The history of indigenous peoples in Canada is often characterized and described in dialogues that promote the idea that indigenous groups were completely victimized and helpless before colonizing powers, and ideas of indigenous agency and influence in many of the relationships and processes that have come to shape modern Canada have often been overlooked. Our recent discussion of indigenous issues in ASTU correlates very strongly with some of the discussions and readings that we have conducted in our history class, and I was fascinated particularly by a number of arguments and examples brought up in history that compliment our indigenous studies in ASTU and promote ideas of indigenous agency and significance in relationships with colonial powers. Our history class has shown us that indigenous culture has resisted and incorporated Western traditions into itself, a very important argument that contradicts the patronizing notions of victimization and helplessness that many today continue to use when considering indigenous peoples.

When missionaries and other colonial authorities began to interact with the indigenous groups of British Columbia they quickly attempted to assert the Victorian capitalist economy among indigenous groups. However, through a process described in Susan Neylan’s “Longhouses, Schoolrooms and Workers’ Cottages,” indigenous groups adopted aspects of this capitalist economy while retaining their own unique economic system of redistribution. Under missionary and colonial guidance, indigenous peoples were forced to turn over a portion of their fishing catch to colonial companies that would trade and sell the fish in different markets, which aboriginal fishermen and women complied with. However, in addition to this, colonial authorities attempted to instill European market styles and currency in Northwest Coast groups, but these attempts were passively resisted and ignored by many groups, who continued to grant control of their fish harvest to hereditary chiefs who would then distribute the food resource equally to all members of the community, regardless of their wealth or social significance. This resistance of European economic practices demonstrations a measure of indigenous agency and cultural control throughout the process of colonization, contrary to popular belief.

Indigenous groups also approached and understood colonial and Christian values according to their own cultural and social values, demonstrating that these groups were not victimized through the imposition of Christianity to the extent that many consider today. In a further example from Neylan, Christian missionaries would collect funds and use indigenous labour to construct large churches in these communities. While outside observers might view this as strictly Christian imposition and dominance over indigenous peoples, the groups of BC were perfectly content to help the missionaries built these large churches because of certain social and cultural values held by their society. In particular, communities with large, impressive and ornate buildings were able to gain social standing within indigenous groups, a cultural value and practice that had existed long before Europeans arrived at these communities. Indigenous groups used Western knowledge and practices to create large and impressive churches not to serve the interests of missionaries and colonial nations, but to impress, intimidate and increase their social standing with their neighbors, demonstrating that indigenous cultures were far from the helpless, piteous victims that they are often construed as in modern society.

A final example presented by Neylan continues to support the argument that indigenous groups had agency and were not completely victimized by the attempted imposition of Western values into their culture. Missionaries and colonial authorities were keen to transform the appearance and social structure of indigenous communities by altering the style and architecture of indigenous dwellings, promoting and building new Victorian-style homes for indigenous peoples that missionaries and colonists believed would hasten indigenous integration into the “civilized” sector of society. Indigenous groups complied, but only to a degree. Though the Victorian exterior of these new houses was often kept intact, indigenous peoples would renovate the interior of the home as they saw fit, often in keeping with the traditional style of home that included large, open hall spaces for family and community socializing and living. The example of indigenous groups partially complying with Western architectural imposition while changing this architecture as they saw fit to reflect more traditional living and social practices and styles further demonstrates that indigenous peoples had agency and were not powerless victims of colonization.

Indigenous peoples in Canada are often characterized as powerless victims at the mercy of colonial nations, but this belief is unfair and untrue. As illustrated by the three examples taken from Neylan’s article, indigenous groups had agency, and were often able to bend and dictate the application of Western values in their own societies. This story of indigenous power and agency is very important to cultivating an informed and aware understanding of indigenous cultures and issues, and shows us that the relationship between history, culture and society is often far more complex than popular knowledge and belief suggests.