Image of a filled tea cup, alongside daisies and two books of poetry.

Because, let’s face it – who has time to catch up on all the journal articles published in Canadian history?

 

Special thanks to Anne Janhunen, Krista McCracken, and Maddie Knickerbocker for helping me think this through, and Alison Norman, Tom Peace, Krystl Raven, Adele Perry, and Erin Millions for their commentary on the Johnson piece.

Welcome back to the Best New Articles series, where each month, I post a list of my favourite new articles! Don’t forget to also check out my favourites from previous months, which you can access by clicking here.

This month I read articles from:

 

Here are my favourites:

 

Miranda Johnson, “The Case of the Million-Dollar Duck: A Hunter, His Treaty, and the Bending of the Settler Contract,” American Historical Review 124, no. 1 (February 2009): 56-86

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article-abstract/124/1/56/5305501?fbclid=IwAR2zZy679aaem3BSUdIsC-1drPbKIMiw5TKLhUmZSw_Eyz5MKBi1O8xXsGk

What it’s about: In 1962, Michael Sikyea (Dene) was arrested for violating the Migratory Birds Convention Act for shooting a female mallard duck out of season. When arguing his case, Sikyea relied upon “treaty talk,” or Oral Tradition for Treaty 11, arguing that as a “Treaty Indian,” he was within his rights to hunt the duck. In doing so, he “bent the settler contract,” by subverting settler law to assert his rights as an Indigenous person while also asserting local sovereignty. Sikyea’s argument was then “translated” into Canadian law by Judge John (Jack) Howard Sissons, in accordance with Sissons’ own preconceived ideas about Indigenous life and the benevolence of the Canadian state. Though his ruling was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, it still made its way into the Canadian legal system, establishing the legal basis for Indigenous rights and recognition of Indigenous people’s understandings of treaty-making into Canadian law.

What I loved: This one comes with an asterisk, largely due to my own lack of expertise in this area. I found the article fascinating, and have been thinking about it a lot since I read it. Taken at face value, this is an important look Indigenous activism before 1970s, an area that is still understudied. I found Sikyea’s story to be fascinating, and I did appreciate how Johnson grounded her analysis in the local as well as the national, particularly with respect to the North. However, I do have some concerns and some questions.  I am always cautious when approaching any piece of scholarship on Indigenous history that is written by a white settler scholar, especially when it is not done at the behest of or in collaboration with an Indigenous community. I am also always cautious when a white settler scholar announces that they are the first to publish in a particular area of Indigenous history, largely because Indigenous scholars have produced a huge body of work that is often overlooked. The author does mention that she shared her findings with Sikyea’s home community, the Yellowknives Dene First Nations. However, there is no indication that she established a relationship with them, or with the Sikyea family.  So, naturally, I took the question to social media, where the awesome folks of the Canadian history community came to my aid! Erin Millions noted that Indigenous peoples on the Prairies have a long tradition of referencing the treaties in their communications with the federal government. And as far as I can see,  Johnson does not connect her research to existing scholarship on Indigenous perspectives on treaty making, including Maddie Knickerbocker’s recommendations of articles by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson and Brittany Luby.  Adele Perry did mention that Mary Jane Logan McCallum has written about the disappearance of Indigenous peoples from modern Canadian historical narratives until 1969, though McCallum notes it is important to remember that the absence of something doesn’t necessarily mean anything. (“Labour, Modernity and the Canadian State: A History of Aboriginal Women and Work in the Mid-Twentieth Century,” Ph.D Dissertation, Department of History, University of Manitoba (2008): 15.) What’s more, Knickerbocker did note that we need to be careful about how we define “activism,” since Indigenous activism before the 1970s does not necessarily look like what we expect it to. So, to conclude: if nothing else, I think that the Sikyea case is an important one that is well deserving of attention, and this article is definitely worth reading. I also think Johnson makes an important point in her conclusion, quoted below, about the ethical dimensions of this kind of research. Finally. If nothing else, I think this piece points to the importance of asking critical questions whenever we approach research by white settlers on Indigenous history. It certainly generated a great deal of discussion amongst my colleagues, which is always a good thing.

Favourite quote:  “In foregrounding the story-making of a hunter like Michael Sikyea and the elicitation and translation of his testimony by a judge like Jack Sissons into legally enforceable rights, I have made a series of narrative and also moral choices about how to represent the ways in which improbable historical actors helped to generate new legal and political possibilities. By emphasizing “treaty talk” and drawing attention to an over-looked political identity of “Treaty Indian”—beyond that of ward of the state—I may run the risk of exposing present-day actors to judgments about their authenticity measured against hoary notions of “Indianness.” In recovering the legal argument of Sissons, I have run another risk. Critics may see this argument as apologizing for paternalist colonialism. However, not bringing encounters between unexpected actors to the fore means that we will continue to rely on incomplete accounts of past possibilities in grappling with present-day power relations and fail to understand the longer and entangled genealogies from which they arise.” P. 86

Suggested uses: I think that this piece will be of interest to scholars of Indigenous history, Indigenous-settler relations, and Indigenous law. I also think that it would be an important reading for anyone who is involved in research regarding current legal challenges regarding Indigenous rights.

 

Travis Wysote and Erin Morton, “’The depth of the plough’: white settler tautologies and pioneer lies,” Settler Colonial Studies, Latest Articles (February 2019): 1-26.

Author’s Twitter: @ErinDMorton

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2018.1541221?journalCode=rset20

What it’s about: This piece relies on the image of the oxen and the plough as a visual symbol of white settler tautology regarding the history of Mi’kma’ki as an example of the violence of the colonial state. The focus is on what the authors refer to as “the pioneer lie,” that establishes white settlers as the rightful owners of Mi’kma’ki, naturalizes the transformation of Indigenous landscapes, and transforms resistant and complex Indigenous persons into consenting subjects. These lies serve not only to justify the existence of the white settler state. Rather, the “pioneer lie” is an example of white settler nativism, whereby history is rewritten in such a way as to establish white settlers as belonging more to the Mi’kma’ki than the Mi’kmaq themselves, while also embedding this lie within a dramatically transformed landscape resulting from settler interventions. Wysote (Listuguj Mi’gmaq) and Morton focus particularly on the Acadian dykelands as a key example of the “pioneer lie” that imagines the consent of the Mi’kmaq. Doing so not only obscures Indigenous history, but also facilitates the rise of movements like that of the Eastern Métis.

What I loved: In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I am on the editorial board of Settler Colonial Studies, though I did not edit this piece. However, I think that this piece is an important contribution to the history of Atlantic Canada and Mi’kma’ki, particularly with respect to the violence of the settler colonial project in this part of the world. To my mind, this kind of research is particularly important is helping us to better understand the Eastern Métis phenomenon, especially since many associated organizations use the “pioneer lie” to establish themselves as the only true Indigenous peoples in Mi’kma’ki. I thought that the use of visual culture methodology was a really effective approach to showing how historical narratives connect the past, present, and future. If you’ve been reading the blog for a while, you know that I am a fan of integrating images and photographs into historical analysis, and this is an excellent example of the possibilities.

Favourite quote: “Much like the introduction of domesticated farm animals such as oxen, it is hard to see these introductions of European earthworms as innocent. While in the Canadian settler province of British Columbia ancient indigenous earthworm species still inhabit forest soils, in settler-defined Nova Scotia these indigenous species have been eradicated both by glaciers of the Pleistocene ice age and by the introduction of European worms. Once underground soils are colonized by an invasive species, there is no returning them to their originary state. The invasion of European worms in the alluvial soil, which would later become liberal property down to the level of the plough, almost seems too purposeful.” P. 14

Suggested uses: Anyone who studies Atlantic Canada, Acadia, or Mi’kmaqi should read this piece. I would like to suggest it is mandatory reading for the Eastern Métis, but that’s not likely to happen. It’s will also be of interest to scholars of settler colonialism and environmental history.

 

Also Recommended:

 

I know it sounds cheesy, but I really do think we have such an awesome community. One of my knitting friends, Carol, commented on how amazing it was that I can just put a question out on social media, and get several knowledgeable responses. I am very lucky indeed! I hope you enjoyed this month’s look at the best new scholarship in Canadian history! If you did, please consider sharing this post on the social media platform of your choice. And don’t forget to check back on Sunday for a brand new Canadian history roundup! See you then!

Liked this post? Please take a second to support Unwritten Histories on Patreon!