In Canada up until the late 1900’s, indigenous peoples land rights were not considered in government. The Nishga case was a case that changed that though, as it drew attention to aboriginal rights of native tribes in Canada. This case was led by Frank Calder, a Nishga leader. Sent away when he was young, Calder received a “white mans” education at a Canadian boarding school. Upon his return he learned from great native leaders, (Raunet, 145) and was tasked with leading the case, which would later be referred to as Calder vs the Attorney General.

Originally they wanted the case brought to court, “in 1967 in time for the anniversary of the Canadian federation,” (Raunet, 149) but it wasn’t heard before the court until April of 1969. The Nishga, alongside their lawyer Thomas Berger, decided to conduct the trial in British Columbia, “since the land and all resources except for fisheries were within provincial jurisdiction” (Raunet, 150). At this time, between the 1800’s-1900’s Britain claimed the crown granted them access to these lands, and, “if the Nisga’a had possessed any rights they had been extinguished by the imperial government” (Greymorning, 76). Many indigenous people were outraged, because “[they] felt that these were their traditional lands over which they had ‘aboriginal title,’” (Anderson) and they had never actually ceded their land to Britain in the first place (Raunet, 150). The judges were split, with half siding with land claims and half against them (the seventh claiming a technicality in court) (Raunet, 157). This led them to appeal, but, “The British Colombia Court of Appeal dismissed the case on the grounds that the Nishga’s were too primitive a people to justify official recognition by the crown” (Greymorning, 76).

Not yet discouraged, they continued to fight for the land, until the case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it was ruled that, “the right [to the land] has not been extinguished unless it was specifically and knowingly surrendered” (Anderson). Eventually the case was completed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973 with the Nisga’a losing their land claims case (Greymorning, 76). Although they had not won, they drew attention to aboriginal land claim issues. This led the government to release a policy on land claims in 1973, because the Nisga’a had never surrendered their land, and in 1976 the Nisga’a Tribal Council was being negotiated with. Although many would see this as a loss, “the judgement… was viewed as a landmark decision for aboriginal rights” (Greymorning, 76). This case set a precedent that allowed for not only themselves to eventually be able to negotiate to take back their land, but for other tribes to fight to do the same.

References Anderson, Robert, Bob Kayseas, Leo Paul Dana, and Kevin Hindle. 2004. Indigenous land claims and economic development: The canadian experience. American Indian Quarterly 28 (3/4).

Greymorning, Neyooxet. 2006. Calder vs attorney general of british columbia; aboriginal case law in an ethnobiased court. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies 26 (1).

Raunet, Daniel. 1984. Without surrender, without consent : A history of the nishga land claims. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre.

A Nishga girl on her aboriginal land. Caption: A First Nations girl standing on a riverbank; 1947

Source: Library and Archives Canada; 4292634 

Canada, a place whose history is so intertwined with nature, let production and development influence their environment in a negative way. Due to their emphasis on competing with other powers, “the Canadian government had been slow to realize the importance of wildlife conservation,” which led to the decimation of the buffalo (Foster, 4). Although species extinctions and endangerment can sometimes be the result of negative environmental factors, it was determined by scientists that the mass exodus of the buffalo was caused by humans. One researcher, Flores, used a formula to calculate the population of the buffalo during the nineteenth century. His formula led him to, “[give] a figure… [which] yielded a possible population of 675,000” (Dobak) during that time.

The government played a large role in the decimation of buffalo during the nineteenth century due to multiple factors: “the belief in superabundance of wildlife resources; the presence of a wilderness frontier; the political climate of the National Policy, with its emphasis on exploitation and development; and… natural resources [being] under provincial jurisdiction” (Foster, 4). Originally, they considered the buffalo a food source to be exploited, occasionally used as currency, as opposed to a living creature. In the nineteenth century though, hunting was transitioning from a way to support families’ food source, to hunting for fun. This led to dwindling buffalo numbers in the region, because more and more people were drawn to the idea of hunting as a “sport,”(Colpitts, 71) creating even more of a divide between first nation people and game hunters, because the natives were the only ones relying on the buffalo as a food source. One company specifically that contributed to the mass exodus of the buffalo in relation to game hunting was the Hudson Bay Company’s expansion. During this time period many people, specifically supported by this company, were killing buffalo for their hides, to make articles of clothing such as robes and fur lined clothes (Dobak).

Eventually the Canadian government realized the severity of this issue and began to enact general wildlife conservation laws. One park commissioner, Maxwell Graham, worked to enact better Northern buffalo conservation laws in the early 1900’s (Colpitts, 13). Although these efforts helped conserve the buffalo that were left, there was already a huge part of the population that had already been decimated. Berger’s reference of this widespread issue creates a similar feeling of destruction between the buffalo and the pipeline. The buffalo, once a prominent part of Canada, were exploited and now barley exist at the time of this report. Berger utilizes this feeling of empathy and regret to draw a connection and potentially foreshadow what could happen to the lands if the pipeline is put in. Not only would nature yet again be potentially destroyed, but the indigenous peoples would be exploited as well, with their resources yet again stripped away from them, as seen through the loss of their food source of the buffalo. This connection is implemented to hopefully sway readers away from supporting the pipeline project, by scaring them that the nature they love could yet again be harmed in the process.

References:

Colpitts, George. 1992. Game in the garden: A human history of wildlife in western canada to 1940UBC Press.

Dobak, William. 1996. Killing the canadian buffalo 1821-1881. Western Historical Quarterly 27 (1).

Foster, Janet. 1998. Working for wildlife: The begining of preservation in canadaUniversity of Toronto Press.

Caption:The Buffalo herd at Banff; 1907 Photo Source: Library of Congress;PAN FOR GEOG - Canada no. 7 (E size) [P&P]

   During Nixon’s time in office he worked towards granting indigenous peoples more rights in the education system. He, along with Congress (and those in office who directly followed his term), “increase[ed] funding for Indian schools, encouraged the building and establishment of reservation day schools, and began the process of closing Indian boarding schools” (Weeks, 216). One major change enacted was the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. This act was spearheaded during the Nixon administration, but was finally passed during Fords time. It allows for indigenous people in the United States to, “Assume control of the federal programs administered for the benefit of Indians” (McClellan, 46). One of the newfound rights they had were the ability to run their own education and health systems themselves (Weeks, 216).

   Originally this act came to the government’s attention at request of Indian organizations, and initially was seen as a way to keep the tribes loyal to the government. They utilized giving indigenous people some rights as good publicity, making it look to the public like they had the indigenous people’s best interests in mind. Instead, they referred to it as the “takeover approach,” because they believed that by giving here and there to indigenous people’s wishes, they would be even more loyal and dependent on the government to try to obtain more rights. This approach was highly opposed by native tribes (McClellan, 47). After deliberation in the Senate, the bill for the act was amended, to include a less of a threatening approach, and, “Indian spokesmen were…supportive of legislation," (Castile 156) but were still a little cautious, because of previous years of mistreatment.

    During this time not many Indian natives had governmental positions, but many organizations were advocating for them so they were gaining traction in regards to their rights, allowing for the passing of this act. The structure of this act allows for tribe leaders to contact the Secretaries of Interior Health and Human Services in regards to starting a federal program for their tribe. Although they can request assistance, “either secretary may initially contract with an Indian tribe if he or she finds that the tribe leader will not provide satisfactory services…protect resources…or maintain the program” (McClellan, 46). Similarly, the Indian tribe leader is granted permission to appeal if they feel strongly about their program. Under this act many natives were now allowed to operate their own schools with their values and traditions. Although it was originally highly contested, this act has been amended over the years to allow Indian tribes even more rights. Because of this, it has evolved and positively impacted many Native American tribes spanning the United States for the past 40 years.

References: Castile, George Pierre. 1998. To show heart : Native american self-determination and federal indian policy, 1960-1975. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

McClellan, Fletcher. 1990. Implementation and policy reformulation of title I of the indian self- determination education assistance act of 1975-80. Wicazo Sa Review 6 (1): 45-55.

Weeks, Philip. 2002. From bullets to boarding schools: The educational assault on american indians. In "They made us many promises": The american indian experience 1524 to the present". 2nd ed. Illinois: Harlan Davidson Inc.

This image is of a Indian boarding school before the act was enacted:<br> Caption:Front (south) side. View to north - Fort Peck Indian Boarding School, Principal's Cottage, Northeast corner of Assiniboine Avenue and Federal Street, Poplar, Roosevelt County, MT;Documentation compiled after 1933 Photo Source- Library of Congress- HABS MT-70-C