Ethnogenesis of the Métis People of the Northwest (original) (raw)
Related papers
Metis people are a distinct ethnic group that emerged among descendants of First Nations women and European men during the fur trade in North America. Canada's Constitution recognizes Métis as one of Canada's three Aboriginal groups and currently approximately 400,000 self-identify as Metis. Although the United States does not recognize Metis as a distinct ethnic group, tens of thousands of self-identified Metis live in the northwestern states. This course explores the meeting of Indigenous women and European men in the fur trade starting in the 17 th century through to the 19 th century, how their children established distinct communities, the emergence of a distinct Metis language (Michif), various economies of Metis communities, as well as cultural practices, religion, clothing and material culture. It will trace the development of a distinct political collectivity in the western part of North America, focusing on political battles in the Red River settlement, and on the resistances of 1869-70 and 1885. It will then turn to the decline and erasure of Metis communities, the losses incurred in the process of allocating scrip, and the destitution of road allowance communities. The course will end with the resurgence of Metis political organizations in the 1970s and 1980s, the fight for political recognition from the Canadian and U.S. governments, and the renaissance in Metis art, music, and community pride. Some of the most innovative developments in the field of Metis history have been the use of different types of primary sources for historical evidence, the pairing of diverse types of sources, and asking new questions about well-used and familiar sources. This course critically analyses primary source materials used for understanding Metis history, and the reading material is made up of a diverse range of primary sources. General questions to keep in mind when interrogating primary sources are: • Who or what created the source? • What is its provenance? • Why has it survived to the present day? • Is it typical and common, or is it atypical and rare? • What was the context in which it was created? • Can it be assessed in different ways? • Does the source contain more than a single voice or perspective? • How can the source be used to learn about the past? • What perspectives are left out of the story by using this source? We will also be reading some secondary sources in Metis history, both in book and article form, but mainly coming from the textbook From New Peoples to New Nations by Gerhard J. Ens and Joe Sawchuk. I assume that each student brings a different background and different knowledge to the course, and while that can be challenging, it also provides us with great benefits. We will try to work together to enrich our knowledge and understanding of the craft of historical research,
This dissertation offers an analysis of the history of Métis political thought in the nineteenth century and its role in the anti-colonial resistances to Canada’s and Hudson’s Bay Company governance. Utilizing the Michif concepts of kaa-tipeyimishoyaahk and wahkohtowin to shed light on Métis political practices, this work argues that the Métis people had established themselves as an independent Indigenous people in the nineteenth century North West. By use of a common language of prairie diplomacy, Métis had situated themselves as a close “relation” of the Hudson’s Bay Company, but still politically independent of it. Nineteenth century Métis had repeatedly demonstrated their independence from British institutions of justice and politics, and were equally insistent that Canadian institutions had no authority over them. When they did choose to form a diplomatic relationship with Canada, it was decidedly on Métis terms. In 1869-1870, after repelling a Canadian official who was intended to establish Canadian authority over the North-West, the Métis formed a provisional government with their Halfbreed cousins to enter into negotiations with Canada to establish a confederal treaty relationship. The Provisional Government of Assiniboia then sent delegates to Ottawa to negotiate “the Manitoba Treaty,” a bilateral constitutional document that created a new province of Manitoba, that would contain a Métis/Halfbreed majority, as well as very specific territorial, political, social, cultural, and economic protections that would safeguard the Métis and Halfbreed controlled future of Manitoba. This agreement was embodied only partially in the oft-cited Manitoba Act, as several key elements of the agreement were oral negotiations that were later to be institutionalized by the Canadian cabinet, although were only ever partially implemented. These protections included restrictions on the sale of the 1.4 million acre Métis/Halfbreed land reserve, a commitment to establish a Métis/Halfbreed controlled upper-house in the new Manitoba legislature, a temporary limitation of the franchise to current residents of the North West, and restrictions on Canadian immigration to the new province until Métis lands were properly distributed. While these key components of the Manitoba Treaty were not included in the Manitoba Act, they remain a binding part of the agreement, and thus, an unfulfilled obligation borne by the contemporary government of Canada. Without adhering to Canada’s treaty with the Métis people, its presence on Métis lands, and jurisdiction over Métis people is highly suspect. Only by returning to the original agreement embodied by the Manitoba Act can Canada claim any legitimacy on Métis territories or any functional political relationship with the Métis people.
The Canadian state has constantly been faced with a paradox: differentiated rights and regulations required it to define the boundaries of the invented category "Indian," yet it was never able to do so satisfactorily. The existence of mixed-ancestry and Métis people disrupted its seemingly clear categories of "Indian" and "White." This thesis asks three central research questions: how did the Canadian state understand the category they called "half breeds;" what cultural and intellectual ideas informed these notions; and what was their impact? There was no single meaning or understanding of the term "Half Breed," but it was in fact characterized by inconsistency, ambiguity, contradiction, and confusion. There were two significant opposing forces at play: 1) the need to consolidate the power of the emerging state, which usually meant grouping the Métis and people of mixed ancestry in with “Indians” in order to better control them, and 2) the desire to save money, which usually meant separating out “half breeds” as a way of reducing the number of status Indians (to minimize the scope of the state’s fiscal responsibilities). The Métis presented themselves as a free “civilized” Indigenous People, but for the government, the term "half breed" was most useful as a floating signifier, with no stable meaning. In an era of increasing state rationalization, the sliding signifier allowed for flexibility in otherwise rigid laws and policy, aiding the state in navigating between its often-conflicting goals. Only in a few instances did the state recognize the Métis as a distinct People. Because of discrimination and the lack of official recognition, many Métis people were dispossessed and hid their heritage. On the other hand, this very ambiguity could provide a degree of freedom, and Métis today are working to define themselves as a distinct people and to fight for their inherent Indigenous rights.
Metis Studies : The Development of a Field and New Directions
2001
The Development of a Field and New Directions FRITS PANNEKOEK UNTIL RECENTLY, sources for Metis studies have been few both for classroom use as well as academic reflection. Lately, there has been a virtual explosion of interest, although largely among non-Metis historians. Now this too has begun to change. A new dynamic is also forcing Metis historiography out of the bog of Red River in which some argue it has been mired for too long. The writings of the previous decades have already been examined from a historiographical perspective in several excellent articles. 1 Rather than updating these useful exercises, an alternative is to examine the new literature from a topical perspective, posing questions and suggesting new avenues of investigation. The current literature is the reflection of scholarly concerns of the last two decades and fit into six basic themes or areas: the origins of the Metis people, the historic Metis of the fur trade period of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the Metis Diaspora of the mid to late nineteenth century, the revival of Metis consciousness in the twentieth century, Metis land claims, and Metis women's history. A case could be made that the beginning point in each of these areas are the great icons of Metis historiography:
The debate about the Indian Act and how to reconcile the elected councils and the traditionals over the past 40 years has been shaped by the sweeping intent of the White Paper of 1969, issued as Pierre Trudeau began his career as prime minister. It set out a liberal, multicultural challenge, an attempt to supersede the Indian Act by eliminating any special status for natives altogether. This galvanized the natives towards a defence of their special status, above and prior to the colonial settlers. It is a nice historical touch that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made native issues a priority, perhaps putting in place a new dispensation that has been germinating ever since.
FOR THE RECORD ... On Métis Identity and Citizenship Within the Métis Nation
Aboriginal Policy Studies, 2013
Métis National Council (MNC) President Clem Chartier, in his February 2013 newsletter, 1 mentioned the Native Council of Canada, the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO), and me a number of times while citing unresolved "issues, " the existence of which he blamed on the MNC's "failure to reach consensus on the Homeland boundaries and a national acceptance process for Métis Nation Citizenship. " I am compelled to write to set the record straight based on history and fact. President Chartier writes: We stand on the edge of a new frontier for Métis Nation self-government. The Daniels case, the upcoming decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in MMF v Canada and Manitoba, and the accords under the Métis Nation Protocol are all building blocks underlying a potential self-government agreement between the Métis Nation and Canada. But there are stumbling blocks too that must be overcome if we are to reach consensus on a constitution that we need in order to exercise self-government. The foremost of these is the failure to date to achieve consensus on Homeland boundaries and a national acceptance process for Métis Nation citizenship. Without settling these issues, we cannot capitalize on the opportunities for self-government currently unfolding before us. These issues take us back to the organization of the Métis at the national level in 1971 when the three prairie Métis associations founded the Native Council of Canada (NCC). By 1983, those same three prairie Métis organizations found it necessary to leave the organization they had founded because, with the expansion of the NCC to include non-status and status Indians, the Métis had become a minority in its governance structure and could no longer effectively advocate for Métis Nation rights, particularly with respect to the pending First Ministers Conferences on Aboriginal Rights. With the formation of the Métis National Council as the sole legitimate representative of the Métis Nation on March 8, 1983 we were able to secure our rightful place at the constitutional negotiation table and advocate for a Métis Nation land-base and self-government.