Introduction: Indigenous People and Early French Canada
Much of the early history of relations between French colonizers and Indigenous peoples centred on the fur trade. It was a product and trade good within Indigenous societies before contact, and it was one that the French prized. Thus, there was a relationship.
As we saw in our introductory week, Indigenous history before European colonization was far more complex than we had once imagined. That importance would continue long into the settlement period, and typically we mark that significance by the roles Indigenous peoples played in war and diplomacy. But it was equally important in trade, and the fur trade is the best example of that.
Our first lecture picks up one of the themes raised by Salisbury's reading - of the complexity and on-going importance of Indigenous peoples to colonial history - and situates it in what becomes Canada. It's important for us to understand that for much of this early period - indeed, until the early 19th-century - most of what we now call Canada remained Indigenous. Moreover, not only did Indigenous people still control that territory, they still shaped the basic histories unfolding in Canada. Europeans altered that history, but did not fundamentally alter its course. This will change in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (and later still further west). But in the 17th century and much of the 18th, Europeans were walking into existing stories and existing relationships; they were intruders in an ongoing Indigenous history.
Our readings then ask us to look at the fur trade and assess its place in Canadian history. In particular, the readings from Visions ask us to assess the role that Indigenous people played. Approached from that perspective, it's clear that the Fur Trade, though driven in many ways by European markets, was also driven by Indigenous interests.
Reading for this Screencast: Belshaw, read sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5
And in our second lecture, we look at just what that early French empire looked like. There's a lot we can say, but the short answer is that for the first fifty years or so it didn't look like much more than a trading post on the edge of Indigenous territory. As we'll see, the French treated its North American colonies more like commercial enterprises than settlement colonies. That means that the French presence on the land was much lighter, though through trade its reach was much greater. This also dramatically affected their relationship with Indigenous peoples, where compared with the English they had much more balanced, much more favourable relations. The fur trade is at the heart of that relationship.
Lecture: New France as a Commercial Colony: The Fur Trade
Reading for this Screencast: Belshaw, read sections 3.6, 4.3, 4.4, 5.4, and 8.6
This week in our forum we'll discuss chapter 1 from the Visions text: Fur Traders and their Prey
Read only the secondary texts by Krech and White.
Each of these two historians is asking an question (sometimes directly/sometimes implied). Thinking of the two essays together, can you think of a geeneral question that both are asking? Again, maybe they're not asking directly, but an issue that they're both getting at.
The following videos can be watched before or after you do the readings. The first is an on location shoot where I discuss an important Niagara dimension to the fur trade, and offer some sense of how this region fit into the larger fur-trade story. In the second video, I'm joined by Giulia Forsythe from Brock's Centre for Pedagogical Innovation. She's following along with us in the Visions text and has some interesting questions that should help you think about the readings.
QuestionsThis week we have two authors both working on the fur trade, but who treat their subjects very differently and arrive at quite different conclusions. I want you to be alert to four basic considerations:
1st, how does each author approach their topic: What is the question each asks? What is the answer (the argument) each posits?
2nd, the evidence they use: While reading the text, be attentive to when and how each uses evidence. Do you see significant differences in the types of evidence each uses? Does that affect our reading? Is it more/less credible? Explain.
3rd, Agency is a major issue in history, especially histories of non-elite peoples. Agency refers to people abilities to affect their own history. Before the rise of social history, and a tremendous amount of research showing how ordinary people's live did affect history, most histories were about the "great men" (and it really was mostly men!) who "made history". Everybody else was just along for the ride. But social historians have demonstrated clearly - with evidence! - that ordinary people not only made their own history, but very often also affected the bigger story. Who has agency in these stories of the fur trade?
4th, the significance of each viewpoint: This is the "so what?" issue. Why does this matter? What are the implications of this argument? Try to step back a bit from the immediate points each author is making and discuss why, in the bigger picture, each author's perspective might affect our general understanding of colonial Canadian history.