NATIVE-NONNATIVE HISTORICAL RELATIONS: SOME QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

• Did the British see aboriginals as having title at contact, and shortly after contact?

• How did the actions of Douglas and Trutch affect the Indian Land Question?

• How did the attitudes of Douglas and Trutch contrast?

• How did the Indian Land Question develop?

• Are demands for Aboriginal title and rights and resolution of the Indian Land Question new?

A very good book on early Aboriginal-Nonaboriginal relations in B.C. is:

Fisher, Robin. 1992. Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relations in British Columbia. 1774-1890. Vancouver, B.C. UBC Press.

The First Nations at Contact

1760: The territory that will become British Columbia is home to several hundred thousand people in some 30 tribal nations and many hundreds of communities.

1763: The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognizes Indian “Nations or Tribes” as owning their lands under British sovereignty in North America, including “all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward” of the Atlantic watershed.

“It is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds ...

And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present ... to reserve under Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all of the Lands and Territories, not included with limits of Our ... new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and the North West. [Emphasis added] Tennant, 1990:10

Tennant (p. 11) notes that British Columbia Indians came to regard the proclamation as guaranteeing their basic aboriginal rights., and that they had a remarkably consistent view of what their rights are, and where those rights come from. He summarizes this view as follows (pp. 11-12):

1. Before Europeans arrived the various Indian peoples, as autonomous communities and tribal groups, managed their own society affairs and is so doing maintained jurisdiction over a particular territory (land and water) which they used and occupied and regarded as theirs. Self-government and land use ownership thus existed as collective abilities, in whose exercise sub-groups (clans, houses, or smaller kin groups) participated.

2. Individual Indians also had abilities (such as hunting, fishing, and gathering food and materials in particular places) that they exercised, but the entitlement of individuals to exercise these abilities came to them only as members of tribal groups, communities, and sub-groups. Individual abilities were thus derivative rather than primary.

3. Indian abilities and activities continued after white contact and under the new British sovereignty. That they did continue is a simple historical fact, but Indian communities and tribal groups were also morally entitled to carry on as they had before. In other words, because they were already living in organized society, the Indian peoples had the right to continue governing themselves and owning their lands. Continuity of self-government and continuity of land ownership or title were thus collective aboriginal rights. The derived abilities and activities of individual members of communities or tribal groups were now individual aboriginal rights.

4. The British sovereign acknowledged aboriginal rights through the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Continuity of land title was explicitly recognized, while continuity of self-government was implicitly sanctioned. Treaties made in accord with the proclamation recognized the continuity of certain aboriginal rights, especially such individual rights as to hunt, fish and gather good.

5. Particular aboriginal rights can be reduced or eliminated. A community or tribal group may voluntarily surrender a right – for example, by ceding title to some or all of its land to the Crown. The sovereign also had the legal authority, however unfair its exercise may be in practice, to limit or extinguish an aboriginal right by unilateral action – for example, by expropriating title or outlawing an aboriginal activity. Within an established system of government, however, legitimate curtailment of aboriginal rights can be accomplished only through explicit and lawful action; otherwise the “rights” would have so little substance as not to be rights in the first place.

1774: The Spanish reach B.C., followed by James Cook in 1778.

1846: The Treaty of Oregon marks formal expression of British Sovereignty.

1849: Vancouver Island is made a colony.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, under James Douglas, is in charge of settlement.

1850 -54 James Douglas, while Governor of the Colony recognizes pre-existing Indian land ownership and purchases title from 14 Indian communities.

Indian rights to fish “as formerly” and to hunt on unoccupied treaty lands are provided for.

1856 -64: White public opinion accepts pre-existing Indian ownership and supports more purchases.

1858: Mainland is made a new colony under Douglas’s administration; his instructions from London assume that he will sign more treaties.

1860-64: Instead of treaties, Douglas implements his “system” which seeks Indian assimilation, but with dignity and equality. Indians are granted equal pre-emption (or homesteading) rights with Whites, but get only small reserves – these are intended as temporary arrangements en route to assimilation.

1864: Douglas retires. Joseph Trutch assumes control of Indian policy; in contrast to Douglas, he regards Indians as inferior savages.

1865: The Indian population has declined to 40,000

1866: The two colonies are united as British Columbia. Trutch remains dominant. New legislation prohibits land pre-emption by Indians. Trutch reduces the size of existing reserves; allows a maximum of 10 acres an Indian family in new reserves. Indians protest.

1870: Trutch becomes the first official to deny the existence of aboriginal title in B.C.; he revises B.C. history to have the Douglas treaties as mere friendship pacts.

1871: Trutch is instrumental in arranging Union with Canada. Federal officials assume Proclamation has been followed in B.C., with extensive treaties signed and reserves as large as those in Ontario (80 acres per family).

Tennant p. 41:

“The full and equal right of Indians to pre-empt land had been a key element in Douglas’s actual Indian policy. One of the first actions [of] the legislature of the united colony was to amend the pre-emption ordinance: ‘The right conferred ... on British Subjects, or aliens ... of pre-empting and holding in fee simple unoccupied and unsurveyed and unreserved Crown Lands in British Columbia, shall not (without the special permission thereto of the Governor first had in writing) extend to or be deemed to have been conferred on ... any of the Aborigines of this Colony or the Territories neighbouring thereto.’ Indian pre-emption was thus abolished.”

1872: The right to vote in B.C. elections is withdrawn from Indians.

1870s: Major Prairie treaties transfer Indian title to the Crown and provide reserves of 640 acres per Indian family.

1870s: Coast and Interior Salish chiefs hold large assemblies protesting small reserves and lack of treaties. “The Indian Land Question” is now a distinct element in B.C. Politics.

1874: Ottawa urges reserves of 80 acres a family; B.C. refuses.

1875: Opposition motion passes in B.C. legislature compelling publication of Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question, 1850-1875.

1876: Governor General Dufferin urges B.C. to acknowledge Indian title.

1880s Christian missions and Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) are well established in B.C.

Removal of Indian children from home and family for “education” and “civilization” begins.

1884 Parliament outlaws the potlatch, the major social, economic, and political institution of the coastal peoples.

Tennant pp 51-52:

“It was in good part through the potlatch that the coastal leaders continued their own authority and were able to resist the control of church and government. Thus it was to the potlatch that missionaries and agents turned their attention. In their eye it became the epitome of anti-government pagan depravity. As a result of their pressure and recommendations, the Macdonald government had parliament amend the Indian Act in 1884.

‘Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the ‘Potlach’ [sic] ... is guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement.’

The institution crucial to coastal societies, and in particular to their economies and political systems was thus outlawed. In later years the prohibition would be further amended to the point that any gathering of Indians, other than a Christian church ceremony, could be labelled a potlatch and those present arrested and jailed.

This circumstance had direct effects upon the political strategy eventually settled upon by British Columbia Indians in pursuit of their land claims. In any event, the close partnership of church and state in the suppression of Indian culture could have no better evidence than the use of prisons to curb the potlatch.”

1887: Nisga’a and Tsimshian chiefs travel to Victoria to meet B.C. and federal officials; they demand recognition of title, negotiation of treaties, and provision for self government.

1887: Fearing rebellion on the land issue, the governments agree to an Enquiry, which hears repeated Nisga’a demands for treaties and self-government.

1890s: “Neo-traditional” Indian leaders emerge; they are committed to land claims but fluent in English and knowledgeable about government.

1899: Federal government unilaterally extents prairie Treaty No. 8 into Peace River area, using federally owned land for reserves at 640 acres per family.

REVIEW OF DOUGLAS’S IMPACT:

• Signed some treaties.

• Acknowledged Aboriginal title.

• Thought that Aboriginals should be treated as equals to settlers.

• Designed small reserve system with the right of Aboriginals to preempt non-reserve land.

• Favored assimilation.

• Was concerned how the aboriginal population would respond to colonization.

• Did not think that traditional Indian life could survive the changes brought about by colonization, and so the situation required intervention; e.g., a reserve system, etc.

Was inconsistent in his policy between the Mainland and the Island. E.g., signed some treaties on the Island, but none on the mainland.

REVIEW OF TRUTCH’S IMPACT:

• Refused to sign treaties.

• Did not acknowledge pre-existing aboriginal title.

• Explicitly stated that BC Indians never owned the land.• Created reserves but kept them small and decreased the size of some.

• Viewed Aboriginals as inferiors.

• Misled the federal government re B.C. treaties and reserves.

• Abolished preemption.

NATIVE-NONNATIVE HISTORICAL RELATIONS: SOME QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

• Did the British see aboriginals as having title at contact, and shortly after contact?

• How did the actions of Douglas and Trutch affect the Indian Land Question?

• How did the attitudes of Douglas and Trutch contrast?

• How did the Indian Land Question develop?

• Are demands for Aboriginal title and rights and resolution of the Indian Land Question new?