As I have been saying many of the problems between Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians are the result of misunderstandings in the past, and misunderstanding that have continued.
As a result of all of these misunderstandings, when many years later the Europeans approached the Indigenous people to make treaties, it was very difficult for their differing world views not to influence what they thought they were agreeing to. For example, Indigenous People thought they were agreeing to share the land while the newcomers thought the indigenous people were agreeing to cede or give up the land to the newcomers. That very fundamental differing point of view has seriously disturbed relations between them ever since.
According to Barbara Huck,
“Though decision-making was by consensus, most North American cultures put great stock in individuals and lauded efforts on behalf of the community. Status was achieved not by owning property but by giving it away. Religion permeated every aspect of their lives and was based on respect for the Earth and all living things.”
That did not mean all relations between Indigenous groups were peaches and cream. There were conflicts between groups. And those conflicts were real and sometimes vicious. Europeans did not have a monopoly on violence. Disputes between indigenous groups often turned violent and often escalated after that. Yet the overall attitudes of newcomers were radically different.
The world views of the Europeans were very different from that of Indigenous peoples.
As Huck said,
“The newcomers from Europe had a very different world view. Theirs was a class society, governed in an authoritarian way by men who viewed land and its resources as objects to be exploited. They greatly admired the accumulation of personal wealth and assigned positions of power to those who were particularly successful at amassing goods and money. Generosity was viewed as philanthropy, an act of charity, not necessity.”
Some of us may be surprised to find that Indigenous people were more democratic than the new comers.
There was another very important difference between the two groups. The Indigenous People saw themselves as part of the natural world, particularly identified with the land in which they lived. They had a deeply spiritual relationship to that natural world as a result. The Europeans saw the natural world as something to own individually and exploit. Barbara Huck explained the European attitudes this way:
“Their primary allegiance was to the concept of the nation-state and national identity was closely tied to language, religion, and race. They believed implicitly in European superiority and felt compelled to try persuade other cultures to embrace their world view. Yet with few exceptions, Europeans proved woefully unprepared for survival in North America. The first 250 years of European contact were fraught with disorientation, disaster, and privation. Native North Americans provided guiding services, information, interpretation, clothing, medicine and food., as well as wives and extended families. All this was in addition to the furs that were the primary objects of early French and later British interest. And time after time, they rescued the newcomers from starvation. Yet Europeans never did comprehend that this spontaneous, culturally entrenched generosity required reciprocity. Instead, native North Americans in need were termed beggars.”
To the natives of North America, reciprocity was not just a cardinal virtue, it was a religious principle. The newcomers did not catch on. They were prepared to accept gifts from the natives, but often failed to reciprocate when the opportunity arose. Who is the more civilized? These differing attitudes prepared the ground for misunderstandings and eventually conflicts. As Huck said in her book on the fur trade of North America,
“This climate of misunderstanding colored the fur trade and the progress of Europeans across the continent. From the 16th century St. Lawrence Valley to the Pacific Coast 300 years later, the pattern was repeated again and again. Recognizing it is fundamental to appreciating the profound changes that took place in North America, between 1550 and 1860, and perhaps just as important in understanding today’s attempts to rectify some of the mistakes of the past.”
This is where learning comes in. To learn from our mistakes is important. But to do that our mistakes must be honestly confronted. How else can we get better? Unfortunately, people are often reluctant to admit mistakes, and that makes matters worse. Not better.