There is a commonly accepted notion that Canada has two founding nations, forgetting to incorporate the people that were before and still are Métis. It is a complex term with an even more complex history. The Métis, along with the other Aboriginal peoples that have either lived or currently live in Canada represent an important aspect of Canada’s identity, but many of these cultures have been dismissed. When one identifies themselves as Métis, many questions about their ancestry follow, disputing that person’s sense of their own convoluted identity. A large amount of what is known about Métis peoples has been dictated by the numerous definitions that exist throughout Canada. Not only are there different definitions on the word Métis but there are some variations on the word itself and to whom these variations apply. Each of these definitions dictate whether or not that the person is “Native” enough to claim that they themselves are Metis. When researching Métis people I concentrated on the numerous definitions that these people fell into, focusing on the three categories of history, legal and contemporary definitions that frequently overlapped. The way many approach Métis people is through their history, and the way that these people were historically defined. Even though the government didn’t recognize the term Métis for an extensive amount of time, it was commonly used by the populace to describe the people of mixed ancestry. Later, when the government did constitutionally recognizes the term Métis it evolved into a legal way of defining these peoples; Métis was no longer just a vernacular term used by many to describe mixed individuals. The final category of definitions is the contemporary manner of defining these individuals. This approach looks at the
manner in which today’s society views Métis people as either a whole or/and a single person, as well as how present day Métis individuals view themselves. Within these various interpretations of the term Metis, many of the definitions addressed the complexities of the Métis identity and it’s inability to be confined.
Métis is a word in and of it self that has it’s own controversial history. A large amount of the history around the term Métis is full of prejudice due to the terms predecessors. Métis was not the first word used by the common populace to describe the descendants of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry,
“At first, the mixtures were half-breeds, quarter-breeds, and eighth-breeds, but soon a fractional classification became impossible. In Canada this led the people to use the French word, “Metis”, to describe the mixed-blood people.” (Bruce Sealey, Lussier pg.1)
Each term used to describe these culturally mixed people still demoted them to the status of an animal. They were still described in terms of breed and blood, much like the Aboriginal people. The lower the fraction, the less of a savage you were considered be, but you still were lower than the white man but you were also less of an Aboriginal person. Many of the prejudice names that these people were called before were meant as a way to segregate them from both the Aboriginal and “white” communities. After being confronted by these animalistic terms used to describe Métis people I looked into one of our required course reading to see if the way that that author historically depicts the names that were used any better then what I was finding in my analysis. But when reading it I found that ,
“Métis was not the only term that was used historically; other terms included: half-bloods, half-breeds, mischif, bois brûlé, chicot, country-born, mixed bloods, and so on.” (Vowel pg.38)
When each name was translated it most commonly involved the word mixed, the foundation of what Métis people are was based solely on them being mixed (cultures). It is likely that many people wouldn’t interpret “mixed” as a controversial term, but compare this term to that of “mudblood”. “Mudblood” is the name that J. K Rowling uses to identify a magical person who is born to non-magical parents. Each of these terms is used to lower a person’s standing (or place) in society. The multitudinous terms were all used to illustrate this lesser being, one that was not worthy to be called neither white nor Aboriginal.
Even after a common term came into use there were arguments over whether it should be capitalized or not. The large reason behind this argument is the common association with The Red River Métis people, Louis Riel and their rebellion against the Canadian government. Some people see the
“Little m Métis[as] essentially a racial category…one is little m Métis when one is neither fully First Nations nor fully non-Indigenous…On one extreme of little ‘m’ métis identity, one must actually be half First Nations and half not. On the other extreme, one can be métis with only a minimal amount of First Nations blood. You can just imagine the range of arguments involved in deciding where along the spectrum of ‘blood quantum’ is supposedly legitimate.” (Vowel pg. 38)
Even when there is a single agreed upon word to describe a unique group of people, there are arguments about who this term should be applied to. When a
“Big M Métis tends to be a sociopolitical definition, one that still relies on the core concept of “mixture”. The belief is that mixing between European men and Indigenous women happened, and the Métis were born as a people… eventually crystallized into a national identity during a specific period of time in the history of Canada…One end of
this spectrum considers only the Red River Métis and their descendants… as legitimately Metis. Others consider any community to be Métis if it included people of mixed First Nations and European ancestry, who developed their own culture and shared a
history.” (Vowel pg.38-39)
The single most commonly accepted term used to describe these people is complex with multiple meanings because it is trying to define a convoluted peoples. When approaching this topic I wanted to focus on showing how something mundane as definitions can be a confining interpretation of the people it is representing. Vowel’s description of the little m and the Big M Métis peoples was the ideas that I was presented with in class it is the basis in which this will build off of. There are many intricacies that involve the Métis identity and are resistant to the confines of a single definition. Métis is a single term meant to encompass all mixed individuals, but even within the word there are questions involving it’s contribution.
It’s different to define a people from afar then to actually understand a unique group of people for what they are. Métis is a term that can be used to describe a hybrid but wouldn’t be as controversial as it today if it weren’t for the Métis peoples. Many people believe that
“the Métis were born as a people (a process known as “ethnogenesis”) when they began to share a common experience that eventually crystallized into a national identity during a specific period of time in the history of Canada.” (Vowel pg. 38)
Métis people differ from the Aboriginal people in the sense that they do not have the incomprehensible history that the many First Nations groups have. Even though Métis people don’t share the same history with the Aboriginal people, there are experiences that the Métis people have shared. It is often that many people forget about the differences between these two people 100 Big Idea Project 4
“To the American and Canadian governments, the Métis were not a separate or distinct people- often being forced to assume an Indian or white identity. Policies, prejudices, and ignorance that has largely continued unabated to the present day forced the…Metis’s into a bush.” (Lischke, McNab pg.180)
Peoples inability to distinguish these vastly different groups from each other is similar to the CFL being mistaken for the NFL, they are similar in some aspect but are quite different when you look at the different rules and regulations. Much of the prejudice that the Métis people are facing is due to the already negative stigma that surrounds Aboriginal people. But few individuals assume that Métis peoples
“ …see themselves not as Indians or Whites, but as a unique people free to choose to identify with whichever group they desire. Indians claim to be a people with special rights and privileges. Most Métis claim only to be people with special problems.” (Sealey, Lussier pg. 169)
Following the utopian ideal that much of society has about the Indian, many individuals find Métis attracted to the aspect of the exotic savage with the tameness of the noble white individual. Ample amounts of people assume that since one is Métis then they are Indian, they must also conform to the Dead Indian ideal that Thomas King presented- the Indian that is in fringed leather and runs around with tomahawks in hand. Many Métis individuals do not appear to be the stereotypical Indian, some of them can have blonde hair, blue eyes, and pale skin. Throughout interacting with these different concepts of what Métis people entail, I came to further cement my opinion that Métis people have a very complex identity. Métis people are seen to have a choice between choosing to be white or Indian, even if there is a difference for them. If we define people as Métis doesn’t that mean that everyone else would be settlers, every issue that relates to unique groups of people is becoming more complex and hard for groups to come to unanimous agreement on where to go. The only aspect that is more complicated for Métis people is the fact that both (aboriginal and white) communities do not accept the Métis people fully. Métis people are like the Aboriginal people in the sense that we didn’t assimilate into modern society, many individuals decided to fight against these attempts to create an even stronger culture.
When looking at Métis people and the complexities that relates to them, one must take into consideration the broad history. Until recently the Métis people identified themselves as “the forgotten people” because they were the people never recognized by the government. Métis were the ones “… who are forgotten, not the Indians. Its the Métis who got nothing.” (Sealey, Lussier pg.181), they were the people that – even though experiencing the same hardships of residential schools- still had to deal with it on their own with very minimal help from the government. The only way in which one can find some definition of their Métis selves is through their history, their
“…racial stereotypes are useless in identifying people. Instead, he argues that the people’s definition of community, family, and history are more useful in determining Métis identities.” (Lischke, Ute, McNab, David T. pg.168)
It is difficult to connect with your Métis or Aboriginal ancestry if you have no concept of that family’s Métis customs or history, which is unique to each Métis family. Each Métis family has some kind of cultural affliction with an Aboriginal group, which dictates the culture that that Métis family follows. Much of the way that Métis people were interpreted through
“Images and descriptions externalized outsider perspectives of Métis… and also presented their identities- although often romanticized as “devilish”, “exotic”- as exiting
in noble past rather than the present. People of European and Indian descent (metis) and
their Euro-American ideals of civilization.” (Jane Bell pg.48)
Their is so much unknown history when it comes to Métis peoples and the different communities that existed across Canada. The Red River Métis was not the first community of Métis people nor will it be the last. The history of a Métis individual is an import part of that individual’s identity. But each Métis is similar yet vastly different from others.
Another way to define Métis people is legally. Taking into consideration the court case and the constitution changes that have been made to Canada’s legislation to make it more inclusive for Métis individuals. There are two major decisions that the Supreme Court of Canada has made that have directly impacted Métis people. The first decision is known as the Powley decision, it recognized the unique rights that Métis peoples should be entitled to. There was a huge arouse when it came to this decision because
“The gravity of this is all more acute given that, of the three Aboriginal peoples recognized in the Constitution Act, 1982, the Métis were unique for the degree to which their rights were not recognized prior to the Powley decision. There are therefore not building upon a pre-existing rights regime… the Métis struggle is to achieve basic recognition of the right to carry on practices important to Métis people.” (Patzer pg. 320)
This was the start of the recognition of the unique cultural group that is Métis people. This was the first stepping stone in the Métis peoples having their own unique set of rights that correlates to the horrors that they experienced as well as the hardships. A more recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling is
“The Daniels decision [which] classifies non-Status Indians and Métis as “Indians” under section 91(24) of the Constitution. This clarifies that both groups are a constitutional
responsibility of the federal government and not the provinces.” (Vowel,
apihtawikosisan.com).
No longer do Métis peoples fall under the jurisdiction of provincially run Métis organizations, with this decision Métis individuals are now considered Indian with many of the same rights that they have with some restrictions. Much of the Daniels decision is still in the process of being settled, so Métis people don’t know the true ramifications of this decision. The way in which the government defines a Métis person is significant due to the fact that they now fall under the federal governments power. But each time that the government tries to confine Métis people under single definitions the more their uniqueness and inability to be defined starts to show.
Contemporary definitions of Métis people are continually changing based on the places that you live in Canada. Throughout my research process I wanted to incorporate some contemporary view on what an individual Métis is, but what I found is that Métis people are
“Like a silver fox, the knowledge of history and family are often just as rare and
illusive.” (Lischke, Ute, McNab, David T. pg. 247).
I find that Métis people are hidden within plain sight. Many people are Métis but have either not been told by their family or don’t like to admit that they are Metis. For the longest time many children are pushed into the shadows of their ancestry, their parents just trying to shield them from the prejudice that surfaces when one admits to their Aboriginal ancestry. Many believe that “they are Metis because they are not somebody else”, they are not Native enough to be considered an Indian (Harrison pg. 15). There is a particular reason that Métis people and their uniqueness interested me greatly throughout the First Nations Indigenous course and that is because I myself am Métis. I am an individual that has been placed within the confines of each and every one of the previous definitions but each time they fail me. My past and present are to
complicated for one single definition that is supposed to define me. My ancestry is both Cree and Blackfoot which may be similar or different from other Métis individuals. Some Métis individuals I know look more like society’s depiction of how Natives should appear, than some full blooded First Nations that I know. Each individual is unique within our own ways, the relationships that we have with our families and the histories that an individual has is what it mean to be Metis. As Vowel says
“Being is a verb, it’s a process. Being Métis is something you can spend a lifetime trying to understand. Most of us just live it, however, and when we do reflect on it, we don’t let it paralyze us” (Vowel, apihtawikosisan.com).
Metis peoples’ identity is so intricate that it can’t be defined with one single definition. Even when the relationships between Aboriginal and non-Indigenous people began there were innumerable amount of terms to describe them, these terms were usually meant to demote people of mixed heritage to the status of an animal. When there was a term that was commonly accepted, there still existed a debate on whether or not that term should be capitalized to represent people of different mixed backgrounds. The once then term was settled a people that had arisen long before the term was starting to be at the forefront of societies ideal. The history behind the person is also used as a guideline to define the Metis people, realizing that these people have been around a lot longer then many can comprehend. Later this group became recognized by the government and had their very own rights and eventually evolving into a single term- Indian- that was previously used to segregate these people. As the government’s definition of these people evolved so did their outlook on themselves, they found the need to be content intones uniqueness and resist the confines that definitions placed upon them. The way that people are being defined by society is a big issue that has troubled many different individuals.
Through looking how a single group continually resist and manipulates the terms that have been placed upon them, one can find the inessential use in these terms.
Works Citied
• Métis, Canada’s forgotten people by D. Bruce Sealey, Antoine S. Lussier
• Metis in Canada: History, Identity, Law and Politics
• Indigenous Write by Chelsea Vowel
• The Long Journey of a Forgotten People: Metis Identities and Family Histories by Lischke,
Ute, McNab, David T.
• Metis: People Between Two Worlds by Julia Diane Harrison
•https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/23/worlddispatch.annemcilroy
• http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15858/index.do
• http://apihtawikosisan.com/2011/12/youre-metis-so-which-of-your-parents-is-an-indian/