Over the course of our history in the Pacific Northwest, there have been various cultural expectations that have influence the encounters between various groups of northwest people. The Mexican born Spanish people, British and Native American people have encountered each others’ cultural differences for several centuries.

Image via Wikipedia

According to Weber (1998), the Spanish, mostly from Mexico were “the first non-Indian settlements in the region. Many of them resided on Vancouver Island and in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Research suggests that relations between the Spain and Britain have improved over the years. There was a plaque in Vancouver that read;

“It was dawn for Britain, but twilight for Spain”…King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia of Spain spent several days in Vancouver. In anticipation of their visit, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada removed the plaque and replaced it with a new one designed to give no offense to Iberian sensibilities. The Board had thoughtfully removed the words “dawn for Britain, but twilight for Spain” (p. 1).

Weber (1998) claims that Spain’s fall from power had minimal influence in the shaping of the Pacific Northwest territories. Spain lost land claim rights to England, France, Russia and the United States, but never the less was the first non-Indian settlers to inhabit our region.

With various diverse cultures came misunderstandings and conflicts. Schwantes (2006) claims the Nootkas tossed features into the water and paddled their boats around ships. Unfortunately, the Europeans thought this was a “sign of hostility” (p.26)…”

Euro-Americans also had difficulty grasping the fact that many Indian cultures had no set territorial boundaries. Tribes had concepts of territory, but their idea of the “ownership” of village, hunting, and berry-picking sites were very different from that of Euro-Americans. In traditional times, land was sacred to the natives, something never to be actually owned, although human occupants might serve as its guardians or custodians. Herein too lay the seeds of misunderstanding and conflict when Indians signed treaties with whites (28).

Image by Jeff Kubina via Flickr

Europeans did not understand the idea of giving away possessions. This is what a Potlatch is about. However, the potlatch was outlawed by Canada until 1950’s.

Most of the misunderstandings between Indians and European whites were over treaty agreements in part due to communication barriers. Schwantes (1996) claims that Native Americans had great distain over the end results of the treaty and warfare erupted on both sides of the Cascade Range in the mid 1850’s. Some treaty provisions dealing with fishing rights remained unaccepted by whites for more than a century. Meanwhile, Stevens won election in 1857 as Washington’s delegate to Congress and like his friend and fellow delegate to Congress and, like his friend and fellow delegate, Joseph Lane of Oregon, plunged into national Democratic Party affairs…Trouble arose from a number of sources: Indians utterly unacquainted with agriculture found the transition from a hunting and gathering way of life difficult; greedy federal grants occasionally pilfered or redirected supplies intended for the Indians; and white miners and settlers continued to encroach on Indian lands (p.127). Stevens forced Indians to relinquish title to the land in exchange for the retention of fishing rights and for various federal allowances or annuities.

Schwantes identified and characterized four phases of Indian-white relations. According to Schwantes (1996) “The first, a time of generally peaceable contacts between equals, dated from early maritime exploration until the Whitman tragedy of 1847. For the fur traders and trappers, Indians often provided a labor force and served as sources of supply in a complex economic system. Petty misunderstandings occasionally erupted, and led to violence”…

The second phase involving three decades of conflict lasted from the Cayuse War of 1848 until 1879, when the U.S Army routed a band of Shoshonis known as Sheep-eaters. By that date most of the region’s Native Americans were confined to reservations. During the third phase, Indians became a colonized and beleaguered people, confined to shrinking and increasingly undesirable land (pp. 144,145).

The fourth phase of Indian – white relations was a time of contradiction and of white recognition of Indian rights coupled with the Indian’s growing pride in their own heritage. That phase began when Congress granted U.S citizenship to Indian people in 1924), and it continued with Indian Reorganization Act (known as the Indian New Deal) of 1934.”

Two of the biggest issues “that lay at the root of Indian and White violence between 1847 and 1879” according to Schwantes (1996) are land and precious metals. Whites were greedy for both, and too often that meant their crossing, digging up, or appropriating Indian lands.”

According to Hale (1993) states the difference between Indian ethnicity in America and other ethnic groups as:

I told them how I’d often heard non-Indians say that they didn’t understand why Indians make such a big deal out of a cultural retention. Why not be like other Americans? Like the Irish or Italian communities for instance, who have a big Saint Patrick’s day or Columbus Day celebrations once a year and then, for the most part, forget about their ethnic identities. The most important difference is this: if Irish or Italian cultures die in America it really isn’t that big of a deal. They still exist in Italy or Ireland not with us. There is no other place. North America is our old country. And you kids, you are the future of our people” (p. xx). Hale (1993) claims the family ties are much stronger with most Native American families. Other generational ethnic groups are more willing and hoping to see you fail during the hard times. Family traditions and cultures got passed down from generations to generations. However, some traditions are dysfunctional, but are passed down unintentionally. Hale (1993) believes that her culture’s ties are stronger than other culture due to that is all the family they have. However, Schwantes (1996) claims tribes did not always get along. Some tribes band together and established a chief elder or someone highly respected or the wisest in the tribe. Some refused to take orders all together.

Also see A Piece of Local Military History http://socyberty.com/history/a-piece-of-local-military-history/