I’m still having a hard time figuring this out.
It’s expected that Sociologists are interested in the study of the origins and organization of societies. Right. But how is it that some Sociologists are so biaised and unequivocal in repudiating the existence of Métis outside of the Red River area?
I can’t wrap my brain around the fact that Indigenous persons, or that ANYONE would actively lobby to abrogate someone else’s heritage – except maybe 19th Century Colonizers, AMIRITE???
Their reasoning is as appaling as those long dead politicians. The fear is that if too many people claim themselves as Métis, then they would outnumber First Nations and Inuit COMBINED. Woah.
Listen, I’m not gonna justify Settlers who will just pull out or even invent some long lost Indigenous relative – it’s hip, or whatever – Blech. That being said, either those scholars have used faulty ethnogenesis or had a biais. Either way, NOT COOL.
Am I the only one that’s wondering if the fear is diluting the Indigenous collective, or that Indigenous persons could possibly become over represented in future Census reports, forcing the redirection of resources and government programs?
I don’t know. It sounds crazy. But so does the lack of clean water and housing and the outrageous food insecurity in some Indigenous communities.
Either way, that narrative is being advocated in our Universities. Kind of like the rhetorics of ole Macdonald’s days.