I could not share the post so I copied it. Thanks Seb Malette Ok guys, merry Xmas! Thanks to the peoples that told me in 2014 that some of my comments made their heart stronger...2015 will be awesome. Here is my reply below to the entry Metis in Historica Canada. I warn you, pretty long for a 4:32am note on Dec 25 haha: The problem with the article above is that it reverses the order of emergence between political and historical definitions of Métis identity. In short, Métis identity pre-existed the various “Métis” political projects we came to associate with the Red River Colony, this, according to increasing historical evidences (see below). The comment of Adam Gaudry above also shows some of the simplifications at play when it comes to the different ways in which the mixed-descent peoples in Red River called themselves historically. It creates a re-imagined depiction of the Métis People as somewhat a single and homogenous political and cultural entity. The historical fact of the matter is: it was not. I have provided few evidences following my argument, as I suspect these discussions on identity tend to be politically charged, and quickly emotive for many peoples. Hence, let me begging by stating my premise clearly: never, historically, was the term “Métis” exclusively restricted to Western prairies. It was widely in usage in the Bas and Haut Canada, as well as in the United States to identify the distinct populations of predominantly French-Indians emerging out of the fur trade routes. (I have provided what are just a sample of the usage of “Métis” in various documents found in Québec and Ontario below. For the American widely usage of the term “Métis”, see Stoughton. Our debt to the red man; the French-Indians in the development of the United States [1918]). On the contrary, it can be suggested that the attempts to restrict the term “Métis” to only Western contemporary actors is a recent phenomenon (this is the contemporary usage of Métis identity here, not the other way around), irrupting merely *after* the constitutional recognition has been conceded in 1982 by the Canadian State, hence when the possibility of new privileges could be seen at the end of the tunnel. Only then did we move from a “politics of recognition” largely inclusive of all Métis across Canada (spearheaded by leaders such as Harry Daniels), to a largely exclusive “politics of Métis definition” casting new exclusions toward the Métis of the Maritime, Québec, United States and Great Lake area. Historically, it is important to understand that “Métis” was a term to describe peoples with French-Indian heritage, leading to various syncretic cultural elements according to ecological niches and kinship integrations with various First peoples (Sioux, Nez Percé, Cree, Anishnabe, Wallawalla, etc.). It is also important to note that synonymic expressions were also used not only in the Eastern and Middle parts of Canada (Bois-Brulé, Chicot, Canadien, etc.), but also in the Red River Colony itself, where the same expressions were also in use. Overarching claims of a homogenous and universalist usage of the word “Métis” that would have been only out West, even in self-ascribing manners, is therefore a clear historical exaggeration; as no grand-scale, overarching and unique ethnonym ever existed in the unifying capacity dreamed by some contemporary Métis activists across the Prairies, already containing diverse French-Indian/Métis communities. Now, to use such claims to cut-off other Métis from different parts of Canada/US to value their Métis heritage in ways they see fit, following accusation that the name “Métis” was not there is not part of their heritage, is considered by incensing numbers not only historically on shaky grounds, but precisely part of a specific and contemporary political project, most likely, at work to restrict the usage of the term in order to arrogate constitutional recognition and associated privileges. Not only the sample of evidence below confirms a widely usage of the “Métis” moniker beyond the Prairies, but Louis Riel himself confirms our interpretation when he formulates the meaning of “Métis” identity, moreover at a time when he is busy crafting the meaning of Métis nationalism: “The Metis have as paternal ancestors, the former employees of the Hudsons Bay and Northwest Companies, and as maternal ancestors, Indian women belonging to various tribes. The French word Metis is derived from the Latin participle mixtus which means mixed; it expresses well the idea it represents” Riel is clearly not working a definition that would be exclusionary here, but rather inclusive of all French-Indians communities, even beyond the Northwest. Riel recognizes explicitly the “Métis” in both British-Columbia and in the Eastern provinces of Canada in 1885, with equal political rights and thus we can assume a “collective consciousness” of themselves: Quote 1: Mr. Dumont is devoted to me Gabriel a dedication hard to beat, thank to God. He believes that I should be recognized as the Métis leader for in all Métis of British North America. He himself would be the leader of the Métis in the Northwest within and beyond the Montagne de Roche, to the sea. His saying is that the Métis of Manitoba had the seventh of the land in the province: hence the Métis of British-Colombia are also entitled to their seventh land, since their title is absolutely the same. (Les écrits complets de Louis Riel, Stanley et al., 1985, p. 121. Our translation.) Quote 2: When it comes to the Eastern provinces of Canada, many Métis live there persecuted under the attires of the Indian costume. Their villages are villages of indigence. Their Indian title to the soil is however as good as the Indian title of the Metis of Manitoba” (Les écrits complets de Louis Riel Stanley et al., 1985, p. 121. Our translation). We could, of course, boldly suggest that Riel didn’t own the “true” meaning of Métis identity at the time (whatever that means) by which some scholars now feel entitled to police Métis identity backwardly in History, but then they would have to agree that neither are they. To search in the Geist of “History” for essentializing “truth” about Métis identity to build exclusionary views that would fit today’s constitutional and mostly Western-based politics is extremely problematic. As Karen Marrero suggests, this kind of endeavor can swing both ways: I am not entirely comfortable, however, with an equally time-bound notion of self-consciousness as the standard by which we judge who is metis and who is not. […] If we base our belief that we should apply a race-based consciousness of what it may mean to be metis developed in the nineteenth century on subjects who existed before that time, I cannot help but wonder what we may lose in historic understanding. Unfortunately, the entry made by Jennifer Brown above seems to conflate the political and quasi-standardized master narrative adopted by some contemporary Western Métis organizations, with the historical usages of Métis/Bois-Brulé we envision as more broad and inclusive from both a territorial and cultural perspective. Now, we can understand that some scholars will oppose the historical usages and even the definition of Louis Riel of “Métis” as being racially-charged, hence morally condemnable according to our contemporary moral sensitivities. We can understand that this has lead scholars and activists to revamp the definition of Métis identity toward a strict political definition of Métis identity they associate with the events of the Red River resistances, en vogue since this nation-to-nation resurgence. But it should be understood that this is first and foremost a political project under construction: it is not the result of a “true” interpretation of Metis identity from the depth of History, on the basis of which we could then exclude some communities as merely “mixed,” rather than truly Métis, more gravely on basis that they would not have been collectively aware of themselves with this explicit name in the past. Historically, “Métis” meant mixed communities/individuals of French and Indian. We may now hate this (or not) as being a merely derivative identity, too hybridic, and not sufficiently exclusive for recent political ambitions, but it remains a cold hard historical fact based on countless evidences pointing toward that usage. For those who would be truly unhappy with the racially-historical charge of the word “Métis” inherited from the French language, which most of the historical Métis peoples spoke by the way, there are always other names that may sound more indigenous, regional and exclusionary, such as “Otipemisiwak” (that is if you have connections with the Cree). For us, however, who still speak French, the word “Métis” still ring as “true” on a commonsensical and cultural basis. It becomes even more meaningful to French-Métis, as they are now told paradoxically by Anglophone organizations and scholars from out West that such French term, yet part of their culture for more than 400 years, is suddenly forbidden. To first suggest the lack of written evidences in Métis societies that didn’t make much use of written evidences, to then deny the ones we find on the basis that “Métis” there didn’t mean the same as “Métis” over there, is particularity dishonest from a historical standpoint--especially when we know the exclusionary goals behind such arguments. We know that identities are constantly reinterpreting their own past, and although this doesn’t warrant just about anything in terms of identity-making, it reasonably warrants in our opinion peoples of French-Indian ancestry that managed to keep their Métis memories alive until now, holding often historical records containing the word “Métis,” and still bearing attachment and cultural traits as Métis, to claim themselves as such without any sociologist or anthropologists telling them otherwise. Having personally met Acadian-Métis, I see no problem with them adopting such term (youre welcome Emilie). It suffices me that they see this name as complementing their Acadian moniker, a term HISTORICALLY used by Francois Edmé Rameau in 1890 to describe them as distinct communities composed of both Europeans and Micmac (Rameau describes them as “métis” to be clear, this, 5 years after the hanging of Riel. See Denis Jean, Ethnogenèse des Premiers Métis Canadiens [1603-1763]). Again, as Gaudry is suggesting above, it might be hard to know how these peoples called themselves then (especially as the British burned most of their historical records), but again some might suggest a similar challenge pointing to the ancestors of Gaudry or any other Métis, as this information is often pretty hard to find for any single individual—especially after a few generation of denial or attempted assimilation. To me, it is enough to converse in French with the Acadians that tell me they recognize themselves as “Acadian-Métis.” In the parler I share with the Acadians, and so many of the common cultural markers we also share, it still makes a lot of sense to call ourselves “sang-mélés” and “Métis” beyond heavy scholarly debates. Of course, if the Acadian-Métis would tell me that they are the ONLY “Métis” there is because they would claim to be the first that actually ever fitted, let say, the contemporary Powley definition, then obviously I would oppose such move, as I am opposing similar moves from the Prairies. But, to be clear, no Acadian-Métis I have met have suggested such arrogating interpretation to me. And I do have friends from the Prairies that welcome Acadian-Métis at their tables. So there you go. To conclude, I, for one, appreciate a more prudent and open-minded disposition toward “Métis” identity across Canada. I see other historical French-Indian communities that have emerged during the Fur Trade era, and who share so many cultural markers associated with Métis as per defined by Louis Riel, as having a fundamental right to embrace and valorize their heritage as “Métis.” In short, the so-called other Métis have the right to embrace their own awakening as “Métis,” along their own historical trajectories; and I am afraid that no “historical” argument have the power to convince me otherwise—simply because policing Métis identity in the 21th century is not the outcome of a historical demonstration, but a political project that uses historical interpretations and primitivist theories of collective consciousness to make us believe their truth. We would have appreciated a more nuanced exposition by Jennifer Brown, otherwise known for her excellent scholarly work. ***This is only a small sample showing evidences of the wide usage of “Métis” beyond the Prairies, taken in many contexts. We have many more treasures. This is to give a counter-hint to the affirmation that there would be a lack of evidences on the historical usage of Métis in Bas-Canada, and elsewhere. It is also meant to offer a gently reminder that, respectfully, we also know who we are. And we are not the descendants of merely mixed-communities with some other names we should invest to please some. We have historical rights to the name, and more importantly the right to our own process of cultural revitalization. For a healthy debate, thank you. Seb Malette Carleton University --from Registre de paroisse Ste Genevieve (Berthierville, QC) 1807 173e B pierre metis Lan mil huit cent sept le trois novembre par moi pretre soussigne a ete baptise pierre age de douze ans ne aux pays den haut dun pere european et dune mere sauvagesse, presente par pierre mailloux marchand & voyageur au nom dwilliam mgilvraie (William McGillivray) Ngt? Le parrein charles piet na su signer; la marreine marie anne huberdeau grenet a signe avec le presentateur pierre St valier Mailloux Marieanne grenet pouget ptre --From: The Montreal Daily Witness, May 11, 1878 “There exists a conspiracy in the village of Caughnawaga against the Canadians and the half-breeds (Metis) of this village; that the notices posted upon the church doors of the village contained serious threats (menaces) not only against the properties of the Metis, but they also threatened their lives; that there is no good or fundamental reason for the origin (naissance) of such conspiracy, as all the Canadians and Metis are honest, respectable and industrious; that the fire which destroyed the property of Ozias Meloche and in which he perished, was no doubt the act of an incendiary; that the deceased Ozias Meloche was destined to be the first victim upon whom the conspirators were to vent and exercise their cruelty and vengeance (barbarie); that the Chiefs of the Iroquois tribe of Caughnawaga are blamable in not having suppressed and publicly disapproved and condemned the posting of these notices, and it is to be regretted that inquest. And we humbly pray that the Government will take and adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the individuals whom the conspirators desire and are determined to oppress and persecute.” --From a text attributed to Gédéon de Cologne. Poore, B. P. (1883). Collection de manuscrits contenant lettres, mémoires, et autres documents historiques relatifs à la Nouvelle-France: 1492-1712. Québec: Impr. A. Coté et cie. “Quelques années aprez, le nommé Dubeau, Canadien, un des plus forts du païs, métis, fils dun François et dune huronne, qui avoit esté gardé de Monsieur de Frontenac, estant allé aux Outaouacs, estant à la chasse, y fut pris par les Iroquois qui le lièrent et comme il sçavoit parler leur langue il sentretenoit avec eulx et sattira un peu leur confiance et nestoit plus sy serré. -- from 1861 Baptism, in Quebec - (from registre de paroisse Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Roberval QC) B 37. Hubert Jourdain, Métis “Le vingt quatre Decembre, mil huit cent soixante & un, Nous Pretre, soussigne avons baptise Hubert, ne depuis un mois du legitime mariage de Francois Jourdain, Chasseur, & Christine, sauvage Montagnais, de cette mission. Parrain Hubert Villeneuve, marraine Marie Heron, qui nont su signer. Le Pere present na su signer. L. Bernier ptre miss.” --Death certificate 1886, in Quebec Ile Bizarre 1886, death record of ancestor Louis Boileau, described by priest as “Métis, autrement dit Sauvage.” --From Russel Bouchard, historien, La communauté métisse de Chicoutimi: fondements historiques et culturels. Chicoutimi, Saguenay, Russel Bouchard, 2005, 153 p. The census is Saguenay of 1851, reproduced in the book, contains a significant amount of families designated/self-identifying as “Métis.” This community is now before the Court to have their rights recognized... classiques.uqac.ca/collection_…/bouchard_russel/commu
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 13:14:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015