Week 9 Wall
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
Reflecting on the course so far, and not just on this week’s lectures, to what extent and in what ways can “Canada” be considered a “Metis civilization” as John Ralston Saul terms it?
jenniferbishop, 
doraleung, and 11 others are discussing.
lindswong 12:50 am on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
During the 1800s, Canada could be seen as a type of “Métis Civilization.” John Ralston associated Canada to this term as a result of the view Baldwin put forward in his view that responsible government was the only way for to create harmony of the state, or of the “two sides” which consisted of the French and English. The aboriginal idea of harmony was similar to this in that it was an idea of an “ever-widening web circle of interconnected beings.” Combine this aboriginal view to the European view, i.e. Baldwin’s view, of responsible government, the idea of a “Métis Civilization” is born. However, despite this term only came into being in the 1800s, the “Métis Civilization” had been growing since the beginning of colonization.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between the natives and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics as well. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt the native rituals or customs in order to better work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the the French political, cultural and social systems.
Even with the arrival and dominance of the British, relationships with the natives, such as the French had, continued. During the War of 1812, the natives, under Tecumseh, proved to be of great help to the British effort to ward off the Americans. Thus this furthered to strengthen relationships and ties between Europeans a natives.
As result of the many years of close association and relationship building between diverse groups of people the native culture became so intertwined with the European way of life. Thus Baldwin’s idea of responsible government could be seen to be simply a reflection of this European and native mixing of ideals, and, therefore, a “Métis Civilization” is the result. Perhaps the native influence also aided in the eventual acceptance of unity between the French and English.
jpellegrino 11:49 am on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada can be considered a Metis civilization to a large extent not only due to the fact that Aboriginal peoples are native to the land, but because of the long-term, positive influences that the Aboriginal’s had on the country.
Most obviously, Canada can be seen as a Metis civilization because of the actual emergence of the Metis culture. After the Europeans settled in the West, the collaboration of French culture and Indigenous culture took place. The North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company began inter-marrying with Aboriginal women. The children produced by these groups of people would be considered the Metis Nation.
Another reason that Canada should be considered a Metis civilization is because the Aboriginals are responsible for much of the economic success Canada has had. While the fur trade brought political tensions, it did more good than bad because without it, the country would not have had foot forward when it came to prosperity in Canada. The fur trade was a huge stepping-stone for the unraveling of economic history in the country.
Aboriginal people of Canada also influenced the democratic system of the country. It is in the 1840’s that the Aboriginal desire for democracy surfaced. The Aboriginals drew this from the idea of social equality and the idea of harmony, created by Lafontaine and Baldwin respectively. In putting these two ideas together, the Aboriginals influenced the formation of what would later be called “Responsible Government.”
In looking back at the history of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, it is safe to say that they were accommodating to European settlers. It is due to the Aboriginal willingness to accommodate or find, “middle grounds” that Canada has come to the place that it is at. Using the examples provided, we can see that the Aboriginals shaped numerous aspects of Canadian civilization.
liorbarel 11:53 am on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The question that is sort of behind this question is the idea of collective memory, and how far back exactly collective memory goes. Can it be said that Canada’s collective memory is unconsciously linked to its entire history as a people? In some ways, saying “yes” to this question can be seen as an Aboriginal idea in and of itself, and in some ways the answer to this question is in fact yes.
But Canada is a colonizer. In many ways, its collective consciousness is in direct opposition to First Nations culture. And it’s collective unconsciousness is in that case probably just as repressed as its colonization (which, some would argue, is pretty extensive).
Examined from the reverse extreme, Ralston Saul’s argument also doesn’t make complete sense. Because, if it can be argued that Canadians’ ontological epistemological reality – that is, their way of viewing their existence and knowledge – is unconsciously rooted in their repressed Aboriginal culture, then it also stands that Canada’s actions stem from every culture, well, ever. Because Canada has interacted with almost every culture ever, through some medium. Furthermore, if Saul’s theory is true, then it would seem to me that it should apply to the U.S., and I don’t see any connection there.
However (and this is the last however), there is an extent to which I believe this to be true. Why it can be at least partially true for Canada and much less so for the U.S. is a question I can not historically answer, but there must be something that accounts for Canada’s perceived “niceness” – and it’s definitely not the colonial chapter of its history. Stereotypes are often individually untrue, and collectively shaky, but there is some unconscious truth in them. And I would be willing to say that Canada can be seen to a small extent – in its collective unconscious, represented through its stereotypes – as a Metis civilization.
tyler5 2:23 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul makes a bold statement with his opinion that Canadian history is that of a Metis civilization. From what we have learned so far in this course, the aboriginal people’s of this land have had profound influence on the shaping of longstanding political, economic, and social spheres. This in mind, it is an interesting task to try and understand whether or not this influence had more of an impact than we had previously thought. Ralston Saul argues that Canada is a product of Metis principles, however, I believe that while our nation does reflect many Metis principles it is impossible to entirely credit Metis people with shaping the positive qualities of Canada.
Canada today, is a multicultural nation that praises tolerance and assimilation of cultures. It prides itself as a nation that respects differences and that has an effective way of ensuring that the rights of all its citizens are upheld at all times. Considering this, in the CBC article, “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” Ralston Saul claims that “we’d be mistaken if we thought our ‘institutional and cultural inheritance’ came from the usual suspects:” He then goes on to claim that our principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness, that we believe were inherited through Western Civilization, actually come from Canadian aboriginal people. I have trouble fully agreeing with this statement, however I understand why Ralston Saul came to this conclusion. The First Nations people of Canada, especially the Metis, embodied these principles within their civilizations, and this is clearly why Ralston Saul views Canada as a nation built on Metis civilization.
However, to back up claims like this, one must look at evidence. Thankfully, so far in this course we have learned many aspects of Canadian history that lend themselves to increasing the credibility of John Ralston Saul’s opinion. For example, it is undoubted that the First Nations people in Canada helped lay an economic fabric that encouraged interracial communication and tolerance. The Metis civilization that ensued as a result of French and First Nation interracial marriage saw a difference in culture. However, these two groups intermingled with relative success, and displayed signs of cultural tolerance and acceptance.
Making comparisons, one can look at responsible government as a reflection of this cultural tolerance and acceptance. In a way, responsible government acted as a way to ensure that neither the English, or the French would be subjected to unfair rule by the hands of the opposing culture. It embodies Metis principles of tolerance and fairness.
All of this evidence seems beneficial to John Ralston Saul’s argument. However, John Ralston Saul’s argument regarding Metis civilization as the framework of Canadian society is difficult to accept in entirety. I believe its merit is the enlightenment as to the importance of how Metis civilization influenced the shaping of a tolerant and cooperative nation. However, I find it a stretch to accept that our nation is strictly a product of Metis principles and that all of our vices as a nation are merely European characteristics outweighing the benevolent Metis values.
Ralston Saul even uses direct examples, claiming that Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping efforts as well as our esteemed universal healthcare are actually an unconscious response to Metis values. This assumption places Metis civilization in high esteem, and European civilization in disgrace and contempt.
Even Richard Handler, the author of “A Metis nation? Putting Canada on the couch,” argues that Ralston Saul’s argument stretches boundaries. After examining Ralston Saul’s opinions, I fully agree with him to the extent that many defining positive aspects of Canadian culture in fact reflect the embodied principles of tolerance, inclusiveness, and fairness that were held in high esteem by the Metis. However, in the words of Handler, “are we then to believe that all the European ideals that flowed into the making of Canada just deceptive junk?”
tazizi 4:31 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe the Metis culture has positively influenced Canada to a large extent; however, to say that Canada is a “Metis civilization,” as John Ralston Saul does, may be a bit of a stretch. It is true that traits such as tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, attributed by Saul to the Indigenous nations, can be seen in many aspect of Canadian life as claimed by Saul, but that does not mean Canada is solely built on Metis civilization. Today, Canadians pride ourselves on having a culture that represents the diversity present in Canada, so while many founding ideas can be traced back to Native ideology, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are a “Metis civilization.” It’s almost like the traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness, which are the roots of many Canadian systems, came from the Indigenous people, but were then expanded and built upon by other cultural influences. In some instances, it can also be argued that these traits were not present.
For example, the economic success of the fur trade can largely be accounted for by the Natives. Without their help and willingness to tolerate the European traders Canada’s history could possibly look very different. Also, the first real permanent mixing of the two cultures was between the Native women when they married a European man. More recently in class, we learned about Canada gaining a responsible government, which was based on the idea of fairness. Something we recently learned about in class, which may possibly differ from the “Metis civilization,” is the police system. I don’t know of anything like this law system in the Metis culture, and furthermore, it isn’t like this system was exactly fair or inclusive. As the numbers proved in class, the system favoured those who were of the elite and put many men in jail.
Lastly, these great traits of tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness taught to the Europeans by the Natives were not always present in Canada once there was more outside influence. Saul argues the Indigenous were very egalitarian, but it wasn’t until the 1920s when women won the suffrage movement, so it would appear that Canada isn’t as “Metis” as we would think. Today, although we are not fully there, we are starting to see tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness put back into our society.
ecopeland 9:44 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul’s depiction of Canada as a Métis civilisation bases it’s argument on a cohesion of Aboriginal ideology and colonial politics. This intermingling of ideas is what defines Canada as Metis, and was brought about through the intermarriage of First Nations and European colonists. I understand from our studies so far that First Nations and French colonists did have high numbers of cross cultural relationships, and First Nations significantly affected the success of the immediate colonists survival and success of the fur trade.
However I do not agree with Saul assumption that intermarriage, which in the progressing years of colonisation resulted in a one way cultural transmission not shared, can be recognised as an attempt to bring the two cultures together. Rather the immediate relationships were a product of the male-only groups of explorers that ventured to the New World. I also believe that the attempted genocide of First Nations culture should not be overwritten with theory that throughout all that, Canada was using First Nations ideologies at heart and that their principles have guided Canada to through that to a Metis civilisation. Although some First Nations governing structures may have influenced the New England political system, as Richard Handler suggests, as well as French colonial systems, their recognition does little to change how those political systems in turn dealt with aboriginal peoples and how those systems can be regarded as Metis in practice, rather than in design, escapes me. Finally I would point out that Raul’s theory similarly could work in design, that Canada has attempted to progress in a Metis fashion, but considering the continued racial stigma’s attached to First Nations peoples and their disenfranchisement, it has failed.
amandawoodland 10:45 pm on October 31, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In my opinion, John Ralston Saul’s description of a Metis civilization is not one that fully and accurately characterizes Canada. Although peace, fairness, and good governance – characteristics drawn from Metis ideologies, according to Saul – have been present throughout much of Canada’s history, it seems somewhat arbitrary to assign so much importance to these characteristics when so many bits and pieces of other cultures have played an integral part in shaping the nation. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge the Metis influence on past as well as modern day social, economic, and political practices in Canada; on the other hand, it makes more sense to think of this influence as a jumping-off point from which French, British, American, and other European cultures have shaped and molded society.
aviaah 12:32 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Ralston Saul labels Canada as a “Metis Civilization”, and maintains that Canadian history, “consensual politics and negotiation,” pay homage to aboriginal roots rather than those of European origin. There is no doubt that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have greatly influenced and contributed to the foundations of today’s political, economic, and social structures, but to say that they are the sole implementers is a rather limited and narrow assumption. This being said, Saul’s conceptual idea does not mesh with his use of the term “Metis Civilization”. The Metis population trace their descent to mixed First Nations and European heritage, and Saul’s entire championing of aboriginal influence while disregarding the influence of European political thought renders his use of the term inconstant with its inherent meaning, as he fails to recognize that both groups have influenced Canada much to the same degree. Such can be explicated by recognizing that First Nation’s diplomacy, cooperation, and tolerance were met with the similar minded openness of the French explorers when they first struck up trade agreements through intercommunication relations. Both groups adopted the practices of the other, reciprocating their respect for one another, and in turn meshing their own ideas and practices with their newly acquired ones. This exchange of ideas and adoption of customs to establish the agreements between the two groups reflects the broader composition of Canada. The Canadian framework is reflective of the diversity of Canada’s ethnic composition, an even influential mixture of both Aboriginal and European ideologies and methodologies, and thus it can be seen as a “Metis Civilization”, when using the term correctly and not by Saul’s terms.
FribaRezayee235 12:56 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As the fur trade moved into the Western Great Lake in the early 1800s, the Métis developed a distinct identity, language and culture. By the 1870s, Métis lived throughout Canada, and in parts of the United States and Mexico. Métis people in different regions developed their own cultural features. Also called half-breeds, michif or bois-brulé, they contributed to North America’s economic growth as fur trade entrepreneurs, hunters trappers, guides, interpreters, cattlemen and artists.
Metis civilization is considered the root of Canada according to Saul, because by that time, some Métis were gravitating to permanent settlements at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine rivers. In the fall of 1801, a group of Metis settled on the banks of the Red River where Winnipeg now stands. They were called “freemen” because they were bound neither by Aboriginal custom nor fur trade company law. Their long, narrow river lots were reminiscent of farms along the St. Lawrence Valley. Three main groups emerged — buffalo hunters, traders, and voyageurs — and their cultural characteristics varied greatly depending on how much they had retained of the original Native and European cultures. John Saul suggests that we should train ourselves to say “Lafontaine and Baldwin not Baldwin and Lafontaine ”. He agrees that it is difficult to explain or reveal or lay out the Aboriginal roots of Canadian civilization whilte avoiding a simplistic sense that it is just matter of joining the dots. Certianly we are not use to digging around for the roots of our way of doing things at any rate the non-European roots. The
Metis played a central role in fur trade business with Europeans in 1800s.
One sector of the Metis population depended primarily on the bison hunt for its livelihood. These Metis left their settlements every June to hunt bison. The Metis fiercely guarded their customary rights to hunt and trade freely throughout the prairies. Rallying together under the cry le commerce est libre! (freedom of trade!), the Metis effectively ended the Hudson’s Bay Company’s trade monopoly.
When colonization first began with the French arrival in North America, there was seen to be a harmony created between the indigenous population and the French explorers and settlers. The French traded and shared land with the native and married the native women, creating this interconnection between two diverse groups. This interconnection between Aboriginals and the Europeans resulted in a mixture of not just cultures but politics and economics too. In many situations the Europeans were seen to adopt Aboriginal rituals or customs in order to improve work through negotiations and other matters. Thus, the native customs became intertwined with the French political, cultural and social systems.
chliane 1:45 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a multicultural country, as we established in the first blog entry. The people are made up of many cultures and nationalities, and all of these cultures have contributed in some way to what makes Canada today. John Ralston Saul’s claim that Canada is a Metis civilization is far too narrow, and does not cover the wide extent of Canada’s origins. His claim would perhaps be more valid if he limited his argument to Canada’s early history.
In Canada’s early history, the Aboriginal people were heavily integrated into the new settler society, and taught the European settlers many things. The Natives were a significant part of their economy, and provided the furs the Europeans so badly wanted. It was this interaction with the natives that the European settlers learned about the Aboriginal civilization, and the customs and traditions they used to interact with each other. Saul makes the argument that these Aboriginal customs are where the “tolerance, inclusiveness and fairness” in Canadian culture comes from. I agree that the trade agreements between the different native tribes showed a lot of fairness and respect for each other, but to say that it has persisted to this day in Canadian society is a bit of a stretch. I would argue that the European settlers did not pick up much of this positive sentiment from the natives, especially after the French lost the war with the British, and most of them were evacuated from the colony. The French perhaps had the best relations with the Aboriginals, and learned a lot about their culture and were very accommodating in many ways. The European-Native relations only went downhill after the war, and the treatment of natives became more and more unfair, which we learned all about in the discussions.
I would not dispute the fact that the natives were extremely important in the development of Canadian history, but I do not agree with Saul’s claim that we are still a Metis civilization today.
Vinciane Boisson 3:49 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
“Métis” can be understood as the mix of white parentage and Native American parentage, or can take a more general meaning, referring to all sorts of mixed parentage. John Ralston Saul only uses the first meaning to define Canada as a “Métis civilization”, which is true to some extent, but far too superficial, if we consider both the British and French heritages in the past, and more recent immigration.
The first and most obvious element proving Canada to be a “Métis civilization” is its people. Since the very beginning of European’s arrival, Métis appeared in the form of children of fur traders and Native women. Then, we can consider both the cohabitation and the mixing between people of French parentage and British parentage within the same country, and later, with American immigrantsFinally, we can extent this observation to more recent occurrences, focusing for instance the large Asian-origin population in British Columbia.
The second element that concurs with Canada being a “Métis civilization” is the analysis of the country in terms of politics. While John Ralston Saul might be true when underlining the importance of the Natives’ ideals’ influence in Canada’s political system, this point of view seems to be too shallow. Indeed, we saw in class that from the start, French fur traders adopted some Natives’ customs to trade with them, and the opposite was also true. However, this analysis omits the succession between French and British governance, and the consequent heritage of those countries with two different political systems, as well as new political elements created in Canada in order to satisfied both parties.
Finally, the third viewpoint that confirms Canada as a “Métis civilization” is its language. The first obvious element of that is the state of Canada as a multilingual country, with the cohabitation of French and English. Considering French, its great difference from France’s French proves it to be a “Métis” language, with obvious English influences. As for Canadian English, some British influences and American influences can be found. More subtle, though, is the Natives’ influence in Canadian English (and not doubt French, though I do not know enough about that). Indeed, a closer look at Canadian English reveals words and concepts that are not present in other English “varieties”, but coincides with Natives’ words or concepts.
doraleung 3:54 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The term ‘Metis Civilization’, termed by John Ralston Saul, means that Canada was predominantly built by the mix of Aboriginal and European white settler culture. Many people have the misconception that Canada was a European creation, however, Saul argues otherwise. It may seem so because most of the history recorded in Canada was taken down after the Europeans began to conquer the land that had actually already been inhabited by the First Nations. Also, much of the history had been recorded from the white settlers point of view, which leaves out the voice of the aboriginals who were already here. Looking to the very beginnings of the fur trade, which was what attracted the Europeans at first, the traditions of trading were mainly adopted from indigenous practices, such as gift giving and rituals. The natives also played a huge role in making the fur trade possible for the Europeans. The natives were the ones actually acquainted with land and the ones who acquired the furs so that the Europeans do the trading.
jenniferbishop 4:14 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As John Ralston Saul defines it Canada can be consider a Metis civilization for many reasons. Saul makes the point that European setters survived after first moving in the western world because the aboriginal people helped them adapt to living on the land. This means that the first settlers lived as the Metis people did. Furthermore, after first moving here settlers married aboriginal further integrating them into the Metis society and adapting the Metis customs and traditions. Saul continues to make the argument that values we pride ourselves on having as a country such as tolerance, and fairness we have actually learned from aboriginal people. However, currently many Canadians do not understand how much of our initial roots come from aboriginal people because that part of history has been left out.
Tina Loo 3:02 pm on November 4, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on this week’s blog.
This week’s question was really one where I was more interested in seeing you engage with John Ralston Saul’s ideas, which you did. I especially liked how many of you took pains to limit, or qualify, his idea, and to propose that perhaps a “metis” civilization could mean one that is a hybrid; that perhaps the Americas can only be seen that way. I also appreciated how some of you suggested, ever so gently, that Saul might engage in a bit of romanticization when it comes to his characterization of Indigenous culture. So good job, everyone! It’s just this kind of careful assessment and critique that I like to see and which characterizes good history.