Inuit Perspectives in and on "Arctic Show Trials"

Abstract

This dissertation explores two significant criminal court cases, commonly referred to as "Arctic show trials", which implicated Inuit in Canada in the early decades of the twentieth century. The context of world conflict at the time of the trials and the perceived threat to Canadian Arctic sovereignty reveal a complex interplay of legal, cultural, and historical narratives. The first part examines the 1917 trials of Sinnisiak and Uluksak, the first criminal court case in Canada's history that required an interpretation between Inuktut and English, and a pivotal direction in Canada's assertion of Arctic sovereignty with the establishment of Inuit as Canadians subject to British law. It highlights the embellished narratives by Roman Catholic Oblates who portrayed their missionaries, Jean-Baptiste Rouvière and Guillaume Le Roux as martyrs, emphasizing the religious and anthropological aspects that influenced the trial's perception and aftermath. The second part examines the 1941 Belcher Island murder trials, underscoring the Euro-Christian biases of the original interpreters and how those original biased interpretations skewed the current understanding of those trials. This dissertation emphasizes the necessity of viewing historical events that implicated Inuit from an Inuit perspective to correct misrepresentations and fabrications prevalent in standard historical accounts. Utilizing a strength-based theoretical framework, this study challenges the deficit discourse commonly applied to Inuit history, advocating for a narrative that recognizes the rational and lawful nature of Inuit social structures. By applying Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and re-interpreting events with a focus on Inuktut, which emphasizes accurate and culturally sensitive interpretations, this dissertation aims to bridge historical knowledge with Inuit cultural understanding, offering a nuanced view of Inuit engagement with Canadian law in the early decades of the twentieth century.