Trade Habits and Economic Motivation among the Indians of North America

Abstract

It was a strange caricature of the Red Indians which emerged as the “noble savage” from the scrutiny of the statesmen and the philosophes of the second half of the eighteenth century. “Mild and hospitable when at peace, though merciless in war beyond any known degree of human ferocity,” the “Indian was indebted to no one but himself; his virtues, his vices and his prejudices were his own work; he had grown up in the wild independence of his nature.” So wrote Alexis de Tocqueville, emphasizing a great truth but suggesting an important untruth. For the Indian was indeed independent in spirit, and his vices and many of his virtues were alien to Europeans. But however independent his nature might be, he was not economically independent. The Chipewa chief who met Alexander Henry at Michilimackinac in 1761 expressed much of the splendid independence of the Indians: “Englishman, though you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us. We are not your slaves. These lakes, these woods and mountains, were left to us by our ancestors. They are our inheritance: and we will part with them to none.” Alexander Henry, however, was present at Michilimackinac precisely because he knew that the Indians were not independent economically; he had gone up, and he stayed up through the dangers and vicissitudes of Pontiac's rebellion, because there was no doubt at all that, despite his savagery and despite his independence, the Indian would trade for European goods as soon as they were brought within his grasp.

An Intrusive and Corrective Government: Political Rationalities and the Governance of Plains Aboriginals 1870-90

“…The lives of the aboriginal people were not dorninated, nor were they solely dependent on the fur trade (Rich. 1991).…”

“…These traders would get the lightest, and best furs, before the HBC had a chance to trade (Rich. 1991).…”

The Edmonton and District Stragglers: gendered strategies of treaty and scrip, 1876-1886

“…Jennifer Brown, W. J. Eccles, andDonald Heldman (Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994 ), 494. Discourse on women in the fur trade has not strayed far from traditional economics-based questions and models of E. P. Thompson and Peter Laslett. Overall the field of social fur trade history strongly clings to either E. P. Thompson 1850-1960," in BC Studies, 115-116 (1997 Most fur trade histories end with the transfer of Rupert's Land to Canada in 1870. Historical actors were both passive and active participants in the forging of collective identities.…”

Rethinking Economic Strategies for First Nations in Canada: Incorporating Traditional Knowledge into Governance Practices

“…Canada as a nation-state was built upon trade relationships and military alliances between European Settlers and Native peoples (Dickason, 2006;Furniss, 2002;Keyser & Klassen, 2001). However, as Europeans became more settled and self-sufficient in Canada, and the pressure increased to accommodate newcomers from Europe (Rich, 1960), their relationships with Native peoples shifted from one of peace and friendship treaty-making to oppression and dispossession of land, resources, children, languages, and cultures (Donovan, 2008& Havemann, 1999 as cited by Sisco, 2015). Native peoples were segregated on reserve lands, and through legislation creating an inequality within the social fabric of Canada (Bannerji, 1996).…”

“…However, mass migration from Europe resulted in the continuous colonization of Native peoples. Growing trade companies and the stabilization of the military presence in Canada lessoned the need for Native participation as trade and military partners (Rich, 1960). This led to the marginalization of Native peoples in Canada and segregation of Native communities onto reserves.…”