Since reading Peter Russell’s book Canada’s Odyssey some years ago, I have done much more reading on this topic, in particular the work of J.R. Miller, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Saskatchewan and surely a, if not the, preeminent authority on the subject.
What follows are notes based on the material I’ve read.
Aboriginal organizations were much in the news in the years preceding the passage of the Constitution Act of 1982 and in 1983 when amendments to that Act were agreed to that entrenched Treaty rights and clarified that they applied equally to men and women. It is only in the years following the Oka crisis[1] in 1990, however, that relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities (the settlers) have received broader public attention.
Two commissions appointed by the federal government have, in the years following Oka, held hearings and published reports: The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) in the 1990’s and, more recently, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was established in 2008 and reported in 2015. Internationally, the United Nations has promulgated the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People – UNDRIP, passed by the General Assembly in 2007. Canada voted against adoption at that time but has since – in 2016 – adopted it.
J.R. Miller states[2] that The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was “preoccupied with history, both the story of individual school students and the record of government and church actions, as it laid out in its reports. What this sustained campaign [ of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission] amounted to, though this was not directly acknowledged, was to disrupt and replace a settler history myth [emphasis added] about Canada that for a long time had whitewashed the country’s understanding of its past”. (p. 258)
Miller describes the efforts of past Canadian governments to portray their policies with respect to indigenous people as benign and to contrast them with those in the U.S. He states: “Against such a background of effective pro-government propaganda, it was not surprising that the first major historical work that examined treaties and Indian policy in western Canada also came to positive conclusions about the government’s treatment of first nations”. This was The Birth of Western Canada: A History of the Riel Rebellion, by George Stanley published in 1936. Miller states: “…Stanley’s interpretation of early dominion policy in the West remained dominant for almost half a century. … It was not until John Tobias’s article “The Subjugation of the Plains Cree” in 1983 that Stanley’s positive portrayal was uprooted in academe. A vigorous and sweeping revision of historical understanding of Canadian Indian policy was then developed by English-language historians through the rest of the 1980’s and the 1990’s that served as a foundation for the major historical framing of the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996.” (p. 265)
Tobias concludes his article[3] on The Subjugation of the Plains Cree as follows:
“The record of the Canadian government in dealing with the Cree is thus not one of honourable fair-mindedness and justice as the traditional interpretation portrays. As Dewdney [Edgar Dewdney was the Lieutenant Governor and Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the Northwest Territories – now the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta – at the time] admitted in 1885, the treaties’ promises and provisions were not being fulfilled, and Dewdney himself had taken steps to assure Canadian control over the Cree, which were themselves violations of the treaties. Thus, he had refused to grant the Cree the reserve sites they selected; he had refused to distribute the ammunition and twine the treaties required. His plans for dealing with the Cree leaders were based on a political use of the legal and judicial system, and ultimately he made use of the military, the police, and the courts in a political manner to achieve his goals of subjugating the Cree. Only by ignoring these facts can one continue to perpetuate the myth of Canada’s just and honourable Indian policy from 1879 to 1885.”
In Miller’s view, an accurate – revisionist – history has not been well communicated to the Canadian population at large: “Historians who revolutionized their profession’s understanding of governmental treatment of First Nations and Metis over the last thirty years have not succeeded in spreading their findings beyond the ivory tower to the public square.” (p. 266)
The reports of RCAP (1995) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015) undoubtedly helped but, of the two, only the TRC Report appears thus far to have had a lasting legacy.[4]
The ‘revisionist history’ to which Miller refers – and about which he has written extensively[5] can be summarized as follows[6]:
– Miller tells the historical story of Indian/White relations beginning with Cartier in the 16th century and ending in the present. He notes that, in the early days of European settlement relations between Indigenous Peoples and the newcomers were reasonably cordial. The Europeans needed the Indians as guides and as partners in the fur trade. Miller states that, from “1700 to the death of Tecumseh in 1813, most Indians found alliance with the Europeans north of the St. Lawrence system more attractive than military association with those in the Thirteen Colonies. This was true during the Seven Years’ War when the French benefited from Indian alliances while colonies such as Virginia regarded the Indigenous peoples as another enemy.” (p.396)
-The Indians fought alongside the British in both the American revolutionary war and the war of 1812. This “second major phase of Indian-European relations, the era of alliance to use Miller’s term, produced the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which “in the short-term meant maintaining Indian support for Britain by not threatening their lands, and in the longer term formed part of the foundation of claims for land and self-government.” (p.397)
– The Royal Proclamation was issued unilaterally by the King of England. Indian leaders were informed of its content at a subsequent conference at Niagara in the summer of 1764. As noted in a precious post, their understanding of the Proclamation was fundamentally different from that of the British.
– “[A]s heavy immigration from Britain began to fashion a settler society in Upper Canada in the decades following the War of 1812, Native-newcomer relations deteriorated and Crown observance of the requirements of the Proclamation lessened”. In some cases, the treaties negotiated in Manitoulin Island, for example, “the Crown did not follow Proclamation requirements”. And “judging by the Upper Canadian experience in the century following the Royal Proclamation or 1763, awareness of and subscription to the Proclamation’s requirements in relation to First Nations land was nearly dead. (Canada’s Historic Treaties)
– “Across the continent in the nineteenth century, the commercial frontier shifted far to the north, the military preoccupations of the European powers declined, and the Natives increasingly were perceived as a ‘problem’ by the now-dominant European populations.” (p.398) Of course the Indians were a ‘problem’ because they occupied lands coveted by the immigrants – “the Indians throughout southern Canada … had to be cleared away”. (p.399) Further, by the 19thcentury in Canada Indians began to be regarded as racially distinct and alien, to use Miller’s words. But “Canadians had not learned to regard Indians as hostile forces to be crushed. Moreover, by the time the Dominion of Canada had to deal with Indians in western Canada, a strong tradition had been established of erecting political and legal institutions before intrusion by the general agricultural population. In any event, the vast extent of the dominion made destructive policies horrendously expensive and probably impossible of completion. Finally, the sparseness of Euro-Canadian population in the West and North made such a bloody policy as problematical as history made it unacceptable. Even if the Indians were now perceived as an obstacle, they could not be shifted by force.” (p.399)
– So, policies of land surrender treaties were used to remove Indians from coveted lands and “the second policy was a concerted effort to remove the Indian from Canadian society as a distinctive racial and social type. The reserves would dissolve as the distinctive Indians disappeared into Euro-Canadian society. This policy… reached its nadir in the federal government’s white paper of 1969, which claimed that Indians’ problems were a consequence of their distinctiveness and recommended the dismantling of their special status.” (p.400)
– Treaty-making was revived following Confederation and the need to integrate Hudson’s Bay Company lands into the new Canada. Between 1871 and 1877 the so-called numbered treaties were negotiated, “that covered the region from the Lake of the Woods to the foothills of the Rockies, and from the international boundary to a point approximately halfway up the present – day Prairie provinces.” (Canada’s Historic Treaties)
– Discussing the treaty negotiations between the government of Canada and the Prairie Indians in the 1870’s Miller states (p.210) “there was more to the motivations of the Canadian government than fidelity to a British-Canadian tradition. Negotiation in advance of settlement was also cheap. The alternative, American way was very costly. The republic followed a laissez-faire approach that allowed small bands of settlers to invade Indian territory, often leading to bloody repulses that precipitated the dispatch of militia by indignant assemblies. Besides being destructive of life and deterring development, such a policy was beyond Canada’s financial means.”
– In 1877 Alexander Mackenzie, the Prime Minister of the day, stated – as quoted by Miller – that “the Canadian policy is the cheapest …. and it is above all a humane, just and Christian policy.” (p.211) Miller states: “The speech nicely captured both the frugality of the Mackenzie government and Canadians’ smugness about their Indian policy.” (p.211)
– Miller also notes that an American style policy would have engendered widespread opposition in Canada “from church and other humanitarian groups that took a lively, if condescending interest in Aboriginal peoples”. (p.211) And, as noted, historically, “until the second third of the nineteenth century Indians had been prerequisites to the success of the European traders and generals…” (p.211)
– With respect to the Numbered Treaties negotiated with Indians of the plains, Miller stresses the different understandings of the government negotiators on the one hand and the Indians on the other: “Indians thought they had concluded treaties of friendship and mutual assistance, while agreeing to the entry into their lands at some future date of agricultural settlement. The government in Ottawa believed, however, that the treaties secured the Indians’ surrender of whatever claim they had to the vast lands of western Canada. These differences were to cause much difficulty in the future.” (p.224) It’s important to bear in mind that the Indians were in a relatively weak position in the late 18th century: the buffalo – the mainstay of Plains Indians’ way of life – was rapidly disappearing so the Indians were confronted with revolutionary changes to their hitherto migratory lifestyle, being confronted with the need to transition to an agricultural existence.
– Miller concludes: “The most troubling aspect of the events of the 1870’s was not the entry of the policeman or the coming of the treaty commissioner; what worried the Natives was the disappearance of the buffalo and, in the case of leaders such as Mistahimusqua [known as ‘Big Bear’], uncertainty about how bounteous and benevolent the government in Ottawa would be.” (p.224)
– Further “there was more dissonance than harmony in the results of the treaty negotiations in the West in the 1870’s.” To government officials the treaties were nothing more than contracts for land and the written word was what counted. To the Indians the treaties were covenants and, importantly, “First Nations who entered treaty regarded everything that was said at the negotiations, and not just what the commissioners chose to write down in their document, as part of the treaty…” (Miller, Canada’s Historic Treaties)
– Then, in 1876 the Indian Act became law[7]. “Canada has ignored complaints from First Nations leaders about the government’s reliance on the Indian Act as the foundation of the Crown-First Nations relationship and turned its back on its obligations to Indigenous peoples with whom it is in treaty.” (Miller, Canada’s Historic Treaties)
– The goal of government policy as embodied in the Indian Act and its administration was to assimilate Indians to settler ways:In 1850 and ’57 the Ontario Legislature passed laws permitting Indians to give up status and become enfranchised, the idea being to encourage assimilation.
– 1860: the UK transferred jurisdiction over Indians to colonial legislatures.
– Settler societies had little need and “showed little appreciation” for Indians and the residential schools treated Indians poorly to say the least.
– By the end of the 1850’s it was recognized that residential schools were a failure but they carried on and spread nonetheless.
– “By Confederation British North America was well advanced on a path of racial intolerance toward Native peoples and on efforts to change them culturally.”
– Politicians looked to the churches to carry out their policies. This was logical since the churches were central to the Canadian way of life in the 19th century. The “churches were major players in charitable work and social policy. Missionaries had been active in social work vis a vis Indians for decades. Miller states they were “experienced, zealous and efficient”. Unlike Canadian society generally and its politicians they “at least cared about the welfare of Native peoples” and learned and used native languages. “Most were decent, hardworking individuals. The crimes of a minority have unfairly colored Canadians’ views of their role.” This I was surprised to read some time ago. In light of recent events it would seem to require further explanation or modification!
– Ottawa had committed to providing schools on reserves in the numbered treaties but shifted to off-reserve, residential schools “in violation of its commitments in most of the numbered treaties. Why? On reserve schools worked “to preserve Aboriginal identity and culture” so were useless in implanting white/settler culture. According to Miller, residential schools existed in addition to on reserve schools and educated a minority of children.
– In 1884 the Potlatch was banned; “it was a cultural glue that embodied and perpetuated many of the Aboriginal values … that would have to be dissolved if a thorough conversion and cultural change of the North-West Coast peoples were to be accomplished.” The Indian Act was further amended in 1895 to ban dances of Prairie Indians because they “typified values that … were the antithesis of what Europeans cherished.” It remained on the books until 1951.
– A pass system was established after 1895 – a pass was needed to leave reserves. According to Miller the RCMP refused to enforce it: “It aggravated relations with the Indians.”
– Indians were prohibited from using modern farm equipment, were obliged to practice “peasant farming”.
– By the 1940’s non-native support of assimilation was breaking down as racist theories were rejected, and Indian political organizations grew.
– However, amendments to the Indian Act of 1951 maintained the “underlying assumption and objective of assimilation”.
– Enfranchisement (the policy of granting the vote to Indians who gave up their status): “the principal symbol and the core policy of … the assimilative goal” remained until 1985.
– Integrated schools – Indian and white – grew in the ‘50’s and ‘60’s. They were “effectively a new form of assimilative education: there were non-native teachers and were not culturally appropriate.
– 1973: Indians were granted control of education.
– Miller states that a considerable portion of white society continues to support assimilation. He states that the proposals of Flanagan, Gibson, Stackhouse (in the Globe & Mail of some years ago) effectively continue advocacy of assimilation.
– As a result of past government policies there is a “legacy of suspicion and fear” that leads to opposition to proposals for reform. And “aboriginal voices that support the legislation go unnoticed”. For example, there is widespread disenchantment with reserve leaders among off reserve Indians that is rarely heard.
– Incidentally the Indian Act is well explained in 21 Things you may not know about the Indian Act, by Bob Joseph (Indigenous Relations Press, 2018). It’s worth a read.
Reform of the Indian Act has been attempted several times in recent decades, none of them successful. A discussion of those proposed 2021-07-20reforms will form the substance of the next post. Stay tuned!
-30-
[1] The Oka crisis and the events that led to it is well described in two books: People of the Pines, Geoffrey York and Loreen Pindera, Little Brown, 1991; and Oka: A Political Crisis and its Legacy, Harry Swain, Douglas and McIntyre, 2010. Swain has a unique perspective, having been Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs in the Government of Canada from 1997 to 2002. York and Pindera state that the land at Lake of Two Mountains was granted to the Sulpician order which had ‘christianized’ the Mohawk Indians. The Sulpicians, according to the Indians, had agreed to give the Mohawks a deed to the land but “the Sulpician promise to give the Indians a written deed to the seigneury was forgotten or ignored and nothing in the King’s grant [the King of France who had granted the land to the Sulpicians in 1721] expressly recognized the Indians’ property rights.” (p.87) In 1760 Governor Murray, Wolfe’s successor, promised the Indians “free exercise of customs, religion and trade with the English. In 1990 this commitment was regarded by the Canadian Supreme Court as a Treaty: the source of constitutionally protected rights. Swain states (p.17) “The Church, having intervened to protect those they saw as innocent children of God not capable of keeping the things most necessary to them, ensured in the process that step by step, decade by decade, land that had been set aside for the Indians instead accrued to the Church. The Indians were never consulted. Arguably, decent intentions became sharp dealing, and, once land sales to non-Indians began, theft.” (p.17) Ownership of the land has been in dispute ever since. The 1990 crisis erupted when the town of Oka sought to encroach on lands claimed by the Mohawks to expand a golf course.
[2] J.R. Miller, Residential Schools and Reconciliation: Canada Confronts Its History; University of Toronto Press, 2017
[3] Available on Google Scholar at http://drc.usask.ca/projects/legal_aid/file/resource28-2c4f0414.pdf .
[4] With respect to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), Swain is scathing: It’s terms of reference, written after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada spent a year consulting with interest groups, were, says Swain, “so broad as to be unmeetable”.(p.167) “Unfortunately the Commission became intellectually hostage to a potent combination of idealists, one-issue people short on context and what Widdowson and Howard[4]call ‘the aboriginal industry’”(p.168) “Its extravagant recommendations arrived just as the Liberal government’s program review, made necessary by two decades of deficits and debt, was slashing government expenditures. Dead on arrival.” (p.168-9). Swain states: “Some of the RCAP recommendations were echoed in Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Kelowna Accord, a plan to spend $5 billion on nothing very precise that was subsequently shelved by Martin’s successor” (p.168-169) So, says Swain: “RCAP represents little more than another set of broken promises. But however impractical, the studies and the recommendations represent a lot of thought and debate, and the texts will be mined for some years to come.” (p.169) Page references are to Oka: A Political Crisis and its Legacy.
[5] See especially J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Native-Newcomer Relations in Canada, Fourth Edition, University of Toronto Press, 2018. This should be a ‘must read’ for all of us ‘newcomers’!
[6] The following is based mainly on Skyscrapers to which the page numbers refer but some information is from a paper by Miller – Canada’s Historic Treaties – in Fenge and Aldridge, Keeping Promises; The Royal Proclamation of 1763, Aboriginal Rights, and Treaties in Canada.
[7] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act. The Imperial government in Britain had transferred jurisdiction over Indians to colonial legislatures in 1860.