Differences Between Treaty 6 And The Two Row Wampum

Treaty 6 was signed on August 23,1876 at Fort Carlton and less than a month later on September 9, 1876 in Fort Pitt. Some Chief’s had expressed concern regarding being able to sustain this new way of life. They did not want to potentially lose touch with their way of living and the resources their lands possessed. The First Nations people had requested that the government aide their people with agricultural assistance, as well as help during times of famine, and pestilence. The Canadian Government was also asked if they could assist them with modern medicines.

The Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi tried to restrict the Ojibwe people to one place in Minnesota. In which resulted in The United States helping to pay for a lot of the education and farming costs for the Ojibwe tribe. In 1867, The Treaty with the Chippewa of the Mississippi was formed and signed on March 19, 1867. It was developed to keep the Ojibwe people in one place, and it also encouraged them to keep farming through the allotment of land. People who were “individual band members” were provided with a scrip that could be used to get 160 acres of land; but “mixed blood individuals” only were given a scrip if they lived in the boundaries of the reservation.

The major question that the court attempted to determine was whether Stanley’s “conduct with the gun was a marked departure from the level of care that ‘a reasonable person’ would have exercised in ‘the same circumstances.’” One major discrepancy in answering this question is determining how credible it was for the Indigenous youth to enter Stanley’s farm. On the one hand, the court framed “reason” through the settler colonial lens in respecting property endowed to Stanley by the Canadian government. Therefore, they saw Stanley as reasonable because it was the Indigenous people who drove onto his land. Contrary to these beliefs, Indigenous people understand “reason” as respecting land rights established in Treaty 6, which designated Stanley’s farm as being in Red Pheasant territory.

They weren’t allow to leave the Reserve or they would not return or be sentence to Jail. When injuries, illness or medication was needed the army took long time to response with doctors, emergency help and took hours before seriously needed medication was given to the one’s in need. The food supply was being searched and damaged, the army made it very hard for the First Nation’s to receive any needed supplies even with the knowledge of children were within the reserve. The First Nation’s human rights and protection rights were violated, they were beaten, and women were raped and assaulted. Being warrior with issues and situations like these would have been overwhelming, the army was sent by the Government with full demands to take the Mohawk’s land, of course they knew the Mohawk’s had no awareness and the claim wasn’t going to go down without a fight.

“Consequently, Indigenous nation after Indigenous nation has ceded lands and resources for promises the U.S. never fulfilled. Or, such fraudulent tactics were used to obtain Indigenous signatures that the treaties never should have been ratified.” (68-69) Looking at the two quotes, there is a clear difference in speakers and their experiences. In a way, Wazyatawin uses pathos to appeal to the readers about the unjust ways the settlers obtained land that is now Minnesota, while the Minnesota Historical Society strictly uses ethos to persuade readers that their version is correct, yet it could be missing key information.

Treaties in Canada have always been an integral part of the history of settlement, used to define the rights of the Aboriginal peoples of this land and the right of the Canadian government to use those aforementioned lands. However, a number of arrangements between the government and the First Nations peoples they negotiated with often seemed one-sided and unfairly biased towards the former whilst subjugating the latter. Most prominent among these were the 11 Numbered Treaties, a series of contracts made between the Aboriginal peoples of the Prairies and the newly established Government of the Dominion of Canada. Although it might not seem like it now, both sides had many reasons that influenced their decisions to sign, for they all wanted the best possible deal for their futures. The Government of Canada thought that that was the ownership of the vast majority

Throughout the 60’s Canada had two prime ministers who impacted the lives of everyone in Canada and had an important role in Canada’s identity. In the beginning of this epoch the Indigenous people were given a voice to vote in the polling place without being stripped of their identity, culture and status. This socially changed Indigenous

A prominent example is seen in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which was meant to recognize Indigenous rights and protect their lands. Despite these intentions, however, shortcomings exist on behalf of the government regarding how it has fulfilled treaty obligations such as these over time. Although the proclamation acknowledged Indigenous territories and mandated negotiations for land cessions, many settlers persisted in seizing Indigenous lands without consent or agreements. Due to inadequate enforcement by the government, these encroachments flourished and often resulted in egregious violations against Indigenous rights and properties. The authority's neglect of the Royal Proclamation has been an underlying factor contributing to widespread legal injustices suffered by Indigenous peoples.

The Aboriginals thought of the treaties as a mean to trade, not to own things. Another major issue and challenge with the numbered treaties were the fact that that there were many verbal promises made to the First Nations that didn't actually happen. These promises are called outside promises and were promises that weren’t actually written on the treaties. Namely, in treaties 1 and 2 First Nations said that the government would aid them in farming

There was no answer to the Metis petitions which made the Metis pressure the government. The Cree of the Treaty 6 region 1885 was the result of their anger of breaking the treaty agreements, these treaties were supposed to be made in good thoughts. Louis Riel told the unhappy people living in the North-West to press their case on Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald’s Conservative Government. Then Louis Riel created a petition in 1884 where he made the Metis and non-Metis settlers sign it. On March 8, 1885 the Metis passed a bill called the Revolutionary Bill of Rights.

Greetings. Today I am here to speak to you about the impacts of Confederation and the Numbered Treaties on the lives of First Nations people. It is important to understand the history of these treaties, the promises made to Indigenous people, and the long-term effects of the broken promises that continue to impact the relationship between First Nations and the Canadian government today. The Numbered Treaties were a series of 11 treaties signed between the British Crown and First Nations peoples in the late 19th century.

All stories illustrate the beginning, with value and insight; indigenous knowledge is innately given. In an indigenous worldview, knowledge comes from the creator and from creation itself. The Haudenosaunee people are given principles to explicate for appropriate conduct to all of creation and its beings. The creation story illustrates that all of creation has a responsibility in growth, development, and sustainability; the great law of peace demonstrates how to live a “good mind”; the good message describes how to treat one another; the original instructions depict between the right and wrong doing’s; the symbolism of the wampum belts explicates the history of the Haudenosaunee people. These principles instruct humanity and assigns roles and

Institutional and historical analysis often portray the motives of governments, especially in the cases of Quebec separatism and Aboriginal mistreatment. History describes attempts at compromise to rectify the problems by altering political institutions to provide more autonomy to the provinces, witness in various accords and the methods described previously. However, in regards to Aboriginals a historical relationship of exploitation and eradication sheds on the systemic issues that Aboriginals cope with and the institutions that caused them. As scholars of Canadian politics, it is important to consider historical and institutional analyses when looking at any issue, as it reveals the underlying motives of actors in regards to the cleavages that comprise a state.

All languages native to the Americas have been threatened since the implementation and subsequent dominance of English (and other colonial languages). The inclusion of the Haudenosaunee’s native language in the video shows how oral storytelling can preserve a language and, by extension, a culture. Also in terms of cultural preservation, this tale is centered around one of the most significant objects to the Haudenosaunee -- the wampum belt. The belts have multiple uses but perhaps one of the most interesting is how they are used as a reminder of their shared history. As told in the Haudenosaunee’s Legendary Founding video, the wampum belt has symbols for each of the nations who buried their weapons under the white pine and made an agreement to maintain the peace.

Critical Summary #3: First Nations Perspectives In Chapter eight of Byron Williston’s Environmental Ethics for Canadians First Nation’s perspectives are explored. The case study titled “Language, Land and the Residential Schools” begins by speaking of a public apology from former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He apologizes for the treatment of “Indians” in “Indian Residential Schools”. He highlights the initial agenda of these schools as he says that the “school system [was] to remove and isolate [Aboriginal] children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them[…]” (Williston 244).