Colonialism’s Currency: Money, State, and First Nations in Canada, 1820–1950

Abstract

Many historians are exploring evidence of Canada’s abuse of Indigenous peoples, contributing to the journey of reconciliation. In Colonialism’s Currency: Money, State, and First Nations in Canada, 1820–1950, Brian Gettler contributes to this body of scholarship by presenting a new interpretation of Canada’s traditional national history. Focusing on how money has been, and continues to be, used by British and Canadian colonial powers, Gettler presents a complex story that forefronts an intersectionality among capitalism, colonialism, and state formation during the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries. He clearly and comprehensibly details the ways in which money provided British and later Canadian colonial powers with the means to disinherit Indigenous peoples of their territory, on the one hand, while strengthening state legitimacy on the other.Based on his doctoral dissertation, Gettler’s Colonialism’s Currency is a meticulous, thorough, and understandable exploration of state-Indigenous relations, specifically in Ontario and Quebec, wherein Indigenous experiences with colonial monetary policy was far from homogenous and simultaneous. Although the introduction is clearly a remnant of rigorous academic training, weighed down by laborious historiography and theoretical discussions (making the book perhaps less interesting for popular crowds), his narrative is nevertheless enticing and naturally leads the reader toward the core of his argument.Beginning with an overview of how money was historically used in the fur trade and later by the Canadian state, Gettler proceeds to demonstrate how monetary policy intersected with official colonial Indian policy. He focuses on three Indigenous communities with distinct historical contexts—the Moose Factory Cree, the Wendat of Wendake, and the Innu of Mashteuiatsh—elaborating on how each (re)purposed money within their respective interactions with colonial fur trading and government institutions. By demonstrating how each community dealt with the transition from beaver money to cash and the tensions Indigenous cash use created with colonial officials and government policy, Gettler’s narrative presents his main argument comprehensively: the ways in which Indigenous societies (re)purposed money in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was fundamentally different from the ways they experienced it in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, due to the symbiotic evolution of liberalism and negative perceptions of Indigenous peoples within the formation of the Canadian state.Using the Department of Indian Affairs Archives, the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, Library and Archives Canada, and the National Currency Collection/Bank of Canada Museum, Gettler effectively triangulates his historical evidence into a well-written narrative, showcasing the complex dynamics present within policy and practice, commerce and government. Gettler’s methodological approach of “bureaucratic colonialism” is particularly insightful as it not only provides a nuanced and complex account of the chaos within bureaucracy and government but also emphasizes the ways in which a law is not always practiced nor always representative of reality. He encourages his readers to question basic assumptions about the Canadian colonial system, its function, and its history—making this monograph a useful tool for university instructors introducing students to Canadian or British colonial history.However, for all its usefulness, Colonialism’s Currency’s biggest failing is that it does not adequately present Indigenous agency, being mostly bereft of Indigenous voices. Considering its sources are mainly colonial in origin, and Gettler foregoes the use of oral history or any community engagement with the Indigenous communities in question, his work presents scarce little of their perspective and relies solely on reading in between the lines and against the grain. Despite this useful methodology, Gettler’s approach results in presenting these communities as homogenous units, omitting women and their role in Indigenous governance for example, instead of exploring their own complex ways of navigating relationships with these colonial institutions. Although he acknowledges that Colonialism’s Currency is not a history of First Nations, including Indigenous voices would have made this work more relevant for reconciliation.Colonialism’s Currency is a good example of a work that translates a complex history containing multiple interlocking variables into an understandable narrative, while also revealing what historians of Canadian history have yet to accomplish to better contribute to the movement of reconciliation.