nehiyawak (Plains Cree) Leadership on the Plains
Author: Liam Haggarty
The nêhiyawak (Plains Cree) have produced some of the most famous and revered aboriginal leaders in Canadian history, including mistahi-maskwa, pîhtokahânapiwiyin, and payipwât. These men shaped not only the history of their people, but the history of a nation and a continent. Although they are remembered as extraordinary individuals, they also were part of a culture that encouraged the emergence of such leaders and nurtured their growth. This cultural foundation is integral not only to these three men, but to every leader produced by the nêhiyawak nation. Understanding aboriginal leadership in this region therefore requires engagement with nêhiyawak culture and what it means to be a leader.
nêhiyawak culture is not easily analysed or summarised. As a fluid, ever-changing and evolving set of interconnected relationships and meanings, it cannot be succinctly described or condensed. Even if this were possible, the result would not represent the experiences of all nêhiyawak peoples at any given time, much less through time. That is to say, cultures are complex and multifaceted across both time and space. What follows, then, is a snapshot of nêhiyawak culture as it was experienced by some of its members, and often as reported by outsiders, during the early to mid nineteenth century. Although neither conclusive nor authoritative, this snapshot provides an outline of the world in which the leaders later described lived and prospered.
Three Indians in ceremonial regalia
Okimaw (Band Chief or Leader)
In nêhiyawakculture, chieftainship was earned. Although normally inherited from his father, an okimaw’s son had to demonstrate he was worthy of the position; nothing was guaranteed by birthright. According to anthropologist David Mandelbaum, a certain level of prestige was required to become okimaw, and although chiefly bloodlines accounted for some status, it was incumbent on the individual to accumulate enough prestige to be a recognised leader. Okimaw often were accomplished warriors, skilled hunters, persuasive orators, able executives, and liberal thinkers – these were prestigious traits nêhiyawak people expected of their leaders.1
Of these traits, bravery in combat was perhaps most highly regarded. "One who had not distinguished himself on the warpath could not be chief," Mandelbaum wrote. Some okimaw even acquiesced their power to others who had "outstripped them" in battle achievements. But peacemaking could be an even more courageous act. Speaking with Chief Broken Arm in 1847, American artist Paul Kane recorded that "The highest deed of all was to make peace with a hostile tribe. It required great courage to approach the enemy unarmed…."2
Okimaw also had to be selfless in their caring for the rest of the group. They had to feed and house guests and give freely of their own possessions as a way to recognise the contributions of others and provide for the destitute. In Voices of the Plains Cree, Edward Ahenakew was told by Chief Thunderchild that "There was no selfishness. It is an Indian custom to share with others. That has always been so; the strong take care of the poor; there is usually enough for all." Gift giving was also used to maintain order and mediate disputes by mollifying aggrieved members of the group.3
In Ahtahkakoop, Deanna Christenson provides a detailed description of leadership qualities. According to her research, the ideal band chief was:
"an outstanding warrior acclaimed for his courage, skill, and leadership. He was recognized for his abilities as a hunter, trapper, and provider. His generosity and concern for others were well known, and his skills as an orator were demonstrated during councils with his own band members and in larger gatherings involving a number of bands. Often, he was also a man who had powerful spirit helpers… A successful chief attracted families and individuals from other bands and his camp grew in size.…
A good chief listened carefully when others spoke during council meetings. An outstanding orator, he was able to sway people to his view. As a visionary, he was able to make choices that would ensure survival, and as a realist, he was practical. A strong chief was also able to control the restless young men in his camp. And when a number of bands gathered together, he was among those chosen as spokesmen. In times of war, however, authority was turned over to a war chief who took control of the camp and directed war activities."4
Clearly, this was not a position taken lightly. As Fine-Day, a nêhiyawak elder, told Mandelbaum:
But okimaw were not alone; they received aid from family members and other respected people in the group. Relatives helped okimaw both in the acquisition of wealth and other items of prestige and the duties associated with chieftainship. Because the okimaw was expected to be more generous than anyone else and because he was responsible for housing and feeding visitors, "the chief," Christenson noted, required:
According to Joseph Dion, author of My Tribe, The Crees, "The okimaw or leader of a group or band was always well looked after by his followers. They gave him the choicest cuts of their kill and his larder was supposed to be amply supplied at all times so that he in turn could treat his many visitors to the best."7
Even more important were the contributions made by the leading women. "They made sure their tipis were a suitable size and well equipped for guests," Christenson wrote. "They prepared the food, tanned the hides and furs, made the special gifts, and ensured that the chief and his family were appropriately dressed for their position in the band." Dion recounts how teenaged girls and elderly women did the bulk of the work "setting up camp and errands."8
Beyond the family, okimaw received advice from councils of respected elders, some of whom also served as criers, men who communicated the okimaw’s messages to the rest of the group and made gifts on the his behalf when he was away or unable to do so himself. Criers also ensured that okimaw generosity was recognised by the group as a prestigious act and a form of intangible wealth. During summer months, an okimaw and his council would appoint a camp leader, usually a man with powerful spirit helpers, to select group camp sites. At the other end of the age spectrum, okimaw also received help from young boys, usually orphans or members of impoverished families, who would live with the okimaw, care for his horses, and hunt for him. These young workers were called octockinιkιma.9
kιhtockinikiwak (Worthy Young Men) and okihtcitawak (Warriors/Dancers)
Second to okimaw in leadership importance were kιhtockinikiwak, or worthy young men, and okihtcitawak, or warriors/dancers. Kιhtockinikiwak, many of whom were sons of chiefs, were men who performed valorous deeds in battle and who acted as junior chiefs but had no specific responsibilities. Okihtcitawak, on the other hand, had a number of important duties, including dancing, feasting, providing for those in need, guarding the column of women, children, and old people (as well as their belongings) when the camp was being moved, and preparing corpses for burial. They also policed the buffalo hunt, which meant ensuring individual hunters didn’t begin the hunt prematurely or break any other rule. According to Ahenakew, "Those who were great hunters and could look after many were known as the Providers. They were the captains of the buffalo chase…. In camp, the men who enforced law were greatly respected. They belonged to the society of Dancers…."10
Kahneepotaytayo, Big Bear's Head Dancer
Okihtcitaw were organized into societies, called Warrior’s or Dancer’s Society, and were led by a warrior chief. Unlike the band chief, who was appointed tacitly, the chief of the okihtcitawak was elected by his peers. He was not, however, a war chief nor was he equal in power to the band chief, though warrior chiefs often did rise to that post. According to Christenson, the warrior chief, who was responsible for leading dances and directing the activities of the warriors, had to be a courageous and skilled fighter and wealthy. During gatherings in the Warrior’s or Dancer’s Lodge, age and prestige, symbolised by back-rests, stratified the members with the chief sitting directly behind the fire at the back of the lodge. Beside him were the next highest ranking members and so on, with the lowest ranking ones next to the door. The same arrangement occurred when different groups gathered together. The highest ranking chief would be at the "head" of the circle, directly behind the fire opposite the entrance, with the rest of the chiefs following in ranked order.11
okihtcitawak, therefore, were somewhat more prestigious than kιhtockinikiwak, but the two groups were not mutually exclusive. In fact, most okihtcitawak were kιhtockinikiwak, though some were simply good hunters and wealthy. As Mandelbaum notes, these leaders faced high expectations:
Today, Okihtcitaw (Warrior) now refers to people who are generous or who are recklessly brave.
Together, the okimaw, his family, aides, and councillors, along with the kιhtockinikiwak and okihtcitawak provided leadership in nêhiyawak communities, from family organisation through inter-group cooperation. This leadership structure, however, was never fixed or unchanging. Nêhiyawak culture continually adapted to their changing environments and social contexts. Feast or famine, epidemic disease or population growth, peace or war, climate change, technological advancements, or new trading resources: all these things and the innumerable others like them required a flexible, dynamic culture that could take advantage of new resources just as quickly as it could protect itself from potential disaster. According to John Milloy, nêhiyawak leadership was "a prime determinant in the cohesiveness and longevity of the band."13 In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this adaptability and longevity would be put to the test as prominent nêhiyawak leaders struggled to reconcile tradition and innovation in a changed world.
From this culture developed a multitude of prominent leaders, three of whom are discussed here: mistahi-maskwa, pîhtokahânapiwiyin, and payipwât. Revered by their friends and enemies alike, they defended their people and culture in the face of unprecedented challenges according to the values instilled in them early in life. Although success is difficult to measure, it may be said that each of these men were champions of their culture, pre-eminent examples of nêhiyawak leadership.
mistahi-maskwa (Big Bear)
Chief Big Bear of the Plains Cree
Born circa 1825 near Fort Carlton, mistahi-maskwa was believed to be the son of a nêhiyawak woman and a nahkawininiwak (Saulteaux) chief of mixed nahkawininiwak-nêhiyawak decent named Mukitoo (Black Powder). His spirit power was the Bear Spirit, the most powerful animal according to the nêhiyawak. Although little is know of his early life, he allegedly contracted smallpox around 1837, leaving his face partially disfigured. By the 1860s, he had risen to be okimaw of a small nêhiyawak band but was relatively unknown to European traders and missionaries, choosing instead to live a traditional, autonomous lifestyle. After taking part in the war between the nêhiyawak and the siksikáwa (Blackfoot) in 1870, mistahi-maskwa clashed with Métis leader Gabriel Dumont in 1873 regarding proper techniques for hunting buffalo. By this time, he was the leader of perhaps the largest nêhiyawak band, consisting of approximately 65 lodges.
As a powerful and popular leader, however, mistahi-maskwa could not long avoid the spotlight, and his strict adherence to a nêhiyawak lifestyle produced conflict with anyone who wanted him to live differently. When Hudson’s Bay Company Trader William McKay was sent by the Canadian government in 1874 to gift tea and tobacco to aboriginal leaders, mistahi-maskwa refused, believing they were bribes aimed at facilitating treaties. A year later in reaction to the proposed Treaty 6, he scolded government officials for their tactics, stating "when we set a fox-trap we scatter pieces of meat all round, but when the fox gets into the trap we knock him on the head; We want no bait; let your chiefs come like men and talk to us." When the treaty was finally signed in 1876, mistahi-maskwa refused, warning his nêhiyawak, nahkawininiwak, and Nakota counterparts to "Stop, my friends. . . . I will request [the governor] to save me from what I most dread – hanging; it was not given to us to have the rope about our necks."14
Over the next six years, mistahi-maskwa continued to withhold his signature and became a leader to those dissatisfied with the treaty process. But adherence to a traditional lifestyle was difficult. Land and food became increasingly scarce until mistahi-maskwa finally relented following the near-extinction of the buffalo and a failed attempt to create a pan-Indian reserve in the Cypress Hills. After signing the treaty, however, he remained defiant, a troublemaker in the eyes of the government. He continued to demand better terms from the government and advocated a single large reserve on the North Saskatchewan River for all aboriginal people. He also continued to practice traditional dances and other aspects of nêhiyawakculture, some of which had been outlawed. Again, his popularity as an able leader swelled.
The Rebellion of Half-breeds in Canada under Louis Riel - Newspaper clipping, May 9th, 1885.
Mistahimaskwa -- "Big Bear in chains"
But mistahi-maskwa did not want to go to war with Canada. He would defy the nation’s officials and stand up for his people, but he did not want the fight that some younger members of his band, including his son, called for. When hostilities broke out between Métis peoples and Canada in 1885, his reluctance to join forces with Louis Riel, Gabriel Dumont, and the rest of the Métis warriors provided the impetus necessary for the war chief kâ-papâmahcahkwêw (Wandering Spirit) and the Warrior Society to assume control of the band. Following an unimpressive military campaign, mistahi-maskwa’s band eventually disintegrated after the battle at Loon Lake and the fall of the Métis at Batoche. Although mistahi-maskwa and several other witnesses testified to his attempts to maintain peace and safeguard those most vulnerable, including captives, the old okimaw was convicted of Treason-Felony and sentenced to three years imprisonment at Manitoba’s Stony Mountain Penitentiary. 15 He fell gravely ill, however, and was released from jail shortly before his death in January 1888. He is buried in the Roman Catholic Cemetery on the Poundmaker Reserve.16
Big Bear 1825-88
Born around 1842 to a Stony Indian named sikakwayan (Skunk Skin) and a prominent mother of Métis ancestry, pîhtokahânapiwiyin was a privileged youth. In 1873, this prestige grew when siksikáwa head chief isapo-muxika (Crowfoot) adopted him in memory of a son he lost in battle. For several years, pîhtokahânapiwiyin remained with the siksikáwa and acquired much wealth, including the name makoyi-koh-kin (Wolf Thin Legs). When he returned to live with his nêhiyawak family, he was made a minor okimaw and councillor to pihew-kamihkosit (Red Pheasant). Like mistahi-maskwa, pîhtokahânapiwiyin was weary of the Treaty 6 negotiations but did eventually sign his name. Soon after, he became a okimaw in his own right and continued to hunt the diminishing buffalo herds until 1879 when he finally accepted a reserve at the junction of Battle River and Cut Knife Creek.
Portrait of Chief Crowfoot of the Blackfoot (1880s?)
In 1881, pîhtokahânapiwiyin escorted the Governor General of Canada on a tour from Battleford, near his reserve, to Blackfoot Crossing, where he was born. Extolled by the Canadians as an intelligent leader and peacemaker, pîhtokahânapiwiyin learned much about Canadian society and culture, later stating that "the whites will fill the country and they will dictate to us as they please. It is useless to dream that we can frighten them, that time has passed. Our only resource is our work, our industry, our farms." This approach led him, in 1885, to pursue peaceful reconciliation with the government in the face of famine and destitution, but like mistahi-maskwa, he was unable to dissuade the more militant aspirations of the young warriors in his band. pîhtokahânapiwiyin’s band played a prominent role in conflicts in and around the Battleford area and intended to join Riel’s forces at Batoche prior to their defeat.17
Following the end of the Rebellion, pîhtokahânapiwiyin surrendered peacefully at Battleford and was put on trial for Treason. Defending himself against charges of treason, he spoke of his attempts to stop the violence. "Had I wanted war, I would not be here now. I should be on the prairie. You did not catch me. I gave myself up. You have got me because I wanted justice." But like mistahi-maskwa, pîhtokahânapiwiyin was found guilty and sentenced to three years at Stony Mountain. After spending only a year in jail, he was released due to serious illness and died four months later on the siksikáwa reserve where his adopted father lived. In 1972, the Canadian Government organised a celebration commemorating the life of pîhtokahânapiwiyin.18
Grave of Poundmaker / Last camp of Chief Crowfoot, Head Chief of Blackfoot Confederacy / Grave of Crowfoot - Photographs - n.d.
Canada. Dept. of Indian Affairs & Northern Development-Poundmaker
Portrait of Piapot
Known also as Hole in the Sioux, kisikawasan, and Flash in the Sky, payipwât was born around 1816 near the border separating present-day southern Manitoba from Saskatchewan. As a child, he, along with his grandmother, was taken prisoner by the Sioux and lived among them until being captured by the nêhiyawak in the 1830s. Impressed by his knowledge of Sioux medicine, he received the name payipwât which may translate as "one who knows the secrets of the Sioux." By the 1860s, he had become a highly respected spiritual leader and okimaw of a nêhiyawak band that included many Sioux-speaking people. Like mistahi-maskwa, he showed little desire to cooperate with the HBC or the Métis, leading British and Canadian officials to label him a troublemaker as early as the 1950s.
Facing rapidly declining buffalo herds, payipwât moved his band into the Cypress Hills area, one of the buffalo’s last refuges, after a bloody struggle with a Blood village near preset-day Lethbridge. While there, payipwât missed the Treaty 4 negotiations but did, in 1875, sign what he considered to be a "preliminary" treaty that was to be amended to include more resources and opportunities for his people. The government, however, had not, in the opinion of its officials, agreed to payipwât’s amendments, leading to ongoing misunderstandings about the intent and terms of Treaty 4. Along with mistahi-maskwa, payipwât then turned his attention toward the creation of a large reserve for all nêhiyawak people. Famine, however, forced them out of the Cypress Hills area, with payipwât accepting a reserve for his band at Indian Head alongside the Assiniboine. Life there was difficult, however, and starvation quickly compelled payipwât to move again, this time near Fort Qu’Appelle where he intended to resurrect his plan for a pan-Indian reserve. With the help of mistahi-maskwa and others, the plan seemed to be working until hostilities erupted in 1885.
Although payipwât was not directly involved in the Rebellion, he was labelled as a troublemaker and a traitor by the Canadian government due to his power and influence among both nêhiyawak and Sioux peoples. Nonetheless, Payipwât continued to practice traditional dances, ceremonies, and other cultural expressions outlawed by the government as a way to resist other assimilationist strategies designed to break-up nêhiyawak society and weaken its culture. Despite continued harassment and several arrests, payipwât remained a powerful and respected leader until his death in April 1908.19
nêhiyawak Leadership in Native-Newcomer Relations
One of the greatest challenges faced by nêhiyawak culture and its leaders was the emigration of thousands of Europeans to the lands that eventually would become the Canadian prairies. The first manifestation of this Native-Newcomer relationship was the fur trade, led on side by England’s Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) and on the other by nêhiyawak and other aboriginal leaders. Outnumbered and largely powerless, HBC officials relied on significant cooperation with, and at times dependence on, local indigenous people. Acquiring furs and sustaining immigrant populations in a foreign land thus compelled them to recognise and respect these leaders and their structures that gave them power.20
Images Used: Chapter 2 (A Dying Race):"Gentleman Joe"
To do this, the HBC granted nêhiyawak leaders preferential treatment, "including special gifts and gratuities such as flour, tea, sugar, and other trade goods … [which] they shared … with band members," Christenson noted. "They were also given coats and high silk hats decorated with a broad gold lace band and three plumes of three different colours called ‘coloured cocktail feathers.’ … These garments were known as chiefs’ coasts and were a mark of their rank. Lesser chiefs received scarlet coats." According to one HBC official, "we give to Chiefs and Councillors good and suitable uniform [sic] indicating their office, to wear on these and other great days."21
Mandelbaum, however, noted that this practice also had the potential to disturb traditional leadership patterns if the HBC chose to recognise "peaceful trappers" rather than "troublesome warriors". As Newcomers became more numerous and powerful, they tried to alter the leadership patterns more explicitly as it suited their interests. In the nineteenth century, as the new country of Canada swept across the prairies, disease decimated indigenous populations, residential schools removed aboriginal children from their homes, Indian agents replaced HBC officials, settlers staked "new" land, and numbered treaties displaced aboriginal people from their traditional lands and alienated them from their means of livelihood. Of the many disastrous consequences wrought by this period of history was a challenge to nêhiyawak leadership. On reserves especially, the power of okimaw, many of whom, like Big Bear and Poundmaker, were deposed by the Canadian government, was usurped by Indian agents. Legitimised by the Indian Act, they controlled who travel and exchange on and off reserves and exercised broad judicial powers, and made the position of chief an elected one. 22
According to Dion, this was not the original arrangement:
"At the outset these [nêhiyawak] leaders were to hold office for life. Their title would be "chief" and they were to have a helper or councillor for every 100 people of a following. … A drastic change, however, began to develop as the reserves became burdened with new laws and regulations. The okimaw as chief no longer held supreme command; he was expected by the Indian agent to set an example for his followers, and to adhere strictly to the dictates imposed on all treaty Indians.
As time went by, the poor chief began to realize that he was not the okimaw of old, but simply the servant of all….
The Indians themselves clung to the age old tradition that they could always get what they needed at the okimaw’s. … The chief tried as long as he could to live up to the custom of sacrificing everything for the good of his followers, but the painful result was that he soon went broke. As incredible as it may seem, the grand total of the chief’s salary per annum was $25.
To top off the sad situation, the chief got the blame for his people’s wrong-doings while the credit for their hard-earned achievements went to the Indian agents, who always had the last word….
The title okimaw, once revered by the Cree, was getting to be only a figurehead. Elected leaders came and went so fast that chief became known as okimakan, which means 'imitation okimaw.'"23
Combined with the cultural fractures caused by disease and residential schools and the economic hardships resulting from the slaughter of the buffalo and the end of the fur trade, these political transformations stripped okimaw of much of their power and rendered their traditional leadership structures less effective.24
In the twentieth century, Aboriginal leaders began to organise collectively to combat the negative consequences of Native-Newcomer relations. On the Thunderchild Reserve in 1921, John Tootoosis, a nêhiyawak leader of mixed ancestry, helped organise the League of Indians of Western Canada, one of several prairie-based organisations designed to lead aboriginal resistance. Two decades later, the League merged with the Protective Association for Indians and their Treaties and the Association of Saskatchewan Indians to form the Union of Saskatchewan Indians (USI) with Tootoosis as president. The USI had six overarching goals:
- the protection of treaties and treaty rights
- the fostering of progress in First Nations economic, educational and social endeavours
- co-operation with civil and religious authorities
- constructive criticism and thorough discussion on all matters
- the adherence to democratic procedure
- the promotion of respect and tolerance for all people.
New aims and external political events led to further changes in the second half of the twentieth century. In 1958, USI changed its name to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians which, following the publication in 1969 of the federal government’s infamous "white paper", made land claims and the recovery of other treaty rights its main focus. The white paper, which advocated the termination of aboriginal treaties and rights in Canada, also led to the creation of the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB) which focused more broadly on self-determination and civil rights. NIB leadership has included Saskatchewanians Edward Ahenakew and Walter Deiter, the Brotherhood’s first president. In 1982, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) succeeded the FSI as the political advocate for the collective interests of Saskatchewan’s First Nations. Along with education, housing, and economic development, self-determination and governance remain key issues for the FSIN.25
This history of leadership on the plains testifies to the drastic changes that have enveloped the Nêhiyawak world over the last two centuries and to the significant adaptations required of its leaders and leadership structures. In recent decades, this adaptation has seen nêhiyawak leadership become more bureaucratic and westernised in order to deal effectively with different levels of government in Canadian society. Claims to lands and resources as well as education and religious rights require an extensive network of relationships based on cooperative action and, often, intergroup solidarity. The leadership structure that was in place two hundred years ago was not equipped to handle these situations; change was necessary.
But traditions have not been lost. Leaders today exhibit many of the traits and qualities their forefathers did and the values that made them leaders are timeless. Culture is inherently fluid and flexible, dynamic, and ever-changing. Leaders produced within these cultural contexts, therefore, will continue to adapt themselves and their leadership structures, using both traditional and more recently developed strategies, to meet the needs of an ever-changing world.
14. Quoted in Rudy Wiebe, "Mistahimaskwa", Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 2000 <http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39835> (31 May 2008). For more information on the prairie treaties, see Frank Tough, Jim Miller And Arthur J. Ray, Bounty And Benevolence: A History Of Saskatchewan Treaties (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000). back
15. For more information on the uprising, see Bob Beale and Rod McLeod, Prairie Fire: The 1885 North-West Rebellion (Edmonton: Hurtig, 1984); and Blair Stonechild and Bill Waiser, Loyal till Death: Indians and the North-West Rebellion (Calgary: Fifth House, 1997). back
16. For more information on the life of Big Bear, see Hugh Dempsey, Big Bear: The End of Freedom (Vancouver, B.C. : Douglas & McIntyre, 1984); J. R. Miller, Big Bear (Mistahimusqua) (Toronto: ECW Press, 1996); Stonechild and Waiser, Loyal till Death; and Wiebe, "Mistahimaskwa". back
17. Quoted in Hugh Dempsey, "PÎTIKWAHANAPIWYÎN", Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 2000 <http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=39905> (31 May 2008). back
19. For more information on payipwât, see John Tobias, "Payipwat", Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 2000 <http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=41111> (31 May 2008); and Stonechild and Waiser, Loyal till Death. back
20. For more information on the fur trade, see Arthur J. Ray, Indians in the Fur Trade: Their Role as Trappers, Hunter, and Middlemen in the Lands Southwest of Hudson Bay 1660–1870 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974); Arthur J. Ray and Donald B. Freeman, "Give Us Good Measure": An Economic Analysis of Relations Between the Indians and the Hudson's Bay Company Before 1763 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978); and Sylvia Van Kirk, 'Many Tender Ties:' Women in Fur-Trade Society in Western Canada, 1670-1870 (Winnipeg, Man.: Watson & Dwyer, 1980). back
24. For more information on assimilationist policies of the government and Aboriginal-government relations, see F. Laurie Barron, Walking In Indian Moccasins: The Native Policies Of Tommy Douglas And The CCF (Vancouver : UBC Press, 1997); Sarah Carter, Lost Harvests: Prairie Indian Reserve Farmers and Government Policy (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1990); J.R. Miller, Shinguak’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1996); Milloy, The Plains Cree; Katherine Pettipas, Severing the Ties that Bind: Government Repression of Indigenous Religious Ceremonies on the Prairies (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1994); and E. Brian Titley, A Narrow Vision : Duncan Campbell Scott and the Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada (Vancouver : University of British Columbia Press, 1986). back
25. For more information on twentieth century Aboriginal political organisation, see Blair Stonechild, "Aboriginal Peoples of Saskatchewan", The Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan, (2006) <http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/aboriginal_peoplesof_saskatchewan.html> (31 May 2008). For more information of similar organisations in Alberta, see Dion, My Tribe, The Crees, 172-181. back