif Mistawasis, the First Nations were in a very critical condition, and signing this treaty was the only way out. Cheif also said that the treaty will bring betterment for the First Nations people, and it will be witnessed in their upcoming generations as well. According to the Cheif, the word"Queen" was used in respect. The Royal Proclamation's main agenda was to bring peace and harmony within the First Nations, but it did not produce the desired outcomes, in contrast, it produced many challenges. The colonials misused the Royal Proclamation and mistreated the First Nations in order to acquire their lands. They also tried to fade their culture away by imposing their own cultural activities in the region. According to Royal Proclamation, the land is reserved for the First Nations, and cannot be used by any other group, and also reserved their rights to hunt, but the Colonials were misusing their powers because there was no one to keep an eye on them.
- Craft, “Living Treaties, Breathing Research” (pp.1-22) (Nexus)
In Aimée Craft’s article: Living Treaties, Breathing Research, she aims to retell the account of Treaty One in a more non-biased way. It is told from a perspective that has been empirically supported to try and understand the Anishinaabe perspective due to the lack of research and understanding in the past of both sides of the agreement of Treaty One.
A big cause of the lack of understanding from both sides is due to the language and the perspective the Treaty was written. When understanding this treaty, it is important to try amd understand it also from a Anishinaabe Law point of view, so that there is no bias as there has been in the past supporting more towards the Crowns side.
The author explains how treaties have been one sided in favour to the Crown and have been defended by saying it’s because of “common misunderstandings”. Treaties are referred to as “living documents”, this comes up a lot in this article. These "living documents" or treaties were viewed in too completely different ways between the too groups. The Europeans saw it as a formal agreement where as the Aboriginals saw it as an opportunity to strengthen current relationships. Today, there is a lot of misunderstanding on how these treaties were written but often times, it seems like one group benefits from the way they were written. It is not fair and I think the Canadian government needs to do better in holding these treaties to a higher standard.
