Not all Québecois are #Métis.

Posted on by Abitawiskwe

image

For some time now, there’s been discussions about the ethnogenesis of the Métis People of Canada. There are many opinions, and many people have much to gain for people currently not included in the definition of Métis as described by the Métis Nation of Canada.

I won’t speak about other narratives and I won’t arrogate an opinion on others. Although I benefit of the Privilege of being a White-passing Métis, I strive to decolonize my mindset every day.

I have written in past posts (here, here, here, here ) the reasons behind this blog. (which I describe as ”where I come to ponder about MY Métis identity and what it all means for me and for future generations…) I feel the need to document my memories, the memories of my dad, my grand-parents and my great-grand-parents. 

Why? Because I heard them them first-hand, they were oral and when I’m no longer here, I want it documented. It’s important to me for my children, my future grand-children and my future great-grand-children for so many reasons, and “oral narratives” are discounted. So I’m writing them down, here. Nobody else need to agree with me. I’m not the Courts and it’s not a debate.

Identity is a moving target, and I’ve seen many Indigenous groups having to resort to historical documents because their identity relies on Court decisions. To me, it is the most Colonialist gesture enabling the erasure and assimilation of Indigenous minority groups. To me, it’s like a little bit of Indigenous Persons living on the fringe gets cut off every time the numbers of that group gets small enough not to benefit from research or pecuniary interest.

I have serious doubts on whether my own “small” community will ever be recognized as historical either. Because it’s in Québec, and because my community’s narrative is too often hijacked by Québec Nationalists to strengthen an argument of French as “Original Peoples” – i.e. here before British Colonialism for the purpose of Sovereignty…

Sigh. I’ve got so much to say about that. But, to be brief: not all people from Québec identify as Métis, have ancestors who were *Indians, are from a historical community. And last, but not least, not all Métis of Québec identify as Québécois. 

Again, only speaking for myself here: I don’t, nor have I ever, identified as Québécois. The ways in which I have understood my family’s history has always led me to understand that my identity was more *fluid* (for lack of a better word) than just Québec. My ancestors and their kin were travelers. Voyageurs. They were impervious to borders that shifted so much prior to Confederation.

They came and they went. They traveled for the fur trade. They came back. They eventually settled. They didn’t settle along the Red or the Assiniboine Rivers. They chose other rivers: Saint-Maurice, Mastigouche, L’Assomption, Bayonne, Ouareau, moving up the rivers away from the population growth along the Saint-Lawrence.

Many assimilated, like First Nations did, I’m sure. How else would the province with the second largest population has the second smallest population by percentage in Canada? 

Less than 40,000 people identified as Metis in Québec. That’s:

9.1% of Canada’s total Métis population

Less than 2.9% of the total Indigenous population identify as Métis in Québec

Less than 0.5% of Québec total population

Less than 0.12% of Canada’s total population

It’s gonna be hard to prove to the Courts that Lanaudière and/or Mauricie are historic communities, because there’s nothing to gain. No oil, no natural gas, no bituminous sands. Just water and forests and farmland. Representation needs money (I’m hearing Kevin O’Leary yelling this), and money expects a return on its investment.

For #Métis and Non-Status *Indians

Posted on by Abitawiskwe

By Prof. Sebastien Malette

image

The Métis Federation of Canada intervened before the highest court in the country on October 8th to suggest that all Métis and Non-Status Indians* are included as “Indians” under section 91 (24). The Métis Federation of Canada sought to do justice to all Aboriginal People regarding the responsibility of the Federal plan on the division of powers between the provinces and the Federal, section 91 (24) of the 1867 Constitution.

We suggested a test in three parts, namely:
1) proof of Aboriginal ethnicity (including culture, and not only “race” or blood quantum that are outdated concepts)
2) self-identification
3) acceptance by a community (without defining it first, following this case law of the Supreme Court)

We hope that this test would allow to extract ourselves from competitions on identity (between Western and Eastern Métis for example), and leave everyone the freedom to join the community best suited to each (in mutual agreement with the community).

I must clarify that  Métis and Non-status Indians* will not be “Indians” under the Indian Act which is an Act of Parliament (whereas Parliament has discretion to abolish). The Supreme Court recognized Inuit as “Indians” in 1939, but not Indians within the meaning of the law of 1876 Indians, or even as First Nations (if we assume that the term “Indian” first refers to “First Nations”).

Nevertheless, this judgment has important consequences for Métis and Non-Status Indians* and will thus set the standard on identity, rules and powers to negotiate.

I hope this allays fears that First Nations would be forced to accept more members within their folds or loose “paradoxical" privilege gained by a 19th century colonial law,

If First Nations choose to accept non-Status Indians*, according to the ancient customs of adoption that once restored the power of multiple Nations, it will remain at their collective discretion (at least I hope).

Regarding the Métis of the East and West and First Nations, we hope for the best negotiations and relations between us, by focusing on what are our shared values ​​and kinship.

For Métis, it will be a balance between cultural survival, autonomy, and the restoration of alliance with First Nations who share  territory and Spirit.

This being said, a positive resolution for Métis and non-Status Indians* will have consequences in the sense that the Fed will see its responsibility to Métis and Non-status, described by the Chief Justice as being prisoners in a constitutional "no-man’s land”.

This Supreme Court ruling is therefore an important part in future negotiations to establish a fairer treatment for the Indigenous Peoples across Canada (which – even if we include all people with Aboriginal descent – represent less than 5% of the total population of Canada).

* the term Indian is used here only to align with the language of the Parliamentary Act.

This article was translated from the original French version available here

Pour les #Métis et les Indiens Non-Statués

Posted on by Abitawiskwe

par Prof. Sebastien Malette

La Fédération Métisse du Canada a intervenu devant la plus haute Cour du pays

le 8 octobre dernier afin de suggérer que tous les Métis et Non-Statués soient inclus comme “Indiens” sous l’article 91 (24). La Fédération Métisse du Canada cherchait ainsi à rendre justice à tous les Autochtones au sujet de la responsabilité du Fédéral sur la plan de la division des pouvoirs entre les provinces et le Fédéral, soit l’article 91 (24) de la Constitution de 1867. 

Nous avons suggéré un test en trois parties, à savoir: 

 1) une preuve d’ethnicité autochtone (incluant la culture, et non seulement la “race” ou le blood quantum qui sont des concepts désuets) 

2) auto-identification 

 3) l’acceptation d’une communauté (sans définir celle-ci au préalable, suivant en ceci la jurisprudence de la Cour Suprême) 

Ce test nous permettrait, il est espéré,  de sortir des compétitions définitionnelles (entre Métis de l’Ouest et de l’Est par exemple), et laisserait à tous/toutes la liberté de joindre la communauté la mieux ressentie (en accord mutuel avec celle-ci). 

Je dois être clair: ce règlement advenant, les Métis et Non-Statués ne seront pas des “Indiens” au sens de la loi sur les Indiens qui est un acte parlementaire (dont la discrétion et l’abolition revient au Parlement). Ce jugement est néanmoins important pour ces possibles conséquences pour les Métis et non-Statué qui auront l’heure juste sur l’identité de qui est d’abord responsable des négociations et des règlements concernant possiblement les Métis et les Non-Statués. 

Une référence semblable a d’ailleurs été rendue par la cour Suprême au sujet des Inuits, qui furent reconnus comme des “Indiens” en 1939, sans toutefois être des Indiens au sens de la loi sur les Indiens de 1876, ni même comme “Premières Nations (si nous assumons que le terme "Indien” réfère d’abord aux “Premières Nations”). 

Si certains membres des Premières Nations craignent suivant ce jugement l’introduction forcée de membres, ou la perte de privilège “paradoxalement” issue d’une loi coloniale datant de 1876, il est de mon opinion que ces craintes sont pour l’instant non-fondées. 

Si des Premières Nations veulent accueillir des Non-statués, selon les anciennes coutumes de l’adoption qui autrefois restaurait la puissance de plusieurs Nations, cela demeurera à leur discrétion collective (du moins je l’espère). 

S’agissant des Métis de l’Est et de l’Ouest et les Premières Nations, nous ne pouvons espérer que des meilleures négociations/relations entre nous, en mettant l’accent sur ce que nous partageons comme valeurs et souvent comme liens de parenté. 

Pour les Métis, il s’agira d’établir un équilibre entre la survivance culturelle, l’autonomie, et le rétablissement d’alliance avec les Premières Nations avec qui ils partagent le territoire et son Esprit. 

Ceci étant dit, un règlement positif pour les Métis/Non-statués aura des conséquences en ce sens que le Fédéral devra voir à sa responsabilité envers les Métis et les Non-Statués, décrits par la Juge en Chef comme prisonnier actuellement d’un “no-man’s land” constitutionnel. 

Ce règlement représente donc une pièce importante dans les négociations à venir afin d’établir un traitement plus juste pour l’ensembles des Peuples Autochtones du pays (qui – même si nous incluons toute les personnes ayant une descendance Autochtone – ne représente que moins de 5% de la population totale du Canada). 

Communautés historiques #Métis: “Là où le fleuve se rétrécit”

Posted on by Abitawiskwe
image

La notion de différentes races est un concept social qui n’existe pas. Le gouvernement a tenté pendant des années d’en faire de nous la race Indienne, puis la race des Premières Nations et la race Autochtone. Mais nous ne sommes pas une race. Nous sommes les Nations Autochtones. – Wab Kinew. 

Les Nations Autochtones.

Les Métis ont existé et prospéré en “Nouvelle France” et en Acadie; suffisamment de preuves empiriques documentent leur présence.

La contestation dans certains milieux ce ceint plutôt autour du concept de communautés Métis historiques, et si ces entités existent ou existaient à l’est des Grands Lacs.

Les Métis situés à l’ouest des Grands Lacs ont reçu beaucoup d’attention et tout le financement nécessaire afin de se représenter et produire nombreuses recherches érudites sur leurs communautés historiques. En raison de la Scrip, conçu dans le but d’éteindre le titre autochtone des Métis (plus sur le sujet ici), il existe une documentation récente de familles et de leurs communautés.

Les Métis situés à l’est des Grands Lacs on souffert l’extinction de leur titre autochtone de façon beaucoup plus progressive, et n’ayant aucun pouvoir décisionnel. (voir ici pour plus d’infos)

Le réputé sociologue Gérard Bouchard a partiellement raison: l’Eglise catholique, fortement impliquée dans la gouvernance administrative depuis les jours de la Nouvelle-France jusqu’à la fin des années 1960, déconseillait fortement les unions entre les Nations Autochtones et la gent pieuse du “Pur Laine” catholique.

Où Bouchard fait erreur, c’est par sa tentative d’homogénéiser le Métis du Kébec à la population générale du Québec dans le but d’affirmer le récit du Québécois de souche comme étant Peuple Original. Les familles métissées avaient choisi se déplacer des villages colons, se rapprochant des villages Autochtones.

Les Métis ont été le plus souvent ostracisés par le colon, probablement en raison de l’enlèvement et / ou l’assassination des plusieurs premiers colons par les Autochtones.

Très peu de recherches ont été faites pour nous aider à comprendre la raison que certains colons sont tombés victimes des Autochtones, tandis que d’autres avaient survécus.

Mon premier ancêtre colon, Jacques Brisset, arriva au Canada avant 1648. Il a été “enlevé” par les Autochtones après 1656 et “libéré” après Juillet 1660.

J’utilise délibérément des guillemets, parce que je n’ai trouvé aucune preuve à l’appui de la raison de sa survie, tandis que nombreux autres colons furent rapidement tués. Pourquoi les Autochtones auraient nourri, vêti et abrité un mec blanc plutôt qu’un autre? Pourquoi a-t’il survécu? Le clergé auraient-t’ils utilisé le terme “enlèvement” comme une mesure visant à effrayer les autres colons afin d’assurer un contrôle sur les mariages métissés, et ostraciser ceux qui ont fait union parmi les Nations Autochtones?

Nous ne saurons probablement jamais. L’étude des premiers colons est limitée à des généalogistes amateurs, qui présentent des hypothèses comme des faits et ces hypothèses sont entachées par celui biais qu’ils ont. Qui est pourquoi je préfère utiliser des guillemets pour enlèvement et libération.

Nous savons que Jacques fût légué une propriété distancée du village des Trois-Rivières, sur l’ile du Milieu (Saint-Christophe) en Mars 1655, avec le père de sa future bru, Pierre Dandonneau.

Nous savons aussi que nous n’avons pu retracer les origines ou l’acte de mariage avec son épouse, Jeanne Fétis (ou Fétéis ou Fortier ou Forestier ou Forest). Nous savons qu’elle est pas une “Fille du Roy» ni une «Fille à marier”, nous savons qu’elle n’est pas arrivée avec son époux, et nous ne pouvons trouver aucune trace de sa naissance en France.

Nous savons que lorsque de plus en plus de colons arrivèrent en Nouvelle-France, les descendants de Jacques se sont relocalisés vers l’ouest, loin de la population des colons et plus profondément dans les parties non-colonisées.

Jacques, fils, acheta une seigneurie avec son beau-frère Louis Dandonneau. La seigneurie est située à l’amont des Trois-Rivières, sur l’Ile Dupas, une île dans le fleuve St-Laurent connue pour être le lieu de rencontre des Nations Abénaki et Atikamekw, et juste en face de là où est maintenant la réserve d’Odanak.

Les Bri/e/sset(te), Courchenes et Dupas viennent tous de cet ancêtre commun, et ont vécu aux côtés des Abénaki, des Atikamekw, des Wendat et, bien sûr, d’autres Métis depuis lors, nous mariant entre nous et nous répandant au nord, sud et, oui, à l’ouest, passé les Grands Lacs.

Nos communautés historiques entourent l’Ile Dupas, dans les parties de ce qu’on appelle maintenant Lanaudière et la Mauricie.

Nous sommes la Nation Métis du Kébec.

Nous sommes une Nation.

Oh, et Kébec signifie “là où le fleuve se rétrécit» en Algonquin.

Historic #Métis communities: “Where the river narrows”

Posted on by Abitawiskwe

Race is a social construct; it doesn’t exist. Governments have tried for years to make us the Indian race, then the First Nations race and the Aboriginal race. But we are not a race. We’re Indigenous nations. – Wab Kinew.

Indigenous nations. 

There is absolutely no doubt that Métis existed and thrived in the Eastern parts of “Nouvelle France” and Acadia; enough empirical evidence has been provided to that effect.

The discussion in some circles has more to do with the concept of historic Métis communities, and whether such entities exist or existed East of the Great Lakes.

Métis communities West of the Great Lakes have received much of the attention, and all of the funding required to produce advocacy and research regarding their historic communities. Due to the Métis Scrip, which was designed to extinguish Aboriginal title (more about the subject here), there are recent written records of families and their communities.

Métis living East of the Great Lakes had their Aboriginal title extinguished in much more gradual ways.

Sociologist Gérard Bouchard has it partially right: the Catholic Church, who was heavily involved in governing here, from the days of Nouvelle France right up to the late 1960s, strongly discouraged the mixing of Indigenous People and their pious, Pure Laine Catholic brethren. 

Where Bouchard has it wrong, it is to homogenize the Kébec Métis within the general population of Québec to assert the narrative of the French as original People. Most mixed marriages chose to move away from early Settlements.

Couples of mixed marriages did not mix with the general population. Métis were most often shunned by Pure Laine Settlers, likely due to the kidnapping and / or murder of some early Colonials by Aboriginals.

Very little research has been done to help us understand why some Settlers fell victims of Aboriginals, while some others did not. 

My first paternal, Colonial ancestor, Jacques Brisset, arrived in Canada before 1648. He was “kidnapped” by Aboriginals after 1656 and “released” after July 1660. I deliberately use quotation marks, because I have found no evidence to support why he would have survived while many more Settlers were quickly killed. Why would Aboriginals feed, clothe and shelter some random White guy? Why did he survive, when many didn’t? Did Settlers use the term “kidnap” as a measure to scare away other Settlers from mixed marriages, and ostracize those who did marry Aboriginals?

We may never know. The study of early Settlers is limited to amateur genealogists, who present hypotheses like facts and those hypotheses are tainted by whichever bias they have. Which is why I use quotation marks to kidnap and released.

What we know is that Jacques was given a lot away from Trois-Rivières, on l’ile du milieu (St-Christophe) in March of 1655, along with the father of his future daughter-in-law, Pierre Dandonneau.

What we also know is that we cannot find any origins or marriage records for his wife Jeanne Fétis (or Fétéis or Fortier or Forestier or Forest). We know she’s not a “Fille du Roy” or a “Fille à Marier”, we know she didn’t arrive with Jacques, and we can’t find any record of her birth in France.

We do know that as more and more Settlers arrived in Nouvelle France, Jacques and his family moved West, away from the Settler population and deeper into Indigenous parts.

Jacques’ son, also named Jacques, purchased a Seigneurie with his brother-in-law Louis Dandonneau. The seigneurie is located several hours away West, on Ile Dupas, an island in the St-Lawrence river known to be the meeting place of Abénaki and Atikamekw Nations, and straight across from where is now the Odanak reserve. 

The Bri(e)sset(te), Courchenes, Dupas all come from this common ancestor, and lived alongside the Abénaki, the Atikamekw and the Wendat Nations since then, intermarrying among ourselves and spreading North, South and, yes, West, past the Great Lakes.

Our historic communities surround Ile Dupas, in the Eastern parts of what is now called Lanaudière and Mauricie.

We are Kébec Métis. We are a Nation. 

Oh, and Kébec is Algonquian for “where the river narrows”.

Recent Court ruling in Québec: Indian Act must be revised. Will it affect Métis?

Posted on by Abitawiskwe

The battle is ongoing. It’s exhausting to fight assimilation. I am often battered with doubts. Am I Indigenous enough, or – like a select few seem to express (see here and here) – my ship has sailed on Indigeinity because of archaic 19th century laws? How did my ancestors deal with it?

The definition of Indigeneity has changed over the years. Laws have been written to remove the *Indian from the person in an attempt to homogenize a vast territory.

A recent Court ruling has confirmed what we always knew: the Indian Act was sexist. The Waban-Aki Confederation communities of Odanak and Wôlinak brought two cases to the Courts who ruled one that the Government of Canada must amend the Indian Act within 18 months.

Before 1985, *Indian women lost their status if they married men without status and their children had no right to be registered as Indians. 

In 1985, the Indian Act was amended to give back status to the women who had lost it and to give status to their children. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled in 2009 in the McIvor case that continuing discrimination deprived the women’s grandchildren of Indian status. As a result, the Indian Act was amended again in 2010. 

What will be the impact of this ruling? The GoC has 30 days to file an Appeal. It is likely that they will.

How many generations back will be allowed to apply for Status under the revised Act? How many non-status Indians would this ruling affect? How many will apply as a result?
Will the Nations accept these “new” Status persons?

Whether by force, promises or coercion, my ancestors became *separated* from their Indigenous communities. If not physically, at least legally, in the eyes of Settler organizations.

My community in #Lanaudière was a meeting place for Atikamekw, Ab8naki and Wendat. In the time prior to Reserves, Indigenous people didn’t necessarily keep within their *own* community. Métis such as myself in Lanaudière are an ethnogenesis of French as well as several other Indigenous Nations, who, like us, were *forced* into an urgency of self-identification in order to retain what little rights were afforded to us. 

 *the term Indian is used to align with Act