Episode 2 – Treaty Promises: Interpreting and understanding treaties
Summary
TLDRThe script discusses the differing interpretations of treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples, highlighting the discrepancies between oral and written versions, particularly around terms like 'ceded' and 'surrendered'. It emphasizes the Indigenous perspective of treaties as a means to preserve their way of life and coexist, rather than surrender land. The summary also touches on the historical context, the importance of understanding treaties as a foundation for nation-to-nation relationships, and the ongoing challenges in treaty interpretation and implementation.
Takeaways
- 📜 **Different Interpretations**: The Crown and Indigenous peoples have varying interpretations of treaties, often due to discrepancies between oral and written versions.
- 🗣️ **Language Misunderstandings**: Specific words like 'ceded' and 'surrendered' are understood differently, with Indigenous perspectives often emphasizing sharing rather than surrendering land.
- 🤔 **Crown's Implementation Issues**: Historically, the Crown has struggled to correctly interpret and implement treaties, leading to disputes over responsibilities and promises.
- 🔍 **Interpreting Treaties**: A correct interpretation of treaties involves considering both written and oral versions and understanding the spirit and intent behind them.
- 🏡 **Preservation of Indigenous Lifeways**: Treaties were intended to preserve Indigenous ways of life, including hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and cultural practices.
- 🛶 **Two Row Wampum Philosophy**: The foundation of relationships with other nations is based on the Two Row Wampum, symbolizing coexistence without imposing one's ways on the other.
- 🌱 **Inherent Rights**: Indigenous rights to their way of life are inherent and predate treaties, which are meant to affirm and preserve these rights in the face of settler presence.
- 🏘️ **Benefits and Responsibilities**: Treaties entail benefits and responsibilities for both Indigenous peoples and the Crown, including land allocation and sharing.
- 🏞️ **Unceded Land**: Despite treaties, Indigenous peoples often view their land as unceded, with oral histories contradicting written Crown records of surrender.
- 🤝 **Modern Treaty Goals**: Modern treaties aim for clarity and certainty for all parties, attempting to remedy past interpretive issues and provide a solid foundation for nation-to-nation relationships.
- 💼 **Treaty Implementation Challenges**: Even with lengthy negotiations, modern treaties can still result in disagreements, highlighting ongoing challenges in treaty implementation and understanding.
Q & A
How do the interpretations of treaties differ between the Crown and Indigenous peoples?
-The Crown and Indigenous peoples interpret treaties differently due to significant discrepancies between oral and written versions, especially regarding specific words like 'ceded' and 'surrendered'. Indigenous people often argue that they agreed to share lands, not surrender them.
What are the two steps to fulfilling the promise of a treaty according to the script?
-The first step is interpreting the treaty correctly, understanding its responsibilities and promises. The second step is implementing the treaty in a way that reflects its spirit and intent, such as preserving the Indigenous way of life.
What is the common misconception about treaties in relation to Indigenous rights?
-The common misconception is that treaties are a grant of rights to Indigenous peoples, whereas historically Indigenous communities had their own societies, laws, and practices and were not in need of someone to grant them rights.
What does the script suggest about the purpose of treaties?
-The script suggests that treaties were meant to preserve a way of life, ensuring that Indigenous activities predating contact and treaties, such as hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and cultural practices, would continue without interference.
What is the Two Row Wampum and how does it relate to treaties?
-The Two Row Wampum is a foundation for relationships with other nations, communicating the idea of coexistence without one nation imposing its ways, culture, and language on the other, which is the essence of what treaties and being on land are about.
How do treaties allow the Crown to allocate lands to non-Indigenous people?
-Treaties allow the Crown to allocate lands to non-Indigenous people based on the agreements made, with the expectation that this is done in a way that results in sharing or equal sharing of the value or the land itself.
What is the difference between historic and modern treaties as per the script?
-Historic treaties were often shorter and led to interpretive dissonance, while modern treaties are much longer and aim to provide certainty and clarity for all parties involved, addressing issues like land claims and financial considerations.
Why are non-Indigenous people considered beneficiaries of the treaties?
-Non-Indigenous people are considered beneficiaries because without the treaties, they could not live on the lands in an ethical way, making their livelihood dependent upon the treaties.
What issues have delayed the full implementation of treaty promises?
-Issues of interpretation, colonial processes aimed at freeing up land for settlement, and disagreements about the nature and extent of treaty promises have delayed the full implementation of treaty promises.
How does the script describe the federal government's role in the implementation of modern treaties?
-The script suggests that the federal government's role is not always centered around the idea of partnership, which is crucial for building nation-to-nation relationships and understanding Crown responsibilities towards Indigenous people.
What does section 35 of the Constitution affirm in relation to treaties and Indigenous rights?
-Section 35 of the Constitution affirms treaty and Aboriginal rights, emphasizing the obligations that flow from these agreements and the importance of understanding and implementing them.
Outlines
📜 Treaty Interpretation Discrepancies and Indigenous Rights
The first paragraph discusses the significant differences in treaty interpretations between the Crown and Indigenous peoples, particularly regarding the understanding of terms like 'ceded' and 'surrendered.' It emphasizes that Indigenous people often view treaties as agreements to share land rather than surrender it. The paragraph highlights the importance of interpreting treaties correctly, considering both written and oral versions, and understanding the spirit and intent behind them. It also touches on the historical context of treaties as a means to preserve Indigenous ways of life, including cultural practices and language, and the concept of the Two Row Wampum, which symbolizes coexistence without imposing one's culture on the other. The paragraph concludes by noting the benefits and responsibilities derived from treaties for both parties and the importance of preserving Indigenous ways of life as part of the treaty promises.
🌎 Indigenous Land Rights and Modern Treaty Disputes
The second paragraph delves into the distrust some Indigenous people have towards the Crown's interpretation of treaties, which often focuses on terms like 'cede' and 'surrender,' while Indigenous perspectives emphasize sharing and maintaining jurisdiction over their lands. It discusses the historical context of treaties as tools for dispossessing Indigenous nations of their territories and dismantling their governance structures. The paragraph also contrasts modern treaties with historic ones, noting the length and complexity of modern treaties and the ongoing disagreements that arise despite lengthy negotiations. It stresses the importance of understanding that land claim agreements are not gifts but payments for land rights, and highlights the role of modern treaties in building nation-to-nation relationships and clarifying Crown responsibilities towards Indigenous peoples, including constitutional obligations. The paragraph concludes by reflecting on the lack of central partnership in the federal government's approach to treaty implementation and the public's understanding of these agreements.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Treaties
💡Indigenous peoples
💡Crown
💡Interpretation
💡Oral tradition
💡Land rights
💡Way of life
💡Coexistence
💡Unceded land
💡Modern treaties
💡Nation-to-nation relationships
Highlights
The Crown and Indigenous peoples often interpret treaties differently, leading to discrepancies between oral and written versions.
Indigenous people argue they agreed to share lands, not surrender them, challenging the Crown's interpretation.
The Crown has historically struggled to correctly interpret and implement treaties, with disputes over responsibilities.
Treaty interpretation involves examining both written and oral versions to understand the spirit and intent.
Treaties are seen by Indigenous communities as a means to live together productively, not as grants of rights.
Historic treaties aimed to preserve Indigenous ways of life, including hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and cultural practices.
The Two Row Wampum forms the foundation of relationships, emphasizing coexistence without imposing one's ways on the other.
Treaties allow the Crown to allocate lands but should result in equal sharing of land value or itself.
Indigenous peoples view treaties as a confirmation of their traditional living, not an extinguishment of their way of life.
Non-Indigenous people are also treaty beneficiaries, as their ethical livelihood depends on the treaties.
Issues of interpretation have delayed the full implementation of treaty promises, with colonial processes impacting land settlement.
Indigenous oral versions of treaties often differ significantly from the written texts recorded by the Crown.
Modern treaties differ from historic ones, being longer and attempting to provide clarity to avoid interpretive issues.
Modern treaties aim to build nation-to-nation relationships and clarify Crown responsibilities towards Indigenous peoples.
Land claim agreements are not gifts but payments for a significant portion of Indigenous settlement areas.
The idea of partnership has not been central in the federal government's implementation or Canadians' understanding of agreements.
Transcripts
The Crown and Indigenous peoples interpret and understand treaties differently.
Significant discrepancies arise between oral and written versions of the agreements,
especially understandings about specific words like ceded and surrendered.
Many argue that Indigenous people agreed to share in lands not to surrender them.
Generally, the Crown has not done well in understanding or implementing treaties and they're
really two different steps to fulfilling the promise of treaty. The first step is interpreting
the treaty correctly, understanding what the responsibilities are and there have been disputes
about that interpretation piece. So, interpreting a treaty means that you're going to look at both
the written and the oral version of the treaty, understanding what are the promises of treaty,
what the spirit and intent of that treaty actually is. The way the people often think
of it as treaties being a grant of rights to Indigenous peoples, Indigenous communities but
obviously being here well before that, you know, organized in our own societies with our own laws
and practices, it wasn't, we weren't in need of anybody to grant us rights. The treaties
function more as how it is that we're going to live together in productive ways or at least
that's what one would hope that they were... how they were to be implemented. Treaties
and especially the historic numbered treaties were meant to preserve a way
of life so understanding that, you know, all of those inherent activities that were,
that predated contact, that predated treaties would continue, that that way of life,
that hunting that trapping that fishing that gathering, cultural and ceremonial practices,
the ability to speak language, that all of that would continue as part of the promise of treaty.
That there would be no interference with that way of life. The foundation for our relationships with
other nations, which would include the French the Dutch, and the English and other Indigenous
nations is of the Two Row, the Two Row Wampum, which communicates the idea that we are existing
together, living side by side, with one nation not imposing its ways culture and language on the
other. And that's what treaty and being on land is all about. It's continuing a way of life and
agreeing to share and to live in coexistence. We have benefits and responsibilities on both sides
that derive from the treaty. The treaty itself is what allows the Crown to allocate lands to
people other than Indigenous people, but that should be done on the basis of treaty in a way
that results in a sharing or an equal sharing of the value of that land or the land itself.
Historic treaties were not understood by Indigenous peoples as an extinguishment of
their way of life or relationships with their territories but rather as a confirmation that
their traditional modes of living would be preserved as part of the treaty promises.
When we think about treaties in relationship to land, that idea of way of life is incredibly
important. Preserving a way of life, and that's an inherent right, it's not one that comes from
the treaty. It predates the treaty but the treaty preserves it in face of incoming settler presence.
Non-Indigenous people are probably the biggest beneficiaries of the treaty of all because if
we didn't have those treaties, we couldn't live here in any ethical way, you know. So, like, our
very livelihood on these lands is dependent upon the treaty. So we are of course all treaty people.
Issues of interpretation have delayed the full implementation of treaty promises.
On the one hand,colonial process was about freeing up land for settlement and farmers and so forth,
all of the normal colonialism stuff. On the other hand, was about how do we agree to move forward
from this and to live together. But here's an example where we have a treaty but we very much
say unceded land still. Even though there's this speaking of ceding the land forever and so forth,
that's not what our oral version of the treaty says. The written text that's been presented and
recorded and by the Crown is often very different from what you'll hear Indigenous people talk
about, what they agreed to do. Honestly, I don't have a lot of trust in the Crown versions of the
treaties because they're always talking about cede and surrender and when Indigenous people
talk about their treaty, they're talking about sharing. They'll talk about, we never ceded,
we never surrendered. We still have full jurisdiction over our lands. So, for me,
that means that all of Canada's Indigenous lands. All these treaties have had the same point. It was
the dispossession of Indigenous nations of their territories and removing political agency from
the people, dismantling their governance structures. When we're talking about land,
our natural logical understanding of land, it's almost thrown out the window when it
comes to interacting with the Government of Canada and interacting with the concepts that
the Government of Canada has entrenched in law as to the way in which land is owne.d
Modern treaties are different from historic treaties. Many modern treaties are hundreds
or thousands of pages long and despite lengthy negotiations,
there are still disagreements about the nature and extent of some of the treaty promises.
I think that in a modern treaty context, what is trying to be achieved is that certainty and
clarity on the parts of all parties. So they try and build a lot of certainty to kind of, I think,
remedy the interpretive dissonance that comes from the historic treaties that had, you know, a paper
text that didn't reflect the negotiations. It's imperative, I think, for Canadians to understand
that land claim agreements were not gifts to Inuit. That the idea that there are financial
considerations within the agreements that is basically payment for 85 per cent
of our settlement area. Modern treaties are an important tool for also building nation-to-nation
and relationships and understanding what Crown responsibilities are in relation to Indigenous
people, including the obligations that flow from the Constitution and, specifically, section 35 of
the Constitution, which affirms those treaty and Aboriginal rights. I don't think that that idea of
partnership has been central in the way in which the federal government imagines its ongoing role
in implementation, and also the way in which Canadians understand these agreements as well.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)