Assignment3-2-1.final.docx

Name Institutional Affiliation Professor Course Date 1

ECON 321 SPRING 2021 – ASSIGNMENT 2 ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE MARKED AS SUBMITTED . CHECK YOUR FILE UPLOADS! Question Out of Weight 1 a 12 30% b 3 2 a 78 70% b 78 c 78 Q2 Average 78 3 a 3 b 4 c 3 Subtotal Q2 + Q3 88 Communication 6 (can be 2x) Q2 & Q3 Total 100 2

Table of Contents 1. [Reading] ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. [Regular] ................................................................................................................................. 3 3. [Challenge] .............................................................................................................................. 6 Appendix: Sources for Question 2 ............................................................................................ 9 Oral history of the Nanaimo Treaty of 1854 (1933) ................................................................ 9 Oral history of the Indigenous discovery of coal (1933) ....................................................... 10 Entire Text of the 1854 Nanaimo Treaty ............................................................................... 11 Indigenous involvement in the Nanaimo Coal Trade prior to 1854 ...................................... 12 3

1. [Reading] Read the following paper: Turner, N. J. & Loewen, D. C. (1998). The Original “Free Trade”: Exchange of Botanical Products and Associated Plant Knowledge in Northwestern North America. Anthropologica , 40 (1), 49-70. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/25605872 a. (12 marks) Write a 3-2-1 report in the usual fashion using the form on the course web site. (Hint for the ‘economic story’: what does the existence of these Indigenous trade networks tell you about Indigenous allocation of scarce resources?) b. (3 marks) The Canadian government has often limited Indigenous hunting and fishing to a small, subsistence scale: “that which could be consumed by the fisher [or hunter] and his or her family” (Douglas Harris, quoted in First Nations Studies Program (2009) 1 ). Based on what you learned from reading the article, is small-scale ‘food fishing/hunting’ of this type enough to preserve Indigenous cultures and traditional ways of life? Explain your reasoning. (Hint: the paper talks about more than plants. At various points it mentions fish, and oolichan grease (from a fish) was used in the plant trade, as seen in some rows of Table 1. Try searching for ‘fish’, ‘salmon,’ or ‘oolichan’.) Small-scale food fishing/hunting is not enough to preserve indigenous cultures. 1 First Nations Studies Program. (2009). Aboriginal Fisheries in British Columbia [Web Page]. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_fisheries_in_british_columbia/ 4

These cultures thrived by exchanging the items they had in plenty to obtain what was not present in their territory. Therefore, restricting hunting/fishing would affect the traditional exchange system. 2. [Regular] In December of 1854, several tribes near Nanaimo signed a very unusual treaty with the Hudson’s Bay Company, who at the time had control of Vancouver Island. At least since 1964, this brief agreement has been interpreted by Canadian courts as having the force of a Treaty negotiated directly with the Queen. The Nanaimo treaty signed away tribal rights to land in exchange for a one-time payment of European goods, the preservation of traditional hunting and fishing rights, and the right for them and their descendants to continue to make use of their villages. In this question, you will try to answer a seemingly simple question: was the treaty fair ? You must base your answer on the sources provided in the Appendix to this assignment (though you are, of course, free to do additional research): oral histories of the Indigenous point of view taken down in 1933, the public treaties as officially recorded in 1854, and letters between the Hudson Bay Company’s James Douglas and the British Colonial Office, which were meant to be kept secret. The definition of fairness will be based on the four criteria suggested by ‘ The Governor’s Letters Teacher’s Guide ’, a treaty analysis activity recommended for grades 9 – 12. 5

I. “ Free authorized consent : Negotiations are fair only if one party is not unduly pressured by the other party to make a deal and that both parties have authority to enter into the agreement.” II. “ No significant intentional deception : Negotiations are unfair if one party intentionally tries to deceive or trick the other party about very important matters in the agreement.” III. “ Fundamental understanding : Negotiations are unfair if one party suspects that the other party may be grossly confused or ill-informed about the terms of the agreement, and does not make a sincere attempt to clarify the confusion.” IV. “ Reasonable value under the circumstances : Although one side may benefit more than another, especially if one party is desperate to sell, the value of the exchange must not be grossly lopsided from the outset in favor of one of the parties." When answering the following questions, please rate the fairness on the following scale (taken from a worksheet that accompanies the Teacher’s Guide): 4 – Very fair 3 – Mostly fair 2 – Mostly unfair 1 – Very unfair 0 – Can’t tell 6

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help