In his book titled "The Dakota of the Canadian Northwest Lessons for Survival", Peter Douglas Elias explores the history of the Dakota (Sioux) people from the position of the Dakota people themselves. Based on many documentary sources and the expertise of Robert Goodvoice, a tribal historian of the M'dewakontonwon and Wahpetonwon Dakota, Elias is able to provide a sound and valid argument for the Dakota's entitlement to aboriginal and diplomatic rights in Canada. Elias not only manages to successfully provide the Dakota people with an unequivocal written text of their past failures and accomplishments, but achieves his goal of dispelling many of the assumptions that plague them to this day. In his study, Elias states that many of the assumptions placed on the Dakota people were due to the fact that they were never truly recognized as a nation with whom the crown was obliged to seek treaties. Because of this, many government officials, and historians alike, assumed the Dakota played little to no role in the war of 1812. During the war of 1812, the Dakota Indians allied with the British in their fight against the Americans. As a gift for their efforts, the Dakota people were rewarded with "a large belt of wampum, six silk flags and five large medals." These gifts were rewarded in the year 1813 by the board of enquiry. Along with these "gifts" was a promise made by Lieutenant Colonel McDouall (a representative sent by the committees of Trade in Montreal and Quebec.) "Should the king and your Great Father deign to listen to the proposal which the enemy have made for peace, it will be on the express condition that your interests shall be first considered, your just claims admitted, and no infringement of your rights permitted in the future. My Children, doubt not that will be the case. The King your Great Father has assured you that he will never abandon his Red Children whom he has so long fostered and adopted." This is a very powerful speech, and Elias does not let the reader forget it. Elias effectively indicates that as time progresses the Dakota people seem to receive less and less support from the government. Elias is tactful in pointing out that many times in the years to come after the war of 1812, the Dakota present the Government with the flags and five large medals they had received as proof of the promise that was once made to them, and every time they are declined.
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
...the British, while still holding treaties with the American government, Tecumseh lost Shawnee support in him as the speaker of the Shawnees.
In the article titled “The Manitoba Land Question, 1870-1882” Sprague argues that the federal government was largely responsible for failing to properly address Metis Land claims. Sprague believes the Canadian government purposefully mismanaged and controlled Metis land organization to further its agenda. He also argues that the Canadian government did not hold up its constitutional obligation as per the Manitoba Act. Lastly Sprague suggests that newly introduced laws opened doors for settlers and made it difficult for the Metis to remain cohesive. As a result Sprague suggests that these factors lead to the loss of Metis land and therefore ultimately contributed to their subsequent exodus from Manitoba.
Sioux as told through John G. Neihardt, an Indian boy then a warrior, and Holy Man
The Dakota Nation didn’t just wake up one day and decide to attack the settlers. They had been insulted, oppressed and cheated for years. Eventually, the Sioux decided to stand up and take back their land. The Sioux were hunters, not farmers. When the US decided to buy the Sioux’s hunting grounds and give them farmland, they should have thought about the consequences. The Sioux missed their sacred hunting land and struggled to make their farmland prosperous. Not only that, but the Sioux believe that they belong in Minnesota. Some say Israel is the land of the Jews. Well, Minnesota is the land of the Sioux. Of course, the US didn’t exactly steal the Sioux’s hunting land. Technically, the US bought the Sioux out, however that would imply that the Sioux had a choice about selling or were even aware of what was taking place.
Banks, D., Erodes, R. (2004). Dennis Banks and the Rise of the American Indian Movement. Ojibwa Warrior. Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://www.oupress.com/bookdetail.asp?isbn=0-8061-3580-8
Harold Cardinal made a bold statement in his book, The Unjust Society, in 1969 about the history of Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. His entire book is, in fact, a jab at Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s idea of ‘the just society’. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made great assumptions about First Nations people by declaring that Aboriginal people should be happy about no longer being described as Indian. His goal was to rid Canada of Indians by assimilating them into the Canadian framework. Considered by many as a progressive policy, Trudeau’s white paper demonstrates just how accurate the following statement made by Harold Cardinal at the beginning of his book is : “The history of Canada’s Indians is a shameful chronicle of the white man’s disinterest,
The Cree people have a rich and diverse history. Through methods of written and oral teachings, a greater understanding of the Cree people and their history has become apparent. In the following, I will highlight portions of Cree history to establish an understanding of such a rich culture. As a guide, I will use ideas highlighted in Jim Kanepetew’s (n.d) teachings of “The Ten Treaty Sticks”. Underlying concepts from “The Ten Treaty Sticks” have implications on both past and current practices of the Cree people. Since a large portion of the final exam is a chronological list of happenings, I will examine and extend the teachings of “The Ten Treaty Sticks” and how these align with teachings throughout the course. Using “The Ten Treaty Sticks” as a guide, I
The War of 1812, also known as “America’s Forgotten War” and “America’s Worst Fought War,” was fought between the U.S. and Great Britain over violations of the U.S. seafaring rights. The British intrusion with American fur trade and their illegal impressment of seamen off American ships severely strained Anglo-American relations in the years before the war. According to the New Standard Encyclopedia, “There is considerable disagreement as to why this ultimately led to war and what this war represented. (W.30)” The strongest pressure of war came from Congressional leaders known as “the War Hawks” who mainly represented the western frontier and the South. Their main interest was the conquest of Canada and Florida. The British encouraged and supported the Tecumseh Indians, who had inflicted severe losses, to bring them the scalps of the American soldiers that ultimately led to the Massacre of Fort Dearborn on June 18th, 1812. The war ended with the treaty of Ghent. According to the “Just War Theory” outlined in this essay-- this war was an unjust war.
As the bureaucracy began to develop to meet the needs of the westward expansion, the department’s oversight was given to the Secretary of War. This did not seem to be an intentional statement of purpose but rather a decision of convenience because the Department of the Interior did not exist yet. However, Francis Prucha felt that this may have been because the Indians had been viewed as siding with the British during the Revolutionary War and thus were adversaries(319).
LaDuke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999. Print.
Manifest Destiny had a great impact on the history of the United States and it’s expansion. However, the questions it revealed were disputable. The discussion about Manifest Destiny revealed many for and against arguments. Maybe, the opponents made the most persuasive argument as they claimed Americans can’t talk about accomplishing a destiny while they kill innocent natives. William Ellery Channing accurately describes in one of his letters to Henry Clay: “There is no necessity for crime. There is no fate to justify rapacious nations, any more than to justify gamblers and robbers, in plunder… We talk of accomplishing our destiny. So did the late conqueror of Europe [Napoleon Bonaparte]” (Allard par. 60).
Steckley, J., & Cummins, B. D. (2008). Full circle: Canada's First Nations (2nd ed.). Toronto:
When a native author Greg Sams said that the reservations are just “red ghettos”, the author David disagree with that. He thinks there must be something else beyond that point. After his grandfather died, he somehow changed his mind. Because he could not think anything e...
MacDougall, Brenda. One of the Family: Metis Culture in Nineteenth-Century Northwestern Saskatchewan. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010.