Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Second Treaties in historical context
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Second Treaties in historical context
Alberta Treaty History
Treaty 6
Alexander Morris, a Canadian politician serving under John A. Macdonald, began the signing of Treaty 6 in August of 1876. Treaty 6 was signed in Fort Carlton Saskatchewan, near a river the Aboriginal people called ka-kisiskaciwan, with around two thousand Plains Cree, Woodland Cree, and Assiniboines peoples present (“Treaty 6”, 2005). Aboriginal peoples of the West were dying from smallpox and their buffalo were down to two known herds in the Cypress Hills (“Treaty 6 education”, 2015), this resulted in additional clauses unique to treaty 6; the Medicine Chest clause, symbolic as it represents Canada’s responsibility to care for the health and wellness of the Indigenous peoples in perpetuity, and the Pestilence
…show more content…
and Famine clause. Not every chief agreed with treaty 6. Chief Big Bear (Chief Mistahi-maskwa) knew the treaty signing would have devastating effects on his people and their way of life, but his protest resulted in the starvation of his people and a forced signing in December, 1882. Big Bear was later convicted of treason for his peaceful protests and attempts to unite the Cree nations back into a single nation; he was jailed and later died of poor health upon release (“Treaty 6 education”, 2005). Not every nation was able to keep their promised land.
The Papaschase band was originally entitled to 124 square kilometers of highly sought after land, now known to be South Edmonton. That land was then reduced to 103.6 square kilometers, then lost entirely to a questionable document signed by three men in November 19, 1888. The band was forced to leave their land and join the Enoch reserve (“Aboriginal History Documents”, 2015) and the remaining money made from their land was given directly to the Enoch band. The Michel Band, who were entitled to 103.6 square kilometers northwest of Edmonton, was the only reported case of an entire band enfranchised in March, 1958 (“Aboriginal Rights”, …show more content…
2008). Treaty 7 The signing of treaty 7 took place in September of 1877 at the Blackfoot Crossing of the Bow River (present day Siksika Nation) in Calgary. The commissioners present were David Laird, Lieutenant-Governor and Indian Superintendent of the North-West Territories, and Colonel James Macleod, a NWMP commissioner who had built former trust with the Blackfoot people during the wars on whiskey trade (Taylor, 2015). Unlike treaty 6, which the government postponed until Aboriginal tension was at its worst, treaty 7 was rushed in order to complete the transcontinental railroad promised to British Columbia when they became part of the confederation in 1871 (Blackfoot Crossing historical park). Treaty 7 was known to be the most controversial treaty written, as it was never clear that whole negotiations were ever recorded.
The Blackfoot interpreter, Jerry Potts, was replaced by a government interpreter, James Bird, due to overly summarizing the English language; translation issues continued with the lack of language equivalency (“Treaty 6”, 2005). With the signing of the treaty the government received 130000 square kilometers of Blackfoot territory for development, and the Blackfoot confederation relinquished their nomadic way of life for permanent reservation living and European style agriculture; it is in present day debate whether Aboriginal negotiations were drawn as there are no signed names of any chiefs on the official treaty document, and the spoken word history of treaty 7 contradicts a good portion of the legal document (Taylor,
2015). Treaty 8 Treaty 8 was signed in June of 1899 at the Lesser Slave Lake Settlement now known as Grouard, Alberta. Peoples present were the Woodland Cree, Dunneza, and Chipewyan bands; as well as Commissioners James Ross and James McKenna (Taylor, 2015). Treaty 8 followed a similar pattern to treaty 6, the Northwestern land of Canada was not conducive to government needs and therefore a treaty was not deemed necessary, despite increasing evidence of hardship. The sudden influx of immigrants following the gold rush (1896-1899) quickly accelerated economic potential, at which point the government saw an immediate need to extend treaties to include northern territory (Hopfner, 2010). Treaty 8 is unique in that it was the first treaty to have a Metis (half-breed) commission, who negotiated for the large Metis population to join the treaty reserves or accept a transferrable script which would offer them either money or land. It was also the largest span of land ever negotiated, approximately 840,000 square kilometers of northeastern British Columbia, northern Alberta, northern Manitoba and parts of the Northwest Territories; an estimation of 2700 Aboriginal and 1700 Metis occupied the area (Taylor, 2015).
The journey for the Aboriginals to receive the right to keep and negotiate land claims with the Canadian government was long but prosperous. Before the 1970's the federal government chose not to preform their responsibilities involving Aboriginal issues, this created an extremely inefficient way for the Aboriginals to deal with their land right problems. The land claims created by the Canadian government benefited the aboriginals as shown through the Calder Case, the creation of the Office of Native Claims and the policy of Outstanding Business.
To begin Sprague argues that the Canadian Government disingenuously mismanaged Metis land organization. Sprague states that evidence of this can be seen in the Canadian government not allowing the Lieutenant Governor Adams G. Archibald to make changes to Section 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act. Archibald proposed the government grant outlined in Section 31 should allocate each person of Aboriginal ancestry an allotment of “140 acres” (pg.75) of land. Archibald also suggested that the location of these allotments be in close proximity so as to “not disperse families throughout the province” (Pg. 75). Lastly Archibald proposed a suggestion in carrying out Section 32 which insured that land owned was not jeopardized during the process of confederacy. He recommended that Manitoba be recognized as an independent province such that affairs including land ownership would be dealt with on a provincial level. Therefore as Sprague argues Archibald’s words were not taken into consideration by both the governments of John A. Macdonald and Alexa...
Manitoba Métis Federation, representing Métis in Manitoba, filed a claim asking for a declaration that the federal and provincial statutes, which affected the implementation of Manitoba Act provisions, were "constitutionally invalid” (Chartrand, p. 477, 1991). In Section 31 of Manitoba Act, 1870, it provided lands to the Métis people. Section 32 assured the settlers, Aboriginal or not, that their occupied lands in 1869 would not be “jeopardized” by the wave of newcomers (Sprague, 1980, p. 416). They had 2,000 documents supporting their claim that they are the rightful owner of the land (Galloway, 2013). After more than 40 years, the Supreme Court decided in favour of Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) in its case against the Government of Canada (Galloway, 2013)....
The most powerful tool an American citizen have is their power to vote. The ability to vote allows a citizen to be heard and allows them to make a change in the government. By, casting your vote you are electing a person to stand up for you and your values and speak on your behalf. This ability to vote came from the 15th amendment which states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The amendment was designed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves after, the Civil War. Unfortunately, this amendment failed in different ways that lead to the oppression of minorities in America for almost 100
Canada likes to paint an image of peace, justice and equality for all, when, in reality, the treatment of Aboriginal peoples in our country has been anything but. Laden with incomprehensible assimilation and destruction, the history of Canada is a shameful story of dismantlement of Indian rights, of blatant lies and mistrust, and of complete lack of interest in the well-being of First Nations peoples. Though some breakthroughs were made over the years, the overall arching story fits into Cardinal’s description exactly. “Clearly something must be done,” states Murray Sinclair (p. 184, 1994). And that ‘something’ he refers to is drastic change. It is evident, therefore, that Harold Cardinal’s statement is an accurate summarization of the Indigenous/non-Indigenous relationship in
The Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867 called for two reservations to be set aside in Indian Territoryone for the Comanche and Kiowa and another for the Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho. According to the treaty, the government would provide the tribes with a variety of basic services and training, housing, food and supplies, including guns and ammunition for hunting. The goods would be allotted to the tribes each year for a thirty-year period and the Indian tribes would be allowed to continue to "hunt on any lands south of the Arkansas River so long as the buffalo may range thereon." In exchange, the Indians agreed to stop their attacks and raids. Ten chiefs endorsed the treaty and many tribal members moved voluntarily to the reservations.
...placed in the Blackfoot that led to a social breakdown within the communities, such as alcoholism, depression, and violence, which further distanced many Blackfoot from their culture and language (Bastien, 2004). As much of what has been written here has been focused on the Blackfoot culture and the ways it has been impacted by settlers, language will now be discussed more in-depth to further illustrate how it has also been impacted.
The compromise of 1850 was one of the most important compromise made involving land and slavery, it was very important to the new following states. did the compromise help separate the tension of new coming states to the Union during the Mexican-American war, it also to help give more power to the South with acts. The compromise of 1850 ended war which helped resolve many disputes between the Southerns and Northerns by introducing the Popular Sovereignty, ending slave trade in Washington D.C. and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, was the most effective solution at its time. This three bills were very important to the new territory, did this bills help settle doubt and dispute it also helped keep control and order in the new states it also
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.
“In about half of the Dominion, the aboriginal rights of Indians have arguably been extinguished by treaty” (Sanders, 13). The traditions and culture of Aboriginals are vanishing at a quick pace, and along it is their wealth. If the Canadian Government restore Native rights over resource development once again, Aboriginals would be able to gain back wealth and help with the poverty in their societies. “An influential lobby group with close ties to the federal Conservatives is recommending that Ottawa ditch the Indian Act and give First Nations more control over their land in order to end aboriginal poverty once and for all” (End First). This recommendation would increase the income within Native communities, helping them jump out of
Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Not surprisingly, the Shawnee stayed and fought the Americans for 40 years. Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble if you try to live there."
In the year 1884, Gabriel Dumont rode to Montana and asked Louis Riel to come back to defend the Metis once again. Louis Riel agreed to this, and risked being captured. This was very noble of him and instead of staying safe in Montana; he risked his life for the sake of his people and returned this time with a petition. The petition was sent to the government, and demanded more food and money for the Natives, and the Metis. I believe that this petition was fair in all parts and made complete sense. Riel wanted the government to give back to the Metis, what was taken away from them. This petition was turned down; again the Metis rights were overlooked and disregarded as not
...n.p.). Soon the Canadian government amended Section 12 in 1985, and Bill C-31 was passed for those who lost their status and want to regain them (Hanson, n.p.). Unfortunately a fault existed in Bill C-31, which stated that the statuses of the aboriginals can only be passed on for one generation. Seeing as this was still unconstitutional, the government is now attempting to again retract its footsteps by amending the Indian Act altogether (Hanson, n.p.), but is still meeting difficulty in doing so.
Despite the international system being anarchical, it is not in a state of total chaos due to a number of significant factors such as those above. It is obvious that the current international system is highly influenced by many significant factors and some are more prominent than others. With the continued existence of international anarchy it is up to the States and the International Organisations to continue to make the decisions that are in their own best interest and to maintain order and an ever-improving way of life.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a very important document to New Zealand. It is an agreement that was drawn up by representatives of the British Crown and Maori Hapu and Iwi. It was first signed at the Bay of Islands on February 6th, 1840. There has been a lot of debate over the years about the translation of words between the English and Te Reo Maori versions of the text and the differences in the word meaning over the who languages. In this assignment I am going to cover the rights and responsibilities that the treaty contains and an explanation of the differences in wordings and I am also going to contextualise my understanding of the differences of wording against the Maori Worldview and the Declaration of Independence.