1] The Quebec 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 confederationto establish their territories as a province under their leadership. In the end, their leader, Louis Riel was charged with treason \u2013 as the<\/span> CanLit<\/span> guide puts it, \u201cCanada at the time was not willing to accommodate more than two founding nations.\u201dFor 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 <\/span>CanLit <\/span>guide and the summary of Coleman\u2019s argument on the literary project of white civility to substantiate your observations. You might also find part of your answer in <\/span>The Bush Garden<\/span>. You should also take into consideration past discussions on \u2018the civilizing mission\u2019 of colonialism in Unit 2. Louis Riel also appears in <\/span>Green Grass Running Water,<\/span> and accordingly, it is worthwhile to do a little outside research around Riel\u2019s provisional government and its attempts to negotiate with the new Canadian government.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n The stories we here of the blossoming of the Canadian Nation are often commemorated through tales of war and disjunction between two opposing parties with one similar intention: to settle the land. We\u2019ve learned about the Quebec act of 1774, where British rule accepted and enabled the existence of the Roman Catholic Faith and French Civil Law. We\u2019ve learned about the British North America Act of 1867, and British led confederation. We\u2019ve listened to stories of the opposing forces, such as British vs. France, to Canada vs. British, to Canada vs the US. We are told these narratives of a growing National Identity through post secondary education, but in this space, we have yet to acknowledge the longest feud of all: Canada vs. the various indigenous populations. The story of \u201cour\u201d Nation has always been a eurocentric one, and I\u2019d argue that this narrative was intended. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n As expressed in the question I am addressing, <\/span>\u201cCanada at the time was not willing to accommodate more than two founding nations.\u201d <\/span>Founded in 1870, the Metis Nation, predicated upon the coming together of French traders and Cree people, challenged the \u201cHomogenous\u201d culture, which the nation of Canada stubbornly and unsuccessfully attempted to embody. The Canlit guide gives multiple examples of how National identity of Canada evolved throughout time, and how identity relied on differing from those they considered \u201cthe other\u201d. The Metis people were an example of the binding of two distinct groups, which directly challenges a \u201csingle\u201d National identity. During the Red River Rebellion, Riel and the Metis defenders resisted confederation but were defeated by Canadian National powers. Accepting the Metis as a third founding Nation, meant that Canada would be surrendering the \u201clast spikes\u201d \u00a0in their imaginings of a homogenous self. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Why could British loyalists accept French Law and culture and not that of the various Indigenous populations? It seems very likely it could all go back to the embedded perception of racial hierarchy. \u00a0In the vain of racial hierarchy, terms such as savage and civilized traveled upon boats, overseas, reinterpreted and imposed by settlers into their new worldly interactions. The conceptualization of Indigenous peoples as inferior to European is observed through early literature, such as the works we have studied by Susanna Moodie. The Indigenous peoples were not considered \u201cCivilized\u201d through eurocentric perspective, and therefore, were not deemed to be worthy of European National standing. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Through Coleman\u2019s term, White Civility, we acknowledge the forces of loyalty to the crown, which further divided and oppressed indigenous populations. Loyalty was something that had to be enacted through creating a British bred Canadian identity. This was done through constructing literary works, creating what Coleman terms a \u201cfictive ethnicity\u201d. This was furthered through the Massey Report, prompting the production of national culture, through eurocentric art, literature, and poetry, which romanticized the white-Canadian experience. The construction of Canadian identity was attuned to civil whiteness and Christian\/Anglophone perspectives. This attachment to Britain produced greater division between settler people and Indigenous populations. Assimilation was perceived as a process to \u201ccivilize\u201d the Indigenous populations but instead drove cultural genocide. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Fortunately for us, Canada never fully succeeded with creating their culturally homogenous imaginings. Today, we are sharing stories of diverse experiences, unveiling the hoax of Canada as multicultural, and acknowledging the impacts of colonial literature in the stories we tell today. Below I have linked a video of a traditional Metis Dance, performed by <\/span>Desmond Colombe<\/span> called a Jig, proving that Metis culture continues today. The second link is a CBC film called \u201cBeing Black in Canada\u201d, which touches on the unspoken history of Black Canadians in the forming of the Canadian Nation state. <\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/swampmama\/files\/2019\/02\/47225_canada_multicultural_1-300x183.jpg\")
<\/p>\n