Episode 2 – Treaty Promises: Interpreting and understanding treaties

Summary

The 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:01

🌎 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.

Keywords

💡Treaties

Treaties in this context refer to formal agreements between Indigenous peoples and the Crown, historically used to establish rights and relationships on shared lands. The script discusses the discrepancies in interpretation between oral and written versions of these agreements, emphasizing the importance of understanding the spirit and intent behind them. Treaties are central to the video's theme, as they form the basis of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the settler society.

💡Indigenous peoples

Indigenous peoples are the original inhabitants of a land, with their own cultures, laws, and practices. The script highlights their perspective on treaties, emphasizing that they agreed to share land rather than surrender it. The term is integral to the video's narrative, as it focuses on the Indigenous viewpoint and their ongoing struggle for recognition and rights.

💡Crown

The Crown represents the governing body or the state, often used to refer to the monarch or the government in historical contexts. In the script, the Crown is mentioned in relation to its role in treaty agreements and its responsibility in interpreting and implementing them. The term is key to understanding the power dynamics and historical actions that have shaped the relationship with Indigenous peoples.

💡Interpretation

Interpretation, in the context of the script, refers to the process of understanding and explaining the meaning of treaties. It is highlighted as a source of dispute, with different interpretations leading to different outcomes for Indigenous peoples. The concept is crucial to the video's theme, as it underscores the importance of accurate understanding in treaty relationships.

💡Oral tradition

Oral tradition is a method of passing knowledge, history, and culture from one generation to the next through spoken word. The script notes the significance of oral versions of treaties, which often differ from written versions, and the importance of considering these in treaty interpretation. This concept is vital to the video's message, as it represents the Indigenous perspective and the potential for miscommunication with the Crown.

💡Land rights

Land rights are the legal and moral claims to land ownership and use, often rooted in historical occupancy and cultural significance. The script discusses the preservation of Indigenous land rights through treaties and the ongoing struggle for recognition of these rights. Land rights are central to the video's theme, as they represent the core issue at the heart of Indigenous-Crown relations.

💡Way of life

The term 'way of life' in the script refers to the traditional lifestyle of Indigenous peoples, including activities such as hunting, trapping, fishing, gathering, and cultural practices. The video emphasizes that treaties were meant to preserve this way of life, not extinguish it, and that the continuation of these practices is a fundamental part of the treaty promises.

💡Coexistence

Coexistence in this context means living together in harmony while respecting each other's rights and cultures. The script uses the concept of the 'Two Row Wampum' to illustrate the idea of two nations living side by side without one imposing on the other. Coexistence is a key theme in the video, as it reflects the intended spirit of treaty relationships.

💡Unceded land

Unceded land refers to territories that have not been surrendered or ceded to another party, often in the context of Indigenous peoples maintaining their rights to land despite the presence of settlers or governments. The script mentions unceded land to highlight the ongoing Indigenous claim to territories, even in the face of colonial narratives of land cession.

💡Modern treaties

Modern treaties are more recent agreements between Indigenous peoples and governments, often characterized by extensive documentation and negotiations. The script contrasts modern treaties with historic ones, noting the attempts to provide clarity and certainty in the agreements. Modern treaties are significant to the video's narrative, as they represent ongoing efforts to address and rectify historical injustices.

💡Nation-to-nation relationships

Nation-to-nation relationships imply a recognition of Indigenous peoples as sovereign nations with the right to self-determination and to engage in relations with other nations on an equal footing. The script discusses modern treaties as a tool for building these relationships and understanding Crown responsibilities. This concept is important to the video's message, as it reflects a shift towards a more equitable and respectful approach to Indigenous rights.

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.