A skilled game of exchange : Ojibway fur trade protocol / Bruce M. White.

A Skilled

Game

Exchange

Ojibway

Fur

Trade

Protocol

Bruce M. White

HEN Indians and white traders exchanged

furs and manufactured goods in the fur trade,

each brought a set of expectations to the transaction.

These expectations have usually been characterized as

two fundamentally different motives for human ex-

change. According to this theory, traders wanted un-

limited material gain or profit. Indians, including the

Southwestern Ojibway in the 18th and 19th centuries,

acted under the belief that members of society should

share the products of their labor with relatives, friends,

and strangers. Some theorists characterize these differ-

ences as a dichotomy between economic (or "rational")

and noneconomic (or "irrational"). A basic problem of

the trade, it is suggested, was to reconcile these seem-

ingly different viewpoints.'

This dichotomy between a desire for profit and a

material concern for others, however, is simplistic.

Traders were not always motivated exclusively by per-

sonal profit, especially in regard to their own Indian

and white relations. It can also be argued that in obey-

ing the injunction to share their catch, their game, and

their harvest, the Ojibway were in a very real sense

pursuing self-interest, yet in an Ojibway material and

cultural context.-

Such a paradoxical statement is based in part on

certain realities of Ojibway life. Despite their well-

developed skills in hunting, fishing, agriculture, and

the storage of food, the Ojibway had to cope with an

uncertain food supply brought about by the vicissitudes

of disease, climate, and luck. Also, the need for

mobil-

' See, for example, E. E. Rich, "Trade Habits and Eco-

nomic Motivation among the Indians of North America," Ca-

nadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26 (Feb.,

1960):

44; Carolyn Gilman et

al..

Where Two Worlds Meet:

The Great Lakes Fur Trade (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical

Society, 1982), 5, 51. For their advice and criticism, the au-

thor would like to thank Ann Regan, Curtis L. Roy, Louise

Dechene, Helen H. Tanner, John Carl Hancock, and John

Fierst. Special thanks go to Mary Whelan for her help in

revising the final manuscript. Research on this paper was

made possible in part by a Phillips Fund Grant in American

Indian Ethnohistory from the American Philosophical Soci-

ety, 1983. Some of the ideas proposed in the paper were gen-

erated during a Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) Charles

E. Flandrau sabbatical in

1980-81.

An earlier version of this

article was presented as a paper at the Algonquian Confer-

ence,

Duluth, 1984.

Jennifer S. H. Brown, Strangers in

Blood:

Fur Trade

Company Families in Indian Country (Vancouver; Univer-

sity of British Columbia Press, 1980), 33, 36.

Bruce M. White is a writer on the fur trade and Minnesota

culture and a graduate student in anthropology at the Uni-

versity of Minnesota. This article continues his probe of inter-

cultural relations and perceptions in the fur trade, begun in

the Summer, 1982, issue of this magazine.

Summer 1987

229

itv imposed limitations on a family's accumulation of

food and material goods."

When Ojibway hunters were successful, they had

two major alternatives. They or others in their family

could dry and store the extra meat for their own future

use.

Or they could store that food in a nonmaterial way

by giving it to others. In giving food Ojibway people

made an investment in long-term goodwill and helped

to assure their own future well-being.

The Ojibway process of sharing thus resulted ulti-

mately in furthering self-interest. To paraphrase econo-

mist Adam Smith's classic statement about the

self-

interest of the capitalist and the good it does for society

in general, we may say that the Ojibway hunter, in-

tending only to pursue the good of others, was led by an

invisible hand to promote his own good more effec-

tively than when he really intended to promote it.'

There were many examples of what might be called

self-interested gift giving in Ojibway life, not all of

which correspond to the definition of investment

known in a market economy. The hunter who gave a

feast to honor the spirit of a bear that he had killed did

so in part because he believed that he must show the

proper appreciation to the bear spirits who had

"pitied" him. In taking leaves from a medicinal plant,

an Ojibway woman placed a bit of tobacco around the

root of that plant as a proper return to its spirit. These

examples, which whites might call superstitious or

wasteful, were, for the Ojibway, rational expressions of

self-interested investment in future well-being. Fur-

thermore, they reflect the basic reciprocity with which

the Ojibway approached their relations with others."

Ojibway leaders were often described as being gen-

erous:

they shared whatever goods they had. For their

generosity they received the goodwill, loyalty, and

sense of obligation of followers. All of these things

helped the leaders retain their base of power. Ethnog-

rapher Johann G. Kohl's figurative evaluation, though

perhaps an overstatement, is apt: "A man who lays up

such capital in the hearts of his followers is thence

much richer than if he had all the wares under lock and

On the uncertainty of the Ojibway food supply, see, for

example, Edwin James, ed., A Narrative

ofthe

Captivity and

Adventures of John Tanner (Reprint

ed..

New York: Garland

Publishing Co., 1975), 68. On food storage techniques, see

Peter Grant, "The Sauteux Indians about 1804," in Louis R.

Masson, Les Bourgeois de la Compagnie du Nord-Ouest 2

(Reprint

ed..

New York: Antiquarian Press Ltd., 1960): 330.

Some of the arguments here and below were also made by

Daryll Forde and Mary Douglas in "Primitive Economics," in

George Dalton, ed., Tribal and Peasant Economies: Readings

in Economic Anthropology (New York: Natural History

Press,

1967), 15, 24.

"By preferring the support of the domestic to that of

foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by

directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may

be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he

is in this as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to

promote an end which was no part of his intention. . By

pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the

society more effectually than when he really intends to pro-

mote it." Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and

Causes

ofthe

Wealth of Nations 1 (Hartford, Eng.: Cooke &

Hale,

1818); 319.

See Bruce M. White, " 'Give Us a Little Milk': The

Social and Cultural Meanings of Gift Giving in the Lake

Superior Fur Trade," Minnesota History 48 (Summer, 1982):

63.

THE MINNESOTA FUR TRADE COUNTRY

Upper Mississippi. Red River, and

Lake Superior Regions

230 Minnesota History

key. In case of need, all his followers blindly obey his

orders.""

It was in this Ojibway socioeconomic context that

the Lake Superior fur trade operated, a fact which

explained the large-scale gift giving of fur traders. Fur

trade gift giving was a financial investment in the good-

will of the

Ojibway—in

economic terms an intangible

asset comparable to a modern company's investment in

advertising and salesmanship. When seen in this light

fur trade methods resemble modern business practices;

particularly in automobile marketing, in which a vari-

ety of dealerships compete in providing virtually iden-

tical products. An auto dealer in the Twin Cities, for

example, sponsors weekly advertisements of his low

prices and generous credit terms. These broadcasts fea-

ture music, offer free hot dogs, popcorn, and balloons

to those who come to look at cars, and promote worthy

charities and a crusade designed to convince people to

fly the American flag more

often.'

What do these gifts, this music, and these an-

nouncements have to do with the price of cars? Like the

jovial, friendly tone in which the announcers present

the ads, they are designed to create goodwill by con-

vincing the potential customer that the dealership is

operated by honorable, generous, and patriotic people.

These gifts, then, like those given by fur traders, are not

simply a way of lowering the price of cars in a competi-

tive situation. Their role was explained by economist

Thorstein Veblen: advertising employs tangible assets

"with a view to creating a certain body of

good-will.

The precise magnitude . . . may not be foreseen, but,

if sagaciously made, such investment rarely fails of the

effect aimed

at—unless

a business rival . . . should

outmanoeuver and offset these endeavors.""

In giving gifts the trader was investing in an intan-

gible asset defined in Ojibway

terms—an

asset that

would in the long run help him obtain the ends he

sought. Gifts and the meanings attached to them

functioned as a means of differentiating among the

al-

Kohl, Kitchi-Gami: Life among the Lake Superior

Ojibway (Reprint ed., St. Paul: MHS Press, 1985), 66.

Such advertising may be heard every Saturday morning

on WCCO Radio in the Twin Cities.

Veblen, The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation

(New York: Russell and Russell, 1961), 367.

Levi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship

(Revised ed., Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 54.

Kohl, Kitchi-Gami, 130.

For a discussion of the Ojibway attitudes toward gift

giving, see White, " 'Give Us a Little Milk,' "

60-71.

Here and two paragraphs below, see Alexander Henry,

Journal, 47-48 (Aug. 21, 1800). Citations refer to an 1824

transcript of the journal in the Public Archives of Canada,

Ottawa. An altered version, edited by Elliott M. Coues, was

first published in 1897 as New Light on the Early History of

the

Greater

Northwest (Reprint ed., Minneapolis: Ross and

Haines, 1965).

most identical goods provided by competing compan-

ies.

If all went well the trader made a profit from the

sales of his furs. With this, the trader supported his

family and relations. He could also convert his profits

into further influence and further goodwill in the In-

dian community. Thus, fur trade capital took many

forms,

both tangible and intangible.

BENEATH the unfamiliar terminology and cultural

specifics of the fur trade lie fundamental principles of

motivation and salesmanship that express themselves in

a variety of ways in many cultural and historical con-

texts.

Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss summarized

these principles when he described the power of tangi-

ble objects to communicate human thoughts and emo-

tions:

"Goods are not only economic commodities, but

vehicles and instruments for realities of another order,

such as power, influence, sympathy, status and emo-

tion; and the skillful game of exchange . . . consists in

a complex totality of conscious and unconscious ma-

noeuvres in order to gain security and guard oneself

against risks brought about by alliances and rivalries.""

In the fur trade among the Southwestern Ojibway

these conscious and unconscious maneuvers took the

form of a pattern of social exchange. The trader at-

tempted to do business by adhering whenever possible

to the cultural values and etiquette of his potential cli-

ents and customers. These values and etiquette dictated

a kind of diplomatic protocol which structured the

trader's year. As J. G. Kohl remarked, "[I]t may be

conjectured that a trader can only be successful

through caution and exercise of tact. I have been told,

and have indeed remarked it, that association and diffi-

cult negotiations with the Indians have produced fa-

mous diplomatists among these traders."'"

The chief triggering mechanism in this trade proto-

col was gift giving. Gifts could help establish a business

tie in Ojibway

terms—a

trusting relationship resulting

from a metaphorical

kinship—through

which trader

and Indian overcame the potential hostility of stran-

gers.

Whenever gifts were given they invoked or rein-

forced these symbolic meanings. But it was not just the

exchange that was important. The way in which gifts

were given and the way their presentation was tied to

the exchange of furs for merchandise made possible the

smooth operation of trade."

The journal of one British fur trader offers a com-

plete picture of this protocol from a European point of

view. Alexander Henry, the younger, a trader with ex-

perience in the Lake Superior area, was sent by the

North West Company to operate a post among the Red

River Valley Ojibway. In August, 1800, Henry and his

employees met the Ojibway at the mouth of the La

Salle River [Manitoba], where he had agreed to take

part in the first

gift-giving

ceremony of the

fall.'^

Summer 1987

231

PAINTING thought to be Alexander Henry the younger

Henry resisted giving gifts until all the local Ojib-

way were brought together. When the group was as-

sembled, two men gave Henry part of the meat of a red

deer and "some wild fowls." Henry then gave presents

to each of four chiefs who had influence with the peo-

ple of the community. These presents were especially

designed to show off the status of the leaders: scarlet

laced coats, laced hats, red feathers, white linen shirts,

leggings, breech cloths, and flags. To top it off Henry

gave each leader one fathom of tobacco (formed into a

kind of rope) and a

nine-gallon

keg of rum.

To the rest of the group he gave three kegs of mixed

liquor containing nine quarts of high

wines—a

concen-

trated form of

alcohol—per

keg, and a gift of four

fathoms of tobacco. Then Henry attempted to put

these gifts into a context so that the assembled Ojibway

would understand his reasoning and what he hoped for

in return: "I then offered them a long speech, encour-

aging them to behave well, and not to be afraid of the

Sioux, but to follow me up the Turtle river which was

the place I proposed to winter at. Beavers were plenty

in those quarters, by which means they could procure

all their necessaries with ease."

Henry's approach to this

ceremony—gathering

all

the various bands together at once, rather than dealing

with each separately as did other traders in the

region—may

have been more rigid than most, reflect-

ing his rigid and authoritarian personality. It may also

be that Henry simply described the event in more detail

than most traders, since it was his first year on the Red

River. His own accounts became briefer in later years.'"

It should be noted that Henry's ceremony in 1800

began with the Ojibway giving presents, demonstrat-

ing that the trading relationship was not instigated

purely by the trader. Whoever initiated it, the pattern

was well established, including the customary gifts

given by the Ojibway and the design of the coats and

hats that their leaders received. Both parties knew

what to expect. Similarly, John Tanner, a white captive

who grew up among the Red River Ojibway around

1800,

told of a ceremonial present that his adopted

mother generally gave to a fur trader on his arrival in

the fall: ten fine beaver skins. "In return for this accus-

tomed present, she was in the habit of receiving every

year a chief's dress and ornaments, and a ten gallon keg

spirits."'^

Initial Ojibway gifts to the trader often consisted of

food, which symbolized that the Ojibway were willing

to establish a relationship of some kind. On a practical

level it meant that they would work to supply the

food—game,

wild rice, and maple

sugar—on

which

the trader depended for survival during the

winter.'"

Such symbolic assurances, however, did not guaran-

tee any specific quantity of food. Henry, who had a

large number of men to feed, made other arrangements

for a regular food supply. Arriving at his wintering

place, he wrote: "I settled with the little Crane to hunt

for me. I promised that if he would behave well, and

kill as many animals as I might require for the season, I

would pay him Sixty Skins, and give a Clothing to him

and his wife and furnish him with a Gun and ammuni-

tion, &c

&c."'"

IN THE FALL, after the trader had exchanged gifts

and arranged for his winter's food supply, his next step

Harold Hickerson, ed., "Journal of Charles Jean Bap-

tiste Chaboillez, 1797-1798," Ethnohistory 6 (Summer, 1959):

275 (Aug. 26, 1797), 276 (Aug. 27), 278-279 (Sept. 19-20);

Henry, Journal, 267 (Oct. 27, 1801).

James, ed., John Tanner, 102.

One

chief,

Kesconeek (Broken Arm), made this explicit

when he announced in a speech accompanying gifts of furs

and food to trader John Long, north of Lake Superior in the

1760s: "[W]e shall use our best endeavours to hunt and bring

you wherewithal to satisfy you in furs, skins, and animal

food." See J[ohn] Long,

Voyages

and

Travels

of an Indian

Interpreter and

Trader

(Reprint ed., Toronto: Coles Publish-

ing Co., 1974), 55.

Henry, Journal, 109-110 (Sept. 12, 1801). Traders also

depended on their wives. Although details are scarce, it

seems that having an Indian wife helped ensure a steadier

supply of food from her relations.

232

Minnesota History

was to give trade goods on credit to his Ojibway clients.

In cases where a trader lived in an Indian community

throughout the

winter—the

most common method of

trading with the

Ojibway—the

Indians received most

items on credit, rather than in direct one-for-one ex-

changes. They then paid off their debts throughout the

winter or spring.

d. 0. LEWIS'S picture of Ojibway leader Weesh-Cub,

wearing a jacket probably obtained in a gift exchange

The Ojibway took reciprocal material relationships

seriously. Giving credit, especially when preceded by

some sort of gift-giving ceremony, helped foster good

feeling between trader and Indian; the trader demon-

" Beaulieu, "The Fur Trade," in Gerald R. Vizenor,

ed..

Escorts to White Earth, 100 Year Reservation, 1868-1968

(Minneapolis: The Four Winds, 1968), 89. Bazile Hudon dit

Beaulieu, Paul's father, was probably the Beaulieu employed

by North West Company trader Frangois Malhiot at Lac du

Flambeau in the winter of 1804-05; see Beaulieu family gene-

alogy in Clement H. Beaulieu and Family Papers, MHS;

Malhiot, Journal, 6 (Aug. 4, 1804), and North West Com-

pany rosters, Lac du Flambeau, 70, both in McGill Univer-

sity Library, Rare Books and Special Collections, Montreal.

Henry, Journal, 111 (Sept. 15, 1800). In 1797 Chaboil-

lez, Henry's predecessor on the Red River, gave differing

amounts and a wider selection of gifts, including tools, with

his credits. For example, to two Ojibway hunters who also

received credits, Chaboillez supplied "a small Equip[men]t

according to Custom," consisting of a measure of powder, a

measure of shot, a measure of balls, a half fathom of tobacco,

a large knife, a small knife, four gunflints, one gunworm,

two Indian awls, two needles, two skeins of thread, and a

little Vermillion; entry of Sept. 17, 1797, in Hickerson, ed.,

"Chaboillez," 278.

strated trust in his clients, and this, in turn, would

elicit a trustworthy response. Despite the lack of

European-style

sanctions—courts

and police designed

to protect private

property—the

trader could expect to

receive a return for credit given, though, as will be

seen, this might not necessarily involve complete repay-

ment from the trader's point of view.

Traders seldom detailed what they gave on credit.

Paul H. Beaulieu, a second-generation Ojibway trader,

wrote in a reminiscence of the 1820s and 1830s that fall

credits generally consisted of cloth, blankets, traps,

ammunition, and

guns—all

items a family would need

to get through the winter and hunt for food and furs."

From trader to trader the amount of credits varied.

Some based theirs on the skills of particular hunters

and trappers; others, with less knowledge of individual

abilities, gave out uniform credits. In 1800 Henry ad-

vanced the Ojibway their "necessaries" to the amount

of 20 prime beaver skins to each man. In addition he

followed the usual practice of traders at the time, giv-

ing a few inexpensive items as gifts: "an assortment of

small articles gratis such as one Scalper, two Folders,

four Flints" to the men and "two awls, three needles,

one [skein] of net Thread, one fine steel, a little Vermil-

lion, and half a [fathom] of Tobacco'' to the

women."*

Henry, like other traders, gave more liquor after

giving credit and

before

the people left for their winter-

ing places. This present was designed, as Henry put it,

"to encourage them to hunt and pay their debts." When

the Ojibway did pay off their debts, whether during

the winter or spring, the traders would reward them

with more alcohol. They might then give further credit

PAUL H.

BEAULIEU,

about 1886

^Jt^,a:h.

and gifts. No matter how many times the cycle took

place an orderly process was preserved, in which the

exchange of furs for goods was layered between gifts

designed to cement the goodwill of trader and Indian.

In the spring traders often ended their stay in the Ojib-

way communities with ceremonies similar to those of

the fall, including giving gifts of alcohol and clothing

and making speeches.'"

The normal pattern of gifts and credits was not the

extent of exchanges between trader and Indian during

the year. There were important ceremonies in Ojibway

social and religious life when the trader customarily

gave gifts. One example was the custom of "covering

the

body'

of a dead person. When an Ojibway died his

spirit was said to go on a long journey to the west. To

prepare him for this journey, explained historian Wil-

liam Warren, "his body is placed in a grave, generally

in a sitting posture, facing west. With the body are

buried all the articles needed in life for a journey. If a

man, his gun, blanket, kettle, fire steel, flint and moc-

casins; if a woman, her moccasins, axe, portage collar

[tumpline],

blanket and

kettle."'^"

As a person of material wealth in the community

and someone who may even have been related by mar-

riage to the dead person, the trader was expected to

show respect by "covering" the body with the essential

trade goods. In addition, etiquette dictated that he give

some liquor to the relatives for a wake. In September,

1801,

Alexander Henry mentioned such an occasion:

"Bras Court's daughter died aged nine years. Great

lamentation and must have a keg of liquor to wash

away the grief from their hearts, and a fathom of Cloth

to cover the body, and a 1/4 lb. of vermillion to paint

the

same.""'

WRITING in the 1850s, Warren recalled a time at Lac

Courte Oreilles [Wisconsin] in the 1780s when alco-

holic beverages were only given during the initial fall

trading ceremony. "It was the custom of the traders in

those days to take with them to different wintering

posts small quantities of 'eau de vie,' which, when their

hunters had all assembled around them, they made a

present of to the principal chiefs, for their people to

have a grand frolic. To the inland bands, this great

indulgence came around but once a

year."^"

Judging from the accounts of Henry and other trad-

ers,

liquor use became more frequent by the early

1800s. Yet the point of using alcohol was not to make

the Ojibway drunk and steal their furs, though some

traders may have occasionally attempted to do just

that. Liquor was something that the Ojibway, like peo-

ple of many cultures, times, and places, had a liking

for. When given in ceremonial exchanges, liquor came

to be called by a term meaning mother's

milk—

representing the sense of loyalty or obligation that the

trader or diplomat wanted to arouse in the

Ojibway.^"

When seen in this light, the increasing use of the bever-

age in the early 1800s may in part have been a function

of the fierce competition between the North West and

XY companies. It is not surprising that liquor would

have been given out more frequently at a time when

trade loyalties were at a premium.

But alcohol was not always

milk—the

symbolic

representation of the relationship between the Ojibway

and their traders. Alcoholic beverages had been incor-

porated into Ojibway social life (as shown by its use at

funerals), and it was supplementing tobacco and food

as a mediating device among people and between peo-

ple and spiritual beings. When someone was ill, his

family might make a feast of food and liquor as a way

of obtaining spiritual aid in curing disease. In such

'»

Henry, Journal, 52 (Aug. 23, 1800), 112 (Sept. 16,

1800);

see also 255 (May 12, 1801), 276-277 (May 4, 1802).

For other similar accounts of spring presents, see John Mc-

Kay's Rainy Lake journal, B. 105/a/2, folio 25 (May 14,

1795),

Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) Archives, Winnipeg,

Manitoba; John Sayer's journal, published erroneously under

the title "The Diary of Thomas Connor," in Charles M.

Gates,

ed..

Five Fur Traders of the Northwest (St. Paul:

MHS,

1965), 277. For the identification of Sayer as the au-

thor of this diary, see Douglas A. Birk and Bruce M. White,

"Who Wrote the

'Diary

of Thomas Connor'?: A Fur Trade

Mystery," Minnesota History 46 (Spring, 1979): 170-188.

^°

Warren, History of the Ojibway People (Reprint ed.,

St. Paul: MHS Press, 1984), 72. A similar description was

given by McKay in 1797; see B. 105/a/4, folio 23 (May 6),

HBC Archives.

•" Henry, Journal, 264 (Sept. 6, 1801); see also 266 (Oct.

13,

1801). Giving goods and liquor at someone's death was all

the more important if the trader was considered partly re-

sponsible for the death; see, for example, Louis-P. Cormier,

ed.,

Jean Baptiste Perrault

marchand

voyageur

parti

Mon-

treal

le 28e

de mai

1783

(Montreal: Boreal Express, 1978), 68-

69,

70-72, 75.

Warren, History of the Ojibway, 301.

See White, " 'Give Us a Little Milk,' " 67, for a discus-

sion of the social and cultural meanings of alcohol.

234

Minnesota History

.WT"'"'"'''''%«W'''''W"li™TOII»w>n«»'>»"lNMIIIini«'-j

..MllllWrt:

NORTH WEST COMPANY

post.

Fort Court Oreilles

cases the trader was asked to provide the alcohol.

About a request of this kind, John Sayer, a North West

Company partner wintering on the Snake River of east-

ern Minnesota, remarked:

"[Pjolicy

induced me to

Consent."-'

The importance of liquor in Ojibway social life was

also evident when Indians brought traders food. For

this food Ojibway people usually received alcohol. Paul

Beaulieu wrote that in the 1820s and 1830s a five-gallon

keg of high wines "would buy more wild Rice in an

Indian Camp than $200 worth of any kind of Goods

Peter Jones, History of the Ojebway Indians (London:

A. W. Bennett, 1861), 96. Gates, ed., Five Fur Traders, 268.

For examples of an Ojibway ceremony without liquor, see the

description of a feast given to help cure an ill person, in

Alexander Henry (the

elder).

Travels and Adventures in Can-

ada and the Indian Territories (Reprint

ed..

New York: Gar-

land Publishing,

Inc.,

1976), 149.

Beaulieu, "Fur Trade," 80.

=«

McKay, Journal, B.

105/a/l,

foho 7 (Oct. 9, 1793), B.

105/a/2,

folio 26 (May 25, 1795), B. 105/a/3, folio 39 (n.d.);

George Nelson, Journal, 1804-05, p. 35 (Sept. 15, 1803), Met-

ropolitan Toronto Central Library. See also Francois Malhiot

accounts, "Liste des effets donnes pour des vivres," Aug. 3,

1804—May

18, 1805, in McGill University Libraries, Rare

Books and Special Collections. A translation of these ac-

counts was published as "A Wisconsin Fur-Trader's Journal,

1804-05,"

Collections of the State Historical Society of Wis-

consin 19 (Madison: The Society 1910); 216-224.

Nelson, Journal, 25 (Mar 17, 1804); author's transla-

tion from Michel Curot, Journal, 1803-04, p. 36 (Mar 1,

1804),

in Masson Collection, Public Archives of Canada. An

incomplete version of the Curot diary was published in 'A

Wisconsin Fur-Trader's Journal, 1803-04," Collections of the

State Historical Society of Wisconsin 20 (Madison: The Soci-

ety, 1911):

396-471.

For a description of one omission found in

this published version, see Bruce M. White,

comp..

The Fur

Trade in Minnesota, An Introductory Guide to Manuscript

Sources (St. Paul: MHS Press, 1977), 29.

™

Priscilla K. Buffalohead, in "Farmers, Warriors, Trad-

ers:

A Fresh Look at Ojibway Women," Minnesota History 48

(Summer, 1983): 240, argued that women controlled the dis-

tribution of game in Ojibway society. For a rare example of

unwillingness to share food, see James,

ed..

Tanner, 66.

and wild Rice was the Chippewa trader main stay after

reaching his trading post and without which subsis-

tence was not assured to them."-"

It was not just that traders found it convenient to

exchange liquor for food. Traders might have preferred

to give liquor for furs. Alcohol was what the Ojibway

demanded. Soon after opening the Hudson's Bay Com-

pany trading post on the Rainy River in 1793, John

McKay reported: "I am obliged to buy Every ounce of

Country Provisions that we Eat as we cannot Procure

any ourselves, which will be very hard on the Brandy."

Between 1794 and 1796 he purchased moose meat, fish,

and wild rice to the value of 400 made beaver (or prime

beaver skins), 88 percent of this (350 made beaver) with

brandy; the rest with ammunition and a little cloth.

Similarly, in 1804-05 at Lac du Flambeau, North West

Company trader Francois Malhiot directly purchased

food to the value of 288 prime beaver skins. Of this 60

percent (172.5 skins) was bought with liquor alone.

Another 30 percent (85 skins) was bought with a com-

bination of liquor and tobacco. George Nelson, an XY

Company trader in 1803-04, wrote: "We don't pay pro-

visions here with anything else than with rum some-

times tobacco, but seldom tho[ugh], & ammunition.

The indians are so accustomed to it that they are quite

surprised when any other payment is given them."'"

If the trader had no alcohol he had difficulty get-

ting any provisions. In mid-March, 1804, Nelson wrote

that one of his employees had gone to stay with the

man's father-in-law "as we have nothing here to eat. I

gave him a little ammunition & a few silver works to

trade

provisions—for

we have now nothing else to

trade. We subsist upon Indian Charity." Two weeks ear-

lier on the St. Croix River, another XY trader was hav-

ing similar problems. Michel Curot had also run out of

liquor. Even one of his men, a veteran named Smith,

who had family ties with the Ojibway, could not get

any food. "The Indians told Smith that when they have

killed a deer, they will give him some, if he goes to get it

at their lodges, that they will not carry it to this place

because he doesn't have any rum to give them, that it

was only that which engaged them to bring it to the

fort."-'

It could be argued that the Ojibway were accus-

tomed to alcohol as a payment for their food simply

because the traders were accustomed to giving it. But

the trade of rum for food was consistent with the Ojib-

way attitude toward food as something to be shared. A

hunter might in a certain sense own the animals that he

himself killed, but he was obliged to give that game to

the female members of his household, who fed the fam-

ily and shared the food with relations and with stran-

gers who might be in need. A mercenary attitude to-

ward food was rare.-"

Alcohol was seen as a quintessential kind of food,

Summer 1987

235

and the Ojibway shared it with those around them in

drinking parties. John Tanner's attitude when he gave

such a party may have been typical. He opened the

head of a keg of spirits and announced to everyone: "I

am not . . one of those chiefs who draw liquor out of

a small hole in a cask, let all those who are thirsty come

and drink."-"

When traders wished to refrain from providing al-

cohol to the Ojibway, they met with resistance. The

Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) trader at Rainy Lake in

the late 1820s, John D. Cameron, told the Ojibway

that there might come a time when the company would

no longer bring them any liquor. His clients replied

very much as many groups of white people of many

eras might have replied: "Then you will not make many

packs for Indians will not hunt when they are deprived

of the greatest and indeed the only delightful enjoy-

ment they have on Earth." In these attitudes traders

saw a significant means of influencing Ojibway behav-

ior, especially in competitive times. It was for these

reasons that liquor was said to be indispensable in the

trade.""

Ojibway perception of alcohol as being in some

sense like food and unlike other trade goods is evidence

for the phenomenon that economic anthropologists

have come to call "spheres of

exchange"—that

is, cate-

gories of exchange involving different goods and ser-

vices and cultural values. Usually such transactions are

separated into those with symbolic value and those

without. Two such spheres are evident in Ojibway deal-

ings with fur traders. In one category were furs and the

basic items of merchandise, the bulk of which were

exchanged primarily through credit. In the other

sphere was alcohol, tobacco, food, and prestigious ar-

ticles of clothing. Rarely given on credit, these items of

symbolic value were primarily given away as gifts.

There was occasional crossover between these two cate-

gories, such as the rare exchanges of furs for liquor, and

traders occasionally blurred the categories by giving

ammunition or tools as gifts."'

Fundamentally, however, food, tobacco, and alco-

hol were always gifts, even in what might appear to be

one-for-one exchanges. The wording in many traders"

diaries suggests that, from the Ojibway point of view,

giving food for liquor was an exchange of gifts, rather

like modern American Christmas presents. Malhiot

typically described such a transaction as follows:

"LOutarde arrived here with two loads of meat which

he gave me as a present. I gave him 6 pots of rum."

Malhiot's wording in such cases was different from the

way he described direct transactions involving furs.

Generally for trading he used the French verb traiter,

probably to describe an interaction in which the Indian

did not simply present the item to the trader, but pre-

ceded his presentation with some sort of discussion of

what trade goods he wanted and possibly what rate of

exchange he thought was

fair.""

This is not to say that everyone shared the attitude

of the Ojibway toward food-alcohol transactions. Al-

though traders probably expected a return of one kind

or another from all their material dealings, some saw

gifts as something given sans

dessein—for

nothing. In

1797-98 Charles Chaboillez made clear the conflicting

attitudes of Indian and trader. He mentioned the ar-

rival of two men at the post. One of them "made a

Present of Twenty Pieces Dryed Meat & 8 Sturgeons."

In return Chaboillez "paid Him Twenty Eight Pints

Rum & gave them each Two Pints sans Dessein."""

Thus,

for Chaboillez, the "present" from the Ojib-

way was one for which he felt obligated to "pay" some-

thing in return, at the same time that he gave what he

himself considered to be a "gift." Yet his gift of rum was

no doubt qualitatively the same as the rum that he

considered to be a payment. The payment was what

Chaboillez thought to be a just return for the meat and

fish. The gift was something he gave over and above

that. For the Ojibway the two were probably indistin-

guishable unless Chaboillez made a point of the differ-

ence in his words or actions. At the same time the gift

and payment were indistinguishable when viewed from

the trader's bottom line: he had to pay for them one

way or the other. Such were the nuances of trader-

Indian interaction.

COMPETITION in the fur trade had other effects be-

sides an increase in gift giving. Having sought to estab-

lish relations with a number of Ojibway, having given

them gifts and credit, the company or trader did every-

thing possible to ensure that the opposing company did

not interfere with these relations.

Under normal circumstances the Ojibway could be

expected to honor established ties with traders. But

these ties could be broken if one adhered to the logic of

the relationship: metaphorical kinship established

through the giving of gifts. To win over a group of

Ojibway already tied to his opponent, the trader had

somehow to call into question the validity of the oppo-

nent's gifts. He had to show that the gifts were mislead-

ing, empty, incapable of symbolizing a genuine rela-

tionship of mutual loyalty and

obUgation.

The Indian

would thus be freed of the contract implied in the gifts.

One way of competing effectively was to convince

the Ojibway that the opposition trader could not meet

James,

ed..

Tanner, 102.

"°

Cameron, "Rainy Lake Report," B. 105/e/6, p. 9 (1825-

26),

HBC Archives.

Paul Bohannan and George Dalton,

eds..

Markets in

Africa ([Evanston]; Northwestern University Press, 1962), 3.

'-'

Malhiot, Journal, 30 (Mar 16, 1805), 8 (Aug. 9, 1804).

Hickerson, ed., "Chaboillez," 278 (Sept. 14, 1797).

236

Minnesota History

RIVAL companies soliciting trade

hundred years

ago,"

from Harper's Monthly, June, 1879

their expectation that they be kept supplied with goods.

According to Beaulieu: "[A]s a general thing the Indian

will not throw off on the Trader that outfits him. There

are of course a few exceptions to this rule. But if a

Trader refuses an Indian for the least trifle after he has

outfitted him, the Indian thinks he is free from any

obligation and trades where he

pleases."**

Traders for the upstart XY Company therefore tried

to convince the Ojibway their firm was going to be

around for some time to come and would provide a

continuing source of trade goods and gifts. The Ojib-

way also had to be convinced that the North West Com-

pany was taking them for

granted—not

treating them

well enough in gift giving and trade. On the other

hand, the North West Company had to convince the

Ojibway that a relationship with the XY would not be

rewarding in the long run. Michel Curot, who oversaw

XY trading efforts on the St. Croix River in 1803-04,

recorded one of the arguments by which North West

partner John Sayer hoped to persuade the Ojibway

(who had taken credit from Curot) to have nothing

further to do with the XY. Sayer told them that Curot

and his people were simply pitiful, that they "did not

Beauheu, "Fur Trade," 90.

Here and below, see Curot, Journal, 16 (Nov 6, 1803).

"»

Malhiot, Journal, 33 (April 26, 1805), describes vio-

lence committed against the trading post of his competitor

Simon Chaurette, who had promised to supply some

hquor

but had run out.

McKay, Journal, B. 105/a/2, foho 7 (Nov. 1, 1794).

"»

Cameron, "Report," B. 105/e/6, folio 4.

have anything for them, that he [Sayer] would leave

someone with them during the summer who would

give them rum & trade goods, that if all they had was

me to depend on for their needs they also would be

pitiful, that I would leave them early in the spring &

would leave no one with them."""

Speaking against these arguments Curot pointed

out that the Ojibway were worse off, materially speak-

ing, when the North West Company had been their sole

source of supply. He then reminded them of the gift

and trade relationship he had established with them.

"Pay your credit and you will not lack for merchandise

and rum."

The unwillingness or inability of the trader to pro-

vide liquor was another important reason that might

allow the Indian to break off the relationship. Just as a

trader had a hard time getting provisions when he ran

out of alcohol he found the same to be true about the

repayment of credits. If the trader used up his supply of

rum or high wines early on and was unable to reward

the Ojibway with these beverages that they expected

after they repaid their debts, then some Ojibway re-

frained from making the repayment. They reasoned

that if the trader would not give them the liquor they

expected it meant that he had no regard or respect for

them.""

Another means by which the trader could affect the

attitude of the Ojibway toward him was by showing

them generosity when they were hungry. John McKay

suggested this in the instructions he gave to one of his

employees on the Rainy River in 1794: "if strangers

come your way scruple not to cut them a pipe of To-

bacco and give 'em something to eat, . . . notwith-

standing they may have brought you nothing it will

perhaps have a good effect in time to come. If you

stand at trifles with your Indians it will give 'em a bad

opinion of you and turn their affections to other ob-

jects.""'

In 1826 John Cameron described the positive im-

pact of his practice of feeding the Ojibway who came

to his Rainy Lake trading post: "When Indians make

more pounded sturgeon & oil than they want, they

trade the surplus with us. . . . When an Indian comes

to the Fort, he never brings anything to eat. By having

pounded sturgeon &

oil—no

time is lost in

cooking—

Nothing pleases an Indian more than in giving him

something to eat immediately on his arrival. It is the

Grand Etiquette of Politeness amongst themselves."""

Because the Ojibway felt this way about hospitality,

traders who were not generous could incur the wrath of

their clients. Curot wrote of one man who was un-

happy with the competitor, Sayer, "who gave him al-

most nothing to eat and who does not want to give him

rum which he promised to allow him to take out of the

fort. He prevented his men from putting their kettles on

Summer 1987

237

the fire, thinking that this Indian would leave sooner,

not seeing

an\'

preparations for cooking wild rice or

meat. The Indian left late and stole a powderhorn full

of powder."""

People who had been treated in this manner by one

trader were susceptible to the kindness of another.

Malhiot told how he won the trade of a group of Ojib-

way from outside his trading area, previously indebted

to neither competing company. The hunters had a pack

of furs but were out of food. In addition to giving them

merchandise and a barrel of rum mixed half and half

with water, Malhiot also presented them with two

sacks of corn. One of his men used this gift of corn in

his successful effort to win the trade of their furs from

his competitor: "Don't trade with him. He knew you

were starving, but he didn't deign to bring you a single

grain of corn. He's a pig. He makes a god of his stom-

ach. He would just as soon see the Indians starve before

he would give them a glass of

water.""

If competition made the trader more generous with

gifts,

it also made him go further out of his way to write

off debts. In a way the trader functioned as an insurer

for his Ojibway clients, making up for the vicissitudes

of weather and accident. Malhiot, for one, extended

further credit to a group of Ojibway who met with a

canoe accident and lost all their goods shortly after

receiving their credits in the

fall.^'

FUR TRADERS used a variety of means to monitor

their opponents and enforce their agreements with the

Ojibway. A trader might build his trading post in a

strategic spot, close to that of the opposition where he

could keep track of his own clients and waylay those of

the competitor. At his post on the Pembina River in

1801,

Alexander Henry had built a "watch

house'

op-

posite the XY trading post where he stationed two of his

men to keep an eye on the competitor's

movements.^-

Competing traders were often surprisingly polite to

each other, though the politeness may simply have been

a ruse to get close to the opponent and obtain informa-

tion. On Christmas Day in 1794, for example, McKay

of the HBC noted of his North West Company competi-

tor: "Mr. Boyer invited me & men to a dance." In April,

1798,

Chaboillez mentioned that a group of competing

traders "came over with Six Men to pay us a visit[.]

made a Pott of Punch between us & gave the Men each

a Dram & 1/2 Foot Tob[acc]o." On New Year's Day in

1824,

a later HBC trader on the Rainy River, John

McLaughlin, gave a dance to which he invited the

American Fur Company trader and the women of his

post—but

not any of their

husbands.'"

Traders also gathered information from their kin-

ship network and those of their men. XY trader Curot

learned that one Ojibway family did not want to give

their furs to the North West trader because the man was

out of rum. Curot said he had heard it from the wife of

his man Savoyard who had in turn heard it from the

wife of the North West trader's

clerk."

With information obtained through such an alli-

ance network, the trader was also better able to moni-

tor the location of Ojibway in their camps throughout

the woods. The trader would then periodically send his

men to visit Indian families. The practice of making

such visits, known as going en derouine, kept the Ojib-

way supplied with goods during the winter and al-

lowed the trader's men to bring back any furs or meat

that had been produced. In many cases, when the

Ojibway were ready to pay back their debts or supply

food, they sent word to the post for the trader to send

his men. Malhiot recorded one case in which a man

indebted to him informed him that he had killed a

bear. Unfortunately Malhiot had no one to send so the

man decided to tell the trader's competitor to come for

the meat. However, he promised to save the skin for

Malhiot.'"

At other times going en derouine served largely

competitive purposes. Paul Beaulieu wrote that "The

utmost vigilance is exercised by both Clerk and men

also Indian spies watching the movements of the oppo-

sition trader and when a march to an Indian camp can

be stolen from either party, it is considered as a feat of

good generalship." Malhiot, for example, sent two of

his men to stay all night outside his opponent's fort, to

wait for a particular group of Ojibway and "follow

Curot, Journal, 38 (Mar 3, 1804).

™

Malhiot, Journal, 25 (Dec. 23, 1804).

Malhiot, Journal, 18 (Sept. 29, 1804).

Henr>-,

Journal, 266 (Oct. 22, 1801). For another exam-

ple see the elaborate dance of traders McKay and Charles

Boyer, in McKav, Journal, B. 105/a/2, folio 5 (Oct.

21-23,

1794).

McKay, Journal, B. 105/a/2, folio 13; McLaughlin,

Journal, B. i05/a/9, p. 38; Hickerson, ed., "Chaboillez," part

Ethnohistory 6 (Fall, 1959): 386 (April 28, 1798).

Curot, Journal, 51 (May 18, 1804).

The origins of the word "derouine" are unknown; see

John Francis McDermott, A Glossary of

Mississippi

Valley

French,

1673-1850,

Washington University Studies, New Se-

ries,

Language and Literature, no. 12 (St. Louis: The Univer-

sity, 1941), 66; Malhiot, Journal, 30 (Mar 16, 1805); Henry,

Journal, 270 (Jan. 1, 1802); Curot, Journal, 12 (Oct. 18,

1803).

238 Minnesota History

them when they leave in order to get what they owe

me."«

In another case Malhiot was foiled in a concerted

effort to win over the trade of an Ojibway named Old

Sorcerer who was already indebted to the XY trader

Simon Chaurette.

"Sunday [March] 3 [1805]. Old Sor-

cerer arrived this morning. I made him

drunk. He was going to Chorette's [sic]

but one of my men, having encountered

him, made him consent to enter

here.

. . .

"Monday the 4th. I sent off George

Yarns and Beaulieu this night after get-

ting Old Sorcerer to consent not to go

alert Chorette. . . .

"Friday Sth. George Yarns arrived

this night. Chorette went to the lodges a

half day before him and had the time to

get the greatest part of the skins. For five

days he knew the people were there!""

When he was trying to enforce his own agreements

and win the furs of another concern, the trader was

most unscrupulous. Alexander Henry described how he

obtained the furs of a group of Ojibway in April, 1804:

"I went out to the upper part of the Tongue River to

meet a band of Indians returning from hunting Beaver.

I fought several battles with the Women to get their

Furs from them. It was the most disagreeable Derouine

I ever made however I got all they had, about a pack of

good Furs, but I was vexed very much at having been

under the necessity of fighting with the women. It is

true it was all my neighbours Debts. . . I returned

home with the Furs that I had so well purchased."""

One of XY trader George Nelson's men was espe-

cially good at going en derouine: "He was bold & brave

& had an excellent memmory

[sic]

& was able to travel

almost any distance in the woods without a guide or

anything like it. When he could not persuade the indi-

ans to give their furs he would take them & often ru-

mage [sic] in their bags; for it seldom happens we'll

find an Indian willing to give all his furs or his

debt. . . . But we are often obliged to say (& do) give

me your skins if you don't I'll take them & perhaps beat

Beaulieu, "Fur Trade," 90; Malhiot, Journal, 30 (Mar.

20,

1805).

Malhiot, Journal, 29.

Henry, Journal, 331 (April 1, 2, 1804).

•">

Nelson, Journal, 7 (Aug. 25, 1803).

™

Such retrenchments are described in the author's chap-

ter "Balancing the Books," in " 'Give Us a Little Milk': Eco-

nomics and Ceremony in the Ojibway Fur Trade," (M.A.

thesis,

McGill University, Montreal, 1985), 69-109.

Hickerson, ed., "Chaboillez," 290 (Feb. 12, 1798).

McKay, Journal, B. 105/a/l, folio 14 (Feb. 6, 1794).

you in the bargain. Our trade is often pillage; but of

our own; for

hardly believe there be one Indian in the

Country but who owes more or less either the NW or

companys."'"

Nelson suggests that traders' pillaging of Indian

furs

was a frequent occurrence. Such events, however, were

usually the result of extreme

circumstances—such

the competition between large

companies—in

which

traders had so overextended themselves in gift giving

and credit that their Indian customers were unable to

provide them with what they considered an adequate

return on their investments. These circumstances,

when sustained for years on end, might force mergers

between firms, as happened between the North West

and XY companies in 1804 and between North West

and HBC in 1821. Mergers brought retrenchments in

gift giving and credit. But the protocol as described

here continued to be an important part of the trade.""

THE EFFECTS of competition were not all unfavor-

able from the Indian point of view. For one thing it is

probable, though the evidence is uncertain, that trad-

ers competed with each other in the rates of exchange

they established when extending credit in the fall.

Much of the evidence for this form of what we might

call price competition relates to those occasions when

Ojibway who had already paid off their credit were

trading surplus furs. Charles Chaboillez, for example,

reported in 1798 that two Ojibway "came to Trade the

remainder of their Skins but would not Trade them

unless, they should have the Goods at the same Price as

the South Traders sold them, in lieu of living [letting]

the furs go out of my Shop I was obliged to give them

the

Blks

[blankets]

21/2

pts Three Skins ea." Chaboillez

defended himself against the wrath of his superiors,

asking not to be blamed for his actions: "I am con-

vinced that the goods are sold at a lower rate than they

are Invoiced, but in the mean time its very hard to see

Peltries taken out of ones Shop to Trade at a

Neighbour—They

Traded Sixty four

skins—which

was

remaining of their Bundles.""'

Some traders stated that the

strategy'

of competing

by means of the prices they offered for furs did not

always work. On February 6, 1794, John McKay on the

Rainy River mentioned the arrival of four Ojibway

bringing 20 beaver with them to trade. McKay, how-

ever, was sure that the men had over a hundred more

beaver at their tents and tried his best to get these in

trade also. McKay did not want the men to trade the

furs with Charles Boyer, his North West Company com-

petitor. "I even offered some goods under value and to

send men for the furs but they would not saying They

wanted to give a little to every

trader.""^

Social reasons may well have led these Ojibway to

turn down McKay's economically advantageous offer.

Summer 1987

239

Perhaps one of the people was indebted to Boyer or

even related to him or one of his men. But other mo-

tives were also possible. In the long run, it was impor-

tant for the Ojibway to encourage competition; having

a material relationship with both traders might ensure

the long-term supply of the trade goods these people

valued. Receiving gifts from two traders instead of only

one might be more profitable in the long run than ac-

cepting McKay's offer of low prices for goods.

Also,

as anthropologist Mary Whelan has noted in

her study of the Dakota fur trade, unpaid debts might

be a way of ensuring a continuing relationship: "In

situations where economic (and other) behavior is or-

ganized around reciprocity, 'debt' is actually required

to keep the system functioning." Complete repayment

terminates a reciprocal relationship. The Ojibway

might have considered it unfriendly if some of their

gifts were immediately repaid. On the other hand,

traders who had not been completely repaid might be

more likely to return to the same community the next

year than if they were owed nothing.""

In another sense, however, gift giving was,

itself,

price competition. McKay's own reactions to the re-

fusal of his offers of better prices suggests this. "I sent 6

quarts of spirits to be distributed amongst the Indians

at their tents and some tobacco. I sent likewise a few

articles to trade." The next day he reported that "the

goods I sent had the desired effect." His men were able

to obtain 43 beaver, twice as many as the people had

originally offered to trade, but apparently not all that

they

possessed.""

Although scholars often use rates of exchange to

determine the cost of merchandise for native cus-

tomers, this scheme does not take into account the

goods that were given as gifts. In economic terms, the

more gifts an Ojibway person was given, the lower

would be the average cost to him of those goods. Yet the

Ojibway themselves did not seem to apply such strict

quantitative considerations to their relations with trad-

ers.

John McLauglin, at Rainy Lake in 1823, reported

that the Ojibway of his post "think if they give you all

they hunt no matter how little we are bound in return

to give them all their wants." Given this belief among

people who had been in contact with traders for at

least 30 years, it is clear that, from the Ojibway point

of view, prices were less significant than a kind of gen-

eralized material and social reciprocity.""

The fact that gift giving effectively adjusted the

prices paid by the Ojibway for the goods they received

is only one facet of the economic meaning of gifts in the

trade. It is difficult, if not impossible, to divorce gifts

from their specific socioeconomic context among the

Ojibway. Gifts when given in the right way made possi-

ble the trader's relationship in the community, a rela-

tionship that could then be used for the purposes of the

fur trade. Giving gifts in the proper way meant an

adherence to Ojibway etiquette and trade protocol. As

such it meant that the trader's relationship was not

exclusively confined to dealings with the best hunters

and trappers and their families.

Ojibway leaders, whether or not they themselves

actually hunted or trapped, could still have an effect on

the fur trader's success. Hence they would be given

gifts.

Cameron wrote in 1825 that he had given a large

keg of rum, tobacco, ammunition, a knife, and some

flints to a noted local leader: "Last night the Premier

arrived. He brought nothing, however as he is consid-

ered by all the Indians as the first Chief of the Land, I

gave him a favourable reception. Altho' I would not

advance him goods last autumn, yet it is Good Policy to

be on friendly terms with him. He has not the power of

doing much good, but if evil inclined, cannot be at a

loss to find followers to do a great deal of harm."""

Cameron's statement, from a Hudson's Bay Com-

pany trader who was under continuing orders from

company executive George Simpson to economize by

cutting down on gift giving, is clear evidence that gifts

were far from simply being a means for carrying on

price competition. Instead it demonstrates that for fur

traders the quality or price of their products was never

sufficient to carry on trade. As in many modern com-

mercial operations, persuading people to do business

with you, especially at times when there was competi-

tion, meant a thorough knowledge of your clients' cul-

tural beliefs. It meant a continuing investment in their

goodwill."'

But obtaining Ojibway goodwill did not automati-

cally mean that the trader could attain the ends he

sought. Investment in human proclivities, possibilities,

and beliefs is chancy whatever the cultural context. If

the trader did not establish the necessary social tie be-

fore giving credit, or sustain that social tie by adhering

to trade protocol, he might end up losing his invest-

ment. On the other hand, if the trader gave away too

many gifts in establishing or bolstering that social tie,

he might undermine his position with his own creditors

in the East. Avoiding either extreme was a necessary

part of balancing every fur trader's books.

Whelan, "The Archaeological Analysis of a 19th Cen-

tury Dakota Indian Economy," (Ph.D.

thesis.

University of

Minnesota, 1987), 57.

McKay, Journal, B. 105/a/l, folio 14 (Feb. 9, 1794).

McLaughlin, Journal, B. 105/a/8, p. 14 (Nov 2, 1822).

=»

Cameron, "Report," B.

105/a/lO,

folio 18 (May 25,

1825).

On Simpson's directives and their effect on the traders

at Rainy Lake, see White, "Balancing the Books," 82-94.

MAP by Alan Ominsky, sketches by Evan Hart; all illustra-

tions are in the MHS collections.

240

Minnesota History

Historical Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. Users may print, download, or email

articles, however, for individual use.

To request permission for educational or commercial use, contact us.