From Treaties to Reserves: The Federal Government and Native Peoples in Territorial Alberta, 1870-1905

by D.J. Hall

Though some believe that the Indian treaties of the 1870s achieved a unity of purpose between the Canadian government and First Nations, in From Treaties to Reserves D.J. Hall asserts that - as a result of profound cultural differences - each side interpreted the negotiations differently, leading to conflict and an acute sense of betrayal when neither group accomplished what the other had asked.

Hall explores the original intentions behind the government's policies, illustrates their attempts at cooperation, and clarifies their actions. While the government believed that the Aboriginal peoples of what is now southern and central Alberta desired rapid change, the First Nations, in contrast, believed that the government was committed to supporting the preservation of their culture while they adapted to change. Government policies intended to motivate backfired, leading instead to poverty, starvation, and cultural restriction. Many policies were also culturally insensitive, revealing misconceptions of Aboriginal people as lazy and over-dependent on government rations. Yet the first two decades of reserve life still witnessed most First Nations people participating in reserve economies, many of the first generation of reserve-born children graduated from schools with some improved ability to cope with reserve life, and there was also more positive cooperation between government and First Nations people than is commonly acknowledged.

The Indian treaties of the 1870s meant very different things to government officials and First Nations. Rethinking the interaction between the two groups, From Treaties to Reserves elucidates the complexities of this relationship.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Canada

504 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2015

About the author

D.J. Hall is professor emeritus of Canadian history at the University of Alberta.

Reviews

[Aislin]

The current discussion of contact, Canadian identity, and reconciliation needs and deserves a book that re-examines the mindset of colonial decision makers. Too often contemporary settler Canadians turn our predecessors into cartoon villains, which allows us to disavow our own connection with their actions and obscures the racism and colonialism that remain an inherent part of our national culture. We need a book that explains these actions and ways of thinking in human terms so that we can better understand how they continue to play out in the world around us.

This book is is not the book that we need. Rather than explaining the colonial mindset, this book excuses and even deifies it. It is the very worst of ethnocentric apologia, which uses disingenuous rhetoric to try to position the failures of the early-Treaty period of Albertan history as an historically-inevitable, normatively-neutral culture clash. The author's ignorance of, and disregard for, Indigenous Studies is evident even in the prologue. The historical analysis is shallow and obviously designed to undo the de-centring of the colonial Canadian narrative of contact and Treaty. The author appears to be greatly troubled by the tendency of contemporary thinkers (including the Supreme Court of Canada) to listen to Indigenous people and consider their perspectives on contact.

I would rate this book as zero-star if I could. I can't believe this book was published in this day and age, and my respect for the McGill-Queen's University Press has been greatly diminished.

tl;dr: Don't read this book. Instead, read the True Spirit and Original Intent of Treaty 7 and Hugh Dempsey's recently-published The Great Blackfoot Treaties, and also go see Making Treaty 7 the next time it's on. Also, if you're going to call the Blackfoot Confederacy Niitsitapi, don't spell it "Nizitapi".

[Dasha]

David Hall’s From Treaties to Reserves: The Federal Government and Native Peoples in Territorial Alberta, 1870-1905 provides a detailed analysis of the treaty process. Hall skillfully argues that the treaties resulted from a government and Indigenous peoples that only “partially comprehended one another.” The treaties exemplified a clash of cultures that did not understand the other, where language and space represented different principles and expectations for the treaties. Hall argues that although the Canadian government did not negotiate the treaties in bad faith, mutual incomprehension nonetheless caused painful consequences for the Indigenous people of the Western plains.
To understand Hall’s argument, it is essential to understand his approach and use of sources. In his second chapter, Hall devotes a section to explaining his methodology for oral tradition. Hall thoughtfully pushes back on recent assertions that “oral record must be primary, and that the written record is useful only insofar as it does not contradict Indian’s accounts.” Expanding on James V. Wetsch’s work on collective memory, Hall claims that oral history and tradition change over time as oral accounts become modified by social context, current needs, and an element of performance. Therefore, oral traditions have an inherent instability to them. However, this is not to say that Hall places written sources on a pedestal. Instead, he acknowledges that written sources are vulnerable to the interpretations of the writer, reader, and new evidence. Therefore, both oral and written sources only represent partial truths that are susceptible to various factors that may call into question their authority. This discussion is crucial as it lays the groundwork for understanding Hall's critical use of both types of sources.
Hall's discussion on the Indigenous peoples' perspective of Treaty 7 demonstrates his careful use of oral sources. The Treaty 7 elders put to print their oral tradition of the process in the twentieth century. It emphasizes that the process was a peace treaty between equals, and it was not a surrender of title but rather an agreement to allow settlers to use the land. Hall rebukes this partly, claiming that because Treaty 7 occurred within the context of many other treaties making it clear the government’s desire for land and its resources. Hall states, “this interpretation implies a rather selective memory on the part of the Indians negotiating the treaty.” Oral traditions such as those surrounding Treaty 7 demonstrate, to Hall, the change oral sources undertake over time, even when eventually committed to writing. He argues that due to events such as the previous numbered treaties and treaties made south of the border that there existed enough context by the time of Treaty 7 that some level of knowledge existed on at least some of the government’s intent. This example demonstrates Hall’s critical analysis of oral sources.
Despite such critiques, Hall does not discount these sources altogether either. He claims that this source, even if not entirely accurate within the historical context, underlines the more significant issue of mutual incomprehension between the two sides. These issues stem from cultural and linguistic differences. Language differences included British legal terms essential to understanding the treaties not having equivalents in Indigenous languages. For example, "cede," "title," and "mile" were concepts non-existent in Indigenous languages. This problem was further exacerbated by weak translators who often were not fully competent in both languages, let alone versed in the languages well enough to translate the treaties' detailed and complicated legalese. In this section, Hall uses the oral tradition to understand further the problems that plagued treaty negotiations. While remaining critical of some of its information, Hall utilizes the source where it stands up to the rigours of historical analysis. As such, Hall maintains a delicate balance in his sources.
I disagree that Hall seeks to justify the attitude and cultural differences between Canada and Indigenous people. But rather, explain the treaty process as a result of fundamentally different worldviews, which in the case of the Canadian government caused a great deal of harm and upheaval. Hall does not downplay the suffering Canada caused nor does he excuse it.

[Gregory Glover]

Very well researched and thoughtful. I appreciated the “balanced” attempt to show the roots of misunderstandings on all sides. There was considerable repetition and redundancy throughout. The work would have benefited from a ruthless editor to enforce concision.