The encroachment of the English upon their land became a source of great hostility among the indigenous peoples of North America. In an effort to resolve this issue, King George III issued the Proclamation of 1763 – which drew an imaginary line along the crest of the Appalachian Mountains from Nova Scotia to Georgia. Subjects in the colonies were forbidden from settling west of this line unless purchased by the Crown. Settlers could only legally obtain land through negotiations with the indigenous peoples. As one historian explained, “Notwithstanding the Royal Proclamation’s stated intent and purpose, George Washington characterized it as a temporary pacifier to ‘quiet’ the natives”1. George Washington was indeed right as the boundary was pushed even further just five years after the Royal Proclamation. In 1768, the Indian Boundary line was established as the new boundary line. Located further westward than the original Proclamation line, this new boundary gave the natives significantly less territory2.

Since the Proclamation required lengthy negotiations, it slowed the English settlers’ movement west. Thomas Jefferson stated this to be one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. It was initially “…drafted to deal with the aftermath of the Seven Years’ War and the transfer of extensive French and Spanish colonial territories to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris, 1763”1. The Proclamation is a complex document with four parts; some relate to newly ceded territories, while others discuss the existing colonies. The first part of the Proclamation of 1763 states that portions of the newly acquired French and Spanish territories were to be made into British territories. These newly established colonies were Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada, with other parts being left to existing colonies or the state. After establishing these new colonies, the Proclamation announced the expansion of old ones. The second part focuses on the constitutions of the newly established colonies; these constitutions follow the Law of England. The areas lying beyond the boundaries of Quebec contained the Indigenous peoples who were able to make their own laws. The third part differs from the first two, as it does not refer to land ownership and the way things are run. It offered free land grants to the officers and soldiers that served in the Seven Years’ War. Finally, the fourth and longest part of the Proclamation of 1763 contains detailed measures pertaining to Aboriginal people and their lands1.

Though Colin Calloway, a British historian, refers to the Proclamation as “…the Indian ‘Bill of Rights,’” scholars argue whether it supported or undermined the indigenous peoples3. Repeated references to the Crown’s sovereignty and dominion throughout the document make it clear that the Proclamation of 1763 gave Indians a scarce measure of control when it came to native matters. Unfortunately, this pattern continues throughout history; Berger notes that the Proclamation’s “...procedure for the purchase of Indian land was the basis for the treaties of the 19th and 20th centuries"4. Since it was issued in 1763, courts in both the United States and Canada have modeled their treaties after the Royal Proclamation.

Image: http://data2.archives.ca/e/e097/e002418682.jpg Caption: British colonies in North America.

Citations:

1. Jim Aldridge, Keeping Promises: The Royal Proclamation of 1763, Aboriginal Rights, and Treaties in Canada, ed. T. Fenge. Mcgill-Queen’s Native and Northern Series, 78. (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015), 4-17.
2. Eugene M. Del Papa, "The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Its Effect upon Virginia Land Companies," The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83, no. 4 (1975): 406-407.
3. Colin G. Calloway, The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America. Pivotal Moments in American History. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006), 96-97.
4. Thomas Berger, “Native Claims,” in Northern Frontier Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1988), 165.

The James Bay Agreement was signed by the Cree and Inuit in November 1975 and is the only “comprehensive land claim” that covers an area where provincial governments control lands and resources1. The Crees had been living and trading furs east of James Bay since the early seventeenth century. Their economy was based off of hunting, trapping, and fishing, which was regulated by dividing the land into hunting territories. By the 1960s, provincial governments gained more of a presence in the Cree territories. The Cree continued to live in their homeland despite the fact that these “white” men made most of the decisions regarding politics and the way their communities were to be run. This takeover and disregard of Aboriginal rights caused a lot of unrest and frustration for the Crees.

In April of 1971 the Québec Premier Robert Bourassa announced the James Bay project, a hydro-electric development project in northern Quebec, without the consent of the Crees or consideration of basic land rights2. Infuriated, Cree and Inuit leaders went to court and, after 71 days of testifying, successfully postponed the project. Justice Albert Malouf ruled that the hydro project posed a threat to the Cree and Inuit cultures and way of life. Unfortunately, this ruling only lasted ten days and the James Bay project proceeded. As a result of Malouf’s initial decision in favor of Aboriginal land rights, a negotiation was made to benefit the indigenous peoples. Bourassa submitted an offer in 1973 that was eventually signed in 1975 after much consideration from the indigenous. Berger explains that “Under the James Bay Agreement, the Cree and Inuit of Northern Quebec have agreed to surrender their aboriginal rights…in return for cash compensation and for a land regime that gives them specific interests in three categories of land"3. The Cree and Inuit decision to secede their land has been attributed to them having no other option or choice in the matter. It was figured that the project was going to continue whether they agreed to it or not. The indigenous peoples received some power in the Agreement but their rights were essentially “subordinate to other public priorities”1.

Most of the region attained by the James Bay Agreement became category III lands – lands that were used for development. All of the lands and resources in category III belonged to Québec, but the indigenous were able to offer their opinion in the development of these lands. They also held exclusive rights to certain species of fish and animals and were able to continue harvesting. Category II lands allowed Native harvesters to hunt, trap, and fish with no outside competition from non-indigenous. However, the Cree and Inuit did not own any of the natural resources in these lands as they belonged to the Québecers. Lastly, Category I land was land that was essentially under Native control, though Québec still had ownership of mineral and development rights. Québec effectively asserted their dominance in what was previously known as Cree territories, and were able to prioritize hydroelectric and natural resource development1. While the structure of the James Bay Agreement allowed for input about land use from the Cree and Inuit, this input could be equated to mere consultation. The James Bay Agreement did not give the indigenous peoples as much influence as promised, which has become a common pattern throughout modern treaties4.

Image: http://data2.archives.ca/e/e431/e010767693-v6.jpg Caption: James Bay celebrating initial court victory with lawyers Max Lituack and James O’Reilly.  

Citations:

1. Paul Rynard, “Ally or Colonizer?: The Federal State, the Cree Nation and the James Bay Agreement,” Journal of Canadian Studies 36, no.2 (2001): 8-14. https://doi:10.3138/jcs.36.2.8.
2. Evelyn Pinkerton, Co-Operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2014), 190.
3. Thomas Berger, “Native Claims,” in Northern Frontier Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. (Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1988), 177.
4. Martin Papillon and André Juneau, eds. Aboriginal Multilevel governance. (Canada: The state of the Federation, 2013. Montreal: Institute of the Intergovernmental Relations, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015), 84.

Steinbeck groups the Western states together in one entity that feels and experiences the same nervous energy, like that of horses. The repetition of this idea throughout Ch. 14 serves to underscore the unity of these states as a single group separate and distinct from the rest of the country.

Sounds like a very quick summary of what Ben Thompson was saying two weeks ago. But, in this case, it’s from “the horse’s mouth”.

Guest users in Moodle - can we make it easier to get them into the space to engage with students? No more boring forums when the community members or guest speakers in a f-2-f class can contribute. What about a Google form for requests? Is there a way to limit guests to only one forum?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vpDIobFALk Jeremy Werner Anja Glumicic Hawken Paul Mark Chipollo

Amazon Kindle Unlimited has a serious problem with scammers.

The unusual data released strategy involving crowdsourcing on twitter, is discussed in more detail in this blog http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/gigablog/2011/08/03/notes-from-an-e-coli-tweenome-lessons-learned-from-our-first-data-doi/

Source: http://compositionforum.com/issue/32/wagner-fig2.png

Maria Konnikova also cites a 2014 study in a New Yorker article on this topic that concludes by offering annotation as a kind of deliberate, slow online reading practice. (Note: the article has been annotated by two sets of college students!)

Very interesting. So an intentional online reading practice--fortified, let's say, by a collaborative annotation tool--might produce different results...

Love this line!

very important.....relevant to thesis

Another way to say that, as they can be printed, e-books are not e-lit, even if they have never been published on paper, but just Digital Literature, isn't it?

So, how would it be considered if I for example use pencil and paper to write down poetry or anything and then I type my diary entries into an electronic device for it to be displayed in digital platform such as a blog? Is it considered to be "born" on paper? Or is it considered to be "e-lit" because despite of the paper based start, it was thought to be published in a digital media?

By adding the absolute word "cannot" (though softened perhaps a bit by adding "meaningful way"), this seems a narrower definition than the previous one, which I'm fine with.

BTW, if this e-lit course is held a second time, you'll have to find new pages to annotate, as these ones have already slowed to a crawl with all the multiple highlights over the same text. I hope the devs of Hypothes.is are watching!

Well the definition of e-lit is quite determined in this sentence. - However in order to get used to this saavy app (hypothesis platform) I'm going to descrive with my own words what I got from this definition-

Apparently e-lit has to do with the literary aspects and connections made between several interactions of liteature and technology (for what I get, standard books may also apply here) where sometimes it may ne regaldless of human intervention.

Also, I think this has to do with the "computing" devices, within mechanisms and systems that may be also the way we as humans construct reallity and other things though language and literature. This reminds me of some Foucault's theory about how a single word may be considered as a discoursive device in a complex mechanism interacting with several systems in a society o so...

What's really interesting is that the human intervention may not be required after all to consider the creation and acknowledgment of a literary work.

Confrontation with technology as a way to elaborate and create literature differs widelly from just using tecnological devices to display literature.

"important literary aspects"... sounds very subjective

I find this list a bit vague... It felt like a "to-do" list so vague that it reminds me more of "analog-lit" really... "Interactive fiction"? Can't a paper book be interactive...?

So not only were these early e-lit efforts probably created using non-open software, they were distributed using now-obsolete physical media? I hope someone somewhere has backed them all up to modern formats and media.

Adding text to a highlight makes it a note (and gives you the chance to make it public), whereas highlights default to private I think).

Test

There's more than confidence here. Makes a good target for rhet analysis, from the genre (what is it? manifesto? statement of belief?) to arguments based in sentence style. Lots of diexsis from the very beginning. Appeals to foundation myths. Direct address to the reader as you ... very complex and very suspect, especially the ethos.

Consider the rhet sit here. Lots of variables, as how did the reader get here - by search or accident (search), on what kind of device is she working, the possible goals - as this seems a goal driven situation.

Im Blog des Projektes Fu-PusH nimmt Ben Kaden auf diese Passage Bezug und reflektiert die angesprochene Polarisierung hinsichtlich der Publikationspraxis in den Geisteswissenschaften: Warum der allgemeine E-Book-Markt für Fu-PusH relevant ist.

Full e-books on Perl

Visions and desired scenarios for the future of creative e-publishing industry. Technology trends and signals.

The CRe-AM Initiative (Creativity REsearch Adaptive roadMap, www.cre-am.eu), an FP7 Project funded by the European Commission aiming to bridge communities of creators with communities of technology providers and innovators, launched a survey aiming at collecting visions and desired scenarios for the future of the creative e-publishing industry. Please share your visions and expectations by answering to the 10 mins survey at http://www.dat.demokritos.gr/limesurvey/index.php?sid=84433&lang=en

Share your visions and desired scenarios for the future of the creative e-publishing industry. Invest 10 mins of your time to fill the survey at http://goo.gl/oD0pjJ. The survey is part of the work of the CRe-AM Initiative (Creativity REsearch Adaptive roadMap), an FP7 Project funded by the European Commission aiming to bridge communities of creators with communities of technology providers

open standards allow small players to enter the competition!