Abstract

This thesis examines the political relationships established between the Mi'kmaq, Malicite, Passamaquody and British peoples through treaties signed in the 18^th century. Interest in understanding this political relationship has grown as a result of the 1982 Canadian constitution which protects “existing Aboriginal treaty rights” and because of a series of court cases including the Donald Marshall court challenge. This thesis will show that the 18^th century treaties signed in the Maritimes protected two distinct kinds of cultures and economies; one British, the other, Aboriginal. Because of dramatic changes that occurred to the way in which the British organized themselves economically, the traditional Aboriginal economy collapsed and forced the reorientation of the political relationship established through the treaties. Currently, there is a tendency to investigate these treaties from the transformed direction that the political relationship took and not within the original spirit that the treaties were intended. Consequently, many modern explanations consider the treaties in terms of modern economic and political understandings and not in terms of the ideas promoted through the traditional economic practices in place at the time when the treaties were settled. The same is being done with regards to the implementation of these treaties. As will be demonstrated, it is these modern and contested attempts to understand the political relationship established in treaties that gave rise to the Donald Marshall court challenge and underlie the various positions being taken in the fisheries dispute at Burnt Church, NB. Ironically, the Maritime Treaties are being interpreted in a way that encourages the integration of Aboriginal peoples into the modern capitalist mode of production. Hence, the treaties may in fact assist in the dissolution of Mi'kmaq communal life.