What do you think?
Rate this book
Ce n’était pas nous les sauvages
Voici enfin la traduction française, par M. Jean-François Cyr, de la troisième édition du libre désormais classique de Daniel N. Paul. « Ce n’était pas nous les sauvages » est un essai percutant, qui a marqué un tournant dans l’historiographie des Premières Nations, fruit du travail de M. Paul sur plusieurs décennies de recherches et d’implication dans sa communauté.
469 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
63 people are currently reading
1196 people want to read
About the author
Daniel N. Paul
6 books8 followersDaniel Paul was a Canadian Miꞌkmaq elder, author, columnist, and human rights activist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
August 15, 2017
We’ve long known that history is the preserve of the victors who not only get to determine what we remember about the past and shape into a narrative, but in doing so also get to determine what we forget about the past. Perhaps more than anywhere else, this is most potent in the ways we tell the stories of colonialism – those tales of heroic explorers who set out into the unknown and discover new lands, new peoples, new plants and animals, and then get to claim them for their King, Queen or Emperor, by right of discovery. Except, of course, that these were not new places, peoples and things, and in some cases (think Aboriginal Australians) these were civilisations that had existed for tens of thousands of years. These victors’ histories of colonialism and empire tell stories of heroic civilisation of the natives, of their education and redemption from savagery, of their being made just like us and at times of their failure to be just like us because of their laziness, their licentiousness and their refusal to engage with an obviously superior society. What these histories of colonialism and empire do not do for the most part is tell this as a story of colonisation, of enslavement, of dispossession and of appropriation – and in failing to do so these histories told by the victors are falsehoods.
It is these falsehoods that are debunked by the work of indigenous historians whose work explores colonisation and empire, and Daniel Paul’s excellent We Were Not the Savages is a fine example of indigenous history, of the indigenous experiences of the ravages of colonisation, in this case including of dispossession and appropriation, and given the history of Nova Scotia the consequences of the enslavement of others. Paul is uncompromising in his narrative, building his history from within a Mi’kmaq perspective – the other side of the divide from the newcomer perspective that usually frames those histories. He crafts an image of a pre-Columbian Mi’kmaq world (noting that it is not pre-contact – we know that Norse and Basque visitors pre-dated 1492) building on indigenous ways of seeing and knowing the world, of relating to others (human and non-human) and in doing so provides a base to understand indigenous responses to colonisation.
For much of the early colonial period, Mi’kmaq territory was contested space between three peoples; Mi’kmaq, British and French. This presented a complex interplay of forces as the indigenous struck alliances based in local circumstances and conditions, trusted that treaties had meaning and integrity rather than being the opportunist ‘holding’ agreements they tended to be – more honoured in their breach (there is nothing distinctive for the Mi’kmaq there!) – and worked to control their world on their terms. What may surprise many taught in the British tradition is that Paul sees the French as more honourable, more willing to engage with Mi’kmaq on Mi’kmaq terms and more willing to treat the Mi’kmaq nation fairly and decently. The parallel of this is an unrelenting and overwhelming image of British arrogance and contempt, and more challenging to the dominant British-derived narrative, more savage. It is difficult to read the reproduced edicts from British governors that offer a sliding scale of bounty for Mi’kmaq scalps (scalping was the primarily a practice of the colonisers) tied to sex and age (in most cases, the bounty for children was half that of adult males) and continue to see the British government as civilised and honourable. This was not ‘smoothing the pillow of the dying race’ as was so often claimed, but arguably genocide (Paul argues this case convincingly).
Paul is not a ‘professional’ historian, which might also challenge some readers. This means that rather than interpret official documents, in many cases he represents them in full. The long central chapter on the Indian Act of 1876, for instance, reproduces large sections of the Act as part of its section-by-section exposition, which might sound dull but Paul’s writing style, packed with examples of the effects of the Act and of many of its amendments makes this a lively and engaging discussion. He also reproduces sizeable sections of other publications, contemporary and subsequent, including pieces by academic historians, where they make his point or provide the basis for his subsequent argument. There is something delightfully non-prepossessing about this, a humility and lack of ego that makes clear that in building his argument that savagery lay with the colonisers he is standing on the shoulders of others who have gone before, and showing that this indigenous view is not just fanciful revisionism but an analysis built in scholarly rigour. What’s more, most of the case is built on official documents: as is often the case with indigenous based histories there is also some indigenous knowledge invoked and developed, but the vast majority of what is here is the standard archival material of scholarly history. This is the kind of thing settler historians need to learn to better read to see the indigenous experience: most of us do so badly if we do at all.
It is a compelling analysis that pulls no punches. What’s more, in being based in an indigenous worldview it challenges us to rethink how we shape and structure the past. For historians, periodisation is a key framing device allowing us to cluster similar or related events into a narrative with distinct markers along the way. Paul’s ‘markers’ are not those of conventional Canadian (or as much as I am aware, Maritimes) history; this presents a different way of making sense of the past, of shaping and framing it and pointing to key moments or events where there is a systemic or structural shift. Confederation, for instance, merits only 2 pages; the negotiated peace between Mi’kmaq and British in 1761 (the ‘burying the hatchet ceremony) has 11 pages turned over to it. This is not a conventional, settler-centric view of the past.
Paul was very much an insider to contemporary Mi’kmaq politics and state relations having worked for both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and for Mi’kmaq representative groups in Nova Scotia from the late 1960s until he retired. Paradoxically this seems to have made weakest his discussion of contemporary events where he focuses on what he calls ‘the struggle for freedom’. This section, which is very good and highlights just how parlous is the contemporary position of Nova Scotia’s first peoples, is dominated by corporate and statist dynamics. There is very little mention of non-state activism, of direct action politics and the like yet these approaches were powerfully present across Canada during this period. It may be that there is little in the Mi’kmaq world that links to this activism – which would surprise me because I understand that there were activist events in the wider (former) Wabanaki confederation of which Mi’kmaq were an element. This chapter, then, seems problematic, yet for what it does it also seems comprehensive.
Paul builds a compelling case that Mi’kmaq ‘were not the savages’, and in doing so challenges much of the Canadian claim to fair treatment of its indigenous peoples and British imperial claims to having been a force for civilisation, education and betterment. This is very much the history of history’s losers, and for that alone is a better path into histories of the colonisation of Canada than most other narratives. It is also the kind of approach to histories of empire and colonisation that we need more of – and it is up to my band, as professional and academic historians, as much as it is to indigenous peoples to faithfully tell those histories of colonialism, enslavement, dispossession and appropriation, and in doing so to see the world from what the anthropologist Clifford Geertz called ‘the native’s point of view’.
It is these falsehoods that are debunked by the work of indigenous historians whose work explores colonisation and empire, and Daniel Paul’s excellent We Were Not the Savages is a fine example of indigenous history, of the indigenous experiences of the ravages of colonisation, in this case including of dispossession and appropriation, and given the history of Nova Scotia the consequences of the enslavement of others. Paul is uncompromising in his narrative, building his history from within a Mi’kmaq perspective – the other side of the divide from the newcomer perspective that usually frames those histories. He crafts an image of a pre-Columbian Mi’kmaq world (noting that it is not pre-contact – we know that Norse and Basque visitors pre-dated 1492) building on indigenous ways of seeing and knowing the world, of relating to others (human and non-human) and in doing so provides a base to understand indigenous responses to colonisation.
For much of the early colonial period, Mi’kmaq territory was contested space between three peoples; Mi’kmaq, British and French. This presented a complex interplay of forces as the indigenous struck alliances based in local circumstances and conditions, trusted that treaties had meaning and integrity rather than being the opportunist ‘holding’ agreements they tended to be – more honoured in their breach (there is nothing distinctive for the Mi’kmaq there!) – and worked to control their world on their terms. What may surprise many taught in the British tradition is that Paul sees the French as more honourable, more willing to engage with Mi’kmaq on Mi’kmaq terms and more willing to treat the Mi’kmaq nation fairly and decently. The parallel of this is an unrelenting and overwhelming image of British arrogance and contempt, and more challenging to the dominant British-derived narrative, more savage. It is difficult to read the reproduced edicts from British governors that offer a sliding scale of bounty for Mi’kmaq scalps (scalping was the primarily a practice of the colonisers) tied to sex and age (in most cases, the bounty for children was half that of adult males) and continue to see the British government as civilised and honourable. This was not ‘smoothing the pillow of the dying race’ as was so often claimed, but arguably genocide (Paul argues this case convincingly).
Paul is not a ‘professional’ historian, which might also challenge some readers. This means that rather than interpret official documents, in many cases he represents them in full. The long central chapter on the Indian Act of 1876, for instance, reproduces large sections of the Act as part of its section-by-section exposition, which might sound dull but Paul’s writing style, packed with examples of the effects of the Act and of many of its amendments makes this a lively and engaging discussion. He also reproduces sizeable sections of other publications, contemporary and subsequent, including pieces by academic historians, where they make his point or provide the basis for his subsequent argument. There is something delightfully non-prepossessing about this, a humility and lack of ego that makes clear that in building his argument that savagery lay with the colonisers he is standing on the shoulders of others who have gone before, and showing that this indigenous view is not just fanciful revisionism but an analysis built in scholarly rigour. What’s more, most of the case is built on official documents: as is often the case with indigenous based histories there is also some indigenous knowledge invoked and developed, but the vast majority of what is here is the standard archival material of scholarly history. This is the kind of thing settler historians need to learn to better read to see the indigenous experience: most of us do so badly if we do at all.
It is a compelling analysis that pulls no punches. What’s more, in being based in an indigenous worldview it challenges us to rethink how we shape and structure the past. For historians, periodisation is a key framing device allowing us to cluster similar or related events into a narrative with distinct markers along the way. Paul’s ‘markers’ are not those of conventional Canadian (or as much as I am aware, Maritimes) history; this presents a different way of making sense of the past, of shaping and framing it and pointing to key moments or events where there is a systemic or structural shift. Confederation, for instance, merits only 2 pages; the negotiated peace between Mi’kmaq and British in 1761 (the ‘burying the hatchet ceremony) has 11 pages turned over to it. This is not a conventional, settler-centric view of the past.
Paul was very much an insider to contemporary Mi’kmaq politics and state relations having worked for both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and for Mi’kmaq representative groups in Nova Scotia from the late 1960s until he retired. Paradoxically this seems to have made weakest his discussion of contemporary events where he focuses on what he calls ‘the struggle for freedom’. This section, which is very good and highlights just how parlous is the contemporary position of Nova Scotia’s first peoples, is dominated by corporate and statist dynamics. There is very little mention of non-state activism, of direct action politics and the like yet these approaches were powerfully present across Canada during this period. It may be that there is little in the Mi’kmaq world that links to this activism – which would surprise me because I understand that there were activist events in the wider (former) Wabanaki confederation of which Mi’kmaq were an element. This chapter, then, seems problematic, yet for what it does it also seems comprehensive.
Paul builds a compelling case that Mi’kmaq ‘were not the savages’, and in doing so challenges much of the Canadian claim to fair treatment of its indigenous peoples and British imperial claims to having been a force for civilisation, education and betterment. This is very much the history of history’s losers, and for that alone is a better path into histories of the colonisation of Canada than most other narratives. It is also the kind of approach to histories of empire and colonisation that we need more of – and it is up to my band, as professional and academic historians, as much as it is to indigenous peoples to faithfully tell those histories of colonialism, enslavement, dispossession and appropriation, and in doing so to see the world from what the anthropologist Clifford Geertz called ‘the native’s point of view’.
July 19, 2021
This book, though important, was a difficult read for me, both in subject matter and in writing style. History books are rarely my cup of tea, but I wanted to learn more about the land on which I live. I did really appreciate that this book was specific to Mi'kma'ki, as so many educational resources rarely touch on anything east of Quebec. It reads like a textbook (which makes sense, because I initially picked it up in 2019 as a textbook for a course I was taking), combined with a lot of legalese, because there are a lot of documents that Daniel N. Paul incorporated into the text (which I personally would have preferred to see as appendices, with the text focusing on Paul’s interpretations of these documents). This is an incredibly detailed book, but it felt a little slow to me for the first ¾ or so. I did find that it started to pick up a bit in the last 20-25% or so, when Paul started to tie in personal examples, as well as addressing many of the issues of the Indian Act, and brought the book much more into the modern world and the impacts on today.
Daniel N. Paul is an important activist and clearly put a lot of effort into the research for the book, but it didn’t flow well or easily for me, personally, which meant that it took me several years to pick up, read, and finish the book. While I’m glad I read it for the information I’ve learned (it’s so important for us to know the true history of the places in which we live), I don’t think this was the most effective way for me to have learned it. I would love to hear Paul present a series of lectures or something instead. I found myself getting distracted while reading, and having to convince myself to get back into it on multiple occasions. Because of how often I picked it up and put it down again, as well as the vast range of named figures (mainly settlers), I kept forgetting who people were and when events had taken place, and had to go back and reread to refresh myself. I’ve lost track of how many times I had to take it out of the library, in an attempt to finish it.
I’m in the minority in this case, as many have enjoyed and highly recommend this book, it just didn’t work for me and my learning style. I would still recommend it, especially for those with a better attention span than I have!
Daniel N. Paul is an important activist and clearly put a lot of effort into the research for the book, but it didn’t flow well or easily for me, personally, which meant that it took me several years to pick up, read, and finish the book. While I’m glad I read it for the information I’ve learned (it’s so important for us to know the true history of the places in which we live), I don’t think this was the most effective way for me to have learned it. I would love to hear Paul present a series of lectures or something instead. I found myself getting distracted while reading, and having to convince myself to get back into it on multiple occasions. Because of how often I picked it up and put it down again, as well as the vast range of named figures (mainly settlers), I kept forgetting who people were and when events had taken place, and had to go back and reread to refresh myself. I’ve lost track of how many times I had to take it out of the library, in an attempt to finish it.
I’m in the minority in this case, as many have enjoyed and highly recommend this book, it just didn’t work for me and my learning style. I would still recommend it, especially for those with a better attention span than I have!
June 21, 2016
Crucial and underrepresented perspective on history of what is now Atlantic Canada, and how the First Nations of the region went from being healthy, free and egalitarian, to oppressed and impoverished.
February 10, 2012
Bought this book whilst on holiday in British Columbia. It is a great book and a real insight into the First Nations perspective on what happened when Europe decided to expand in North America.
It is a tough read as some of the issues discussed from the First Nations perspective are at total odds from my understanding from a European perspective.
It made me realise the truth in the statement that "History is written by the victors!"
I would not normally read a book like this, and although I found it shocking. I would highly recommend this book.
It is a tough read as some of the issues discussed from the First Nations perspective are at total odds from my understanding from a European perspective.
It made me realise the truth in the statement that "History is written by the victors!"
I would not normally read a book like this, and although I found it shocking. I would highly recommend this book.
February 1, 2022
Very informative book on the history of indigenous peoples in Atlantic Canada resulting from the thorough research of Daniel N Paul, a First Nations descendent. This educational book is both revealing and deeply unsettling as it details the brutal treatment and complete displacement of the Mi’kmaq civilization at the hands of European settlers. The author’s ongoing research casts doubt on the recorded tales of Canadian colonization and reveals that the mistreatment of First Nations peoples is not confined to the past.
October 27, 2025
Will write my review when I get a chance ... I learned a lot but his style of writing and hectoring tone do not make for a gripping read.
December 6, 2025
Conflicted is the best word to describe my perspective on this book. There are aspects of this book that are well done and necessary. Other aspects are poorly presented at best, and poorly researched and argued at worst.
The Cons:
To answer some of the reviews claiming they had difficulty reading and understanding the book, I believe that is the case because much of the book is written in a highly emotionally-charged manner with jumps in chronology. It also doesn't help that in the middle of some topics the author goes on a tangent about a completely different topic, then returns to the first topic.
I read the 4th edition, and I have heard that Daniel Paul's family is working on releasing a 5th edition. A minor note of complaint, hopefully, the fifth edition will fix some of the spelling mistakes, and accidental insertions of "_" sprinkled throughout the text. The most egregious was a stretch of 3 pages in a row each containing a spelling mistake on pages 146-148.
There are a lot of rather extreme claims made throughout the book without any citations associated with them. Some of these claims are correct, according to my own fact-finding efforts, but simply lack any citation for some reason. The arguments Daniel Paul makes are important, but in order to be accepted they should be supported by sources. Additionally, the citations that are available frequently reference a single secondary source. At times, the numbers in the endnotes do not always match parts in the text, only a few quotes per chapter in most cases.
The book's arguments become inconsistent at times, especially due to how extreme some of them get. For example on page 92, "The practice of blaming the Amerindian for everything has a long history and it survives to a certain degree to this day in 2022." No citation(s) provided for this statement, and no examples given to support it. Then, there is a contradictory statement made further into the book on page 114, "Strangely, for a change, the blame for Mi'kmaw action was not put on the French." I believe the extreme statements in the book are due to the author being emotionally-charged in the topic he wrote about; this is understandable given his relationship to the subject matter, but it is tiresome and confusing for the reader.
Historians are taught to avoid speculating on what-ifs, and assumptions about historical figures without strong supporting evidence; historians should tell the actual history with explanations, and pose arguments about what happened based on hard facts. Page 123 in reference to the scalping proclamations, "Hitler would have admired the genius of the men who introduced this horrible method of bringing a people they considered inferior to extinction." Well, Hitler existed after the scalping proclamations and made no comment on them. There exists strong doubt in the correctness of this statement even as a speculation, because Nazi genocide strove for and was horribly efficient, which scalping bounties are not. And, on page 209, "In retrospect, if the Mi'kmaq and other first nations had assisted the Americans [in the War of Independence], the young nation full of thirst for democratic rule might have felt morally obliged to come north and liberate them." An interesting, but unlikely what-if. Unlikely because the Americans had slaves still at that time, and did not treat their own Natives well either for centuries.
At times I think some further research was needed to support certain claims, as there is evidence to the contrary on some of them. A couple particular examples include a statement that the French treated the Natives better in Canada than the British because the French were less racist due to enlightenment. It's debatable that the French were better towards Indigenous Canadians, and if so, then it's not due to enlightenment, as the French were among the last European empires to abolish slavery with the British leading the movement (not necessarily for altruistic reasons, though). The other example is an argument the book makes that white Europeans developed advanced weaponry because they wanted to be proud of being the best in the world at something. There are plenty of historical analyses that explain the process of arms races and their motivations. The typical motivation is not an extension of white pride in being the best at something. Often the motivation for a nation is that their enemy is perceived as more threatening to the nation because of the enemy's weaponry developing to the point of being an unmanageable threat, forcing a response from the nation to progress their own weapon development for their own well-being.
The biggest issue I have with the book is the argument that there can be only one choice in identifying who is responsible for the crimes committed in Canada's residential schools. I acknowledge that there are many Catholic Mikmaq people, and I suspect that Daniel Paul was likely among those. However, individuals at the schools chose to commit those crimes, and there were religious organizations staffing and overseeing the governance of the schools to an extent. The federal government, religious organizations, and the criminals themselves are *all* to blame for the crimes that took place in the residential schools. It can be argued, as well, that the Canadian public should also have some part in the blame, as the federal government was comprised of the public's elected representatives and assimilation was a commonly-held belief when the schools were first put in place.
The Pros:
In my opinion, the best parts of the book are the sections that explain the treaties, the scalping proclamations, the Indian Act, and Daniel Paul's own experiences. These are the most well-researched and factual parts of the book. And, Daniel Paul led a fascinating and positively impactful life that anyone would be proud of if they were in his position.
This book is necessary in providing a Mikmaq perspective on colonialism and the subsequent actions of the Canadian government. I hope that it encourages more Mikmaq people to share their experiences, as well as other Indigenous Canadians as a whole. Even as a younger Canadian and someone who studies history (not exclusively Canadian history), I learned a lot from the book. In particular, I learned about movements that took place in my own neighbourhood, the extent of racism in my area up to almost the present-day, and big parts of Mikmaq history that I simply had no clue about.
Ultimately, the pros outweigh the mostly academic cons of the book. My recommendation to someone wanting to get started in studying Indigenous Nova Scotians' history is that they should try to seek out other books or articles with more sources and a more cohesive writing style in order to best understand the subject matter. However, if interested in the details of the treaties, scalping proclamations, Indian Act, and later social and legal movements of the Mikmaq, this book is essential.
The Cons:
To answer some of the reviews claiming they had difficulty reading and understanding the book, I believe that is the case because much of the book is written in a highly emotionally-charged manner with jumps in chronology. It also doesn't help that in the middle of some topics the author goes on a tangent about a completely different topic, then returns to the first topic.
I read the 4th edition, and I have heard that Daniel Paul's family is working on releasing a 5th edition. A minor note of complaint, hopefully, the fifth edition will fix some of the spelling mistakes, and accidental insertions of "_" sprinkled throughout the text. The most egregious was a stretch of 3 pages in a row each containing a spelling mistake on pages 146-148.
There are a lot of rather extreme claims made throughout the book without any citations associated with them. Some of these claims are correct, according to my own fact-finding efforts, but simply lack any citation for some reason. The arguments Daniel Paul makes are important, but in order to be accepted they should be supported by sources. Additionally, the citations that are available frequently reference a single secondary source. At times, the numbers in the endnotes do not always match parts in the text, only a few quotes per chapter in most cases.
The book's arguments become inconsistent at times, especially due to how extreme some of them get. For example on page 92, "The practice of blaming the Amerindian for everything has a long history and it survives to a certain degree to this day in 2022." No citation(s) provided for this statement, and no examples given to support it. Then, there is a contradictory statement made further into the book on page 114, "Strangely, for a change, the blame for Mi'kmaw action was not put on the French." I believe the extreme statements in the book are due to the author being emotionally-charged in the topic he wrote about; this is understandable given his relationship to the subject matter, but it is tiresome and confusing for the reader.
Historians are taught to avoid speculating on what-ifs, and assumptions about historical figures without strong supporting evidence; historians should tell the actual history with explanations, and pose arguments about what happened based on hard facts. Page 123 in reference to the scalping proclamations, "Hitler would have admired the genius of the men who introduced this horrible method of bringing a people they considered inferior to extinction." Well, Hitler existed after the scalping proclamations and made no comment on them. There exists strong doubt in the correctness of this statement even as a speculation, because Nazi genocide strove for and was horribly efficient, which scalping bounties are not. And, on page 209, "In retrospect, if the Mi'kmaq and other first nations had assisted the Americans [in the War of Independence], the young nation full of thirst for democratic rule might have felt morally obliged to come north and liberate them." An interesting, but unlikely what-if. Unlikely because the Americans had slaves still at that time, and did not treat their own Natives well either for centuries.
At times I think some further research was needed to support certain claims, as there is evidence to the contrary on some of them. A couple particular examples include a statement that the French treated the Natives better in Canada than the British because the French were less racist due to enlightenment. It's debatable that the French were better towards Indigenous Canadians, and if so, then it's not due to enlightenment, as the French were among the last European empires to abolish slavery with the British leading the movement (not necessarily for altruistic reasons, though). The other example is an argument the book makes that white Europeans developed advanced weaponry because they wanted to be proud of being the best in the world at something. There are plenty of historical analyses that explain the process of arms races and their motivations. The typical motivation is not an extension of white pride in being the best at something. Often the motivation for a nation is that their enemy is perceived as more threatening to the nation because of the enemy's weaponry developing to the point of being an unmanageable threat, forcing a response from the nation to progress their own weapon development for their own well-being.
The biggest issue I have with the book is the argument that there can be only one choice in identifying who is responsible for the crimes committed in Canada's residential schools. I acknowledge that there are many Catholic Mikmaq people, and I suspect that Daniel Paul was likely among those. However, individuals at the schools chose to commit those crimes, and there were religious organizations staffing and overseeing the governance of the schools to an extent. The federal government, religious organizations, and the criminals themselves are *all* to blame for the crimes that took place in the residential schools. It can be argued, as well, that the Canadian public should also have some part in the blame, as the federal government was comprised of the public's elected representatives and assimilation was a commonly-held belief when the schools were first put in place.
The Pros:
In my opinion, the best parts of the book are the sections that explain the treaties, the scalping proclamations, the Indian Act, and Daniel Paul's own experiences. These are the most well-researched and factual parts of the book. And, Daniel Paul led a fascinating and positively impactful life that anyone would be proud of if they were in his position.
This book is necessary in providing a Mikmaq perspective on colonialism and the subsequent actions of the Canadian government. I hope that it encourages more Mikmaq people to share their experiences, as well as other Indigenous Canadians as a whole. Even as a younger Canadian and someone who studies history (not exclusively Canadian history), I learned a lot from the book. In particular, I learned about movements that took place in my own neighbourhood, the extent of racism in my area up to almost the present-day, and big parts of Mikmaq history that I simply had no clue about.
Ultimately, the pros outweigh the mostly academic cons of the book. My recommendation to someone wanting to get started in studying Indigenous Nova Scotians' history is that they should try to seek out other books or articles with more sources and a more cohesive writing style in order to best understand the subject matter. However, if interested in the details of the treaties, scalping proclamations, Indian Act, and later social and legal movements of the Mikmaq, this book is essential.
May 19, 2020
There are so many great reviews of this book. I hope it becomes required reading in universities and high schools across Mi’kma’ki.
October 28, 2022
An excellent book, great for decolonizing yourself—from demystifying racist tropes to learning about the British's major role in scalping in what is called today Eastern Canada. It was a bit heavy on the details at times for my liking, but, on the other hand, thoroughness and rigour are certainly a virtue. A hard-hitting passage I particularly enjoyed of the “New Twenty-First-Century” edition, p. 15:
“When writing on the subject of civilization, one must understand that the ability to read or write a European language does not create a superior civilization. Nor does the ability to point exploding sticks that cause instantaneous death or injury, or to launch missiles that could blow the world apart, provide a moral basis to declare one’s culture more civilized than another. The question to ask when
judging the values and merits of a civilization must always be: 'How does the civilization respond to the human needs of its population?' By this standard, because they created social and political systems that ensured personal liberty, justice and social responsibility, most Amerindian civilizations must be given very high marks.
When making an unbiased assessment, and comparing the values of early American civilizations with those of European civilizations, one cannot but find that the suppression and wanton destruction of American civilizations by European civilizations was in many ways a case of inferior civilizations overcoming superior ones. This is especially true in the area of respect for human rights. Although they were not as technologically advanced as the Europeans were by 1492, many Amerindian Nations possessed democratic political practices that were light years ahead.”
“When writing on the subject of civilization, one must understand that the ability to read or write a European language does not create a superior civilization. Nor does the ability to point exploding sticks that cause instantaneous death or injury, or to launch missiles that could blow the world apart, provide a moral basis to declare one’s culture more civilized than another. The question to ask when
judging the values and merits of a civilization must always be: 'How does the civilization respond to the human needs of its population?' By this standard, because they created social and political systems that ensured personal liberty, justice and social responsibility, most Amerindian civilizations must be given very high marks.
When making an unbiased assessment, and comparing the values of early American civilizations with those of European civilizations, one cannot but find that the suppression and wanton destruction of American civilizations by European civilizations was in many ways a case of inferior civilizations overcoming superior ones. This is especially true in the area of respect for human rights. Although they were not as technologically advanced as the Europeans were by 1492, many Amerindian Nations possessed democratic political practices that were light years ahead.”
June 8, 2018
Like, "The Old Man Told Us", another book on indigenous history in Nova Scotia that I recently read, "We Were Not The Savages" is a tough but fascinating read. It is full of detailed analysis of various events and treaties from the 1600s to recent times. Daniel Paul is an excellent historian and presents what seemed to me to be a fair assessment of what happened as Europeans first came to North America and beyond. The idea that much of what unfolded did so as the result of white supremacist attitudes of the Europeans, particularly the English, was a nuance for me that I hadn't thought about in that way. I guess I hadn't carefully consider the "why" of the conquering of the native peoples of North America but Paul's argument that it couldn't/wouldn't have happened without the attitude that they were superior beings and the so-called "savages" somehow lesser is strong and rings absolutely true. It makes me ashamed to be caucasian, ashamed of the horrors we committed and incredibly sad about the peoples and cultures we decimated. This book is important reading for non-indigenous people. The perspective it provides is difficult to read but critical to understand if we are going to move forward with meaningful reconciliation. And we must.
August 14, 2025
Livre très intéressant sur ce qu'on enduré les Mi'kmaq depuis les débuts de la colonisation européenne, raconté par un autochtone qui a vu au plus près les problèmes récents, grâce à son poste au gouvernement federal.
Malheureusement il y a un certain nombre de faiblesses du début à la fin, en particulier sur l'analyse politique et historique, entre autres :
- Psychologisation : l'auteur nous parle de la "folie égotiste" des colons, ou de leur "egos stupéfiants"
- Citation d'une lettre du chef Seattle qui n'existe pas, selon les historiens. La lettre qui circule est une version apocryphe, basée sur un discours retranscrit bien après avoir été prononcé
- Affirmation qu'en 1492 les peuples autochtones avaient une "immunité considérable" contre les maladies européennes, ce que rejette le consensus scientifique, à ma connaissance
- Évocation du "respect des Français pour le caractère sacré de la vie": les Haïtiens, les Algériens, entre autres, seraient sans doute d'un avis bien différent
- Comparaison plus qu'étrange entre les autochtones dépendants des aides gouvernementales et le socialisme. Visiblement l'auteur n'a pas une conception très claire de ce qu'est le socialisme
Ça reste une lecture intéressante, mais je m'attendais à mieux.
Malheureusement il y a un certain nombre de faiblesses du début à la fin, en particulier sur l'analyse politique et historique, entre autres :
- Psychologisation : l'auteur nous parle de la "folie égotiste" des colons, ou de leur "egos stupéfiants"
- Citation d'une lettre du chef Seattle qui n'existe pas, selon les historiens. La lettre qui circule est une version apocryphe, basée sur un discours retranscrit bien après avoir été prononcé
- Affirmation qu'en 1492 les peuples autochtones avaient une "immunité considérable" contre les maladies européennes, ce que rejette le consensus scientifique, à ma connaissance
- Évocation du "respect des Français pour le caractère sacré de la vie": les Haïtiens, les Algériens, entre autres, seraient sans doute d'un avis bien différent
- Comparaison plus qu'étrange entre les autochtones dépendants des aides gouvernementales et le socialisme. Visiblement l'auteur n'a pas une conception très claire de ce qu'est le socialisme
Ça reste une lecture intéressante, mais je m'attendais à mieux.
December 3, 2021
Daniel Paul has created a vital book to truly understand the history of Canada. It is not comfortable reading.
I grew up and live in Nova Scotia. From my education and what I've read over the years, I accepted the worldview that my British forefathers and later Canada had done better than others in how they treated the native people of North America. I was wrong.
Daniel Paul paints a well researched and compelling picture of how the indigenous peoples of North America lived before the Europeans arrived and their desperate plight afterwards. As my ancestors were directly part of this colonial nightmare, I must say I am ashamed of that past.
The book is not perfect but it is well worth a read if I can be done with an open mind to learn.
Mr. Paul writes from his own worldview, as any author does, and frankly having an indigenous perspective on Canadian history is a rare thing. Some of his assumptions about how Caucasians see the world and are motivated I would suggest are tainted. But how could they not be?
In all, the work is incredibly well researched and the facts speak for themselves.
I grew up and live in Nova Scotia. From my education and what I've read over the years, I accepted the worldview that my British forefathers and later Canada had done better than others in how they treated the native people of North America. I was wrong.
Daniel Paul paints a well researched and compelling picture of how the indigenous peoples of North America lived before the Europeans arrived and their desperate plight afterwards. As my ancestors were directly part of this colonial nightmare, I must say I am ashamed of that past.
The book is not perfect but it is well worth a read if I can be done with an open mind to learn.
Mr. Paul writes from his own worldview, as any author does, and frankly having an indigenous perspective on Canadian history is a rare thing. Some of his assumptions about how Caucasians see the world and are motivated I would suggest are tainted. But how could they not be?
In all, the work is incredibly well researched and the facts speak for themselves.
March 5, 2024
A well-written account of the history of the Mi'kmaq during colonization and Canadian confederation. A shameful history of the utter contempt for the native population by the British imperialists, and later the Canadian government. My great-grandmother was a Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland and I felt a need to read this account of her history. I knew the French had a history of working with the Mi'kmaq, but I was surprised by the accounts of just how generous they were in trade, education, and general independence for the natives. The British, conversely, were complete savages. No respect for the natives, nor the Acadians, nor anybody who wasn't a white British subject. The Indian Affairs Bureau did not seem to improve anything, spending as little as possible on the well-being of our native population, clearly out of a complete lack of respect for them, and possibly with a purposeful intent to eradicate them. I am deeply ashamed of this country and remain convinced anything we can do to expand their current lands and wealth is a complete necessity.
June 22, 2017
Hard hitting testimonials from the perpetrators! Extensively researched and conjectured.
Many quoted documents:
“The Royal Proclamation of 1763- …AND, We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of Our Displeasure, all Our loving Subjects from making any purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the lands, above reserved, without Our special Leave and Licence for the purpose first obtained”
This is a well articulated call-out for authentic acknowledgement.
“…although the reputation of the Indian Act has been tarnished beyond repair by the racist administration of its provisions, it must remain in force until a mutually acceptable replacement is found.”
Many quoted documents:
“The Royal Proclamation of 1763- …AND, We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of Our Displeasure, all Our loving Subjects from making any purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the lands, above reserved, without Our special Leave and Licence for the purpose first obtained”
This is a well articulated call-out for authentic acknowledgement.
“…although the reputation of the Indian Act has been tarnished beyond repair by the racist administration of its provisions, it must remain in force until a mutually acceptable replacement is found.”
February 11, 2021
I read this book while living in Nova Scotia for four years. It's a great primer for anyone who's interested in a history of the Maritimes not covered in schools and wants to get a more balanced view of the current troubles over the fisheries out east (and we should all be more than mortified that the "Scalping Proclamation" he writes of has yet to be de-legislated.)
April 22, 2018
I have profound respect and admiration for Mr. Paul, however, I abandoned his book at page 83. Far to analytical for my intelligence but I have no dispute with his arguments, well stated and no doubt regarding the accuracy of his detailed research.
April 27, 2023
Essai très idéologiquement marqué d’autohistoire. Très intéressant à parcourir, comme je l’ai fait, pour comprendre une vision et une conscience autochtones, mais ce n’est pas un livre incontournable.
June 15, 2020
This was a very informative history of the native american people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
July 27, 2020
The content in this book is INCREDIBLY important! It’s a hard read as this guy is a scholar, a researcher, but not much of a writer. But the insights and evidence provided here are worth it
January 7, 2023
Eye opening
October 6, 2023
It was a bit more academic than I hoped for and I found myself skimming a lot of the quoted passages. It was very informative though.
October 2, 2024
Really amazing historical book. It gave me a lot of new insight.
July 20, 2024
This book, which I chose to read to expand my personal knowledge of our true history during Indigenous History month, had me reading & re-reading sections to help me understand and process what I needed to unlearn and what I am humbled to learn for the first time in my 50s. Such a detailed account with poignant images described and key historic points explained in detail with multiple sources of evidence. I will re-read it to absorb more information. It should truly be a “must read” for all Canadians. Much good will come from the discussion of new & better understanding of our personal and collective roles in Reconciliation moving forward. The quote from Chief Crazy Horse at the close of the book is a blueprint for us to follow.
April 14, 2014
"We Were Not the Savages" is a shocking read, based on good research and comparatively relevant to all native rights issues across Canada. Learning that in the midst of the general "land question", the rights of the Micmac were ignored. There was no Crown land reserved for the Indians and settlers were distinctly
unsympathetic to the plight of the Micmac. I'm thankful to the Daniel Paul for this historical writing, if not simply for the fact that if we look to the more general academic literature on Prince Edward Island, the Micmac are almost impossible to find. I recommend this book.
unsympathetic to the plight of the Micmac. I'm thankful to the Daniel Paul for this historical writing, if not simply for the fact that if we look to the more general academic literature on Prince Edward Island, the Micmac are almost impossible to find. I recommend this book.
November 22, 2023
The Mik'Maw were certainly not the savages in this so-called collision. The barbarity of the colonisers is a sight to behold as elucidated in this impeccably researched book. Using primary sources, the author makes abundantly and unavoidably clear just how savage the british (and europeans in general) were in the way they dealt with the indigenous peoples of n. america. An indispensable book and one that should be read and taught throughout the maritime provinces especially, but really, all of canada.
January 7, 2021
J’ai bien aimer la première partie , la partie suivante qui parle de la loi sur les indiens ma moins marqué par sont melting pot et sont contenu juridique moins accessible pour les néophytes.une œuvre historique qui doit être lu par toute les communautés de l’Atlantique , très bonne analyse contextuelle historique.
Read
April 22, 2010my Uncle gave me a very good look on the way one life style bleeds into another.(and I'm very proud to call the man my uncle.)
November 19, 2014
Gave up - I get the point.
October 10, 2014
Essential reading.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews