<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Smith, James G.E.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Burch, Ernest S., Jr.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chipewyan and Inuit in the Central Canadian Subarctic, 1613-1977</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chipewyan-Inuit</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ethnographic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">inter-ethnic relations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">relations</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1979</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40315956</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arctic Anthropology</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">University of Wisconsin Press</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">76-101</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">0066-6939; 1933-8139</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">en</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chipewyan-Inuit relations are examined from the onset of European exploration to the contemporary period, utilizing historical records (including the unpublished archives of the Hudson's Bay Company) and the results of ethnographic research among both societies. Reexamination of the data indicate that while aboriginal sentiments of hostility continued, the content of relations was more complex, when considered in time and space, than has customarily been believed. Methodological and theoretical implications are two-fold: uncritical and haphazard reading of the records contribute to misunderstanding and oversimplification; to view from only one side may be totally misleading.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">First Nations</style></custom1><custom4><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humanities Bibliography</style></custom4></record></records></xml>