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?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pierre-Marie B., 
lindseyaw, and 4 others are discussing.
Nadir Surani 9:42 pm on October 28, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In Saul’s view, the Métis civilization was created as a result of the relationships or the intermarrying between the European fur traders and Indigenous women. Aboriginals taught the fur traders pretty much everything worth knowing, from how to live on the land, how to survive and live in unison. By doing so, the Europeans improved their lives in terms of social, economic and political aspects. Rather than simply seeing Canada as a country developed through conquest and immigration, it is important to focus on how Canada has been shaped by these relationships. Métis civilizations refer to thinking of Canada as being built on the triangular foundation of British or English traditions, French traditions, as well as Aboriginal traditions or cultures.
Moreover, children of these relationships between European men involved in the fur trade and Indigenous women developed a distinctive culture: a combination of European and Aboriginal cultures. This hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne,” was based around bison hunting. The “country-borne” could choose to either live with their British relatives or their Indigenous relatives. If, for example, they chose to live with their British relatives, they were considered British, and vice versa. Generally, the Métis and the “country-borne” were very different because of their ways and methods of trade. Through these marriages, new relationships were formed and spread.
I believe most aspects of Canadian culture and polices can be owed to our aboriginal heritage and what has been inspired by the relationships amongst the Metis, indigenous peoples, and the traders. The Hudson’s Bay Company, the Loyalists, and New France, amongst others, were built upon these relationships and partnerships. Today, we are the outcome of that experience consisting of aboriginal influences and ideals. Thus, Canada can be considered a Metis civilization.
Susanna Chan 11:41 pm on October 30, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is a Metis civilization even though many may disagree. There is defiantly much controversy over land today, but that is b/c of Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada. They were smart citizens who were key in the fur trade, economic development, etc. The relationship they have to our land is extremely important. Many underestimate the cultural and language importance of place they have in regards to history. Many of our families have maybe been around Canada for a few hundred years or less (depends), but the Metis civilization has been around for as long as we know. We are built on First Nation’s, French, and English traditions in Canada. If it weren’t for the Aboriginal peoples, Canada would not be what it is today. Not only did they help establish the great country we live in, they taught European’s the ways of the fur trade and other valuable lessons by creating relationships with them. They were smart traders who gained economic surplus from the fur trade. Even though we are considered on Indian land, there is much controversy on land claims, who gets what, what its used for, settlement issues, historical landmarks etc. Many like to think that we can simply “strip” away their land where history, family, relations, and cultural were built up from just to build something like a condo complex. We need to think twice about Canada and that it is in fact, a Metis civilization.
mwaldron 2:23 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I completely agree with both of my classmates in saying that Canada is most definitely a Metis civilization. Not only were Aboriginals the first people to inhabit Canada, but as Saul suggests, they played a key role in developing the fur trade that helped the European to colonize the land and make it “their” home. With early trade starting only in and around colonies, help from the Aboriginal who knew the land was needed to expand sales. Aboriginals were also key in establishing the trade when they acted as the “middle men” for transactions, as we talked about in earlier classes and blog entries. European settlers learned many lessons from the Aboriginals that helped to establish them as a large trade entity, and some of their practices are still used today.
Aside from trade, intermarriage plays a huge part in Canada’s Metis civilization. This marriage between Aboriginals and Europeans is quite literally the meaning of “Metis.” Today, a vast majority of Canadians can trace back ancestry to the 1800’s and have a Metis bloodline in the family. I myself know quite a few people who are Metis (even though most are only 1/8th or less!).
In conclusion, Saul’s term “Metis civilization” holds great accuracy in describing Canada. Through trading lessons and aid, to intermarriage and widespread numbers of Metis people currently residing in Canada, Saul’s term is one of the better one’s to describe our country.
geenalee 4:08 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Despite the contemporary tendencies of understanding Canada as a product of European imperialism and creation, Saul argues that Canada as we know it today is a direct result of Aboriginal peoples and their culture. That is, Saul stresses the need to recognize and emphasize the fact that Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of Canada, and even though European settlers dominated the land upon their arrival, interaction with Aboriginal peoples was inevitable and thus, had a significant impact. Saul notes the intermarriages between Europeans and Aboriginals to further prove Canada as a “Metis civilization.” Based on what we have learned from lectures so far, it is clear that Aboriginal presence was strong. They undoubtedly influenced European interests and shaped them accordingly. Based on primary sources which many historians have researched, Aboriginals were skilled traders, culturally vibrant, and highly educated and aware of their best interests. In other words, they were not passive. In addition, once a whole new generation was born from the many intermarriages, it further influenced Canada in becoming a product of Aboriginal values. In other words, Canada’s formation was not simply about European settlers dominating and imposing their views. Although Saul’s notion of Canada as a “Metis civilization’ might be highly controversial among those who are not accustomed to viewing Canadian history through this particular lens, I believe it is considerably accurate based on the fact that European and Aboriginal interactions and relationships were undeniably present and thus, influential.
lindseyaw 4:18 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
John Raston Saul establishes Canada as a Metis civilization, which is established through Aboriginal legacy. The legacy of Aboriginal peoples in Canada was created through the relationships that they had with both the French and the English fur traders, and then their relationships with the colonists. The relationship between the French and the Aboriginal peoples, such as in the negotiations of the Peace Treaty of 1701, both sides made an effort to adopt certain aspects of each other’s culture in order to create a successful peace treaty. The Aboriginal peoples and the French held a strong relationship throughout the fur trade, and the relations between the French traders and the Aboriginal women created a new Metis identity in a very literal sense.
There was a reliance on the Aboriginal peoples by the English and the French to hold on to land. When the British gained the French land in the Canadian colonies, they took into question how treaties would be established, and by what means. Although it often did not work in favour of the Aboriginal peoples, the thought was still there, and Aboriginal practices were being adopted in the process. The creation of new identities directly creates this idea known as a “Metis civilization”, but not only these relationships and distinct peoples are a part of Saul’s concept. Canada exists because of the relationship that exists between the French, English and Aboriginal peoples. Canada as a nation is built up of the diplomatic and cultural values of all of these peoples creating a unique identity and “Metis civilization”.
Pierre-Marie B. 4:21 pm on November 1, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Aboriginal peoples were the first inhabitants of the land which we know as Canada today. The history of Canadian civilization is tightly linked with Aboriginal culture because they were the first people whom the Europeans met when they arrived in North America, and quickly relations were tied between the two populations: fur trade, gift-giving, treaties, inter-marriage… Despite European population eventually took over Aboriginals, the influence of the latters is undeniable as they helped creating the economic, social and political policies in force in Canada now.
But the history of Canada is also based on migratory flows. As we saw in class, since the middle 18th century, different population from different cultural origins have populated North America. In Upper and Lower Canadas you could find French and English populations. Moreover, many Americans came to British Columbia or simply passed the border to find work during the gold-rush. All these cultural groups brought a contribution to what Canada is today, and even though they were long-time rivals they melted into a broader view of Canadian population.
Canada is a “Metis civilization” because it answers to the two criteria of what we call melting-pot or intermix. There is a biological interbreeding, that is to say White settlers who had children with Aboriginal peoples. These children evolved in a hybrid cultural group, commonly known as the “country-borne”. Moreover, Canadian history also demonstrates a cultural mixing: the English, the French and the Americans were not ethnically different because they all belong to the White phenotype. However, they clearly showed cultural differences in terms of societal organization, political systems and several other aspects of what constitutes a cultural group. All these cultural influences were mingled in order to form the Canadian civilization we see today.
Tina Loo 2:51 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. With a few exceptions, all of you bought Saul’s idea. I wonder if you would like 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.