Not sure an appeal (as you note near the end) would work either since the SCC has been generally very sympathetic to FN claims of any kind. Even those like this one that has bankruptcy potential for the Fed Govt.
I don't know whether or not this could ever happen, but we really need to understand the implications of the Royal Proclamation of Britain, the numbered treaties and the Indian Act. If we founded a country based on selling cheap land to settlers acquired thru means that did not value the land. And now our economy is based on extraction of resources, which can be argued, were not part of the treaties. And while the price tag is high for these settlements, if we can't afford it, then perhaps we need to look at other ways to raise that money, like taxes on resource extraction that is set aside to compensate Indigenous peoples. We all as candadians have fiscally benefited from how the land was "acquired" so it's pretty ironic that when the bill comes due, we plead poverty. I would also point out that status was a product of the Indian Act. Anyways I realize this is a rant, and my views are not expressed well. But it genuinely bothers me that we've got things backwards.
I always have a problem when someone says Canada “acquired” land in a nefarious way. Every group of tribes who signed a numbered treaty was quite clear that they were relinquishing rights to the land in exchange for hunting rights off reserve, an annual payment of $5/year, farm tools and instruction, and a “medicine box”, which has been expanded over the years to include modern health care. Even the tribes that did not sign treaties are claiming land that has been vastly improved by Western culture, a culture the indigenous have benefited from and are ostensibly rejecting (although I know of none who have volunteered to go back to the lifestyle they lived at the time of contact.) Canada prospered from the land by virtue of superior (sorry, I know I’m not supposed to say that) technology and forms of government.
Hi Dagny, can I suggest that you read a book, if you haven't already - "The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7" That was a good read, and I think it speaks to a lot of the points that cause some discomfort.
Thanks. I always appreciate suggestions for further reading. But let me just say that I have read the original Treaty 7,(which I would suggest to you, if you haven’t read it already) which is what I base my comments on. I have also read commentary on the man that served as translator, someone proficient in the native languages of all the tribes involved and respected and trusted by all parties. So, although I’ll have a look at your suggested reading, I find it hard to believe that the “true intent” or “original spirit” of the Treaty could be misinterpreted. If you read the treaty, it’s pretty straightforward and plain. Unless, of course, you want to say that the natives of the time were too dumb to understand what they were signing, this despite have a proficient translator and despite having had business dealings with Europeans for nearly two centuries. Which, btw, I’m not willing to say.
Thanks for being willing to look at that book. I think it's fair that I be willing to look at a book or article that you would suggest. I have read Treaty 7, so maybe something besides that.
I am having a bit of trouble accessing this book, there doesn’t seem to be any Kindle edition (I’m not willing to pay the price for a hard copy) and other sources are accessible only through university libraries. So if you have another source, I’d appreciate it if you can share it.
However, I have found an excerpt and here are some first thoughts: first of all, the book is written by Linda Many Guns, the same University of Lethbridge professor that was responsible for driving out Frances Widdowson for heterodox views on indigenous issues. This, in my mind, casts doubt on Ms.Many Guns’ credibility as a scholar(ethos counts). This doubt is reinforced from the first few pages of the excerpt which states that the book is based on a collection of Elders’ “recollections”, i.e., stories of what the “true intent” of the treaty was. This seems to a me a little like asking me what my great grandmother’s intent was when she married my great grandfather on the Christmas Eve that she turned 15. I have family stories to go on, but no one would suggest that I have any real idea what she intended or in what “spirit” she entered into the marriage. If I had her own letters, or something written, I’d be able to come close, but I don’t.
Ms. Many Guns goes on to describe in great detail the “pre treaty life” of the tribes. Again, her sources are contemporary Elders,and not based on any historical sources. This produces gems like, “Before the White man came, the Indians had everything”, which seems to me a continuation of the myth (debunked by any cursory examination of primary historical sources of the time) that the Indigenous lived in some sort of natural paradise, destroyed by the coming of the Europeans. These kinds of statements go unchallenged by Ms. Many Guns, as does absurd comparisons made by her informants like the one that tries to draw a parallel between the “peace pipe” used in indigenous ceremonies and the “rod and staff” mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer. (I have to admit. My reaction to that one was “Huh??”.)
The next section lays out the “perceptions”of the indigenous elders on the treaty and Many Guns tries to make the case that the tribes of the time did not “mean” to surrender the land, but she provides no evidence for this other than the “he said/she said” of the elders.
Sorry for this extensive post, but this book is exactly the kind of political writing masquerading as scholarship that is common these days. I will read on when I get a copy, hoping that Ms. Many Guns offers something more, but I’m not holding my breath.
As to reading, I’d suggest the Journals of David Thompson, or the much more readable biography of Thompson, “Epic Wanderer” by D’Arcy Jennish for a more accurate picture of relations pre-treaty between the “Indians” of the time and Europeans. Unlike Ms. Many Guns’ portraits, it shows indigenous as savvy and warrior-like people who endured starvation and hardship like most any other tribal peoples. After that, almost anything by Frances Widdowson,(who, I believe has written on the signing of the treaty- I’ll try to find the reference) Brian Giesbrecht, or Peter Best.
Correction: I just realized that it was not Linda Many Guns who authored this book, but Dorothy First Rider, and know nothing about her scholastic background.
Federal commitments are framed within the Indian Act and the Land Treaty Process. Indigenous People didn't create the process. However, the federal government failed to find a formula to exact compensation when the the agreement fails.Traditional territories in BC is one failing issue because the treaty process failed. Herein we find land use tied in the courts. A federal failure.
The Indian Act ties federal hands in perpetuity, and a system must be devised to calendar a phase out of the Act. Where is the priority for federal movement in these two areas? Adding to the cost of paying out is tied to the life of the two federal policies.
I respect you for the effort you’ve put in to better understand this key topic that continues to be in front of us. Yet it never gets resolved in spite of the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours put into it. We can’t even provide clean drinking water and comfortable living conditions to some of our reserves. Yet no one is held accountable for this.
Your absolutely right a system must be devised to calendar a phase out of the Act. Tax Exemptions for Indigenous people under the Indian Act section #87. Health & drug benefits...social programs. Something the rest of Canadians pay for or into...unless you have NO income then you are on social programs also. What happened to all fair in Love & War! The Indigenous people LOST the War! The British Won! The American's have a phase out every year the payments are less to the next generation until they reach ZERO. This what one reliable indigenous person told me.
Sorry to inform you that Canada's First People didn't lose a war with the British. The Queen of English told her British Lieutenants to pay for the land to be used by British. Some of the Provincial Governors did, but still forced the people onto reserves...supposedly for safety. BC just kept the Queen's money and forced the First People onto reserves with the threat of prison. The Indian Act was legalized segregation to give the Confederation of British settlers the legal power to limit Native rights and limit land use. The Indian Act is the problem. The untreatied territories is the problem. However, it is a federal responsibility to fix the problem.
The fact is that throwing money at the indigenous will not help long term. It may help for short term crisis issues only. The pure external locus of control / victimhood that surrounds the narrative around the indigenous is the biggest problem. Not indigenous, guided by a corrosive empathy often white peoples who refuse to frame the indigenous lot in anything but victim hood over residential schools are the indigenous’ people worse enemy. But they don’t know it.
Really good to see someone writing about this. Most journalist in Canada appear to completely embrace the view that every settlement is justified, and indeed even more should be offered. Most of the billions is going to on reserve Indians ( One of the three groups making up the indigenous community in Canada) - total population of about 500,000. Someone needs to do the math and figure out why in light of the billions being spent housing, water conditions, morbidity, and mortality rates on reserve continue to lag behind the rest of Canada? The Bissonnet affair may be just the tip of an iceberg about greed and the misappropriation of funds.
Adam Kirsch recently published “On Settler Colonialism: Ideology, Violence & Justice”. It’s getting good reviews. There’s a good discussion on his presenting his findings at the Hoover Institute on YouTube.
Thank you for writing about this. I don’t think I’m much different than many Canadians in that I haven’t dug deep into our legal agreements between our officials and First Nations people. What I have learned over the past 76 years is that verbally passing on information from one person to another very quickly gets wildly distorted. Plus non- official writings between people is also not reliable. Single choice of a different word can greatly change the content and context.
Yes, it can be hard to do the right thing and live up to obligations and agreements but we should be proud to do so. This is the one of the few files the Liberals have gotten mostly right in their tenure.
So the government lost its argument before the courts and decided not to appeal. Did you analyze why they did not appeal? Should they appeal if the chances for success are nil? Just stating that the government acquiesced due to atmosphere at the time is not much of an argument. Especially when you do not offer any evidence that this was actual reason not to appeal.
This was a column on contingent liabilities, not that case. But I did cover it and dig out that link if you are interested. It was controversial and there were definitely grounds for appeal. But the mood in the country at the time was very sympathetic to First Nations and the Liberals needed NDP support to stay in power.
Genocide can and does happen legally under Western Rules based order. Today, our indigenous communities in the Americas are being exterminated by this slow death methodology. This is why there is UNDRIP, UNHCR… to try to counter these insidious ways. Nothing here is binding and the US opposes both, incidentally.
Violence comes in three flavors. Direct, which is visible. The other two flavors are called Cultural and Structural. These are invisible. The invisible forms are convenient and outwardly tactful appearing ways used over the longer term to marginalize a people into inexistence. The only common weapon used is trauma. Other weapons are used situationally. For our Inuit Communities where I live, trauma coupled with alcohol & Judeo-Christian Authority, Youth Protection (used to break the family units), no or very low education, and structural impairments at every turn, are used to demoralize us into submitting to extinction.
Two general outcomes are possible under this model. Keeping in mind, the (Occupying) Force (Authority) self declares a monopoly on Direct (visible) violence.
The Occupied People fail to organize, submit, and quietly fall into inexistence. This is what is happening to my own people right now.
The people educate & organize and rise & resist using direct violence. While this is wholly justified when people are occupied or oppressed, it always triggers a direct violent response by the Force Monopoly (in our case the French Occupying Government). It literally means fighting for our lives.
The Force Monopoly is grossly asymmetrical in power, capacity, and reactionary use of force. This is why we must fully understand, train, and practice in guerilla methods of warfare. It is the only proven doctrine to have a favourable outcome in the long run. We also know historically, that a very high number of resistance casualties occur before there is a successful outcome. Sadly, this number is four times higher than our tiny population of 12,000 Inuit in our lands of Nunavik. The disproportionate use of force often crushes the resistance, is turned on the civilians, and is used to rapidly inflict losses to speed the genocide toward total victory for the Occupying Forces.
You may immediately see obvious need for us, for a unified guerrilla front. The people united will never be defeated! I learned this from the Palestinian peoples in demonstration at Montreal this December who are under siege by their Occupiers. Divided is conquered.
I urge you All who are under occupation, All who are oppressed, All who are being marginalized through invisible and visible violence by the Ruling Classes, to stand with us, to stand with Palestine, to stand with the Global South, to opposes the Western Rule and fight with us and for us. Without you, we will become extinct by their hand. But without us, you will become extinct by their hand too.
This world belongs to Many, not Few. Those Few who attempt to conquer and oppress and impose inequity, forfeit their right to exist. We are wholly overt about this, and they are fully aware of their actions, so we don't need their invisible violence to hide our agenda. Our agenda is humanity and equality globally. The only violence they will be met with is direct force.
My people are ravished by trauma and alcohol. We are dying at a rate unprecedented. This is a genocide carefully crafted and imposed by French Rule here. I don't know if we will survive. This is why we need you.
Long live the resistance globally, long live Palestine. Please, organize, unite, revolt. 🙏 Together we can break Western Rule.
Not sure an appeal (as you note near the end) would work either since the SCC has been generally very sympathetic to FN claims of any kind. Even those like this one that has bankruptcy potential for the Fed Govt.
I don't know whether or not this could ever happen, but we really need to understand the implications of the Royal Proclamation of Britain, the numbered treaties and the Indian Act. If we founded a country based on selling cheap land to settlers acquired thru means that did not value the land. And now our economy is based on extraction of resources, which can be argued, were not part of the treaties. And while the price tag is high for these settlements, if we can't afford it, then perhaps we need to look at other ways to raise that money, like taxes on resource extraction that is set aside to compensate Indigenous peoples. We all as candadians have fiscally benefited from how the land was "acquired" so it's pretty ironic that when the bill comes due, we plead poverty. I would also point out that status was a product of the Indian Act. Anyways I realize this is a rant, and my views are not expressed well. But it genuinely bothers me that we've got things backwards.
I always have a problem when someone says Canada “acquired” land in a nefarious way. Every group of tribes who signed a numbered treaty was quite clear that they were relinquishing rights to the land in exchange for hunting rights off reserve, an annual payment of $5/year, farm tools and instruction, and a “medicine box”, which has been expanded over the years to include modern health care. Even the tribes that did not sign treaties are claiming land that has been vastly improved by Western culture, a culture the indigenous have benefited from and are ostensibly rejecting (although I know of none who have volunteered to go back to the lifestyle they lived at the time of contact.) Canada prospered from the land by virtue of superior (sorry, I know I’m not supposed to say that) technology and forms of government.
Hi Dagny, can I suggest that you read a book, if you haven't already - "The True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7" That was a good read, and I think it speaks to a lot of the points that cause some discomfort.
Thanks. I always appreciate suggestions for further reading. But let me just say that I have read the original Treaty 7,(which I would suggest to you, if you haven’t read it already) which is what I base my comments on. I have also read commentary on the man that served as translator, someone proficient in the native languages of all the tribes involved and respected and trusted by all parties. So, although I’ll have a look at your suggested reading, I find it hard to believe that the “true intent” or “original spirit” of the Treaty could be misinterpreted. If you read the treaty, it’s pretty straightforward and plain. Unless, of course, you want to say that the natives of the time were too dumb to understand what they were signing, this despite have a proficient translator and despite having had business dealings with Europeans for nearly two centuries. Which, btw, I’m not willing to say.
Thanks for being willing to look at that book. I think it's fair that I be willing to look at a book or article that you would suggest. I have read Treaty 7, so maybe something besides that.
I am having a bit of trouble accessing this book, there doesn’t seem to be any Kindle edition (I’m not willing to pay the price for a hard copy) and other sources are accessible only through university libraries. So if you have another source, I’d appreciate it if you can share it.
However, I have found an excerpt and here are some first thoughts: first of all, the book is written by Linda Many Guns, the same University of Lethbridge professor that was responsible for driving out Frances Widdowson for heterodox views on indigenous issues. This, in my mind, casts doubt on Ms.Many Guns’ credibility as a scholar(ethos counts). This doubt is reinforced from the first few pages of the excerpt which states that the book is based on a collection of Elders’ “recollections”, i.e., stories of what the “true intent” of the treaty was. This seems to a me a little like asking me what my great grandmother’s intent was when she married my great grandfather on the Christmas Eve that she turned 15. I have family stories to go on, but no one would suggest that I have any real idea what she intended or in what “spirit” she entered into the marriage. If I had her own letters, or something written, I’d be able to come close, but I don’t.
Ms. Many Guns goes on to describe in great detail the “pre treaty life” of the tribes. Again, her sources are contemporary Elders,and not based on any historical sources. This produces gems like, “Before the White man came, the Indians had everything”, which seems to me a continuation of the myth (debunked by any cursory examination of primary historical sources of the time) that the Indigenous lived in some sort of natural paradise, destroyed by the coming of the Europeans. These kinds of statements go unchallenged by Ms. Many Guns, as does absurd comparisons made by her informants like the one that tries to draw a parallel between the “peace pipe” used in indigenous ceremonies and the “rod and staff” mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer. (I have to admit. My reaction to that one was “Huh??”.)
The next section lays out the “perceptions”of the indigenous elders on the treaty and Many Guns tries to make the case that the tribes of the time did not “mean” to surrender the land, but she provides no evidence for this other than the “he said/she said” of the elders.
Sorry for this extensive post, but this book is exactly the kind of political writing masquerading as scholarship that is common these days. I will read on when I get a copy, hoping that Ms. Many Guns offers something more, but I’m not holding my breath.
As to reading, I’d suggest the Journals of David Thompson, or the much more readable biography of Thompson, “Epic Wanderer” by D’Arcy Jennish for a more accurate picture of relations pre-treaty between the “Indians” of the time and Europeans. Unlike Ms. Many Guns’ portraits, it shows indigenous as savvy and warrior-like people who endured starvation and hardship like most any other tribal peoples. After that, almost anything by Frances Widdowson,(who, I believe has written on the signing of the treaty- I’ll try to find the reference) Brian Giesbrecht, or Peter Best.
Correction: I just realized that it was not Linda Many Guns who authored this book, but Dorothy First Rider, and know nothing about her scholastic background.
Federal commitments are framed within the Indian Act and the Land Treaty Process. Indigenous People didn't create the process. However, the federal government failed to find a formula to exact compensation when the the agreement fails.Traditional territories in BC is one failing issue because the treaty process failed. Herein we find land use tied in the courts. A federal failure.
The Indian Act ties federal hands in perpetuity, and a system must be devised to calendar a phase out of the Act. Where is the priority for federal movement in these two areas? Adding to the cost of paying out is tied to the life of the two federal policies.
I respect you for the effort you’ve put in to better understand this key topic that continues to be in front of us. Yet it never gets resolved in spite of the billions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours put into it. We can’t even provide clean drinking water and comfortable living conditions to some of our reserves. Yet no one is held accountable for this.
Your absolutely right a system must be devised to calendar a phase out of the Act. Tax Exemptions for Indigenous people under the Indian Act section #87. Health & drug benefits...social programs. Something the rest of Canadians pay for or into...unless you have NO income then you are on social programs also. What happened to all fair in Love & War! The Indigenous people LOST the War! The British Won! The American's have a phase out every year the payments are less to the next generation until they reach ZERO. This what one reliable indigenous person told me.
Sorry to inform you that Canada's First People didn't lose a war with the British. The Queen of English told her British Lieutenants to pay for the land to be used by British. Some of the Provincial Governors did, but still forced the people onto reserves...supposedly for safety. BC just kept the Queen's money and forced the First People onto reserves with the threat of prison. The Indian Act was legalized segregation to give the Confederation of British settlers the legal power to limit Native rights and limit land use. The Indian Act is the problem. The untreatied territories is the problem. However, it is a federal responsibility to fix the problem.
The fact is that throwing money at the indigenous will not help long term. It may help for short term crisis issues only. The pure external locus of control / victimhood that surrounds the narrative around the indigenous is the biggest problem. Not indigenous, guided by a corrosive empathy often white peoples who refuse to frame the indigenous lot in anything but victim hood over residential schools are the indigenous’ people worse enemy. But they don’t know it.
Really good to see someone writing about this. Most journalist in Canada appear to completely embrace the view that every settlement is justified, and indeed even more should be offered. Most of the billions is going to on reserve Indians ( One of the three groups making up the indigenous community in Canada) - total population of about 500,000. Someone needs to do the math and figure out why in light of the billions being spent housing, water conditions, morbidity, and mortality rates on reserve continue to lag behind the rest of Canada? The Bissonnet affair may be just the tip of an iceberg about greed and the misappropriation of funds.
So, if/when Canada becomes the 51st state, do all these SCC findings , payment orders still stand? Asking for a friend…
Adam Kirsch recently published “On Settler Colonialism: Ideology, Violence & Justice”. It’s getting good reviews. There’s a good discussion on his presenting his findings at the Hoover Institute on YouTube.
Thank you for writing about this. I don’t think I’m much different than many Canadians in that I haven’t dug deep into our legal agreements between our officials and First Nations people. What I have learned over the past 76 years is that verbally passing on information from one person to another very quickly gets wildly distorted. Plus non- official writings between people is also not reliable. Single choice of a different word can greatly change the content and context.
Yes, it can be hard to do the right thing and live up to obligations and agreements but we should be proud to do so. This is the one of the few files the Liberals have gotten mostly right in their tenure.
So the government lost its argument before the courts and decided not to appeal. Did you analyze why they did not appeal? Should they appeal if the chances for success are nil? Just stating that the government acquiesced due to atmosphere at the time is not much of an argument. Especially when you do not offer any evidence that this was actual reason not to appeal.
This was a column on contingent liabilities, not that case. But I did cover it and dig out that link if you are interested. It was controversial and there were definitely grounds for appeal. But the mood in the country at the time was very sympathetic to First Nations and the Liberals needed NDP support to stay in power.
Genocide can and does happen legally under Western Rules based order. Today, our indigenous communities in the Americas are being exterminated by this slow death methodology. This is why there is UNDRIP, UNHCR… to try to counter these insidious ways. Nothing here is binding and the US opposes both, incidentally.
Violence comes in three flavors. Direct, which is visible. The other two flavors are called Cultural and Structural. These are invisible. The invisible forms are convenient and outwardly tactful appearing ways used over the longer term to marginalize a people into inexistence. The only common weapon used is trauma. Other weapons are used situationally. For our Inuit Communities where I live, trauma coupled with alcohol & Judeo-Christian Authority, Youth Protection (used to break the family units), no or very low education, and structural impairments at every turn, are used to demoralize us into submitting to extinction.
Two general outcomes are possible under this model. Keeping in mind, the (Occupying) Force (Authority) self declares a monopoly on Direct (visible) violence.
The Occupied People fail to organize, submit, and quietly fall into inexistence. This is what is happening to my own people right now.
The people educate & organize and rise & resist using direct violence. While this is wholly justified when people are occupied or oppressed, it always triggers a direct violent response by the Force Monopoly (in our case the French Occupying Government). It literally means fighting for our lives.
The Force Monopoly is grossly asymmetrical in power, capacity, and reactionary use of force. This is why we must fully understand, train, and practice in guerilla methods of warfare. It is the only proven doctrine to have a favourable outcome in the long run. We also know historically, that a very high number of resistance casualties occur before there is a successful outcome. Sadly, this number is four times higher than our tiny population of 12,000 Inuit in our lands of Nunavik. The disproportionate use of force often crushes the resistance, is turned on the civilians, and is used to rapidly inflict losses to speed the genocide toward total victory for the Occupying Forces.
You may immediately see obvious need for us, for a unified guerrilla front. The people united will never be defeated! I learned this from the Palestinian peoples in demonstration at Montreal this December who are under siege by their Occupiers. Divided is conquered.
I urge you All who are under occupation, All who are oppressed, All who are being marginalized through invisible and visible violence by the Ruling Classes, to stand with us, to stand with Palestine, to stand with the Global South, to opposes the Western Rule and fight with us and for us. Without you, we will become extinct by their hand. But without us, you will become extinct by their hand too.
This world belongs to Many, not Few. Those Few who attempt to conquer and oppress and impose inequity, forfeit their right to exist. We are wholly overt about this, and they are fully aware of their actions, so we don't need their invisible violence to hide our agenda. Our agenda is humanity and equality globally. The only violence they will be met with is direct force.
My people are ravished by trauma and alcohol. We are dying at a rate unprecedented. This is a genocide carefully crafted and imposed by French Rule here. I don't know if we will survive. This is why we need you.
Long live the resistance globally, long live Palestine. Please, organize, unite, revolt. 🙏 Together we can break Western Rule.