Reading Assignment
1. [Reading]
Read the following paper:
Turner, N. J. & Loewen, D. C. (1998). The Original “Free Trade”: Exchange of Botanical Products and Associated Plant Knowledge in Northwestern North America. Anthropologica, 40(1), 49-70. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/25605872
(12 marks) Question 1: In your own words , what are the 3 most important concepts, ideas or issues in the reading? Briefly explain why you chose them.
Question 3: What is the main economic story of the reading? (Economics studies the allocation of scarce resources.)
Question 4: (3 marks) The Canadian government has often limited Indigenous hunting and fishing to a small, subsistence scale: “that which could be consumed by the fisher [or hunter] and his or her family” (Douglas Harris, quoted in First Nations Studies Program (2009)[footnoteRef:1]). Based on what you learned from reading the article, is small-scale ‘food fishing/hunting’ of this type enough to preserve Indigenous cultures and traditional ways of life? Explain your reasoning. (Hint: the paper talks about more than plants. At various points it mentions fish, and oolichan grease (from a fish) was used in the plant trade, as seen in some rows of Table 1. Try searching for ‘fish’, ‘salmon,’ or ‘oolichan’.) [1: First Nations Studies Program. (2009). Aboriginal Fisheries in British Columbia [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_fisheries_in_british_columbia/ ]
2. [Regular]
In December of 1854, several tribes near Nanaimo signed a very unusual treaty with the Hudson’s Bay Company, who at the time had control of Vancouver Island. At least since 1964, this brief agreement has been interpreted by Canadian courts as having the force of a Treaty negotiated directly with the Queen. The Nanaimo treaty signed away tribal rights to land in exchange for a one-time payment of European goods, the preservation of traditional hunting and fishing rights, and the right for them and their descendants to continue to make use of their villages.
In this question, you will try to answer a seemingly simple question: was the treaty fair?
You must base your answer on the sources provided in the Appendix to this assignment (though you are, of course, free to do additional research): oral histories of the Indigenous point of view taken down in 1933, the public treaties as officially recorded in 1854, and letters between the Hudson Bay Company’s James Douglas and the British Colonial Office, which were meant to be kept secret.
The definition of fairness will be based on the four criteria suggested by ‘The Governor’s Letters Teacher’s Guide’, a treaty analysis activity recommended for grades 9 – 12.
I. “ Free authorized consent : Negotiations are fair only if one party is not unduly pressured by the other party to make a deal and that both parties have authority to enter into the agreement.”
II. “ No significant intentional deception : Negotiations are unfair if one party intentionally tries to deceive or trick the other party about very important matters in the agreement.”
III. “ Fundamental understanding : Negotiations are unfair if one party suspects that the other party may be grossly confused or ill-informed about the terms of the agreement, and does not make a sincere attempt to clarify the confusion.”
IV. “ Reasonable value under the circumstances : Although one side may benefit more than another, especially if one party is desperate to sell, the value of the exchange must not be grossly lopsided from the outset in favour of one of the parties.”
When answering the following questions, please rate the fairness on the following scale (taken from a worksheet that accompanies the Teacher’s Guide):
4 – Very fair
3 – Mostly fair
2 – Mostly unfair
1 – Very unfair
0 – Can’t tell
Note: When you justify your reasoning, be sure to refer to specific evidence from the sources provided. (e.g. “It is clear that Douglas thought the coal was valuable as early as 1852, because in his letter of 11 November 1852 he wrote that the ‘prosperity of the country’ depended in great measure on it.”)
a. Criteria I & II: Free Authorized Consent & No Significant Intentional Deception
Fairness (0 to 4): ________
Justify your reasoning:
b. Criterion III: Fundamental Understanding
Fairness (0 to 4): ________
Justify your reasoning:
c. Criterion IV: Reasonable Value Under the Circumstances
Fairness (0 to 4): ________
Justify your reasoning:
3. [Challenge]
There’s an old saying that “history is written by the victors”. What survives as history is not always the same as what was experienced by those who lived through the events being chronicled. This is extremely important to keep in mind when reading articles about the history of Canada’s Indigenous people, as these are often written by non-Indigenous settlers with different priorities and points of view than the people they write about.
In this question, I will ask you to read two articles, both of which talk about agriculture on the Blood Indian reserve in Alberta shortly after World War I. One was written by a non-Indigenous American anthropologist who visited the Blood Reserve in 1939, and published her article in a peer-reviewed journal in 1943. A more recent article by Dr. Sarah Carter[footnoteRef:2] says the following about the Blood Reserve in 1943: [2: Carter, S. (1999). “An Infamous Proposal:” Prairie Indian Reserve Land and Soldier Settlement after World War I. Manitoba History, 37, 9-21. Retrieved from http://drc.usask.ca/projects/gladue/view_record.php?table=resource&id=4&from=browse ]
“During and after World War II pressure was renewed to release Indian reserve land for non-Aboriginal Indian soldier settlement. A “reconnaissance inspection” was made of the Blood Reserve in Alberta in 1943 and it was recommended that the band could well afford to sell 22,000 acres leaving “ample room” for future expansion.” (Carter (1999), p. 20).
The second article was published in a newspaper in 1921. It was written by a non-Indigenous man who served as an Indian agent on Alberta’s Peigan and Blood reserves from 1898 to 1911, and who continued to live in the vicinity after retiring from his government post. He considered himself an ally of the Blood Indians and was alarmed at the government’s treatment of their land.
To access the first article, use the link below:
Goldfrank, E. (1943). Administrative Programs and Changes in Blood Society During the Reserve Period. Applied Anthropology, 2(2), 18-23. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/44135057
You only need to read about a page of that article, though of course you are free to read the rest if you wish. For this question, please read from the heading ‘1910-1920.’, at the bottom of page 20, to the phrase “farming around 1910.”, near the bottom of page 21.
The second article is found starting on page 27 of one of the free sourcebooks created by this course:
Wilson, R.N. (2020). “Persecution, bad faith and chicanery” in Willmore, C. (Ed.). Permission. Retrieved from https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/willmore/wp-content/uploads/sites/5845/2021/01/permission.pdf (Original work published 1921).
The article you need is on pages 27-35. Please read all of it.
If you are interested in learning more about this subject (or if you feel you need more information to answer the questions below), R.N. Wilson expanded his argument into a book, which is also available for free:
Wilson, R.N. (1921). Our Betrayed Wards [Revised Edition]. Victoria: Skeride Publishing. Retrieved from https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/willmore/wp-content/uploads/sites/5845/2021/01/ourbetrayedwards.pdf
a. (3 marks) According to the Goldfrank paper from 1943, what were the main reasons for the decline in agriculture (wheat farming, horse and cattle raising, and the income from those activities) on the Blood reserve from 1916 to 1921?
b. (4 marks) According to the second article (from 1921), what were the main reasons for the decline in agriculture (wheat farming, horse and cattle raising, and the income from those activities) on the Blood reserve from 1916 to 1921?
c. (3 marks) On page 22 of her paper, Esther Goldfrank writes: “To understand the behavior of an individual and his treatment by others, it is necessary to ascertain not only his present status, but how that status was achieved.” Based on what you have read, and on your knowledge of ECON 321 material, what do you think explains the difference between the views of Esther Goldfrank and R. N. Wilson as to why and how agriculture declined on the Blood reserve from 1917 to 1921? That is, what explains the difference between your answer to part a. and your answer to part b.? (There is no single right answer to this question, but for full marks you must back up your argument with evidence from the readings, other 321 material, or your own appropriately cited research. You may find the quote from Dr. Sarah Carter’s paper, earlier in this question, useful.)
Appendix: Sources for Question 2
Oral history of the Nanaimo Treaty of 1854[footnoteRef:3] (1933) [3: From Cryer, B. M., Quen-Es-Then, J. & Tstass-Aya. (1933, March 5). Hyatz-A-Hn of Sna-Na-Mo Telling How Governor Douglas Renamed Him “Coal Tyee”. The Daily Colonist. Retrieved from http://archive.org/stream/dailycolonist0333uvic_3#page/n25/mode/1up/ ]
“Well, one day a Hudson’s Bay man came to see my father.
“’We want to talk to you and your people about this coal,’ he said. ‘We will have a meeting. You and your people, and you must get another chief and his people, and on a certain day we will all talk this thing over.’
“So my father, Chief Suquen-Es-Then[footnoteRef:4], called all his people, and he told another chief, whose name was Chief Schwun-Schn, to call his tribe, and together they went to the meeting. [4: Referred to as ‘Squoniston’ in the Treaty text.]
…
“Then the Hudson’s Bay men talked to the Indians. ‘This coal that is here,’ they said, ‘is no good to you, and we would like it; but we want to be friends, so, if you will let us come and take as much of this black rock as we want, we will be good to you.’ They told my father, ‘The Good Queen, our great white chief, far over the water, will look after your people for all time, and they will be given much money, so that they will never be poor.’
“Then they gave each chief a bale of Hudson’s Bay blankets and a lot of shirts and tobacco, just like rope! ‘These are presents for you and your people, to show we are your friends,’ they said. The chiefs took the things, and they cut the blankets, which were double ones, in half, to make more, and gave one to every chief man, then the shirts, and to those who were left they gave pieces of the rope tobacco; so that every man in the tribes had a present.
“’Now you know,’ said Tstass-Aya, ‘we think there was some mistake made at that meeting, or, maybe, the people could not understand properly what was said; but later, when our people asked for some of the money for their coal, the Hudson’s Bay men said to them, ‘Oh, we paid you when we gave you those good blankets!’ But those two chiefs knew that the men had said, ‘The Queen will give you money.’
…
“And now white men began to come and fix houses to live in, and they made a sawmill and cut down all our trees. Then boats called ‘schooners’ began to come for the coal. The Indians did a little work then; they used to carry coal out to the schooners in their canoes – not little canoes like the ones we use now, but big, big ones that could hold twelve or more men; and the white men would pay fifty cents for one canoe load of coal.
“At first my people did not understand the money, and used to throw it away into the water – they only wanted blankets or clothes, but they soon found that money was good, and liked it better than the blankets.”
Oral history of the Indigenous discovery of coal[footnoteRef:5] (1933) [5: Ibid. (A common notation meaning ‘same source as above’.)]
An earlier passage in the same newspaper article explains the tribes’ attitude toward coal:
“Well, long ago, before there were any white men in our country, the Indians were all very afraid of that great black fish, the whale, we call it Quan-Ice. There were lots of those big fish here then, but no man touched them. Now all the people living here knew about the black rocks that were about the shores, for they could see them all black and shining beside the water, and, in lots of places down deep in the water …
“They thought that rock, all long and black and shining, must have something to do with the whales, for they were long and black and shining, too! So the head men said, ‘Never touch that black rock no matter where you see it, for it belongs to the great black fish, and if we touch that rock, all the fish will surely come and kill us.
“One day some of the tribe made a fire on the beach, and soon one said, ‘What a bad smell! … There right were the fire had been was a big piece of the black stone, and it was burning just like wood; but oh, how it smelt!
“All the tribe was called to look at it, and there was great talking amongst the head men, for they were afraid the black fish would be angry and come do them harm! So, for a long time after that they had men to watch the waters. … Of course none [of the whales] came very near, and after a time the Indians felt that they were never to touch the black rocks.
[Soon after the arrival of the first Europeans in the area, members of the tribe visit the newcomers and observe a blacksmith at work in a coal-powered forge. They report back:]
“’Well,’ Hyatz-A-Hn told him, ‘I looked at his fire and I saw that he was burning some of that black rock that we say belongs to Quan-Ice! It was just like our black rock, and do you remember, long ago, some men made a fire and burnt some here?’ Then the two young men talked together and made a plan, but told no one else for they were afraid of what the head men would do to them.
[The two young men sneak out and deliver a piece of coal to the newcomers.]
“This man asked them, ‘Where did you get this rock?’ ‘In our country,’ they told him. …
“They took Hyatz-A-Hn and Hay-Wkun carrying their blanket of coal between them, to see Governor Douglas. … Governor Douglas was oh, so pleased! He shook the young men’s hands and … he gave [Hyatz-A-Hn] a long coat and a high hat.
“When Hyatz-A-Hn had put them on, Governor Douglas said to the others – for by now, all the Indians of that place were standing about watching: … ‘Tell your chief that soon I will come with my big ship, and with men to look at this coal that you have.’ Then he gave every man from this place a present of a nice shirt and some tobacco, and they got into their canoes and paddled away.”
Entire Text of the 1854 Nanaimo Treaty[footnoteRef:6] [6: From Verspoor, F. (2012). The Fort Victoria and Other Vancouver Island Treaties, 1850 – 1854. Retrieved from https://royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/assets/FortVictoriaTreaties.pdf ]
[first sheet] “Sarlequun Tribe, 23 December 1854
A Similar conveyance of country extending from Commercial Inlet, 12 miles up the Nanaimo River made by the Sarlequiun Tribe signed Squoniston & others [note attached to signature sheets].
[6 signature sheets signed Squoniston and [193] others]
[last sheet] Done at Nanaimo Colvile Town this 23rd day of [the word ‘September’ is truck out, and above written] December in the year of our Lord 18[5]4, in presence of us, who in the presence of each other, have hereunto affixed our names.
Signed Charles Edward Stuart H.B.Co. in charge
Richard Golledge Hudson’s Bay Co. Service
George Robinson Manager of the Nanaimo Colls”
Despite the lack of details, “the Supreme Court of Canada deemed the Nanaimo agreement … to be a treaty ‘as much an act of state as if it had been entered into by the Sovereign herself’”. (Verspoor, 2012). The details of the agreement were presumably to be interpreted as being ‘Similar’ to those of the previous treaty, signed in 1851 with the Quakeolth Tribe at Fort Rupert[footnoteRef:7]: [7: From Treaty Texts – Douglas Treaties [Web Page]. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100029052/1581515763202#quakeolth ]
“Know all men, that we the chiefs and people of the Tribe called Quakeolths who have signed our names and made our marks to this deed on the eighth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, do consent to surrender, entirely and for ever, to James Douglas, the agent of the Hudson's Bay Company in Vancouver Island, that is to say, for the Governor, Deputy Governor, and Committee of the same, the whole of the lands situated and lying between McNeill's Harbour and Hardy Bay, inclusive of these ports, and extending two miles into the interior of the Island.
The conditions of our understanding of this sale is this, that our village sites and enclosed fields are to be kept for our own use, for the use of our children, and for those who may follow after us and the land shall be properly surveyed hereafter. It is understood, however, that the land itself, with these small exceptions, becomes the entire property of the white people for ever; it is also understood that we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands[footnoteRef:8], and to carry on our fisheries as formerly.” (INAC, 2013) [8: The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ‘liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands’ in the lands covered by the Nanaimo agreement, in the famous Regina v. Clifford White and David Bob decision of 1964. ]
Indigenous involvement in the Nanaimo Coal Trade prior to 1854
Despatch to London | James Douglas to John S. Pakington | 27th August 1852
“[M]y attention was particularly attracted, through a report of coal having been seen by the Indians in that vicinity. These people are called ‘Nanymo’ […] They live chiefly by fishing, and also grow large quantities of potatoes, in field which they have brought into cultivation near their villages. […] Food is cheap and abundant. […] The reports concerning the existence of coal in that place, were I rejoice to say, not unfounded; as the Indians pointed out three beds, cropping out in different parts of the Inlet, and they also reported […] several other beds. […] [I]t was impossible to repress a feeling of exultation in beholding, so huge a mass of mineral wealth, so singularly brought to light by the hand of nature, as if for the purpose of inviting human enterprise, at a season when coal is a desideratum in the Pacific, and the discovery can hardly fail to be of signal advantage to the Colony. […] There is every reason to believe [Nanaimo] is one vast coal field, and if that conjecture be correct the progress of the Colony will be rapid and prosperous; notwithstanding the many adverse circumstances, which have hitherto retarded the development of its resources.”
Despatch to London | James Douglas to John S. Pakington | 11th November 1852
“About 1 ½ miles from the great bed mentioned in my last letter the natives, who are now indefatigable in their researches for Coal, lately discovered a magnificent seam […] where several thousand Tons of Coal may be procured without the trouble & expense of Mining. Such places are left entirely to the Indians, who work with a surprising degree of industry, and dispose of the Coal to the agents of the Hudson’s Bay Company, for clothing and other articles of European manufacture. The Miners of the Hudson’s Bay Company have carried down a shaft […] and struck the great seam […] , an event which has diffused a general feeling of satisfaction in the Colony as every inhabitant naturally takes a lively interest in the success of an undertaking on which the prosperity of the country, and in a great measure, his own private interests, so much depends.”
[Notes on the letter by Colonial Office Staff:] “The circumstance of the Indians being active in working the coal … is very important if it prove lasting.”
1