Neal McLeod’s “Rethinking Treaty Six” focuses on the creation and results of Treaty Six while documents 2.3, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 in Keith Smith’s Strange Visitors focuses on Treaty 7; both accounts highlight how there are different views of the treaties impact depending on the document and party involved. Written accounts were from the British perspective who imposed regulations while oral accounts were from Indigenous people who had to endure dire conditions following the treaties. Smith’s primary documents outline the articles in Treaty 7, the consequences that Indigenous people faced and oral accounts of the events. McLeod focuses on the need to reexamine history and the importance of understanding past events from an Indigenous perspective;
…show more content…
He examines “Treaty Six, not merely as a ‘closed’, written text, but also an ‘oral’ text” (McLeod, 70). The document was written by white people who as the dominant culture, could dictate what historical sources are viewed as reliable accounts. In the western world written documents are given elevated status whereas oral accounts of the same events are disregarded because it is not part of western culture. McLeod argues that the “differences between the oral and written understanding of the text must be considered. Both represent seemingly incommensurate worldviews” (70). McLeod focuses on ensuring that past events are viewed from different positions to ensure a more accurate and less biased perspective. Understanding past events from a different perspective helps to uncover the truth and makes one reconsider that the dominant narrative is not necessarily completely true as it tends to leave out certain details and frames issues in a particular way. Modern accounts of the treaty have made an effort to understand the Indigenous perspective, McLeod quotes a Nisga’a Chief who stated: “[t]o the Nisga'a people, a treaty is a sacred instrument. It represents an understanding between distinct cultures and shows respect for each other's way of life” (McLeod, 71). But this was in 1998 more than 200 years after the treaty had been signed; when the treaty …show more content…
The interviews allow the reader to “obtain an Indian understanding of the treaty and of the promises made to the Indians by the government” (Smith, 47). Almost a century later people are finally becoming more open-minded and are trying to educate themselves by learning historical events from a different perspective and from different sources. The interviews highlight the loss of traditional way of life and eventual dependence on the federal government because according to Mrs. Buffalo, “[t]he white people just took away all the buffalo… [and] the white men gave us cow to eat” (48). This shows cultural assimilation and demonstrates how Indigenous lives were dramatically altered and how they were disrespected. Smith and McLeod both use additional sources to show the treaties affected people differently, how modern accounts reinforces the importance of listening to Indigenous people to fully comprehend past events and acknowledges and the importance of acknowledging that there are biases in written texts and that oral accounts need to be examined
He examines “Treaty Six, not merely as a ‘closed’, written text, but also an ‘oral’ text” (McLeod, 70). The document was written by white people who as the dominant culture, could dictate what historical sources are viewed as reliable accounts. In the western world written documents are given elevated status whereas oral accounts of the same events are disregarded because it is not part of western culture. McLeod argues that the “differences between the oral and written understanding of the text must be considered. Both represent seemingly incommensurate worldviews” (70). McLeod focuses on ensuring that past events are viewed from different positions to ensure a more accurate and less biased perspective. Understanding past events from a different perspective helps to uncover the truth and makes one reconsider that the dominant narrative is not necessarily completely true as it tends to leave out certain details and frames issues in a particular way. Modern accounts of the treaty have made an effort to understand the Indigenous perspective, McLeod quotes a Nisga’a Chief who stated: “[t]o the Nisga'a people, a treaty is a sacred instrument. It represents an understanding between distinct cultures and shows respect for each other's way of life” (McLeod, 71). But this was in 1998 more than 200 years after the treaty had been signed; when the treaty …show more content…
The interviews allow the reader to “obtain an Indian understanding of the treaty and of the promises made to the Indians by the government” (Smith, 47). Almost a century later people are finally becoming more open-minded and are trying to educate themselves by learning historical events from a different perspective and from different sources. The interviews highlight the loss of traditional way of life and eventual dependence on the federal government because according to Mrs. Buffalo, “[t]he white people just took away all the buffalo… [and] the white men gave us cow to eat” (48). This shows cultural assimilation and demonstrates how Indigenous lives were dramatically altered and how they were disrespected. Smith and McLeod both use additional sources to show the treaties affected people differently, how modern accounts reinforces the importance of listening to Indigenous people to fully comprehend past events and acknowledges and the importance of acknowledging that there are biases in written texts and that oral accounts need to be examined