Ojibwe Indians Treaty Rights Essay

The Treaty of St. Peters of 1837 sold the land located in the Minnesota territory to the United States and granted the Ojibwe Indians the privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rice upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded.

Most of the rules maintained by the Metis pertained to the Buffalo Hunt. The hunts were well organized and carried out precisely. The Metis developed the “Laws of the Prairies”, that regulated hunting practices, and were strictly enforced by the elected “Buffalo Hunt Council”. The buffalo hunt was the beginning of self governance for the Metis.

“Banishment from the homeland, the diaspora of a nation, the exile of a people, and ongoing colonization- these are the legacies Minnesotans and Americans have left” (waziyatawin 17). As a society, our wrongdoings towards the Native American people are irreversible. Yet, it is important to do as much as we can as a society to justify our wrong doings. Gaining knowledge about the injustices society and colonialism has committed on the Native American way of life in Minnesota, brings a responsibility of awareness and action to achieve justice for the Native American community.

The Ojibwa or known as the Chippewa in European are people of northeastern North America. The term Ojibwa is said to mean the puckered moccasin people or they say the French said the word meant pictograph. The Chippewa Indians mainly lived in the Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Michigan. There was 35,000 Ojibwa on the continent in the mid seventeenth century. They used the word Anishinabeg to describes themselves which means “original people.” The Ojibwa has its own cultural values like honesty, generosity, endurance, wisdom, and strength of character. All these values have been instilled through education and religious practice. The tribe has had ties with the French and even helped the French fight against the British in the French and Indian war. The French traders would even wed Chippewa women. The family was of great importance to the Ojibwa tribes.

This tension in race relationships is the third theme of Minnesota’s history post-1880. For example, the tense relationship between the Minnesotans and the Native Americans in the state. One of the main tensions that has plagued the relationship for many years in about Native Americans traditional fishing rights. Since the beginning of the government agency that sought to preserve game, fish, and other natural resources (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family life and labor on the Reservation, 86). Throughout the late 19th and 20th century, the Native Americans and Minnesotans have created many agreements about how and where the Native Americans could fish. One example of this is how Red Lake was partitioned to the natives. In this partition, the Native Americans could not fish or access the eastern portion of Upper Red Lake (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 86). In addition, the tensions between the Native Americans and Minnesotans over fishing led to lawsuits and legal action by the Natives. These lawsuits attempted to establish that the treaties signed in the past gave natives the right to fish and sell their fish off the reservation (Child, My Grandfather’s Knocking Sticks, 104). One of these cases reached the United States Supreme Court in 1999. This case ruled in favor of the Natives and

Until 1828, the federal government agreed that Cherokee had rights to their land, but when Andrew Jackson was elected President, that all ended. Jackson refused to believe that the tribes were sovereign and thus viewed Indian treaties, as an absurdity

To what extent has Canada affirmed collective rights for Aboriginals? Has Canada done their job properly by confirming collective rights for one of our main collective groups in Canada? From looking into some of the issues involving our Aboriginal peoples with the Government, it’s clear that the government has done a very weak job of affirming their rights. The government hasn’t completely affirmed the rights of our Aboriginals through the Indian Act, the issue on housing of the Attawapiskat peoples, and the land claims/rights of the Lubicon Cree.

The United States created The Declaration Of Independence in 1776 in order to declare freedom from Britain and all its limiting Laws and created Ideals for all people of the US. The US did not fulfill the ideals of the Declaration of Independence for all people by 1850 because Native Americans did not have economic rights and African Americans did not have social rights. The Native Americans did not have economic rights partly because were denied owning property and were forced to move. This is shown in all four documents. Document one shows this.

and their effects are still occurring today and need to be made known to spare the

The people of the northern portion of the “Indian Reserve” were given federal legal protections under the Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787 which established a commission to oversee the reserve, outlawed slavery, and provided a means for representative government. Native Americans in the southern portion of the “Indian Reserve” were

In 1832, the Indians signed a treaty which stated that the federal government would provide them with suitable western land and would protect them until they moved. But, with the onslaught of white settlers, the War Department backed down on it’s promise (pbs.org). Also in 1833, a small faction of the Cherokee were tricked to sign an illegal removal treaty, also known as the “Treaty of New Echota.” Led by Chief John Ross, over 15,000 Cherokees signed a petition in protest of this new treaty, but the Supreme court ignores their demands and instead ratified the treaty in 1836 (pbs.org). In all, the Indians shouldn’t have been forced to move since the Americans had cheated them in treaties and trades many times

To start off, in the first document, the Letter to the Cherokee Nation, from President Andrew Jackson, he stated, “You cannot survive in your present residence. Every year will increase your difficulties…” From this, the reader can infer Jackson is indirectly forcing Native Americans off their land by saying that they have no chance of prospering, they shouldn’t even try, and that they should just obey and relocate. Everyone has the right to land, and no one can take it away from them, according to the basic rights of freedom. Finally, in document two, stated by the Cherokee Nation of Indians in the Letter to Congress, “The letter says we will be horribly punished if we refuse to go along with the treaty.” Like stated before, the Native Americans’ inalienable rights endowed by their Creator were violated due to the fact that they were forced off of their land. The fact that Native Americans were forced off their land, not by choice, is corroborated in both

rights of the Cherokees, tribal meetings had to be held just across the state line at Red Clay,

There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”

1. As seen in cases from the past and issues that have arisen, tribal rights and structure can be complicated. Management, conservation, and rules need to be carefully planned out when these areas are concerned. For a species like the northern river otter this is especially true since rivers run through state, tribal, and private lands. The state does not have much jurisdiction on tribal lands and just managing the waterways without including the land surrounding them would not be very effective. That is why it’s very important to work with the tribe to develop a plan. Since this is a protection plan, take, possession, sale, purchase, trade, import, and export of river otters will not be allowed in the state. The state GFP employees will work