Indigenous Canada:

Looking Forward/Looking Back

Cover Image: Artwork by Leah Dorion

 The University of Alberta acknowledges that we are located on Treaty 6
territory and respects the history, languages, and cultures of the First
Nations, Métis, Inuit, and all First Peoples of Canada, whose presence
continues to enrich our institution.

Copyright © 2015-2022 University of Alberta.

All materials in this course, unless otherwise noted, are the property of the University of Alberta. These
materials may only be used by registered course participants for non-commercial educational purposes,
research, or private study, and the materials may not be copied or used by third-parties, or copied or used
for any other purposes, without the prior written authorization of the University of Alberta. All other rights
are reserved.

2
Table of Contents
Module 2 Introduction 2

Section One: Pre-Contact North American Networking 4

Population 4

Pre-Contact Trade 4

Section Two: Colonization and Trade 5

Complex Colonization 5

Goods 7

Early Meetings 7

Giant Bird 9

Atlantic Fisheries 9

A Colony 9

Cartier 10

Champlain 11

Section Three: The Fur Trade 11

What was the Fur Trade? 11

Beaver Trade 12

Phases of the Fur Trade 14

Trade Alliances 15

Control 16

Hudson’s Bay Company 17

Monopoly 18

Emerging Métis 19

Energy Bars 20

The Pemmican Proclamation of 1814 22

1
 Example of Stability 22

Last Stages of the Fur Trade 24

Permanent Settlements 25

Health 26

Conclusion 26

Reference List 27

Module 2 Introduction

As we just discussed, North America was made up of a very complex and vibrant
network of nations and communities whose stories and histories began long before
Europeans made their way across the Atlantic Ocean. Specifically, we began to explore
the diversity of Indigenous ways of being and ways of knowing. Relationships across
North America were facilitated through kinship ties and trading networks. As we will see,
the fur trade in particular was incredibly dynamic: a mix of cultural, economic, and social
interactions that eventually founded the country now known as Canada. The fur trade
irrevocably changed the relationships amongst the First Nations. As well, the fur trade
gave birth to the Métis Nation.

2
Figure 1: Classification of Indigenous Peoples of North America according to
Alfred Kroeber, English-language version of map; Credit: Nikater

3
 Section One: Pre-Contact North American Networking

Population

The size of population prior to 1492 is a matter of academic debate. Historical

demographers estimate that the number of people living on North America, not including
Mexico and Central America, at the turn of the fifteenth century was somewhere in the
range of 1.2 million to 2.6 million people (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
Report 1996, 20–22; Thornton 2000; see also Daniels 1992; Hoxie 2016). Through
research, the low population numbers have been overturned and the population
numbers are much higher than originally estimated.

Researchers also believe that there might have been up to 200,000 people living on the
northwest coast. For more detailed information, take a look at the Pre-contact Regional
Population Table provided in the Resources section. In the east, The Wyandot, or
Huron, were agriculturalists and lived in villages in what is now present-day southern
Ontario. This nation had some of the highest population densities in Canada. With
estimates ranging from 20,000 to 33,000 inhabitants (Ray 2016, 20–21). As a
consequence of contact and colonization, the Indigenous peoples of the western
hemisphere experienced a tragic and massive loss of population.

Pre-Contact Trade

It is probably not surprising to find out that trading networks existed prior to European
contact. Pre-contact trade included some basic necessities, but most trading was done
for luxury items (Trigger 1987). Some of the materials that were traded, in many
instances across far distances, included copper, a variety of shells (used for making
beads), obsidian (a very hard, brittle volcanic rock used in tool making), flints, and

4
oolichan oil (also known as eulachon oil,
made from candlefish) (Dickason 2009;
Dickason and Newbigging 2015; Ray
2016).

The routes used by coastal First Nations

for thousands of years to trade oolichan oil
are known as grease trails (Ray 2016, 16).
Some pre-contact trade did include some
basic necessities. For example, tribes such Figure 2: Eulachon (oolichan, candlefish) fishing; Credit:
Bella Coola Valley Museum
as the Mandan and the Arikara traded their
surpluses of corn to the Assiniboine for their furs and meat (Smith 2008, 44).

Diplomacy followed trading to ensure positive relationships and allies, and was a key
element of any trade event (Dickason 2009; Ray 2016). Gift exchange, or gift
diplomacy, refers to the common requirement that gifts are exchanged when formalizing
an agreement. Agreements had to be renewed periodically with diplomatic exchanges.
Exchanging gifts is an important part of ceremony, and so gifts were exchanged during
many other important events. Highly respected individuals were held in high esteem due
to their generosity and giving nature.

Section Two: Colonization and Trade

Complex Colonization

Before we begin our discussion of the fur trade, a major activity that brought Europeans
in great numbers to Indigenous lands, we must first talk about the first encounters
between Europeans and Indigenous peoples in what is now Canada. We can’t begin a
conversation about the history of Canada as a nation without talking about colonization.

Colonization is a term that describes the ongoing process where one group of people
takes control of another group of people. The process of colonization involves one

5
 Figure 3: Territories that were at one time or another part of the British Empire; Credit: The Red Hat of Pat
Ferrick

group of people (the colonizers) going into and taking over the land and resources of
another group (the colonized), often damaging or even destroying their way of life. The
colonizers exploit the land’s resources and often utilize the land for settlement. Europe,
for example, has had many colonizer groups, and Europeans have themselves
colonized groups from over the world, including Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the
Americas.

Colonization is a process. There are many different aspects, and not all of the
colonizing elements actually happen at the same time or in the same order.
Nonetheless, the colonizing process includes: (1) the serious modification of Indigenous
ways of life, including, political, economic, social, and spiritual systems; (2) setting up
external political control; (3) forcing the Indigenous population to become economically
dependent on the colonizer; and (4) providing abysmally poor quality social services,
such as education and healthcare, for Indigenous peoples (Frideres 2012). The
accumulated effect creates social divisions between colonizer and colonized that is
determined by race, thereby promoting institutional racism, which we will talk about in
greater detail in a later lesson.

Although first encounters with the French and English were often peaceful and had
short term beneficial trading, the arrival of Europeans on North America resulted in the
6
colonization of Indigenous peoples. This process happened in Canada over several
hundred years, and Canada, as we know it today, would look very different without the
colonial impact of France and Britain.

Goods

The fur trade as a commercial venture facilitated colonial dynamics. The small-scale
trade in furs evolved into a complex and intricate industry. Most Canadian academics
specializing in Native History go so far as to classify the fur trade as a partnership
(Brown 2012; Dickason and Newbigging 2015; Ray 2016; Tough 1996).

Trade of furs between Europeans and Indigenous peoples of North America began in
the late 1400s. European economies benefited from taking raw materials, like fur, from
faraway places and bringing the materials back home where they would be
manufactured into other products and sold. To do this, European nations needed
colonies that could extract large quantities of raw material cheaply. There was a lot of
competition and violence between different European nations for control of these
valuable raw materials (Kardulias 1990).

This way of thinking is called mercantilism. Mercantilism is as an economic theory of

commercialism, that is the belief in the benefits from profitable trade. Mercantilism in the
colonies drove European policy and actions from the 1500s into the 1700s. In this era of
globalization, Europe created networks that dominated directly and indirectly distant
lands and peoples (Innis 1999; Payne 2004).

Early Meetings

Although the colonial rush of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were more
significant, archaeological records show that the Norse landed and established a small
settlement in 1,000 CE near L’Anse aux Meadows in present day Newfoundland. We

7
don’t know exactly how long this colony
lasted, and it may have only been a few
years (Ray 2016, 47).

The Norse sagas—oral stories later put

into writing—recount meeting people
they called Skraelings. Skraelings were
likely people belonging to the Dorset
Culture, a group of people predating
Inuit, but could have also been Beothuk,
Figure 4: A site of early Norse colonization in L’anse aux
Indigenous peoples in Newfoundland. Meadows, Newfoundland; Credit: Carlb

Unfortunately, by the saga accounts,

these encounters turned violent, and the Norse were eventually driven away by the
Skraelings (Ingstad and Ingstad 2000, 54).

It is common to refer to the arrival of Europeans,

specifically the French and the English, as the
“discovery” of Canada. Of course, this discovery
wasn’t really a discovery at all for Indigenous
people. French and English explorers and traders
had merely found a place they didn't know about.
Indigenous peoples, having lived on North America
for more than 40,000 years, were well aware of the
land they lived on long before the arrival of the first
Europeans (Dickason 2009). Can you imagine what
was going through the minds of the Mi’kmaq when
they first discover a group of lost, wandering
Figure 5: Painting of Giovanni Caboto (John
Europeans? It’s not unusual for discussions of the Cabot) by Giustino Menescardi (1762);
Credit: Giustino Mesecardi
history of Canada to begin around the arrival of
explorers like Giovanni Caboto (also known as John Cabot) in 1497, Jacques Cartier in
1534, and Martin Frobisher in 1576.

8
Giant Bird

“Men of strange appearance have come across the water ... Their skins are white like
snow, and on their faces long hair grows. These people have come across the great
water in wonderfully large canoes which have great white wings like those of a giant
bird” (quoted in Ray 2016, 40). The Ojibwe (Anishinaabe) prophet also added, “The
men have long and sharp knives, and they have long black tubes which they point at
birds and animals. The tubes make smoke that rises into the air just like the smoke from
our pipes. From them came fire and such a terrific noise” (40).

Atlantic Fisheries

After the Norse settlement, First Nations and Inuit peoples didn’t encounter any more
Europeans on their lands until the late 1400s. The next group that Indigenous peoples
met and began to trade with were the Basque whalers and French whalers and
fishermen who were operating off the east coast starting in the 16 th century (Thomas
2013, 189). A sideline trade in furs emerged with these early encounters between
Europeans, Mi’kmaq, and other First Nations peoples on the east coast. These contacts
were casual; at this point, as European nations were mostly interested in profiting from
fisheries. Setting up colonies and settlement was not a huge priority for them. These
first contacts set the stage for the fur trade.

A Colony
The French, under Jacques Cartier, were the first European settlers to set up a
sustained colony on North America. In 1534, French explorer Jacques Cartier travelled
as far as the Gulf of St. Lawrence amidst large settlements of Indigenous people.
Cartier’s detailed accounts of the Mi’kmaq relays the wariness of both Indigenous
peoples and Cartier in the first encounters of trade (Ray 2016, 48).

After the successful trading encounters with the Mi’kmaq, Cartier travelled even further
inland. Further up the St. Lawrence valley was the large Iroquois village of Stadacona
led by Chief Donnacona, which was near present-day Quebec City. Here, Cartier made

9
the first of his many grave errors. First, he erected a large cross, which bore the words
“Long live the King of France,” and claimed the land for the King of France. Cartier
wrote in his journal, “… the chief, dressed in an old black bearskin, arrived in a canoe
with three of his sons and his brother ... he made us a long harangue, making the sign
of the cross with two of his fingers, and then he pointed to the land all around about, as
if he wished to say that all this region belonged to him, and that we ought not to have
set up this cross without his permission” (Brown 2012, 61).

Cartier

To placate Chief Donnacona, Cartier told him it was merely a directional tool to help
navigate his ships. After this, diplomacy and interactions with Cartier just went from bad
to worse (Ray 2016, 51). Cartier lured and kidnapped Donnacona’s sons, Dom Agaya
and Taignoagny, and took them with him to serve as guides on his explorations. Little
did Cartier know that this would have been an acceptable action if Cartier had offered
two of his own men as replacements. When Cartier returned, he brought Dom Agaya
and Taigniagny back with him. Soon after their return, the relationship with Cartier
soured. It isn’t entirely clear why, but it likely had to do with the fact that Cartier ignored
Donnacona’s wishes and travelled up the river through the traditional lands controlled
by Donnacona to Hochelaga.

Unbelievably, on Cartier’s second voyage, he

kidnapped Chief Donnacona himself along
with six to ten others to take back to France. It
seems that there were some power struggles
or disagreements happening in Stadacona at
that time, and by bringing Donnacona to
France, Cartier would effectively remove him
as leader of the Stadaconans. Donnacona
and the others would die in France in 1539.
Figure 6: Dauphin Map of Canada (circa 1543)
showing Jacques Cartier's discoveries; Credit:
While the first two trips that Cartier took were Project Gutenberg Archives

focused on exploration, the added goal of

10
Cartier’s third and final voyage in 1541 was colonization. After setting up a French
settlement without getting permission from the Indigenous peoples in the area, the
colonists were continually hassled by the local peoples. Bad relationships combined
with supplies running out caused the French to disband this settlement and return to
France. This first effort to colonize Canada was brief and ended in 1543 (Ray 2016, 52;
see also Trigger 1986). The French were the first Europeans to succeed in setting up a
colony in Canada.

Champlain

In 1603, Samuel de Champlain arrived at Taddoussac and formalized an alliance with

the Innu (or Montagnais) following Indigenous customs (Payne 2004, 13–19; Miller
1991; Miller 2004). A few years later in 1608, Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec
City in New France. At this time, the Stadaconans and Hochelagans, the groups of
people that Cartier had met, were not living along the St. Lawrence River anymore. So,
where did they go? It could be that they were driven out by Kanein’kehka Mohawk
groups, who wanted to take over control over this key trade area. It is likely that the St.
Lawrence Haudenosaunee had moved further west and merged with the Wendat. This
area had been an important region of Indigenous trading long before the French arrived,
and so, such conflicts were not new.

Section Three: The Fur Trade

What was the Fur Trade?

Indigenous peoples had been trading amongst each other across far distances for
thousands of years. Trade relationships were a big part of the connections between
Indigenous nations across North America. Participation in the fur trade shaped the early
relationships between European settlers and Indigenous peoples and set out the
economic and geographical infrastructure of Canada as a nation. The fur trade
motivated Europeans to travel further into the interior of the continent, and many

11
European settlements began as trading posts (Innis 1999; Payne 2004). Many
Indigenous peoples’ traditional territories in northern Canada were sites of fur trade
activity. When we talk about the fur trade, we’re really discussing a period of about 250
years, and this lesson only scratches the surface of that history.

The fur trade doesn’t only describe

exchanges between First Nations and
Europeans. The fur trade also took
place between First Nations groups, as
European goods would travel in one
direction and furs in the other. Many
Indigenous peoples came into contact
with the European trade goods before
they met Europeans themselves (Ray
2015). Figure 7: Scene in the Canadian Fur District (1856); Credit:
Library and Archives Canada, Peter Winkworth Collection of
Canadiana
Beaver Trade

“The Beaver does everything perfectly well, it makes kettles, hatchets, swords, knives,
bread, and in short, it makes everything.” Innu trading captain, early seventeenth
century (Ray 2016, 46).

Traditional Indigenous economies in North America are, generally speaking, largely

based in sharing (Voyageur, Newhouse, and Beavon 2011). In many Indigenous
communities today, this sharing economy is still present but exists uneasily alongside
the market economy. The idea of wealth determined by amassing a lot of material
goods was unfamiliar to most Indigenous cultures. One reason that having a lot of
material possessions wasn’t important to many Indigenous peoples is that it doesn’t
make sense to accumulate a lot of possessions when you move to different areas
following a seasonal cycle. It also doesn't make sense to have some members of your
community go hungry or homeless; every person had value and worth. For Indigenous
peoples before trading with Europeans, fur wasn’t necessarily seen as having value in
itself. Over time, First Nations people would come to see material wealth as something

12
to aspire to. Fur trading included the hides of bear, moose, deer, marten, fox, and
buffalo, but the most important and most valuable commodity was the beaver pelt.

First Nations people valued beaver not only for its fur, but for food as well. After contact
with Europeans, the fur of the beaver became much more important. Beaver fur was the
main way that many First Nations could obtain European goods. To Canada and
northern U.S. prior to the fur trade, beaver populations were plentiful. But in Europe,
over-hunting and the loss of habitat pushed the beaver population to the brink of
extinction (Ray 2016, 54–59).

Beaver fur has two layers — the guard hairs, which are stiff, and the downy undercoat.
The undercoat was excellent for making felt, and ideal for hat making. At this time in
Europe, felt hats were extremely fashionable, and this made the beaver felt in high
demand by Europeans. In the early period of the fur trade, the furs Europeans wanted
were actually the well-worn used pelts that First Nations had already used for clothing.
This was because while wearing these furs with the hair side inward for about a year or
a year and a half, the guard hairs would fall off.

Old winter coats became extremely

valuable, as they would be soft and well
suited for hat making. These beaver
pelts were referred to as castor gras. So,
the used furs that First Nations traded to
the Europeans were essentially less
valuable to the First Nations than the
European goods. In the early stages of
the fur trade, First Nations peoples
Figure 8: Beaver pelts; Credit: Alex “Skud” Bayley
gained a lot from this demand for beaver
furs.

The Montagnais trading captain who mentioned that the beaver “does everything” also
goes on to say, “The English have no sense; they give us twenty knives for this one
beaver skin” (Ray 2016, 56). Trade in beaver pelts in the 17 th and 18th centuries would

13
have been impossible without the cooperation and enthusiasm of Indigenous peoples to
consume European merchandise and products.

The fur trade offered Indigenous peoples unprecedented access to various useful
material technologies of Europeans, particularly metal. Trading old clothing or used furs
gave them access to European technologies and material goods like metal objects such
as needles, pots and kettles, axes, ice chisels, hatchets, knives, and projectile points.
Other goods were traded were guns, bullets, beads, linens for fishing nets, and mirrors.
The only metal accessible before contact was copper, but it was too soft for utilitarian
purposes (Innis 1999).

It’s important to recognize that the fur trade was much more than an exchange of
material goods. It was a time of social and cultural exchange that deeply affected both
Indigenous peoples and Europeans (Frideres 2012; Trigger 1986). It can be helpful to
think about technology in terms of knowledge, instead of just material or physical
objects. Indigenous peoples contributed not only their skills in hunting, but also their
extensive knowledge of the land and ecosystems to the development of the hybrid
economy known as fur trade (Ray 2015).

Phases of the Fur Trade

The fur trade changed the social and economic patterns of Indigenous life. The role of
the First Nations in the fur trade required some adjusting of traditional lifestyles to better
take advantage of the opportunities provided by the fur trade and to serve their own
interests, including acquiring European goods. Indigenous societies incorporated and
adapted to and used European goods in various ways within their own cultural contexts.

Historians identify three or more different phases throughout the fur trade (Innis 1999;
Ray 2015; Ray 2016; Trigger 1986). Over the course of the fur trade, the relationship
between Indigenous and European participants changes dramatically. The first phase is
marked by Indigenous peoples having a great deal of agency. The second phase is
marked by increasing Indigenous dependency on the fur trade. The third phase is when

14
the Europeans gain control of the trade, and negative impacts begin to overtake the
benefits for Indigenous peoples.

France set up colonies and forts primarily

to engage in fur trade, and the French
were able to work with already existing
Indigenous trade networks. As we
mentioned, trade was already very
important in the region, and goods were
traded extensively between Indigenous
groups. The fur trade required close
cooperation with First Nations, and the
French realized it was important to have Figure 9: The Fur Traders at Montreal; Credit: Library and
Archives Canada/Artist: Reid, G.A. (George Agnew), 1860-
good relations with Indigenous nations. 1947

Trade Alliances

The early part of the fur trade is characterized by Indigenous advantage (Ray 2016; Ray
2015). In the 250 years of the fur trade there were several alliances and many shifts in
power and advantage. For example, in the 1600s the French trading connection to the
interior of the continent was controlled by two Indigenous powerhouses, the Algonquins
(Anishinaabeg peoples) and the Wendats, who had a longstanding trade relationship
together. The Wendat would source furs from First Nations groups in regions north and
west of their territory. In turn, the Wendat would trade with the Algonquin traders, who
would be the people to trade directly with the French. Acting as middlemen, the Wendat
traded north for furs with the Anishinaabe and Nehiyawak and deliberately controlled
the French access to these fur resources. This strategy put both the Algonquins and the
Wendat in an incredibly powerful position. It was also beneficial to the French traders,
as they were allowed to stay at Québec, Montréal, and Tadoussac, and the furs were
brought to them. Access to weaponry of the French allowed the Algonquins and Wendat
to successfully defeat enemies in the short term, such as the marauding
Haudenosaunee, particularly the Oneida and the Onondaga.

15
When the Dutch arrived on the scene further south, they became the rival of the French
(Dolin 2011). The Haudenosaunee then aligned themselves with other nations near
them, what was to become the powerful League of Haudenosaunee, or Five Nations
Confederacy comprising of the Mohawk (Kanyen'kehà:ka), Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga,
and Seneca. Remember earlier when the Algonquin and Wendat suffered raids from the
Oneida and Onondaga? Now, this same geographical area had two European nations
present, the Dutch and the French, both eager to make alliances for commercial, land,
and military purposes. The European nations were in fierce competition, so they wanted
to make alliances with Indigenous nations. Forming alliances with Europeans helped
Indigenous nations fight with better weapons and bargain for goods and services, but it
also had negative impacts in the long term (Ray 2016).

Control

The control of the fur trade became threatened as the French began to bypass the
Algonquins to deal directly with the Wendat, and they were successful. This is a great
example of how shifts in trade partnerships and alliances formed and re-formed as
regional resources became depleted and Europeans moved west and north (Innis 1999;
Ray 2015).

After a series of crushing defeats by the League of Haudenosaunee and their English
allies, the loss of people from diseases such as smallpox, the Wendat Confederacy fell
apart. Suddenly, there was a gap left in the trade network that had the French traders
moved westward from their settlements on the St. Lawrence. This led to the
development of a chain of inland forts by the French. The established trading alliances
were destroyed, and there was a struggle to realign the routes into the interior.

The impact of the dispersal of the Wendat included a change in geographic

concentration of the fur trade and a greater influence of the British. A shift in geography
was to more northerly and westerly areas, and this paved the way for the rise of
Hudson's Bay Company (HBC). As the Hudson’s Bay Company built trading posts in the
region, they came into direct competition with the French.

16
Hudson’s Bay Company

The 1670 Charter provided a small group of well-

connected individuals with monopoly rights and
protection by charter from the state. In this sense,
the Hudson’s Bay Company was one among many
European companies that built an extensive
network that engaged in trade, exploitation,
plunder, and slavery. A justification for monopoly
rights was based on the risks to investment
because of the uncertainties of long-distance
trade. The Hudson’s Bay Company was
Figure 10: Prince Rupert reading the charter
established by a group of wealthy English granted May 2, 1670, to the directors of the
Company of adventurers trading into Hudson's
merchants. Then in 1670 the King of England, Bay; Credit: Library and Archives Canada

Charles II, unilaterally granted the Hudson's Bay

Company title to Rupert’s Land, a huge tract of land that included all the lands drained
by rivers flowing into the Hudson’s Bay. This Royal Charter also granted the company
the unassailable right to trade into the Hudson’s Bay. This area, approximately one third
of Native Canada, was renamed Rupert’s Land by the British (Foster, Macleod, and
Binnema 2001).

Almost as an afterthought, the Crown realized that the region’s residents might take
issue with this land transfer and resist. They gave instructions to the local governor,
John Nixon, to discuss the new ownership of land with the local Native leadership. Here
are the 1680 instructions given: “... in the severall [sic] places where you are or shall
settle, you contrive to make compact wth. [sic] the Native captns. [sic] or chiefs of the
respective Rivers & places, whereby it might be understood by them that you had
purchased both the lands and rivers of them, and that they had transferred the absolute
propriety to you, or at least the only freedome [sic] of trade” (Ray 2016, 70).

17
Monopoly

On paper, the Hudson's Bay Company had a monopoly over vast territory, but in reality,
the Hudson's Bay Company only controlled a small area adjacent to the shores of
James and Hudson bays. HBC established factories at the mouths of major rivers
flowing into Hudson’s Bay, providing a convenient route for native traders to deliver furs.
While the company sent explorers inland to encourage more groups to trade, the HBC
did not try to establish inland posts until the 1770s. HBC succeeded as well as it did
because the traditional trade routes to the south had been disrupted with the fall of the
Wendat. The Nehiyawak that lived along Hudson's Bay were looking for trade
opportunities, whereas before they preferred to avoid the Europeans (Ray 2016, 78–
84).

The French also saw the opportunities in the fur trade in the west, so they made efforts
to establish good relationships with the Nehiyawak and other groups in the west. French
traders focused on the interior more because they wanted to cut off Hudson’s Bay posts
from supplying outlying regions by moving inland from Montreal and circling around the
areas of Hudson’s Bay. As a result, the various Indigenous nations became very good
at taking advantage of European interest in alliance and friendship. The northwest
French fur trade network disappeared after France handed New France over to the
British through the Treaty of 1763.

The North West Company (NWC), originally founded in 1779 by a loosely organized
group of traders from Montreal, wanted to crack open the monopoly of the HBC (Gordon
2013). The NWC merged with smaller rivals and extended their trade to the Athabasca
and Mackenzie districts. This was a bold and risky move capitalizing on the rich furs
from the north, and NWC became a fierce rival for the HBC. By 1784 the NWC had
formed a powerful partnership of nine different fur trading groups and built a robust

18
economic entity that openly defied the Royal Charter. The men, many of whom were
experienced Canadien, worked for the NWC and became known as the Nor’Westers.

Emerging Métis

So far, we have discussed the impact on Indigenous populations due to the arrival of
Europeans coming to North America to work in the fur trade and/or settle on the land.
We have yet to discuss one of the most exceptional consequences of European and
Indigenous encounters. As the trading networks grew, HBC men and the French men of
the NWC adopted the trading practices of the
Indigenous population. Securing the economic bonds
and loyalty that came with kinship ties, Indigenous
women and their kin would secure trading privileges
through marriages and long-term relationships with the
newcomers. These bonds were often called “mariage à
la façon du pays,” and, while mutually beneficial, were
not always permanent (Devine 2004).

The offspring of these relationships became known to

the HBC as “half-breeds” or “mixed-bloods,” while the
French called their children “bois-brûlés” or Métis. Little
could have anyone predicted that, through a series of
unforeseen circumstances, time, and human nature,
these relationships would create a new Nation, the
Métis people (Gaudry 2016; O’Toole 2013; St-Onge et
al. 2012).
Figure 11: The New People; Credit:
Sherry Farrell Racette
So far, we have focused our discussion of fur trading
on the east coast. Let’s now move further west and take a look at how the fur trade
affected other First Nations. During the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, unlike the
eastern First Nations, some Indigenous groups had not yet had direct contact with any
Europeans. But due to extensive trading networks, this didn’t stop European goods like
metal and firearms from reaching the Plains First Nations, including the Blackfoot

19
Confederacy, the Siksika, Kainai, Peigan, and Tsuu T’ina. The changing geography of
the fur trade was reflected in tribal movements and economic reorientations to new
environments.

The fur trade gradually moved west with the expansion of Assiniboine and Nehiyawak
into western territories. Assiniboine and Nehiyawak groups arrived on the Plains at the
end of the 17th century and continued expanding west. For Nehiyawak on the Plains
and Parklands, buffalo hunting meant there was less direct dependence on the fur trade
than for Nehiyawak groups eastward and northward. The trading networks of
Nehiyawak and Assiniboine, or Hohe Nakoda, had spread European goods across the
Plains. These people specialized as middlemen. They brought furs to the factory and
returned with trade goods. Some Plains First Nations, especially the Blackfoot, had no
reason or impetus to trade directly with the Hudson’s Bay Company on Hudson Bay. In
the mid 1770s, the Hudson Bay Company expanded into the interior to confront the
Northwest Company, and in so doing, they bypassed these middle men. Naturally, it
was not in the interest of these middle men to lose their economic niche. You can see
how the fur trade expanded already existing trading networks, and so from the 18th and
19th centuries, Indigenous peoples on the Plains also benefited greatly from the fur
trade.

Energy Bars

First Nations of the plain were bison hunters. The Blackfoot became important suppliers
of food for the traders, specifically pemmican, a food made of dried fat, dried meat, and
berries like saskatoons, strawberries, or blueberries. It stored well and provided highly
concentrated nutrition. There were approximately 2,000–3,000 calories in every pound
of pemmican. This food supply literally fuelled the fur trade so that traders could move
northwest into the Athabasca region.

Indigenous women were key to this success, as they were the ones that made the
pemmican and later prepared the hides when the demand for buffalo robes took in the
1850s (Colpitts 2014; Draper 2012). After 1821, the Métis buffalo hunters came to
dominate the supply of pemmican to HBC. Métis bison hunters and their families

20
created a valuable economic niche in
the fur trade economy (Hogue 2015;
Macdougall and St-Onge 2013).

Suddenly in 1811, HBC sold over 74

million acres to a majority shareholder,
Thomas Douglas, Lord Selkirk. This
new invasion, the Selkirk settlement,
lay in the middle of the already
established area called the Red River
Valley where there was a major Figure 12: Pemmican drying; Credit: John Johnston

concentration of Métis people, who had

a thriving economy. This Métis presence also straddled the NWC route and various
forts. The Selkirk settlement land had been designated by Lord Selkirk for dispossessed
immigrant Scottish highlanders to begin new lives in subsistence-based farming
(Bumsted 2008; Ray 2016; St-Onge et al. 2012).

Chief Peguis (William King) ‘To the Aboriginal Protection Society,’ Red River,
1857… We are not only willing, but very anxious after being paid for our lands,
that the whites would come and settle among us, for we have already derived
great benefits from their having done so, that is, not the traders, but the farmers.
The traders have never done anything but rob us and keep us poor, but the
farmers have taught us how to farm and raise cattle. (Thorner and Frohn-Nielsen
2009, 291–92)

The manufacturing and distribution of pemmican became a valuable and essential

staple for many posts, as well as for the Selkirk settlement. Selkirk Governor, Miles
MacDonnell, turned to the local Indigenous populations of Ojibwa and Métis to supply
the new influx of helpless settlers with meat, grease, and pemmican.

The influx of strangers on the lands surrounding and intersecting an already established
Métis Red River settlement created great tension and challenges as the surveyors and
the new settlers did not recognize any Métis claims to the land. As a result, the Métis
and the Nor’Westers became an allied front in their economic and land struggles
against HBC (Bumsted 2008; Foster, Macleod, and Binnema 2001; Hughes 2016).

21
The Pemmican Proclamation of 1814

On January 8, 1814, the Selkirk Governor, Miles McDonnell, in a bid to exercise his
authority over the settlements, issued a decree that would galvanize the nationalistic
aspirations of a new people. The Pemmican Proclamation of 1814 occurred when
McDonnell issued a ban on the export of pemmican or any other provisions. This
development did not go over well with the Métis or the Nor’Westers, who were both
economically dependent on the pemmican. Six months later, McDonnell banned the
running and use of horses on any buffalo hunts. The Métis in particular were already
frustrated and began to resist (Dickason and Newbigging 2015; Hughes 2016; Innis
1999).

Rising tensions between the colony and the Métis and acts of Métis resistance
culminated in the Battle of Seven Oaks in 1816, which resulted in the death of twenty-
one male Selkirk colonists. The Métis success in this conflict contributed to the
development of Métis nationalism, but it was not the last time that the Métis would take
on HBC (Gaudry 2016). Escalating conflict, especially in the Athabasca district, was
costly to both Hudson's Bay and North West companies. Subsequently, economic costs
and political/legal pressures from the colonial office forced these companies to merge in
1821. For the next fifty years, a reasonable stability was maintained in the Hudson’s
Bay Company territory under this monopoly.

Example of Stability
During this competitive period—say, 1783 to 1821—the value of furs tended to go up
while the value of goods declined. These prices were an incentive to over-trap. In order
to maintain profitability, NWC and HBC briskly traded alcohol. After 1821, the newly
formed company had to address the resource shortages created by the fierce
competition, and efforts to manage and conserve beaver populations was made. The
trade in alcohol declined. This monopoly gave HBC greater control over their
interactions with Indigenous producers. While this monopoly allowed for more
sustainable trapping of fur-bearing animals, beginning in the 1850s bison populations
declined largely because of overharvesting (Dolin 2011; Ray 2015; Payne 2004).

22
French traders, by adapting to Indigenous cultures, conducted their trade somewhat
differently than the British. The French went further inland and often pushed the canoe
routes to the edge of the expanding commercial frontier. As a means to facilitate trade,
First Nations hosted the French in their villages and camps during the winter (Dickason
and Newbigging 2015; Gordon 2013).

Rivers were the highways for many Indigenous peoples, which meant that boats were
often the most efficient way to travel. The birch bark canoe is original Indigenous
technology and was an easy way to move goods and materials between trading posts
and communities. Along both the HBC and NWC trading routes, Indigenous people sold
materials like birch bark, cedar root, birch rind, and tar to build and repair these canoes.
The North-West Company's “canoe du nord” which was an enlarged version of this vital
piece of Indigenous technology (Podruchny 2006; Ray 2016).

The merger and consequent restructuring of HBC and NWC in 1821 had several long-
term effects on the Métis and First Nations populations. Without the fierce competition
of NWC, HBC was able to create and enforce strict rules and regulations on hunting and
trapping. During this period, in 1820, Sir George Simpson was appointed governor-in-
chief by London HBC headquarters and acted as HBC head of operations for all North
American trade. Governor Simpson eliminated or restructured many of the expensive
trading practices that had been a critical underpinning of Indigenous trade.

One key change involved the streamlining of the transport systems. York Factory was
the Hudson’s Bay Company’s command center and primary port of entry. Keep in mind
that during the mercantile era, factory meant a place of commerce. For more than two
centuries, York Factory imported trading goods and exported furs, and under Simpson’s
reorganization, its importance only increased. In the interest of efficiency, Simpson
replaced the canoe with the York Boat on major river corridors. The sturdy, locally built
York Boat became the preferred mode of transportation as it could carry larger amounts

23
 Figure 13: York Factory, 1853; Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. R9266-1615
Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana

of cargo, and reduced manpower requirements, although it was a brutal form of work
(Ray 2016; Spraakman 2015, 85).

Over time Europeans adapted to the environment, and the interdependence based on
the skills and knowledge of the Indigenous populations shifted to favour the Europeans.
In a bid to accumulate wealth, HBC made a decision that reverberated throughout
history.

Last Stages of the Fur Trade

Otipemisiwak (literally, people who are their own bosses or freemen) developed in the
fur trade as Métis and others broke away from the consigns of the HBC and NWC. They
became free agents, trapping, hunting, trading and selling furs, and providing provisions
to the posts as opportunities presented. Significantly, these freemen groups lived
outside the authority of the bands (St-Onge et al. 2012; O’Toole 2013).

24
When discussing the effects of the fur trade, we have to remember that different
Indigenous groups experienced the changes it brought in various ways at different
times. The early, middle, and late stages of the fur trade occurred earlier for Indigenous
peoples living in the eastern parts of what is now Canada than for those living in the
western parts. The fur trade as the dominating relationship endured longer in the west
and north than in the east. As we mentioned in the start of this lesson, the early stages
of the fur trade are characterized by Indigenous peoples as crucial and forceful players
in the game. During the middle of the fur trade, Indigenous peoples still had some
influence and control, but as things progressed, the benefits of the trade shifted to the
European sphere of control (Dickason and Newbigging 2015).

The most damaging for Indigenous communities was an economic dependency on the
consumption of European goods. Consumption of these goods required a willingness to
trade or work for wages. This dependency weakened many aspects of traditional
Indigenous economies, and eventually European interests won out. They gained the
upper hand both economically and politically.

By the 1800s beavers were almost hunted to the extinction in many parts of Canada,
and by the late 1800s, the fur trade in the subarctic regions crashed and stagnated.
After 200 years, the problem of overhunting was compounded by declining fur prices on
the London market (Ray 2016).

Coincident with low fur prices, overhunting reduced the availability of bison as a food
staple. The year 1879 marked the end of the plains buffalo economy. A shortage of
bison meant that pemmican ceased to be a readily available economy. This
development contrasts sharply with the situation at the start of the nineteenth century
when the bison population was estimated to be around 30 million bison on the plains.
By the early 1900s, only 1,000 bison were left (Gelo 2016).

Permanent Settlements

The fur trade deeply affected the social organization of Indigenous communities. For
example, many Indigenous peoples over time established themselves in permanent

25
communities near trading posts. This created very different social arrangements than
what they traditionally followed (Burnett and Read 2012).

Health

The increasing population of Europeans and the intense interactions resulted in the
Indigenous populations being affected by disease outbreaks, for which they had not
built up immunity. When the Europeans arrived, they carried germs and viruses, to
which Indigenous peoples here in Canada had never been exposed. Smallpox came
with the French in the early 1600s, and over the next several hundred years caused
catastrophic devastation to Indigenous communities throughout the western
hemisphere. One smallpox epidemic alone ravaged the west coast. It is estimated that
as many as 20,000 Indigenous people, or approximately one-third of the total
population, died (Daschuk 2013).

Conclusion

The takeover of the HBC by the International Financial Society in 1863 signalled the
certain demise of the fur trade and its eventual replacement with an agricultural
economy. Settlers, large-scale immigration, railroads and telegraph lines (the Internet of
the 19th century), and private property drastically altered the regional economy. On the
ground, the diminished possibilities of the fur trade and the perception of pending
changes was the perfect set-up for treaties.

The desperate economic circumstances many Indigenous peoples in western and

northern Canada found themselves in at the end of the fur trade were often those under
which the many treaty negotiations were conducted. You will see that the perception of
the pending changes was a major motive for negotiating treaties with the Canadian
government. The terms of the treaties reflected the only viable economic option for
community survival.

26
 Credits
● Cover Image: Artwork by Leah Dorion; Credit: Leah Dorion; URL: http://www.leahdorion.ca/index.html
● Figure 1. "Classification of Indigenous Peoples of North America according to Alfred Kroeber, English-
language version of map"; Credit: Nikater; License: Public domain; URL:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nordamerikanische_Kulturareale_en.png
● Figure 2. Eulachon (oolichan, candlefish) fishing; Credit: Bella Coola Valley Museum; URL:
http://www.bellacoolamuseum.ca/en/digital_heritage/nuxalk/index.php
● Figure 3. Territories that were at one time or another part of the British Empire; Credit: The Red Hat of Pat
Ferrick (Composed from maps found in Brown, J. (1998). The Twentieth Century, The Oxford History of the
British Empire Volume IV. Oxford University Press. & Dalziel, N. (2006). The Penguin Historical Atlas of the
British Empire. Penguin.); URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_British_Empire_Anachronous.png
● Figure 4. A site of early Norse colonization in L’anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland; Credit: Carlb; Public
Domain; URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carlb-ansemeadows-vinland-03.jpg
● Figure 5. John Cabot in traditional Venetian garb by Giustino Menescardi (1762); Credit: Giustino Menescardi;
Public Domain; URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JohnCabotPainting.jpg
● Figure 6. Dauphin Map of Canada (circa 1543) showing Jacques Cartier's discoveries; Credit: Project
Gutenberg Archives; License: Public Domain; URL:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dauphin_Map_of_Canada_-_circa_1543_-
_Project_Gutenberg_etext_20110.jpg
● Figure 7. Scene in the Canadian Fur District, North America (1856); Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc.
No. R9266-3432 Peter Winkworth Collection of Canadiana; License: Public Domain; URL:
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=
3022501
● Figure 8. Lower Fort Garry: beaver pelts; Credit: Alex "Skud" Bayley; License: CC BY 2.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/; URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexsbayley/7181000316/
● Figure 9. The Fur Traders at Montreal; Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. 1990-329-1/Artist: Reid,
G.A. (George Agnew), 1860-1947; Copyright: Expired; URL:
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=
2836988
● Figure 10. Prince Rupert reading charter granted May 2nd, 1670, to the directors of the Company of
adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay; Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. 1991-35-24; Copyright:
Expired; URL:
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=
2896929
● Figure 11. The New People (1996); Credit: Sherry Farrell Racette
● Figure 12. Pemmican drying; Credit: John Johnston; License: CC BY 2.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/; URL: https://flic.kr/p/2agXvb
● Figure 13. York Factory, 1853; Credit: Library and Archives Canada, Acc. No. R9266-1615 Peter Winkworth
Collection of Canadiana; License: Public Domain. URL:
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayItem&lang=eng&rec_nbr=
3022558

Reference List

Brown, Craig. 2012. Illustrated History of Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Bumsted, J. M. 2008. Lord Selkirk: A Life. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Burnett, Kristin, and Geoff Read, eds. 2012. Aboriginal History: A Reader. 2nd ed. Don
Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

27
Colpitts, George. 2014. Pemmican Empire: Food, Trade, and the Last Bison Hunts in
the North American Plains, 1780–1882. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.

Daschuk, James W. 2013. Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the
Loss of Aboriginal Life. Canadian Plains Studies, 65. Regina, SK: University of
Regina Press.

Devine, Heather. 2004. The People Who Own Themselves: Aboriginal Ethnogenesis in
a Canadian Family, 1660-1900. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

Dickason, Olive Patricia. 2009. Canada’s First Nations: A History of Founding Peoples
from Earliest Times. 4th ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Dickason, Olive Patricia, and William Newbigging. 2015. A Concise History of Canada’s
First Nations. 3rd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Dolin, Eric Jay. 2011. Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in
America. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Draper, David. 2012. “Mmm, Meat Cake.” Field & Stream 117 (7): 36.

Foster, John Elgin, R. C. Macleod, and Theodore Binnema. 2001. From Rupert’s Land
to Canada. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta.

Frideres, James S. 2012. Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. 9th ed. Toronto: Pearson.

Gaudry, Adam. 2016. "Respecting Métis Nationhood and Self-Determination in Matters

of Métis Identity." In Aboriginal History: A Reader, edited by Kristin Burnett and
Geoff Read, 152–63. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Gelo, Daniel J. 2016. Indians of the Great Plains. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, Irene Ternier. 2013. The Laird of Fort William: William McGillivray and the
North West Company. Victoria; Vancouver; Calgary: Heritage House Publishing
Ltd.

Hogue, Michel. 2015. Metis and the Medicine Line: Creating a Border and Dividing a
People. 1st ed. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. UPCC
Book Collections on Project MUSE.

Hughes, Michael. 2016. “Within the Grasp of Company Law: Land, Legitimacy, and the
Racialization of the Métis, 1815–1821.” Ethnohistory 63 (3): 519–40.
doi:10.1215/00141801-3496811.

Ingstad, Helge, and Anne Stine Ingstad. 2000. The Viking Discovery of America: The
Excavation of a Norse Settlement in L’Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland. St.
John’s, NL: Breakwater Books.

28
Innis, Harold Adams. 1999. The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian
Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Kardulias, P. Nick. 1990. “Fur Production as a Specialized Activity in a World System:

Indians in the North American Fur Trade.” American Indian Culture and Research
Journal 14 (1): 25–60. doi:10.17953/aicr.14.1.38033m5812pv6853.

Macdougall, Brenda, and Nicole St-Onge. 2013. “Rooted in Mobility: Metis Buffalo-
Hunting Brigades.” Manitoba History (71): 21–32.

Miller, J. R., ed. 1991. Sweet Promises: A Reader on Indian-White Relations in Canada.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Miller, J. R. 2004. Lethal Legacy: Current Native Controversies in Canada. Toronto:

McClelland & Stewart.

O’Toole, Darren. 2013. “From Entity to Identity to Nation: The Ethnogenesis of the
Wiisakodewininiwag (Bois-Brûlé) Reconsidered.” In Metis in Canada: History,
Identity, Law and Politics, edited by Christopher Adams, Ian Peach, and Gregg
Dahl, 143–204. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Payne, Michael. 2004. The Fur Trade in Canada. Toronto: J. Lorimer and Company.

Podruchny, Carolyn. 2006. Making the Voyageur World: Travelers and Traders in the
North American Fur Trade. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ray, Arthur J. 2015. Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Roles as Trappers, Hunters, and
Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay, 1660-1870. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

———. 2016. An Illustrated History of Canada’s Native People: I Have Lived Here
Since the World Began. 4th ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Report–RCAP. 1996. Federal Government of

Canada Vol. 1. Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC).
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071115053257/http://www.ai
nc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sgmm_e.html.

Smith, Dennis. 2008. “Convergence: Fort Peck Assiniboines and Sioux Arrive in the Fort
Peck Region, 1800–1871.” In The History of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of
the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana, 1800-2000, edited by David Reed
Miller, Joseph R. McGeshick, Dennis Smith, and James Shanley, 41–64. Fort
Peck, MA: Montana Historical Society.

Spraakman, Gary. 2015. Management Accounting at the Hudson’s Bay Company: From
Quill Pen to Digitization. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

29
St-Onge, Nicole, Carolyn Podruchny, Brenda Macdougall, and Maria Campbell, eds.
2012. Contours of a People: Metis Family, Mobility, and History. New Directions
in Native American Studies. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Thomas, David Hurst. 2013. Exploring Ancient Native America: An Archaeological

Guide. New York: Routledge.

Thorner, Thomas, and Thor Frohn-Nielsen, eds. 2009. A Few Acres of Snow:
Documents in Pre-Confederation Canadian History. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.

Tough, Frank. 1996. As Their Natural Resources Fail: Native Peoples and the
Economic History of Northern Manitoba, 1870-1930. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Trigger, Bruce. 1986. Natives and Newcomers: Canada’s ‘Heroic Age’ Reconsidered.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1987. The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to
1660. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press.

Voyageur, Cora J., David Newhouse, and Dan Beavon, eds. 2011. Hidden in Plain
Sight: Contributions of Aboriginal Peoples to Canadian Identity and Culture.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

30