Indigenous interpretations of treaty are often gleaned from Euro-Canadian documents like Crown publications and correspondence. In her analysis of Treaty #3, Brittany Luby challenges the assumption that Anishinaabe sources are strictly oral and that engaging Anishinaabe perspectives requires an ethnographic (re) reading of Euro-Canadian documents. Using Anishinaabe written sources like Paypom Treaty and petitions to the Crown, Luby examines the Anishinaabe as legal agents and active writers. She highlights that Anishinaabe negotiators-much like Euro-Canadian Commissioners-participated in Treaty #3 to maintain fisheries, protect mineral deposits, and guarantee territorial sovereignty. By explicating treaty participants' conflicting understandings of "rights" and "use," Luby demonstrates that no single document accurately outlines the terms and conditions of Treaty #3.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Luby on Crown and Anishinaabe Understandings of Treaty 3
Posted by Mary Stokes
"The Department is going back on these Promises: An examination of Anishinaabe and Crown Understandings of Treaty" by Brittany Luby (another former classmate of mine) in Canadian Journal of Native Studies (2010) Vol. 30 Issue 2 (no on-line link available.) Here's the abstract: