Assignment 3:2 | An Upward Battle Against the “Fictive Ethnicity” of British Whiteness

1] The Québec Act of 1774, and the BNA act of 1867 each document the historical ability of Britain, as colonial authority, to accommodate two founding nations in the interest of confederation. Shortly after confederation of the eastern provinces, in 1869, the Metis Nation of Manitoba created a provisional government and attempted to negotiate directly with the new government of the confederation to establish their territories as a province under their leadership. In the end, their leader, Louis Riel was charged with treason – as the CanLit guide puts it, “Canada at the time was not willing to accommodate more than two founding nations.” For this blog assignment, I would like you to outline the reasons why colonial authorities could not conceive of accepting the Metis as a third founding nation. Use the CanLit guide and the summary of Coleman’s argument on the literary project of white civility to substantiate your observations. You might also find part of your answer in The Bush Garden. You should also take into consideration past discussions on ‘the civilizing mission’ of colonialism in Unit 2. Louis Riel also appears in Green Grass Running Water, and accordingly it is worthwhile to do a little outside research around Riel’s provisional government and its attempts to negotiate with the new Canadian government.

When the Red River Métis of Manitoba, led by Louis Riel, attempted to establish a provisional government in an attempt to enter the Confederation with Canada, things did not go as planned. The new government viewed Manitoba’s provisional government as a threat and Louis Riel was tried and charged with treason. The CanLit guide suggests that “Canada … was not willing to accommodate more than two founding nations,” but how accurate is that? In my opinion, the CanLit guide is taking a neutral stance by displaying history as it has been presented to us. However, I believe Canada’s response to the Métis displays much more than a simple unwillingness; their response comes from the “fictive ethnicity” (Coleman) of British whiteness and the systemic oppression to anyone who does not assimilate. In order to better explain myself, let’s first take a look at history leading up to the Red River Rebellion.

The Québec Act of 1774 was passed by British Parliament which gave the French in Canada freedom of religion, the right to settle civil law disputes with French Law (federal cases would still be tried through British courts), and the right to maintain the “seigneurial system of land tenure” (Britannica). (This was a system which allowed tenants to “hold” the land, but not outright own it – the land was considered “Crowned land” meaning it was owned by Britain.) The Act was passed because tension between French and British were once again at an all-time high; the British knew the only way they could maintain any semblance of peace was if they extended more freedom to the French. Regardless of their motives or reasoning, Britain’s ‘extension of freedom’ to the French-Canadians was a major cornerstone in history as the two cultures/nations have historically hated each other.

The BNA (British North American) Act of 1867, less commonly known as the Constitution Act of 1867, is an integral part of the history and identity of the land we call Canada. The legislation “created Canada as a new, domestically self-governing federation, consisting of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Québec, on July 1, 1867” (History Museum).

At the time of the BNA Act, tensions were rising between the Red River Métis and the new Confederation. The Métis are a distinct culture born out of the fur trade: “French Canadian fur traders married and co-habited with [Aboriginal] women” (Canada’s First Peoples). However, as time passed they were considered neither French-Canadians nor Aboriginals, despite being descendants of both. Undeterred by rejection, “[The Métis] developed a proud culture, with elements of both people from whom they descended” (Canada’s First Peoples).

As the British began settling and claiming land in Manitoba, the Red River Métis felt threatened; they were afraid their rights to the land would be stripped from them just as those of their Aboriginal ancestors. To peacefully stand up for themselves, they set up the “National Committee of Métis to stop the land transfer until their rights and title had been recognized” (Indigenous Foundations). They created a Métis Bill of Rights and sent it to Ottawa in hopes that they would be recognized as a legitimate member of the Confederation. Alas, as many of us have learned in our history classes (and as I wrote previously) their hopes were defeated. The argument over land ownership and the battle that ensued in the North-West Rebellion (1885) reminds me of the end of Margaret Atwood’s book quoted in Linda Hutcheon’s introduction:

In the dream I said

I should have known

anything planted here

would come up blood.

— Frye xviii

Although this quote was written in a different context, the fight was over land and blood was shed in both Métis rebellions.

Now, some of you may think my tangent of a history lesson is unnecessary and/or off topic, but I wanted to lay everything out chronologically in order to give you a sense of Canada’s history in the context of unity — or rather, assimilation.

(What we call) Canada’s entire journey since it was colonized by the French and English has been one of unification. We’ve seen examples of this from the Québec Act (1774) and later the BNA Act (1867). As the confederation continued to grow, the creation of “railways [,] bridges [,] canals [,] and highways” (Frye xix) was another integral part of the unification journey. However, throughout this unification, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples and the Métis were being excluded. As we read in the CanLit guide, Canada had a one-track mind for the vision of its emerging culture, and those two groups were not in its line of sight.

So, then, we have come full-circle back to the original point of my blog post. Why couldn’t colonial authorities accept the Metis as a third founding nation? As we have seen, Canada’s exclusions were based on race and culture. While the British and French were anything but friends, in British eyes, the French still had power and, if continued to be provoked, they would retaliate. The British did not want another battle like the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759). On the other hand, the British did not consider Canada’s Aboriginal peoples a threat. Having stripped away many of their rights by 1867, the British cared far less about a retaliation from Aboriginal groups; while they were still wary of the possibility, their more immediate threat was the French.

Coleman poignantly states that Canadian culture was “formulate[d] and elaborate[d upon] a specific form of [Canadian] whiteness based on the British model of civility” (5). He claims that Canada had – and I would argue still has – a “fictive ethnicity” predicated on British whiteness. As I discussed in my response to culture in Assignment 1:3, the culture of British whiteness assumes the position of “cultured”, “civilized”, and “correct” while the culture of Indigenous non-whiteness assumes the position of “unrefined”, “barbaric”, and “wrong”. While the British were most certainly not the first people on the land of what is now Canada, they had become the most powerful culture. Much like how nation-states in Europe would change religions and borders as titles transferred between Lords, Britain asserted itself as “Lord” over Canada, thereby changing the spiritual beliefs, borders, and customs that existed pre-colonialization.

This fictive ethnicity of British whiteness became the standard of “normal” for what is now Canada. While this whiteness has ‘branched out’ and ‘included’ other groups (such as the French, Irish, & Italian), it was always a tool for othering those who could not or would not assimilate into whiteness. As we learned in the story of colonialism in Lesson 2:3, the British and French made many attempts to assimilate the Indigenous peoples, most commonly through missionaries. As history continued, The Métis wanted to join the Confederation while still keeping their deeply rooted culture. Their refusal to assimilate to British whiteness (i.e., their loyalty to their culture) made them a threat, in the eyes of the Confederacy – and, by default, a threat to Britain. As Coleman explains, being European is not the same as being white. British whiteness was a form of systemic oppression on anyone who refused to assimilate. With this context in mind, we gain a better understanding on why the Confederacy was unwilling to allow a third founding nation.

In 1870, the Métis’ provisional government was welcomed into the Confederacy and Manitoba officially became a member of Canada: “The Manitoba Act recognized Métis title to the land within the province, and … 1.4 million acres [was] to be allotted to Métis children. However, acceptance of this land explicitly extinguished their title” (Indigenous Foundations). Even though the Métis gained rights to their land, they were stripped of rights to their title. Now, perhaps to some of us a name is just a name, but I would say that would be speaking out of our own privilege. Imagine being told, “You are no longer (fill in self-identified culture/ethnicity/race here).” The Métis could no longer claim that name as their title and thus begs the question: can a culture survive if it is stripped of its associating title? What would the Métis people call their culture if they were no longer allowed to call themselves Métis? While this goes beyond the focus of the question, I think it is important to think about.

Fortunately the Constitution Act of 1982 granted the Métis recognition and returned their title. Today, the Métis are included under the umbrella of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, although there is still room for improvement regarding their rights as Canadian Aboriginals.

____________

Works Cited