How Trade Goods Impacted Native Americans - A Starting Place
Any conversation on how trade goods impacted Native Americans is complicated but has a starting point that is important to understand.
As I sit down to write this article about how trade goods impacted Native Americans, I do so with a fair amount of caution. This is only because I understand how complicated the topic is. Any attempt to completely describe how Native Americans were impacted by trading with Europeans, and vice versa, is worthy of a book-length effort. There are so many nuances, people involved, short-term, and long-term impacts to consider that attempting to explain the entire topic in this brief post is impossible. For starters, you have to take into consideration the specific group of people impacted. Just to say “Native Americans” is too broad of a stroke. The Iroquois were impacted differently than the Illinois, who were impacted differently than the Natchez, who were impacted differently from the Shoshone. Each group (and each individual in each group) was impacted differently by European trade goods. And that, of course, also depends on whether they were trading with the French, the British, the Dutch, or the Spanish. Also, who were the specific people doing the trading? Instead of attempting to fully explain how trade goods impacted each tribe, I hope to offer an explanation of why some Native Americans wanted to trade in the first place.
Before moving further, I’ll explain why I feel this explanation is necessary. It seems that in our modern world we often focus on the negative impact European contact had on Native people. At the time of this writing, the top Google return for “impact trade goods had on native people” is this article from ohiohistorycentral.org. This article seems to be fairly representative of the perspective in our current time. It talks a lot about how tribes lost land, wildlife, power, and became dependent on foreign trade goods. Personally, I don’t find anything that I’d call misinformation. However, it only gives you half the picture. For example, other than one sentence, the article gives no explanation of why Native people may have wanted to trade or what benefits they received as a result. If you read it, you’d walk away thinking Native Americans received absolutely no benefit from the trading relationship. So, if they didn’t receive a benefit, then why did some of the people want to trade?
First off, Native Americans didn’t trade because they were swindled or tricked by European traders. That’s just BS, but it is an idea that seems somewhat common. It’s the heart of the story of how Manhattan was reportedly traded for $24 worth of “trinkets.” (By the way, if you’re interested in that topic, here is an article that describes how that story may just be a myth anyhow and also touches on several other key points also found in this article you are reading). You know the idea is false once you understand that bartering was a very popular form of exchange in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans.
Although I can’t say barter was universal (we don’t have a record of how every tribe traded) barter probably was the most popular method of trade in pre-Columbian America. By definition, bartering is the exchange of goods or services without using money. Barter was a basic part of life, and a skill Native people would have been adept at. Any person who is good at bartering understands the value of the things being traded. In some ways, bartering is a skill that can be developed. To think Native people could be easily “tricked” in barter by “unscrupulous traders” doesn’t give those humans credit for the intelligence and shrewdness they honed during a life of bartering. It’s important to note that when items are bartered, the two groups agree on the value being transferred.
So, if they weren’t tricked, then why did they trade seemingly valuable items for mere “trinkets?” The reality is those “trinkets” were way more valuable to Native people than what they traded. A primary source from Osborne Russell tells one story that can teach us a lot.
Open the video to listen to a reading of the full entry.
It was the 1830’s, when Russell and a group of fellow trappers came upon a group of nearly uncontacted Native people. According to Russell, these Natives traded large amounts of fur “for awls axes kettles tobacco ammunition etc”. Using a source from 1837, you can calculate the value of each item the trappers offered for trade. “Indian Awls” were worth 3/3 (I have no idea what that means, but we can assume awls were cheaper than axes and kettles), axes worth about 75 cents, kettles were roughly 30 cents, plug tobacco valued at 12 cents (it doesn’t indicate what the units were), and ammunition at 7 cents per lead bar. Unfortunately, the invoice doesn’t record the value of beaver skins from that year. To get a rough estimate, we’ll use a source from 1831. This document records beaver skins moving at $7 a piece. So, Russell and his buddies threw a few dollars worth of “trinkets” on the trade blanket and scooped up serious cash in furs. Score one for the swindlers, right? Wrong. To understand why not, think about what was changing hands, and the value it represented to each group.
Again, you have to understand the items from both groups’ perspectives. We know the trappers were after dollars and cents, but what about the tribe? Well, the tribe mentioned could easily get many other furs, but they could not make a kettle. It was impossible. In fact, Russell even records one of the Native men saying “We can get plenty of Skins but we do not often see the Tibuboes" (or People of the Sun)”. Basically, although in American society kettles were cheap and the furs valuable, the opposite was true for this group of Native people. They operated in different economies. So, if you only judge the transaction based on dollars and cents, the Native lose. But if you consider those Stone Age people were now in the Iron Age, they win, and probably win big in their own minds. Their appraisal of the trade goods is obvious by the amount of fur they traded. This appreciation for trade goods is common in other primary sources as well.
A great source about how much two groups of Native American people appreciated trade goods comes from the notable Sir Alexander Mackenzie. Mackenzie was an explorer who preceded Lewis and Clark in a cross-continent journey (across Canada) by over a decade. He went on to become a respected businessman and expert on the frontier. He later wrote a book titled A General History of the Fur Trade, from Canada to the North West. An excerpt of this work was published in 1872 in George Mill’s Report on The Boundaries of the Province of Ontario. This book, which is a government report, can be downloaded for free on Google Play. The excerpt of Mackenzie’s begins on page 181 if you are interested in examining the original document.
In his writing, Mackenzie records the events of a man named Peter Pond. Peter Pond was another notable frontiersman and fur trader in Canada’s history. Pond often traded and operated in the Prairie de Chien region, but by the late 1770s, he moved to the Athabasca River which is much further north and west. It was here that Pond decided to set up a trading post in an area where no previous post had been established. At this point, we’ll move to the excerpt written by Sir Alexander Mackenzie about Pond’s experience in the winter of 1778-1779.
“Here (Peter Pond) passed the winter of 1778-9; saw a vast concourse of the Knisteneaux and Chepewyan tribes, who used to carry their furs annually to Churchill the latter by the barren grounds, where they suffered innumerable hardships and were sometimes even starved to death. The former followed the course of the lakes and rivers, through a country that abounded in animals, and where there was plenty of fish; but though they did not suffer from want of food, the intolerable fatigue of such a journey could not be easily repaid to an Indian, they were therefore highly gratified by seeing people come to their country to relieve them from such long toilsome and dangerous journies; and were immediately reconciled to give an advanced price for the article necessary to their comfort and convenience. Mr. Pond's reception and success was accordingly beyond his expectation, and he procured twice as many furs as his canoes would carry. They also supplied him with as much provision as he required during his residence among them and sufficient for his homeward voyage. Such of the furs as he could not embark, he secured in one of his winter huts and they were found the following season, in the same state in which he left them."
Here is a great example of how trade goods impacted two specific groups of Native Americans. Mackenzie wrote that prior to the construction of the new trading post, the two tribes, “used to carry their furs annually to Churchill the latter by the barren grounds, where they suffered innumerable hardships and were sometimes even starved to death.” That’s right; starved to death. Why would you risk “innumerable hardships” and even “death” to get a few knives, kettles, tomahawks, and blankets? Because, judging by the voluntary actions of free-moving people, the risk was worth the reward. If you live in the Stone Age, apparently, you easily recognize the benefits of metal.
According to Mackenzie, the local Native people appreciated Pond’s fort so much that “he procured twice as many furs as his canoes would carry” and, “Such of the furs as he could not embark, he secured in one of his winter huts and they were found the following season, in the same state in which he left them." The second excerpt really tells us something. Picture an abandoned building in the middle of the forest full of fur. Remember that fur is really, really valuable as a trade item. Nobody is guarding the building and there is a good chance you could steal the fur, trade it again, and nobody would ever know. Given that many of the Knisteneaux and Chipewyan people knew this (they traded there), there is a good chance that at least a few people would have seen the opportunity. So, what’s the crazy thing?
Nobody touched a thing.
Why not? Well, it could be that there were no thieves among the tribes. Knowing a little about human begins, I doubt this is the case. Another explanation is that they appreciated the trading post so much they didn’t want to do anything to make Pond leave. If he left, they’d be back to nearly starving to death to get the things they wanted.
Circling back around to the initial question of how trade goods impacted Native Americans, the Peter Pond story makes it pretty clear that there was an initial positive impact. Very positive. So positive that people risked death to get trade goods. Pond’s story teaches us this. If we don’t believe it, we can read the Osborne Russell excerpt and see the tribe had no problem giving all they had to get a few “trinkets.” These are not unique examples either.
Although these historical accounts can’t teach us about the long-term impacts trade goods had on Native Americans, they can offer evidence that some Native people greatly appreciated manufactured goods. These excerpts may also help us better understand the reason why some Natives didn’t resist the initial probing of Europeans. When considering the topic, you can’t underestimate the value of metal goods and tools on Stone or Copper Age people. The actions of the different tribes clearly tell us how valuable the trade goods were.
If you want to put this idea to the test, you can do so with living history experiments. In my own life, I’ve done a fair amount of trapping. I trap mostly coyotes and raccoons using modern traps. However, I’ve also made a fair number of primitive traps. Although it’s not legal to trap anything with them, just constructing a primitive trap helps you experience a small sliver of life in the Stone Age. Primitive traps are tricky to make, set, and I’m guessing the results would be equally as ticklish. I’d encourage you to try building one. As you do, try and imagine that your life, and the lives of your family and community, depended on their effectiveness. When you get done, then imagine that somebody offers to trade a few deer skins for a metal trap you can use, reuse, works better, and is easily transported.
As mentioned earlier, this article is not an attempt to fully examine and explain the impact of trade on Native people. That is a big question, with a tremendous amount of intricacy. Instead, it should help you understand why tribes may have engaged in trade. Most people today have zero understanding of the reality of life without metal. The Stone Age was a paradise, right? Wrong. Living without any metal tools is very difficult, even if you come from an unbroken line of people who lived that way for generations. A steel knife is better than a stone one. You don’t have to believe me, but you should believe the actions of people who voluntarily exchanged one for the other. You can also put the idea to the test by living with only Stone Age technology for a week, two weeks, or a month. You might enjoy the experience, but you will probably develop an appreciation for a steel knife you never had before. This is where living history can be a useful approach to understanding the past. If you experience life in the Stone Age, it’s likely you’ll develop the same appreciation for “trinkets” that humans of the past did.
