Topic for this week: “outline why colonial authorities couldn’t conceive of accepting the Métis as a third founding nation” (Paterson)
As globalization and migration became more prolific, European explorers discovered and settled in their new-found territories, exploiting the resources and the people already residing there; colonizers in what is now known as Canada were no different. Though several nations laid claim to Canada’s lands, the British soon asserted their dominance in the 1759 Battle of the Plains of Abraham over the French. Even though British superiority reigned over Canada, the victors were willing to accommodate the French in this new nation: “…success in national politics has often required the accommodation of the aspirations of the French speakers in Canada, since they have always formed the largest group of non-English speakers in the country. Other cultural and linguistic groups, including Indigenous peoples, were expected to assimilate to the notion of Canada as British” (Nationalism, 1500-1700). To the south, the outcome of the American Civil War in 1783 resulted in the migration of over 30 000 defeated Loyalists to British-ruled Canada where they “called upon colonial administrators for new lands [in return for fighting for Britain]” (A History of Treaty-Making). More and more land was being taken from the Indigenous people and being given to the foreign settlers.
After the War of 1812, relations between the British and their former colonies improved. Despite being their allies during the War, Indigenous people found themselves on the receiving end of British assimilation efforts. Indigenous people were reduced to “wards of the new Canadian state” (Nationalism, 1800s) – a result of colonial mentality and need for ownership of the land. The mentality is what Daniel Coleman calls “loyalism,” which he identifies as a “problematic and still pervasive collective concept of Canada as a white, Christian, primarily Anglophone, civil society” (Nationalism, 1800s). The AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) describes the result of this mentality: “Based upon the belief that it was Britain’s duty to bring Christianity and agriculture to the First Nations people… [the government encouraged] First Nations people to abandon their traditional ways of life and to adopt a more agricultural and sedentary, more British, life style.” Refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of people such as the Métis, the British established themselves as guardians of the state and therefore caretakers of the land, effectively taking what they justified was theirs.
Looking specifically at the Métis Nation of Manitoba who “created a provisional government [in 1869] and attempted to negotiate directly with the new government of the confederation to establish their territories as a province under their leadership” (Paterson), this “problematic” and “pervasive” mentality of Indigenous people as lesser beings resulted in the rejection and suppression of the Métis Nation’s attempt at independence. Unlike their acceptance of the French, the British did not consider any Indigenous groups as their equal. Thus the provisional government was seen as a rebellion from those who should only be content with being governed; to allow the Métis government was to acknowledge them as equals to their European counterpart, which was unacceptable in the British mindset at the time. The Canadian forces outnumbered those fighting for the Métis cause and the provisional government’s leader, Louis Riel, was captured and subsequently executed.
Louis Riel
Works Cited
“A Biography of Louis Riel.” A Biography of Louis Riel. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftr>
“A History of Treaty-Making in Canada.”Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1314977704533/1314977734895>
“Battle of the Plains of Abraham.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/battle-of-the-plains-of-abraham/>.
Coleman, Daniel. White civility the literary project of English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.
McPherson, James. “A Brief Overview of the American Civil War.” Civil War Trust. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/overview.html>.
“Nationalism, 1500–1700s: Exploration and Settlement.” Guides | CanLit Guides. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://canlitguides.ca/guides/nationalism/
“Nationalism, 1800s: Loyalism and Nation-building.” Guides | CanLit Guides. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 July 2014. <http://canlitguides.ca/guides/nationalism/
Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3.1 | ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre 98A May 2014.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genre 98A May 2014. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 July 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl47098amay2014/unit-3/lesson-3-1/>.
“War of 1812.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 1 July 2014. <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812>.
Great post : ) I agree with your points about Europeans viewing themselves as superior to all aboriginal groups, and that allowing the Metis as a third founding nation would have undermined the very point upon which British colonizers based their claims to the land. Based on your own research, would you agree that accepting the Metis would have spelled disaster for European colonizers supremacy in Canada, undermining their power base? Was there perhaps the possibility of compromised, and the Europeans choose instead to perpetuate the “us vs. them” policy upon which their colonizing ideals were based?
Hi Breanna,
I’m so sorry for this late response! My email assumed that all notifications from this website are spam so I didn’t even know you left a comment until today.
I definitely think that a compromise would have been possible, but the colonizers’ choice to assert dominance instead of finding common ground with the Indigenous people undermined that possibility. Apart from the need for land, I think that because of the recent wars, the settlers were mentally entrenched in the idea that establishing sovereignty meant conquer or be conquered; this sense of insecurity regarding their new authority may be a contributing factor in creating the divisive “us vs. them” (“us” being the new foreign power, and “them” being the groups viewed as dissenters or outliers). With this mindset, the colonizers might have viewed co-existence with the Indigenous people, and in this case with Riel’s proposed government, as a subversion of a singular governing authority that the Europeans were accustomed to.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
Breanne: Europeans / aboriginal – you need to break the habit – Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Nations, all deserve capitals just like European, British, Canadian … 🙂
Blog response 3.1 (b)
Hi Bonny,
I really enjoyed reading your post as this topic is one that I would love to learn more about… There are so many complexities here, contradictions and mixed identities!
The question you explored was to,
“Outline why colonial authorities couldn’t conceive of accepting the Métis as a third founding nation” (Paterson). It was very interesting to read the double standard you depicted concerning the English-Canadian’s being able to “accept” the French-Canadian’s language and cultural practices into the larger state of Canada, while at the same time rejecting all aspects of Indigenous groups lives.
Last year I took Canadian Studies 350, where I learned a lot about the theoretical intricacies behind why the English were able to “accept” the French-Canadian’s into “their” National boarders of Canada, while at the same time rejecting Indigenous peoples. Their ability to manage this was based on their creation of a dichotomy of superiority vs. degeneracy, which allowed them to push Indigenous peoples into assimilative practices under these justifications.
As you mentioned, a lot had to do with the Battle of the Plains of Abraham between Wolfe and Montcalm, as well as the American Civil War. You stated,
“Even though British superiority reigned over Canada, the victors were willing to accommodate the French in this new nation” (Bung, 3.1).
I thought I would add here an interesting and very important point in regards to “imagining” the Canadian Nation, which perhaps sheds some light on why the English appeared to be “accepting” the French into their Nation, something you also began to allude to.
“…success in national politics has often required the accommodation of the aspirations of the French speakers in Canada, since they have always formed the largest group of non-English speakers in the country. Other cultural and linguistic groups, including Indigenous peoples, were expected to assimilate to the notion of Canada as British” (Nationalism, 1500-1700)” (Bung, 3.1) (Smith, Bold Added). Here I would like to add some reason behind why, as you said, the British need to accommodate the French.
At the time, “Canada” was a “new” and fragile Nation that needed to create an identity all their own, allowing some distinction between themselves and the States. This as you said was necessary to achieve success in national politics. By depicting Indigenous peoples as degenerate allowed for the French to be placed on this spectrum as well, often referring to them as “backwards” country bumpkins who were lacking social civility. They also needed to frame this “conquest” as being friendly, something like the big brother disciplining the younger for the greater good.
Hi Courtney,
Sorry it took me so long to reply! I’m really glad you added this nugget of information (I’m also, for some strange reason, always really happy when someone supplements information from another course). Borrowing from Breanna’s comment above, would you say that compromise was possible between the settlers and the Indigenous people? Also, I just wanted to add that your last sentence reminded me of Andrew Jackson’s speech when he attempted to convince the American Indigenous people that for them to surrender their native land was in their best interest and “for the greater good” of their people.
Hi Bonny,
Not a worry about the late reply… Summer is a busy time for everyone!
As for if a compromise was possible, I think that anything is possible. Things could have been very different if the school of thought behind empirialists was not built on a heirarchy of degeneracy vs civility, but it was, thus making me say that NO, I don’t think a compromise at this time was possible. My reason being that Canada, as it is today would NOT exist without the violent dispossession of indigenous peoples from their land, it is this notion, Terra Nullius, Christianity, and assimulation that Canada was and is still built on. These National boarders that we live and abide by are real, at the same time imaginary because they are being upheld by value systems that only exist in the abstract, yet are enforced by physical state power/violence.
Thanks for your response, Courtney!
Hi Bonny,
Looking back at a few past lessons, I wanted to share a few thoughts on your passage. The colonizers at the Plains of Abraham certainly shifted the balance of power/dominance within the territory. As to the English/French divide and acceptance of French culture and language within the nation state, I believe this was more of an acknowledgement of relative powerlessness of the state in the region moreso than it was an attempt to be multicultural and/or accepting. Further, requesting and encouraging “First Nations people to abandon their traditional ways of life and to adopt a more agricultural and sedentary, more British, life style” is as well a display of attempting to force assimilation through the promise of economic and material gain; which is derived from an industry at the time which could not be supported by settlers themselves. To me, this display is more of a display of fufilling an economic need, and a cultural desire (assimilation).