In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Foreword THE SIX REPORTS COLLECTED IN THIS VOLUME HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN A LAWSUIT FILED by the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians. The Band sued the State of Minnesota to stop it from interfering with hunting, fishing and gathering rights that were guaranteed in an 1837Treaty between Ojibwe Bands and the United States. In that treaty. the Ojibwe ceded nearly 14 million acres to the United States.Article 5 of the treaty contains this promise: The privilege of hunting, fishing, and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied to the Indians, during the pleasure of the President of the United States. This guarantee was essential to the Ojibwe who sold their lands to the United States 160 years ago, and it remains critical to our cultural survival and well-being as we approach the 21st century. In 1983, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that these rights had never been revoked. The case was brought by the Lac Courte Oreilles Band, which is located in Wisconsin, against Wisconsin officials. Because of the central cultural importance of hunting, fishing and gathering to Ojibwe people, the decision was of enormous importance to us. Mille Lacs Band members recall the daywhen State officials made arrests and issued citations to stop traditional net fishing activities in Mille Lacs Lake as the day·the treaty was closed: and many have been unable to pursue the seasonal round of hunting and gathering because of the enforcement of State laws that elevate ·sportabove all other values. The Lac Courte OreWes decision held the promise of reviving traditions that had been suppressed by State intolerance, restoring pride in our culture, and providing a livelihood for our people. Our hopes were soon dashed in Minnesota. The State of Minnesota would not recognize the Lac Courte OreWes decision because the Seventh Circuit does not have jurisdicvii FOREWORD tion over Minnesota. We tried to negotiate, but were given no choice but to file suit in Minnesota to vindicate our rights. We did so on August 13, 1990. In interpreting Indian treaties, the courts consider the historical circumstances, the intentions of the parties, and the implementation of the treaties. We faced a difficult task in conveying our side of the story to the court: the treaty itself, and virtually all of the historical records pertaining to it, were written by non-Indians. These documents help describe the historical circumstances as non-Indians perceived them, and offer insight into non-Indian intentions, but by themselves offer little insight into Ojibwe understanding of the treaties or surrounding circumstances. We turned to ethnohistorians to present a more balanced view; one which would give voice to the Ojibwe in describing historical events. We were fortunate to obtain the services of Professor Charles Cleland, Dr. James McClurken, and Dr. Helen Tanner in this endeavor. Professor Cleland has devoted his academic career to studying the history and the culture of the Native people of the Great Lakes region, including their treaty relations with the United States Government. We asked him to research the circumstances leading to and following the 1837 Ojibwe treaty. His report provides a sensitive account of Ojibwe culture, the seasonal round of hunting, fishing and gathering pursued by our ancestors, and our struggle to maintain our culture and way of life during the treaty era. He takes the historical narrative through an 1855 treaty. in which the Mille Lacs Band received a Reservation on the shores of Mille Lacs Lake as its permanent home. Dr. McClurken, an anthropologist and ethnohistorian, carefully researched and analyzed the history of the Mille Lacs Band from 1855 through the early twentieth century. His report documents the overwhelming importance of hunting, fishing, and gathering to the Mille Lacs Ojibwe, culturally as well as economically; throughout this period. He also provides an account of the unrelenting efforts to force us from our Reservation by those who sought access to its valuable stands of white pine, and our steadfast efforts to retain our homeland. Our refusal to remove-despite decades of fraudulent land transactions and attempts to literally burn us out of our dwellings-earned us the name the MNon-Removal Band of Mille Lacs Ojibwe: Dr. Tanner, who we think of as the dean of Great Lakes Indian history; provides unique insight into the 1855 Ojibwe treaty. and the Ojibwe leaders who were involved in the negotiation of that treaty. Her report allows us...

Share