Unit 6 – 10

Abdullahi Mustapha (007939647)

Department of science, University of Manitoba

INDG 1220: indigenous people in Canada

March 29, 2024

Unit 6

Activity 1

1. Identify the 5'w (who, what, where, when, & why) of the Royal Proclamation 1763.

2. According to Slattery (2015), how is the Royal Proclamation 1763 connected to the

Supreme Court decisions in the Manitoba Metis Federation and Haida cases? Provide

evidence.

3. Discuss the responsibilities of the Crown to Indigenous Peoples outlined in the Royal

Proclamation.

1.

-What: A proclamation that set the framework for European settlement of Indigenous territories

in North America post the Seven Years' War, establishing government systems for former French

colonies and laying the groundwork for relations with North American Aboriginal peoples. It's

sometimes referred to as the "Indian Magna Carta" or an "Indian Bill of Rights."

- Where: Applicable across British territories in North America, specifically delineating areas

reserved for Indigenous peoples and those open for British settlement and development.

- When: Issued in 1763 following the British victory in the Seven Years' War.
- Why: Aimed to manage colonial expansion and establish peaceful relations between settlers and

Indigenous populations through the formal recognition of Indigenous land rights and setting a

precedent for the negotiation of treaties.

2. Regarding the connection between the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Supreme Court

decisions in the Manitoba Metis Federation and Haida cases according to Slattery (2015),it can

be inferred that the Royal Proclamation's principles of recognizing Indigenous land rights and the

duty of the Crown to negotiate with Indigenous Peoples likely served as a legal precedent or

framework influencing these decisions. These cases involve recognizing Indigenous rights and

the obligations of the Crown towards Indigenous Peoples, which are foundational principles

established by the Royal Proclamation.

3. The responsibilities of the Crown to Indigenous Peoples outlined in the Royal Proclamation

include:

- Recognizing Indigenous groups in North America as autonomous and self-governing actors,

distinct from private individuals or other British subjects, capable of negotiating with the Crown

as independent nations.

- Establishing a formal nation-to-nation land transfer process, where Indigenous lands could

only be transferred to the British Crown through public negotiations and with the consent of the

Indigenous group involved.

- Acting as a protector of Indigenous peoples in their relations with colonial society,

recognizing a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown to act in the best interests of Indigenous

Peoples, thereby establishing a relationship akin to that of a trustee.

These responsibilities reflect a commitment to recognizing Indigenous sovereignty, protecting

Indigenous lands, and ensuring fair and respectful relations between the Crown and Indigenous

Nations.

Unit 7

Activity 1 Who are the Metis?

1. Who are the Métis?

2. How has the terminology referring to these people and their membership changed?

3. What is the danger inherent in the “Métis-as-mixed” stereotype? And, what should be

emphasized instead of “mixed-race/blood”? Discuss.

The Métis are a post-Contact Indigenous people with roots in the historic Red River community,

formed from the mix of European (mostly French, English, Scottish) settlers and many different

First Nations (Mohawk, Cree, Saulteaux, and others). They have developed a distinct cultural

identity, language, social, and political organization, especially around the 1800s along the edge

of the Plains where they became deeply involved in buffalo hunting. These communities are

characterized by their involvement in significant historical events such as the Pemmican War, the

Battle of Seven Oaks, and the Riel Resistance, which contributed to their evolving identity as a

distinct people.

The terminology referring to the Métis and their membership has changed over time. Initially,

European settlers referred to their mixed First Nations and European offspring using terms like
“métis” (literally mixed) by the French and “half-breeds” by the English, both of which were

racial, not ethnic, descriptions. Over time, as these mixed families formed their own

communities, a solidified Métis identity emerged, characterized by a distinct cultural identity

rather than merely a mix of ancestries. Today, “Métis” refers to people of this specific cultural

group, rather than simply meaning “mixed”.

The stereotype of “Métis-as-mixed” poses the danger of oversimplifying and misrepresenting the

complex cultural and historical realities of the Métis people. It reduces their identity to a matter

of racial or genetic mixture, ignoring the cultural, social, and political uniqueness that defines

them. Instead of emphasizing “mixed-race/blood,” it is crucial to highlight the distinct Métis

culture, history, and community bonds that have been forged over time. This approach respects

the Métis as a unique Indigenous people, whose identity is rooted in more than just their ancestry

but also in their shared history, language, and cultural practices.

Unit 8

Activity 1 Treaty Period

1. What are the principal differences between the three Treaty stages?

2. What historical factors made the three stages different from each other?

3. In entering the treaties, what did both parties understand was their purpose?

1. Principal Differences Between the Three Treaty Stages:

  Pre-Confederation Treaties (Peace & Friendship Treaties): These early treaties, made

before the British colonization of Canada was formalized, focused on alliances, peace,

and friendship, mainly for trade(fur trade ,etc.) and military alliances , without the

cession of land.The treaties were made between European settlers (initially the French

and later the British) and First Nations to ensure mutual cooperation and understanding,

reflecting a more equal footing between the parties

 Early British Land Treaties: Post-French defeat, these treaties were aimed at land

acquisition for settlement and resource extraction. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 laid

the groundwork for these agreements by acknowledging Indigenous land rights and

setting the template for future treaties, involving land surrenders under specific

conditions to the Crown.

 Post-Confederation Land Treaties (Numbered Treaties): After Canada's Confederation in

1867, these treaties were primarily focused on extinguishing Indigenous title to facilitate

settlement, agriculture, and infrastructure development, such as the construction of the

railway. They aimed at assimilation and were more comprehensive, including promises

of annuities, reserves, and rights to hunt and fish on ceded lands.

2. Historical Factors Making the Three Stages Different:

  Evolving Colonial Objectives: Initially, the focus was on trade and alliances. As Britain

gained control, the emphasis shifted to land acquisition for settlement and economic

exploitation. Post-Confederation, the Canadian government aimed to facilitate national

expansion, settlement, and economic development, including infrastructure like railways.

In the modern era, treaties have become part of a broader recognition of Indigenous

rights and self-determination.

 Changes in Indigenous-European Relations: Early treaties were marked by mutual

dependence, with Indigenous nations playing significant roles as allies in trade and

military ventures. Over time, as European settlers increased in number and Indigenous

populations were affected by disease and loss of resources, allowing for more extensive

land cessions, the power dynamics shifted, leading to treaties that were less about

alliances and more about the surrender of lands and rights.

 Shifts in Government Policies and Perceptions: The Royal Proclamation of 1763

established a foundation for treaty-making, acknowledging Indigenous rights. However,

the drive for expansion and assimilation grew stronger over time, particularly after

Confederation, reflecting a change in how Indigenous peoples were viewed and treated

by colonial and later, Canadian authorities. And now in the morden era standards on

Indigenous rights, has significantly influenced the nature and scope of treaty negotiations

in the modern era, focusing on reconciliation, compensation, and mutual respect.

3. Purpose of the Treaties as Understood by Both Parties:

  Indigenous Peoples: Initially saw treaties as a means to secure alliances, peace, and

protection of their territories, cultures, and way of life while allowing for certain benefits

from trade and alliances. Over time, as conditions changed, treaties were viewed as a way

to ensure survival, securing resources, education, and assistance in adapting to new ways

of life, while retaining rights to land and resources.

 European and Canadian Governments: Initially engaged in treaties for security, peaceful

coexistence and trade. Over time, the purpose shifted to acquiring land for settlement and

economic development. with treaties seen as a means to legally secure land transfers and

post-confederation, the government aimed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into

European-Canadian society, extinguish Indigenous title, and secure land for national

expansion and infrastructure development. In the modern era, treaties are recognized as

part of a broader commitment to reconciliation, acknowledging past injustices and

establishing frameworks for partnership and coexistence.

Unit 9

Activity 3

1. How was the day organized?

2. What was expected at different times?

3. Was there a specific purpose for the types of lessons/subjects taught?

4. Critically thinking according to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission, were the

education outcomes provided?

1. How was the day organized?

Residential schools followed a stringent daily schedule, starting early in the morning, around

5:30 a.m., and concluding at 8:30 p.m. The "half-day system" divided students' time between

academic learning and vocational tasks. However, this division often leaned heavily towards

manual labor under the guise of vocational training, which primarily served the schools'

operational needs. Additionally, students' responsibilities extended beyond these periods through

mandatory chores, extending their already long days.

2. What was expected at different times?

The daily routine involved academic lessons that covered basic elementary education and

vocational "training" that frequently amounted to labor beneficial to the school. The day was

punctuated by strict schedules for waking, attending classes or labor, performing chores, eating

meals, and participating in evening prayers before bedtime. Sundays did not offer a break but

were filled with religious activities and additional chores, reinforcing the cycle of discipline and

work.

3. Was there a specific purpose for the types of lessons/subjects taught?

The curriculum aimed to impart a rudimentary education and practical skills in certain trades,

underpinned by a paternalistic and assimilationist rationale. This educational model was part of a
larger colonial agenda to erase Indigenous identities and assimilate Indigenous children into

Euro-Canadian culture, often prioritizing manual labor over comprehensive academic education.

The approach reflected a constrained view of Indigenous students' futures, preparing them

primarily for manual labor roles.

4. Critically thinking according to the Truth and Reconcilation Commission, were the education

outcomes provided?

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's findings starkly highlighted the residential school

system's failure in providing meaningful education to Indigenous students. Far from equipping

them with valuable knowledge or skills, the system inflicted severe harm, stripping away cultural

identity and causing enduring trauma and disadvantage. The TRC identified the schools as

instruments of cultural genocide, aiming to sever Indigenous children's ties to their heritage and

inadequately preparing them for any sphere of adult life, perpetuating cycles of harm and

inequality.

Unit 10

1. Evidence of Ongoing Colonization:

• Land Dispossession: Despite treaties and modern agreements intended to settle

land claims, Indigenous peoples continue to be dispossessed of their traditional territories for

development, mining, and other extractive industries without their free, prior, and informed

consent.
 • Legislative Assimilation: Laws and policies, such as those governing natural

resources on Indigenous lands, often prioritize non-Indigenous interests and fail to incorporate

Indigenous governance systems, further entrenching colonial structures.

• Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System: Indigenous peoples,

particularly in countries like Canada and the United States, are disproportionately incarcerated, a

direct consequence of systemic racism and colonial legacies that criminalize Indigenous

existence.

• Cultural Suppression: Efforts to suppress Indigenous languages, ceremonies, and

practices continue, with funding for cultural preservation and revitalization grossly inadequate.

• Socioeconomic Inequities: Persistent gaps in health, education, and employment

outcomes for Indigenous peoples versus non-Indigenous populations are rooted in colonial

policies and ongoing marginalization.

2. Sentiment of Palmater’s Statement:

Palmater’s statement underscores the notion that the activism and resistance of Indigenous

peoples are grounded in the pursuit of justice, sovereignty, and the protection of their lands,

cultures, and communities goals that are inherently reasonable and just, rather than

“radical.”(palmater P 2019) This activism is often portrayed as radical not because of its aims,

but because it challenges the status quo of colonial power structures. Palmater argues that what is

truly radical is not the demands of Indigenous peoples but the lengths to which states will go to

maintain colonial control and suppress Indigenous rights.

3. Ways the Colonial Government Criminalized Indigenous Identities:

 • Prohibition of Cultural Practices: Laws historically banned Indigenous

ceremonies and cultural practices, such as the Potlatch and Sundance ceremonies, positioning

these core aspects of identity as illegal.

• Residential Schools: Mandatory attendance at residential schools, which aimed to

“kill the Indian in the child,” effectively criminalized the transmission of Indigenous knowledge,

languages, and cultural identities.

• Restrictions on Movement: Pass systems and other legal mechanisms restricted

the movement of Indigenous peoples, criminalizing their presence off designated reserves

without government permission.

• Legal Discrimination: The Indian Act and similar legislation definitions of

“Indianness” that undercut Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, controlling aspects of

identity, governance, and community life.

• Environmental Exploitation: Indigenous resistance to the exploitation of their

lands and resources has been met with criminalization, portraying defenders of the land as

obstructors of economic progress or, in more extreme narratives, as terrorists.

 Reference

Slattery, Brian. (2015). "The Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Aboriginal

Constitution" in Terry Fenge and Jim Aldridge, eds., Keeping Promises: The

Royal Proclamation of 1763, Aboriginal Rights, and Treaties in Canada (Montreal

& Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015), 14-32.

British policy . Login - University of Manitoba. (n.d.-a).

https://universityofmanitoba.desire2learn.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/
quickLink.d2l?ou=563592&type=content&rcode=UManitoba-890003

Vowel, C. (2016, May 10). Who are the Métis?. âpihtawikosisân.

https://apihtawikosisan.com/2016/05/who-are-the-metis/

McKnight , B. (2008). Treaty essential learnings: We are all treaty people. Office of the Treaty
Commissioner. Pg 9-22

TRC (2015) Canada’s Residential Schools: The History, Part 1 Origins to 1939. Chapter 13 The
Educational Record 1867-1939 (pp. 293-329)

Palmater, P. (2019).The radical politics of Indigenous resistance and survival. In Routledge

handbook of radical politics (pp. 131-162). Routledge. Palmater, P. (2019).The radical
politics of Indigenous resistance and survival. In Routledge handbook of radical
politics (pp. 131-162). Routledge.