Explanation: For those of you who are not aware of European colonial history in the Americas, the First Nations ‘agreed’ to move only at gunpoint - when, of course, they were not shot outright and agreements eschewed completely. The phrasing here makes it sound much less like ethnic cleansing, when, you know, it was ethnic cleansing.
In Canada, they made these agreements to force my people onto small reservations with limited supports, services or funds. Part of my treaty heritage is that we get an annual payment for signing onto the treaty - everyone gets a bit of money every year. When they signed onto the treaty in 1904, they agreed on giving $2 per person every year … we still get that $2 every year. Every other historic agreement with the Royal family or international agreement is adjusted to inflation … but Indian treaties (they’re called ‘Indian’ because that is what the original term was, so it is kept in use when referring to treaties) they all remained the same.
They can adjust agreements made with Europeans to adjust with the times
They don’t, won’t or can’t adjust monetary amounts when it comes to Indian treaties in Canada.
… but the main reason why they even settled on these treaties in the first place was that it was planned, hoped and encouraged and expedited to have all ‘Indians’ either die, disappear or become naturalized as just Canadians with no land rights within a few decades … 100 years ago!
Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator only goes back to 1914, and that says $2 CAD from then is worth $54.47 CAD today (39.83 USD, 35.06 EUR) so it does not look like that was any type of good deal back then, nor would it be today even if it increased with the CPI.
Totally shameful what the governments continue to do in regard to native people. It’s not like they forget you’re there, since I’m guessing they have to approve the payment every time, so it seems to be an active and ongoing choice each time to deliver that slap in the face. Makes it hard to say it was just a mistake in the past but those of us alive now have no responsibility in that.
It probably wasn’t green at the time since ya know the US didn’t exist much less dollar bills and cotton money instead of coinage and various types of paper banknotes.
If we’re talking about US history, this page would be in reference to Europeans arriving in the 1600s. By that time, the population of North America had been dramatically reduced by foreign disease. For the comparatively small number of foreigners showing up, there kind of already was “room” because of that.
Later on, when the US government was actively relocating people, different groups of people responded in different ways. Some decided it would be best to cooperate. Some decided it would be best to stand their ground and fight. None did these things because they freely “agreed” to.
Aha, yes, definitely true. I’m far more familiar with US history, but my understanding is that the way Native Americans / First Nations were treated by the US and Canada are equally horrible, only differing in the details.
Some of those details are critical. The very first settlers in Canada were French, and many actually integrated into First Nations populations, which gave rise to the Métis population. Later on, especially after the British took over, things went downhill.
There was some integration by the British early on. I’m thinking of the Roanoke colony, where the people who were left there “disappeared,” leaving only some cryptic “Croatoan” marks on fenceposts. It’s all but certain that they integrated with the Croatoan people on Ocracoke Island. There were other incidents of British integration, but I’m sure the French up north did that a lot more.
I’m from Oklahoma, the place we relocated Native Americans, formerly known as Indian Territory. We studied the Trail of Tears more than once, and it wasn’t candy coated. Probably could have been presented as even more brutal than they taught us.
That’s quite a limited perspective. Violence was only one of the coercive tactics that were employed. The way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like the other ways in which first nations people were removed from their land were not also horrible.
Explanation: For those of you who are not aware of European colonial history in the Americas, the First Nations ‘agreed’ to move only at gunpoint - when, of course, they were not shot outright and agreements eschewed completely. The phrasing here makes it sound much less like ethnic cleansing, when, you know, it was ethnic cleansing.
In Canada, they made these agreements to force my people onto small reservations with limited supports, services or funds. Part of my treaty heritage is that we get an annual payment for signing onto the treaty - everyone gets a bit of money every year. When they signed onto the treaty in 1904, they agreed on giving $2 per person every year … we still get that $2 every year. Every other historic agreement with the Royal family or international agreement is adjusted to inflation … but Indian treaties (they’re called ‘Indian’ because that is what the original term was, so it is kept in use when referring to treaties) they all remained the same.
They can adjust agreements made with Europeans to adjust with the times
They don’t, won’t or can’t adjust monetary amounts when it comes to Indian treaties in Canada.
… but the main reason why they even settled on these treaties in the first place was that it was planned, hoped and encouraged and expedited to have all ‘Indians’ either die, disappear or become naturalized as just Canadians with no land rights within a few decades … 100 years ago!
Bank of Canada’s inflation calculator only goes back to 1914, and that says $2 CAD from then is worth $54.47 CAD today (39.83 USD, 35.06 EUR) so it does not look like that was any type of good deal back then, nor would it be today even if it increased with the CPI.
Totally shameful what the governments continue to do in regard to native people. It’s not like they forget you’re there, since I’m guessing they have to approve the payment every time, so it seems to be an active and ongoing choice each time to deliver that slap in the face. Makes it hard to say it was just a mistake in the past but those of us alive now have no responsibility in that.
The phrasing and also that tiny drawing near the headline.
Settler: I’ll give you these piles of bills for this land, so you’ll be rich.
Native: what are these green papers
It probably wasn’t green at the time since ya know the US didn’t exist much less dollar bills and cotton money instead of coinage and various types of paper banknotes.
Also, this was Canada.
Damn, I completely missed that XD
A bit more:
If we’re talking about US history, this page would be in reference to Europeans arriving in the 1600s. By that time, the population of North America had been dramatically reduced by foreign disease. For the comparatively small number of foreigners showing up, there kind of already was “room” because of that.
Later on, when the US government was actively relocating people, different groups of people responded in different ways. Some decided it would be best to cooperate. Some decided it would be best to stand their ground and fight. None did these things because they freely “agreed” to.
Based on the map and the use of “First Nations,” this is a Canadian textbook. I have no doubt this happens (and worse) in American textbooks, though.
Aha, yes, definitely true. I’m far more familiar with US history, but my understanding is that the way Native Americans / First Nations were treated by the US and Canada are equally horrible, only differing in the details.
Some of those details are critical. The very first settlers in Canada were French, and many actually integrated into First Nations populations, which gave rise to the Métis population. Later on, especially after the British took over, things went downhill.
There was some integration by the British early on. I’m thinking of the Roanoke colony, where the people who were left there “disappeared,” leaving only some cryptic “Croatoan” marks on fenceposts. It’s all but certain that they integrated with the Croatoan people on Ocracoke Island. There were other incidents of British integration, but I’m sure the French up north did that a lot more.
“Quebec City” is a big clue, too.
textbooks made in other countries also include maps of Canada - your geographical secrets are known to us!
Yep:
Oops, missed that part!
Heh. No worries. I get it. If I had a nickel…
I’m from Oklahoma, the place we relocated Native Americans, formerly known as Indian Territory. We studied the Trail of Tears more than once, and it wasn’t candy coated. Probably could have been presented as even more brutal than they taught us.
Several of these people actually succeeded in prosecuting a war against invading US forces like the Shoshone.
Then, of course, we just reneged on the treaties later when they weren’t on a war footing.
deleted by creator
That’s quite a limited perspective. Violence was only one of the coercive tactics that were employed. The way you’ve phrased this makes it sound like the other ways in which first nations people were removed from their land were not also horrible.