Outrage

Today I attended a local conference on working with Aboriginal peoples to creating dynamic and effective economies throughout Northern Ontario and I was made aware of some staggering truths about Treaty No. 9. See the document at the link below, a text version of it is offered in a link at that site:

http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/exhibits/james_bay_treaty/treaty.htm

There are 4 types of treaties I learned, which are:
treaties of peace and friendship
land surrenders
land surrenders with continuing rights to hunt and fish
modern comprehensive and claim agreements

The problem is that Duncan Campbell Scott told the Aboriginals all the things they would benefit from the treaty (ie: each band gets a flag, a gift of $8, and yearly $4, etc.) but left out the things they were surrendering (ie: the part that reads '...the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and His successors for ever, all their rights titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within ...')

Of course, we think 'why didn't the Aboriginal people read the treaty?' And the obvious answer was that they didn't know how to.

A culture that had existed, developed and prospered by oral tradition had no need to believe someone would lie to them about something written on paper. I am convinced that Aboriginal people expected that they would share the land, like they did with other tribal bands for centuries before. The Crown had no intention of 'sharing' however, which is clearly evident in the Treaty, as quoted above.

So, by means of an interpreter, Duncan Campbell Scott admits that he simplified Treaty No. 9 by abridging the contract. In an article published in Scribner's Magazine, he writes "...The simpler facts of the treaty had to be stated and the parental idea developed that the King is the great father of the Indians...watchful over their interests, and ever compassionate. After gifts of tobacco as we were seated in a circle in a big room of the Hudson's Bay Company, the interpreter delivered this message."

After having this explained, the Aboriginals were told that there would be no Treaty till they signed a paper, something new to them. They signed, after first stating that they were satisfied with what they had heard. So they touched the pen as others signed their names for them, as identified by the (t, or cross, at their signatures on the original document).

And so now, 103 years later, the trouble we find ourselves in, is that Duncan Campbell Scott offered the natives a treaty of peace and friendship in the oral tradition, though what they were told to sign was more of a land surrender with continuing rights to hunt or fish.

Suddenly, things are not as black and white as they once were...