Canadian anthropologists were not the only ones influenced by colonial techniques, as similar methodologies were employed in the United States. American anthropologist Julian Steward maintained a close relationship with the American Federal government and the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) with respect to its treatment of American Indigenous peoples. Steward is viewed as one of the proponents of the creation of American anthropology and founded the school of ‘cultural ecology’, but his contribution to colonial practices in the discipline are often overlooked. The Department of Justice created the ICC in order to address Indigenous claims and contracted anthropologists such as Julian Steward to provide testimonies on these Indigenous groups and their land claims. “In its defence for the Paiute cases, the U.S. Department of Justice relied entirely on Steward’s reports on the Shoshone to assert that “the government was not liable for any claims because the petitioners did not hold original Indian title” (Stewart 1959: 51; Ronaasen et al. 1999).” \cite{Pinkoski2008}(Pinkoski 2008: 191) Steward used his anthropological work to reinforce colonial ideologies and assist the American government in dealing with the ‘Indian problem’. His testimonies allowed the Department of Justice to deny the Paiute a legal land claim as Steward argued that they had no ancestral claim to the land. This allowed the American government to continue denying Indigenous rights and used anthropologists and their work in order to justify their actions of colonization. 
    The romanticism of the anthropologist setting out to study the ‘primitive’ Indigenous group in the late 19th century can be seen as an influence of colonialism in Canadian anthropology. Figure 2 above of E.E. Evans-Pritchard from \cite{Erickson2016} encapsulates this image of the colonial anthropologist. Pritchard is dressed in Western clothing and surrounded by his research subjects, the 'noble savage'. The image summarizes this division between 'us' and 'them' in a distance created between the researcher and those studied in colonial anthropology (Breanna- I reorganized this sentence to improve the flow.). This idea of the Noble Savage is a theme that dominates the anthropological writings of the time as discussed in class. The 'primitive other' dominated the thought process of colonial anthropologists who viewed themselves as civilized and those outside of the West as less than. Franz Boas in his work on the Inuit on Baffin Island from 1883-1884 presents this viewpoint in his compiled letters. Boas writes, “I am now truly just like a typical Eskimo.”\citet{al1998} (Boas 1998: 15) Boas studied the Inuit and used participant observation techniques but there was a distance kept between himself as the researcher and the Inuit, as the subject matter. He still maintained this divide between himself and the Inuit when he conducted his research and did not view them as equal to him. When Boas states that he is "like a typical Eskimo" he implies that he has a full understanding of their culture, which is contradicted by his method which distanced him from the Inuit people. This example highlights how early anthropologists perspectives were often generalizing and colonial (Kevin. I added these sentences to elaborate on the example).
    Work on Indigenous groups in Canada differed from its American counterparts in material culture was a more immediate concern to American anthropologists. Cory Willmott argues in his article, "The Historical Praxis of Museum Anthropology: A Canada-U.S. Comparison" \cite{Willmott2014} Canadian anthropology employed a colonial model to its methodologies, whereas American anthropology leaned towards a more nationalist model. Colonialism dominated the beginnings of Canadian anthropology and a focus on solely material culture of Indigenous groups through appropriation of artifacts. A lack of funding in anthropology at the time led Canadian anthropologists to acquire artifacts through unethical practices. “Canadian anthropologists argued that because of limited funds that were available for research, it was more important to record the vanishing customs of living Indian peoples than to excavate their prehistoric remains.”\cite{trigger1984} (Trigger, 1984: 361). As Canada is still very much a British colonial colony, these deep ties are still present in the society and how anthropology is conducted. Archaeology, a sub-field of anthropology has faced its own concerns with colonialism and its history. As Julia Harrison and Regna Darnell discuss in Historicizing Canadian Anthropology \cite{Harrison2014}Canada has struggled with its identity as a country and in the discipline of anthropology. Many of the founders of Canadian anthropology were British or from outside of Canada and were influenced by colonial ideologies that shaped the discipline. British and American schools formed the methodologies of Canadian anthropology and much of the academic placements in Canada were populated by outsiders such as Diamond Jenness and Franz Boas. The emergence of anthropology itself was rooted in the beginnings of European men setting out to explore and document the ‘primitive’ minorities of the world. 
    Canadian anthropology has gone through a number of changes over the past two centuries in its practices, methods and ethical standards for conducting fieldwork. With emerging responses to colonialism in general, the standards in anthropology have adapted with growing cultural changes. Modern anthropologists in Canada are increasingly held to higher standards when studying minority groups, specifically Indigenous groups. The colonial history and nature of the discipline has greatly affected the relationship between the anthropologist and subject in Indigenous studies. Applied anthropology has emerged as a growing discipline in Canadian anthropology and focuses on Indigenous peoples. “These earlier, often overtly (if not always overly) political readings of the roles of anthropologists during the colonial era have also helped to perpetuate the long-standing practice within the discipline of relegating the study of development to a much maligned subfield of applied anthropology.”\cite{paiement2007} (Paiement 2007: 199). This subfield grew out of a response to the colonial past of anthropology and allowed anthropologists to take a more active role in how their work affected their subjects. Changing attitudes towards methods in the discipline and a shift away from colonial definitions have led to an acceptance of Indigenous traditions in research. A large majority of Indigenous groups use oral traditions that previous Canadian anthropology scholarship ignored in favour of material culture. “Increasingly aboriginal people have their own ideas about the kind of relationship they want to establish with an anthropologist.”\cite{waldram2014} (Dyck and Waldram. 2014: 136). Previously, Indigenous groups were in an unequal power relationship with anthropologist in they were merely the subjects and had no active role in the outcome of the ethnography. Anthropologists have increasingly been working in collaborative efforts with their subjects to create a balanced relationship in a more collaborative effort. 
    Post-colonial methodologies in anthropology have allowed for more collaborative efforts such as interpretive and feminist anthropology. Previously, as males dominated the discipline, a male centric view was presented in ethnography and women were seen as passive participants. As postcolonial anthropology emerged, women and minority groups have had a place in who is the subject of research. With the introduction of post-colonial methodologies, anthropological theory has gone through a number of changes. Post-modernism, feminist and gendered theory, and interpretive anthropology have all become theories created as a reaction to this previous colonial influence. Previously, colonial anthropology disregarded the roles of women and other ‘unseen’ minorities in anthropological studies. “In turn, they focus on the necessity for generating a method of disciplinary self-reflection; and, consistently, they offer this need for a new method as a means to acknowledge and level power imbalances between ethnographers and subjects so as to improve the basic anthropological project.” \cite{pinkoski2008}(Pinkoski 2008: 174). Anthropologists are currently reviewing the colonial past of anthropology and finding new methodologies to end these colonial ties. “To overcome the unequal social relations embedded in the methods of anthropology, these authors advocated for greater self-reflexive techniques within the discipline’s methodology.” \cite{Pinkoski2008}(Pinkoski 2008: 174)
    Canadian anthropology has struggled with finding its identity and rectifying its colonial influences in the way the discipline operates. Since colonialism is such a large part of Canadian history, it would be impossible for anthropologists to ignore the past. As a result, methods in response to a shift away from colonialism have been approached by anthropologists.  Audra Simpson argues that “the work of understanding these issues of membership, political recognition, sovereignty and autonomy within communities requires an historical sensibility (and reckoning) that is deeply horizontal as well as vertical.”\cite{Simpson2007} (Simpson 2007: 76). Anthropology across the world has had to acknowledge its colonial beginnings throughout the past centuries. Canadian anthropology especially has a tense nature with its colonial influences as the country has struggled with its treatment of Indigenous people across disciplines. “The limited impact of accumulated anthropological knowledge on the often grim lives of Canadian Native people, and on policy development, has been a recurrent source of reflection for anthropologists, suggesting at the very least, disquiet at the inability of the discipline to play a clear and constructive role in these arenas.” \cite{Harrison2014}(Harrison and Darnell 2014: 9). Canadian anthropologists previously ignored some of the growing issues affecting Indigenous society, but in the last few decades it has become an emerging topic at the forefront of the discipline. In the height of colonial-influenced Canadian anthropology, there was no involvement of anthropologists in communities long-term. Postmodern techniques and a collaborative effort between researcher and subject have allowed a cohesive relationship through sharing of knowledge, negotiating and reframing.
    Frequently in anthropology, minorities and Indigenous groups are left out in having an active role in fieldwork. With changing societal norms and the emergence of Indigenous studies in anthropology, these previously unheard groups now have a voice. Research and ethical management surrounding how anthropologist’s have conducted their work in Canada has increasingly changed and adapted over the last few decades. Noel Dyck in his article, “Cultures, Communities and Claims: Anthropology and Native Studies in Canada” discusses how “the nature of anthropologists’ involvement with aboriginal communities and issues has been shifting as field researchers have been asked to intervene on behalf of native peoples when dealing governments.”\cite{dyck1990} (Dyck 1990: 43). Indigenous people have became involved in the discipline and are able to straddle the line between subject and researcher. “A number of First Nations and Aboriginal students have completed undergraduate and graduate programs in anthropology in recent years, and many of them have opted to study and write about issues pertaining to Indigenous peoples.” \cite{Dyck2014}(Dyck 2014: 89) Audra Simpson is an individual who presents an interesting viewpoint of Canadian anthropology throughout her writing. She is an anthropologist and an Canadian Indigenous woman who is able to be part of both ‘worlds’. Simpson has written extensively on her work as an anthropologist and how her Indigenous background has influenced how she conducts and perceives the discipline. Indigenous groups in Canada are also becoming active participants in the ways anthropology is conducted in their communities. “They emphasize the participatory component of fieldwork, suggesting that ethnographers who want to work in their communities should be prepared to do so in ways and during times specified by the community.” \cite{Dyck2014}(Dyck et al. 2014: 136). Proper ethical consent and representation have become a focal point of anthropological work in Canada regarding Indigenous groups. Ethnography with Indigenous groups has become more of a collaborative effort between the two parties rather than previous methods which had a lack of openness on the part of the anthropologist. Previously, the anthropologist would enter the community, complete their observations and leave to write their report on the fieldwork collected which would only be shared within the anthropology community. Now, those participants have taken a more equal standpoint in how ethnology and fieldwork is representing their community. Anthropologists in Canada have now begun to take a more active role in their relationship with Indigenous groups and understand their influence in shaping policy-making. As discussed in chapter eight of Linda Tuhiwai Smith's book, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples \cite{smith2013}Indigenous groups and anthropologists must use these methods in order to shift away from the colonial past of how anthropologists and Indigenous communities interacted. She covers methodologies such as revitalizing of culture, language, art and the sharing of knowledge. They are able to express a unique viewpoint in that they are able to collaborate with both minority groups and policy makers. Anthropologists in Canada are able to present these previously unheard groups to a larger audience. This active role of the anthropologist is as an agent in helping to shape policy reform. Newer fields in anthropology have emerged as responses to the colonial history of the origins of the discipline. “Although not unique to Canada, Canadian anthropologists are making noticeable contributions to the anthropology of advocacy and participatory or action-styled research.”\cite{holyoak2006} (Ervin and Holyoak 2006: 142). Canadian anthropologists have become advocates for Indigenous groups on societal issues such as land claims, health initiates and quality of life. Anthropologists as whistleblowers has become a way to shift away from its colonial past and rectify this unequal power balance. Canadian anthropologist Dara Speck in the late 1980’s used her position to lobby for improved conditions of minority groups. “In this passionate ethnography, she expands on the tragic and unnecessary death of a young Kwakiutl girl to appendicitis and medical malpractice.”\cite{Ervin2006} (Ervin and Holyoak 2006: 142) Rather than using their position to help governments abuse minority groups as previously seen, Canadian anthropologists have taken an active role in providing a platform for these groups to be visible and heard on their own terms.
    In conclusion, colonialism and its influence on anthropology remains a tense issue across the world, especially in Canada with its ever present effects. Prior to the professionalization era of anthropology, missionaries conducted the majority of anthropological work in Canada who were heavily influenced by colonialist attitudes and methods. Early models of Canadian anthropology were mainly conducted by missionaries and armchair anthropologists distanced from their subjects. With the work of individuals such as Franz Boas, Lewis Henry Morgan and Marius Barbeau, detailed and extensive fieldwork methodologies and participant observation became the standard for anthropological work in Canada. Still influenced by their own Eurocentric biases, the unequal relationship between the anthropologist and Indigenous groups continued with these figures. As responses and re-evaluations in the discipline have emerged in the last few decades through societal and culture changes inside and outside the discipline, anthropologists have sought to rectify these colonial influences. Sub-fields such as applied anthropology have allowed the anthropologist to become advocates for minority groups previously overlooked by the colonial nature of the discipline. Indigenous groups, the subject of fieldwork have become active agents in these studies and taken a more equal role alongside the anthropologist to create a collaborative work. Canadian anthropology must continue to acknowledge its colonial past and use this history to continue reviving methodologies to erase all colonial influences in the discipline.
Bibliography
Boas, Franz, et al. Franz Boas among the Inuit of Baffin Island, 1883-1884 : Journals and Letters. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998. 
Dyck, Noel. “Cultures, Communities and Claims: Anthropology and Native Studies in Canada. From Canadian Ethnic Studies. 1990. Vol. 22, Issue 3: 40-55.
Dyck, Noel and James B. Waldram. Anthropology, Public Policy, and Native Peoples in Canada. 2014. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal.
Dyck, Noel. 2014. “7. Canadian Anthropology and the Ethnography of “Indian Administration”. From Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. Vancouver, UBC Press: 78-92.
Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2016. A History of Anthropological Theory, Fifth Edition. University of Toronto Press.
Ervin, Alexander M, and Lorne Holyoak. “Applied Anthropology in Canada: Historical Foundations, Contemporary Practice and Policy Potentials.” 2006. Napa Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1: 134-155.
Hancock, Robert L.A. 2014. “Towards a Historiography of Canadian Anthropology”. From Historicizing Canadian Anthropology
Harrison, Julia and Regna Darnell. 2014. Historicizing Canadian Anthropology . Vancouver, UBC Press.
Kan, Sergei. Strangers to Relatives : The Adoption and Naming of Anthropologists in Native North America. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 2001. 
Paiement, Jason Jacques. “Anthropology and Development”. 2007. Napa Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 1: 196–223.
Pinkoski, M. “Julian Steward, American Anthropology, and Colonialism.” 2008. Histories of Anthropology Annual, Vol. 4 No. 1: 172-204.
Simpson, Audra. 2007. “On Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity,‘Voice’and Colonial citizenship”. From Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue 9.
Trigger, Bruce G. 1984. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.” From Man New Series, Vol. 19, No.3: 355-370.
Willmott, Cory. 2014. "The Historical Praxis of Museum Anthropology: A Canada-U.S. Comparison". From Historicizing Canadian Anthropology. Vancouver: UBC Press.