Search This Blog

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Luby on Crown and Anishinaabe Understandings of Treaty 3

"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:

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.

1 comment:

  1. Author's Note:

    First and foremost, thank you for posting the abstract for my article in CJNS. I am honored. Please note the following editorial error in the aforementioned piece. Chief Lindsay's Anishinaabe name was Kawitaskung (and there may very well be alternative spellings), not Pow-wa-sung as currently suggested by paragraph 3 on page 206.

    Happy reading,

    Brittany Luby