Anishinabe (Ojibwa or Ojibway) are the Indigenous People with whom I have had the most contact.

To begin with, my son Nicholas married Debbi a woman who is the daughter of an Anishinabe woman and one of the most wonderful women I have ever met. Her daughter is cut from the same cloth and we are very proud to have her part of our life. Not only that they have produced 2 wonderful children who are now our grand children.

I also have a significant connection with the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation because I was part of a group that partnered with them to establish an ecological reserve near their reserve and we would never have got it established if it were not for their co-operation.

I have also got to know Anishinabe people at Buffalo Point where we have a cottage on land leased from them in their reserve. As a result I have got to know a number of Anishinabe people personally.

All of this is to show that I am not entirely unbiased when it comes to the Anishinabe people.

According to John L. Steckley and Bryan Cummins in their book, Full Circle Canada’s First Nations, “Anishinabe” is the name that the people of all groups of Ojibwa (or Ojibway) usually use to call themselves. “Ojibwa” is the name given to them by Europeans, though some groups have adopted the European names. For example, the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation in Manitoba uses the name “Ojibway”. As far as I am concerned each group can use whatever name they choose, and the rest of us should usually respect that choice. In the United States they are often called Chippewa.

Like so many other First Nations or Indigenous People, the name of Anishinabe for themselves is the word for “human beings” or “people.” Scholars believe that the original Anishinabe came south from the Eastern Subarctic. They may have moved to the Atlantic coast and then to the north shores of Georgian Bay and Lake Superior. Later many moved to the prairies when European traders arrived there.

Three of the bands survived: Mississauga, Saulteaux, and Ojibwa. Did you know that the following words are all based on Ojibwe words: “chipmunk” (referring to squirrels), “totem” (referring to clan), and “pecan” (meaning nut.)

In the area of the Great Lakes the Anishinabe/Ojibwa people occupied the region of the boreal forest north of the lakes . I love that country.   We drove through it last year and I  had to stop many times to take photographs. There they hunted moose beaver, and other animals and collected berries, tubers, and birch bark. As far as I know, there they were mainly hunter/gatherers.

These people were traders long before Europeans arrived to teach them how. Groups farther north were generally not as active traders because trading partners were spread out more. It is difficult to trade with someone 1,000 kilometers away. The Ojibwa traded beaver pelts of the area they occupied to the Odawa and Huron peoples farther to south and east in exchange for horticultural products like corn and tobacco.

Like the Cree farther west, the Ojibwa lived mainly in small family hunting groups and were constantly in search of game and fish. It was a pretty good life.

Gradually the Anishinabe moved further west into the territory of the Cree for reasons that are not entirely clear, but probably to trade with the Europeans who had arrived there by then. In the prairies in particular, they also farmed, particularly wild rice.  I will have more to say about this later. Anthony Hall, in his wonderful book, The American Empire and the Fourth World,  called there manner of farming “Among the most vital living expressions of Aboriginal agriculture in North America.” I will discuss this in greater detail later.

The more we learn about Indigenous People of the Americas the more we are forced to realize we did not know very much. Recent discoveries are leading scientists to believe that people have lived in what we now call Canada for much longer than people have previously believed.

Recently, scientists have discovered an ancient village on the west coast of Canada. The arrival of Europeans on the west coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are more well known.

The recent discovery is  of a 14,000-year-old ancient village and this might change our perception of early civilization in North America. Researches have said these remains are much older than the the Giza pyramids of Egypt. They have found artefacts that reach right back to the Ice Age. Interestingly this aligns with oral traditional history of some First Nations which history was previously discounted. Scholars may have to rethink their customary disparagement of traditional knowledge.

According to J. V. Wright, Curator Emeritus of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and author of A History of the Native People of Canada: Volume I (10,000 -1,000 B.C.) the earlier and orthodox archaeological view of native history the first period which occurred from 12,000 to 10,000 B.P the material cultures that were called the Palaeo-Indian and Northwest Palaeo-Arctic stretched across sites in what we now call the Yukon, the Prairies, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. These cultures have similarities with the Dyuktai culture in Siberia dating back as far as 18,000 B.P. This is understandable since it is generally now believed that the first Indigenous People arrived in the western hemisphere after travelling from Asia across the land bridge that was exposed at that time on account of lower sea levels.

The shared features include wedge-shaped tools made out of rock, not flakes that are broken off, microblades (which are flakes from a core sample of rock), bifacial knives (knives with a blade on both sides), and burins (stone tools for working with antler and bone).

The second period was set by Wright as the period from 10,000 to 6000 B.P. During this time, weapons technology developed substantially. For example, the atlatl or spear thrower was so effective that megafauna (Huge animals found in North America) started to disappear as a result of hunting from Indigenous people. We have to remember that Indigenous people were responsible for some extinctions too. They were not environmental saints.

It is difficult for scientists today to agree with certainty how these ancient people were related to current Indigenous peoples for as they often say, “the stone tools don’t talk.” They have to proceed on the basis of inferences, rather than firm science. This job is made more difficult by the fact that these people migrated widely.  For example, according to their own traditions, the Anishinabe people moved from the Atlantic coast to Quebec and Ontario. Later they even moved into Manitoba, where many of their descendants now reside.

The third period occurred from 6000 to 3000 B.P. The people of this period are the likely ancestors of the Algonquin nation and perhaps Hodenosaunee (Iroquois).

I think what is most important about his history is the necessary recognition if you want to know the history of Canada, the history since the contact of Indigenous people with Europeans is a very brief period of time. This is not a Christian country, or a country founded by the English and the French. This country was founded by the Indigenous Peoples. For example, the first Europeans came to Manitoba less than 400 years ago. That means that more than 95% of the history of the people of this province is not European. As John L. Steckley and Bryan Cummins said in their book, Full Circle Canada’s First Nations, “If you want to learn your history, you need to learn about Natives first.”

The Huron Confederacy was mainly found in Ontario, as it is now called, between Lake Simcoe and the southeastern corner of Georgian Bay. This was about as far north as agriculture could succeed with Stone Age technology, but the Hurons managed it.  According to Olive Patricia Dickason and William Newbigging in their book A Concise History of Canada’s First Nations, “The Huron had about 2,800 hectares (7,000 acres) under cultivation.”

It was also said, by Gabriel Sagard,  “In Huronia, it was easier to get lost in a cornfield than in a forest.”  This was not a civilizational backwater, The Huron traded with Indigenous Nations to the north by supplying them with corn, beans, squash, and good old tobacco, in return for furs and hides. Both sides benefited from the trades as it is supposed to work. According to Dickason and Newbigging, “The beauty and bounty of the land were such that when the French first came to their country, the Huron assumed it was because France was poor by comparison.” That might actually have been true. Unfortunately for the Huron, their trading system ultimately disintegrated before the onslaught of European traders. That was not uncommon after contact, but before then trade was very successful. That does not mean there were no conflicts between the Indigenous Nations.

Europeans destroyed much in their haste to impose their own system. They were guests in the country, but that did not stop them from taking over. That was a pity because they had a pretty good system up to then.

Just like everything else, social development varied widely throughout the Americas. Diversity was the key to everything. That meant that some hunter-gatherer societies continued in the traditional ways. At the same time others picked up and adopted traits from farming communities. As an example, through trade in many areas bothtrading partners gained from the trade and promoted richer societies. As Dickason and Newbigging explained in their book A Concise History of Canada’s First Nations, “The way of life of each was richer for their interchange, yet each retained its specific character. Similarly, there were farming peoples who retained the hunting-gathering mode even as some of their neighbours developed into –city-states, and, in one or two cases, empires. And while most Amerindian societies operated on an egalitarian basis, some societies, especially those that were more sedentary and had rich resource base, such as on the west coast, developed complex hierarchies based on kinship.”

Some societies eschewed hierarchies. As Dickason and Newbigging reported, “Egalitarian societies did not separate authority from the group as a whole…In those societies, available resources were open to all, and their leaders used influence rather than force. Free sharing ensured that the superior skills of, say, a hunter benefited the group rather than just the individual hunter.

The power of chiefs depended on their ability to provide for their followers. The leader’s role was to represent the common will. They did not use force and they would have quickly lost their position if they had tried. This lent extreme importance to eloquence, the power to persuade. A chief’s authority was ‘in his tongue’s end;’ for he was powerful in so far as he is eloquent. Failure in this regard meant loss of position. Among the Mi’kmaq, a chief could attract followers, but they were not subordinated to their leader’s will, except perhaps in time of war. Even in warfare however, among many groups the individual was essentially his own leader. Perhaps most important of all, chiefs were expected to set an example for their people, in particular by being generous. Instead of gaining wealth through their positions, they could end up the poorest of the group because of the continual demands made upon their resources. ”

Donald Trump would not have stood a chance of becoming a leader. Now who is civilized again?  I wish someone would explain to me again why I should think Europeans were less savage, more civilized, or more superior than indigenous people.

In addition to having established leaders, some individuals were selected because of their particular skills or spiritual powers. They were chosen by consensus. For example, leaders of a buffalo hunt might be chosen that way. Or for a raid. Or for gathering food.

Some groups like the Anishinabek (Anishinabe or Ojibwa) of the Great Lakes region maintained both hereditary chiefs as well as chiefs chosen by consensus. This system often worked surprisingly well. Certainly the European system was no clear improvement.

As Dickason and Newbigging said, “The general lack of quarreling or interpersonal conflicts in Amerindian communities impressed Europeans, who wondered how peaceful relations could prevail without the threat of force in the background.” That does not mean things were perfect. They had problems of leadership just like Europeans did.

According to Dickason and Newbigging chiefdoms only developed in the Northwest Coast of Canada (as it is now called) did.  Only there did the Indigenous people have “clearly marked class divisions between chiefs, nobles, and commoners based on wealth and heredity.”

In some respect the Indigenous people of the Americas had superior political systems than the Europeans to whom they were presumed inferior.  That does not mean they were perfect or better in all respects. But Europeans could have learned things from them if they had been inclined to listen and check their prejudice.  Sometimes it really is difficult to find much superiority in the invaders of the New World.

I thought I should let people know where I am headed with series of blog posts about Native Americans. I probably should have done that sooner. I hope some of you are interested in the subject. I think it is important. In fact it is one of the most important issues and is complicated by the great variety of Indigenous groups and the long a complicated history between colonizers and colonized.

The more I learn about Native Americans the more I am surprised by them. By Native Americans I mean the people of North, Central, and South America that lived in what we call the Western Hemisphere and they call Turtle Island when the Europeans officially arrived in 1492. Like Europeans, there were an astonishing variety of peoples in the Americas. They did not think and act alike anymore than humans from Europe, Asia or Africa did. Diversity is the most important key to understanding Indigenous people. And that diversity is their greatest asset.

We can learn a lot from them. But to do that we have to ditch our inbred sense of superiority. We  have to look at them without bias and with empathy. If we can to that we will be blessed.

I want to look at some specific Indigenous groups, both Canadian and American from a historical perspective before contact with Europeans and then look at the effects of European colonization and finally some modern issues. Of courses, as always I will be meandering and even switch to other topics as I see fit.

I hope some of you accompany on these meanderings.