"This is the original treaty signed by Chief Alexander
Laviolette in 1899," he says, pointing to a signature. In
exchange for vast Chipewyan hunting grounds, Alexander
secured reserves, treaty money, education, health, and
social welfare benefits for his people. Fred flicks a
corner of the document with his forefinger and thumb,
considering it worthless. Alexander hoped it would mean a
better life for children to come and so he signed in trust,
but land claims and battles for aboriginal and treaty rights
indicate the obligations bound within the treaties have been
disavowed.
Signing of
Treaties
Interviewer - Earle Waugh, PhD.
"The government promised a lot of good things.
There were a lot of promises made to the Indians. There was
a record of them, but they didn't come out with what they
said," he says wistfully. "We got free school, free health
care, and things like that, but even today the government is
cutting back on education."
Missionaries Negotiations: The Railway and Treaties
Series Coordinator - Dr. Earle Waugh
© 1980 Access
The Fort Chipewyan Band
struggled as change swept over them. It was uncommon for
government officials to ask for the Indians' input regarding
matters which affected them, and they fought to be
recognized.
"In the early sixties, the government told us we
would be better off if our education was looked after by the
Northlands School Division instead of by the Department of
Indian Affairs. They went ahead and took down the crucifixes
from the school and that was a big thing for the old people.
They wanted the children to be taught religion. They came to
me right away, and I went to see the Indian agent. We had a
vote, and nobody wanted Northlands School Division here. We
fought Indian Affairs, but they didn't want to take it
back."
For example, both pre- and post-Confederation treaties
recognize Aboriginal sovereignty (Prucha 1994, Wunder 1994).
A treaty is a formal recognition between sovereign entities
guided by the principle of consent. But consent is given
under specific conditions. Consent arises between parties
involved relationship based on equality and mutual
respect. Unfortunately, the treaties have been textualized
in the language of the dominant European culture. question
the meaning of a treaty solely through some kind of textual
analysis to ignore the fact that many treaties were
negotiated in the oral tradition of Aboriginal peoples
(Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 1995).
The problems
associated with attaching meaning to the treaties involve a
complex set of overlapping philosophical, sociological,
anthropological, legal and historical issues. This is
because most Aboriginal cultures are politic and morally
guided by an oral tradition; that is, complex and powerfully
binding political agreements were made between Aboriginal
nations by making an agreement in a feast or ceremony. The
"publicity" of the ceremony served sanctify the solemnity of
the agreement. The oral tradition contrasts with Western
European tradition of giving primacy of meaning to the
written text.
This diversity of views on land and resource rights is
not surprising, judging by the lack of attention given it
during the negotiations. The archival evidence demonstrates
that there was surprisingly little effort to explain the
implications of the treaty phrase "the said Indians do
hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up . . . all their
rights, title and privileges whatsoever, to the lands," and
so on. We can only speculate as to why this crucial issue of
the control of land and resources was avoided, or passed
over lightly, in the negotiations when it was obviously the
intention of the government to extinguish aboriginal rights.
It is likely that the commissioners felt that it was a mere
formality from the government point of view. The government
had already made some laws applicable in the area and fully
intended to establish further control. From their point of
view, they already owned the land; so the treaty was merely
a means of extinguishing the vague aboriginal rights and
placating the native people by offering the advantages of a
treaty.
However, the Indian people undoubtedly held a very
different view of the treaty and of land and resource
tenure. Even if the commissioners had been fully aware of
these different views, it is very doubtful that they could
have cleared up the misunderstandings on their hurried trip
through the North.
How could anybody put in the Athapaskan language
through a Metis interpreter to monolingual Athapaskan
hearers the concept of relinquishing ownership of land, I
don't know, of people who have never conceived of a bounded
property which can be transferred from one group to another.
I don't know how they would be able to comprehend the import
translated from English into a language which does not have
those concepts, and certainly in any sense that Anglo-Saxon
jurisprudence would understand. So this is an
anthropological opinion and it has continued to puzzle me
how any of them could possibly have understood this. I don't
think they could have. That is my judgement. (Daniel 95). |