Embracing Identity

2018-08-16T13:35:00.001-07:00

Quip from a Fatigued Humanitarian?

My thoughts are tired as I hear the news,

Of some ignorant bigot who has some views,

Everyone’s fault, but their own

As they judge, bicker and groan.

A new media has offered them a time slot

To regurgitate irrational thought

To project what they consider perfect conservative views

Sharing articles from Rebel News.

I sit here in complete shock

When I hear, that a new group of neo nazi’s have crawled out from under their rock

Bad Politicians, Social Media and wealthy colonialists have given this a voice

Yet many remain idle! Another overdose! it was their choice!

A Community should be free of racism and hate

But backward ideologies and friends with an opinion we tolerate

Our ancestors fought and died to liberate

Instead as their memory fades – we suffocate.

Attempting to find one more breathe in a world that is easy to forget

That we once had schools that tried to eliminate the threat

A threat of a vibrant culture and peaceful nations

Instead we create divisive relations.

We are told to remember what our great nation did overseas

But we forget the internment camps made specially for the Japanese

We are told to remember how lucky we are

To be born in a country guided by the North Star.

Then why do we still hang onto this hate

Rather tell ourselves that this was all manifest fate

Why do we still encourage policies that divide?

Why do we still elect politicians that still think LGBTQ is a chemical formula for Formaldehyde.

We are told to remember we are a country built on immigrants

But get provoked at the thought of refugee children being protected by their parents

We struggle to allow people to find their space

And stupidly get angry when we can’t see a Muslim woman’s face.

I am tired of listening to your racist rants

I am tired of your call to arms and xenophobic chants

I am not interested in your hateful learned views

I am only interested in positive, kind, optimistic people that have tried to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes.

Roy Pogorzelski

The Pogo Bros

2014-11-25T19:14:00.001-08:00

The Pogo Bros video released through the POGO channel!!!

Number 42 - Jackie Robinson (American Hero)

2013-04-15T19:14:00.000-07:00

In the last year, it has been a difficult task to find new Hollywood flicks that have even attempted to create a "wow factor" and provide a feeling of money well spent. When I was flying to Switzerland, I got to see Abraham Lincoln, and needless to say, Daniel Day Lewis is a genius in this film. Abraham Lincoln is an iconic and inspiring American president, his quotes and belief in change drove him to be assassinated by Southern white folks that gained their wealth off the lands of Native Americans and the tears of African Americans.

Any threat to these early immigrants upper class status often warrants outrage and hatred directed at some quote/unquote "minority groups" and the original inhabitants of the land. Currently, a tragic bombing has occurred at the Boston Marathon, and what will be even worse is the future treatment of Muslim individuals in USA. I can imagine in these communities there is fear, for America needs a scapegoat to justify the death of innocent American citizens. However, during the years of segregation and draconian law in the states that created separation and pitted "white" people as a superior race, it was fair game on Native or African Americans.

Looking for inspiration during an uninspiring long Saskatchewan winter, I decided to attend the

Hollywood picture, 42. Jackie Robinson has always been a hero of mine, a man that encountered the brunt of America's rage against it's African American citizens. Post World War 2 and the apparent end of Facism did not deter countries from continuing on with Jim Crow law. Measures were still in place to segregate, intimidate and keep inferior those determined less then the "white elite".

After my latest Hollywood victory, watching Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings Playbook. The inspiring and intense acting of Cooper & Lawrence, not to mention the veteran savvy of a Robert de Niro, the cinematography and professionalism created a Hollywood masterpiece. In that case, I had high expectations for 42 and waited for opening weekend to be inspired

and motivated to create change in this world.

Robinson had a larger then life responsibility, much like Nelson Mandela using Rugby to unite a South African apartheid system; Jackie Robinson was a social experiment by General Manager Branch Rickey of the Brooklyn Dodgers, a testing of the strong racial divisions that existed in America. Robinson's introduction into the Montreal Royals, a minor league affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers, tested the fabric of society.

In the movie, the viewer gets a Hollywood feeling of a lovely family man (which Robinson was) in an uncomfortable situation. The racial tensions are lightened by seeing a supportive African American community, a minor league coach that quickly comes around and amazing play that immediately impresses the teammates and wins their affection. The racial tensions are

encountered when a police officer kicks Robinson out of a game for being black, this transpires into Robinson joking on the street with his wife while another white gentlemen walks up looking irritated. In an intense moment, the viewer is led to believe that this gentleman is going to cause trouble for Robinson, instead he states that he is rooting for Jackie and that most of the folks are cheering for him.

This is a recurring theme, as a racially intense moment occurs, we are brought back to humorous light-hearted moments, or the portrayal of Caucasian counterparts that defend, or want Robinson to succeed.

Signing the Contract

Robinson is then called up to the big team, the Brooklyn Dodgers, assisted by the assistant coach, he learns how to play first base. It must be considered that Robinson's failure, or poor play might have set back the push for civil rights, or African/White relations in America. There is no option for him to fail, his own community and the African American community needed a 1940's hero, one that can be compared to a Harriet Tubman. Robinson is on this level, the movie does not portray the true hatred he would have encountered from his team mates, umpires, fans, or opposing team mates, but it attempts to capture moments of discrimination in a comedic light hearted method.

As Robinson is training to be on the Dodgers, his team mates start a petition to have him thrown off the team. This sparks the true character of Manager Rickey, who informs Lou the head coach in a rather humorous dialogue to tune those boys in. The manager provides a late night passionate, slightly humorous speech informing the players Jackie is the first of many, so they better start playing, or their jobs will be taken.

During Robinson's play with the Dodgers, he encounters moments from an opposing coach on the Phillies,

Alan Tudyk as Phillies Coach

who taunts Robinson at every turn. He uses offensive language, this is a moment when the audience feels tension and we see Jackie break down for the first time in the film. Not surprising, but this being the first time is impressive, but it allows the viewer for the first time to truly feel Jackie's pain. However, General Manager Rickey appears to be the only one concerned and offers Jackie a passionate speech. Robinson then responds just in time to take the field.

During his next at bat, the opposing coach again starts in on Jackie with racial taunts, this sparks a time out moment and a fellow team mate of Robinson's to have enough. He walks over to the coach and let's him have it, to where the coach stops the taunting allowing Robinson to hit a lazy off field single. However, with Jackie's blazing speed and unorthodox base running, he is able to successfully steal second and third base, eventually being hit in by his teammate for the winning run, with Jackie providing a victorious glare at the opposing coach.

Malcolm X

This Hollywoodized undermining of racial tensions in 42 is expected, Hollywood is in the capatalist world of making enormous profits. In an independent film their would have been more emphasis on the political ramifications of Jackie Robinson's bravery. He is iconic in the sense he opened the door for other players of African decent, but he also inspired civil rights movements and important leaders like Martin Luther King Jr,

Martin Luther King Jr

Malcolm X and Rosa Parks. These leaders would also have an effect on civil rights in Canada, as many Aboriginal leaders would take example from King Jr and Malcolm X.

Rosa Parks

This Hollywood picture does offer justice at the end by announcing where the players ended up and low an behold the racist coach of the Phillies was fired the year after. As well, the only player that never came around to accepting Jackie, other then the one pitcher traded to Shittsburgh (oops I mean Pittsburgh) in an ironic twist was also traded to Pittsburgh, which provided a final laugh.

Another important aspect of the movie is provided when Manager Rickey has a meeting with concerned future Hall of Famer Pee Wee Reece informing the Manager that he can not play at his hometown of Cincinatti because his family will see him play with an African player. He received a note from a fan stating he was a newly acquired N word lover and this concerned Reece deeply. However, Rickey in one of many passionate discussions displayed the letters sent to Robinson threatening the life of his family, this act itself inspired Reece in front of his hometown crowd to run up to Jackie and provide a powerful gesture of wrapping his arm around Jackie and in a strong southern accent provides Jackie with hope.

Reece sharing a moment with Jackie in front of his hometown Cincinnati fans

Another light hearted scene is when one of Jackie's more liberal teammates approaches him sitting outside waiting to use the shower. Hilarity ensues when at the persuading of his teammate, he inquires if Jackie would shower with him, this slightly awkward exchange becomes more hilarious as awkwardness prevails. However, Jackie decides it is time to shower with his team, it is a very liberating moment as it portrays the move from discomfort to comfort, but there is a reluctant teammate beside Jackie that immediately ends his shower, portraying that not all teammates had fully accepted Jackie. This being the same teammate that Jackie almost got into a physical confrontation with when they were refused a hotel in Philadalphia.

Overall, the movie 42 is an inspiring brief cinematic glimpse into the life of an iconic American figure. It provides light hearted humor, while attempting to capture the racial tensions. This is a great family oriented movie, or even a movie to take the significant other too. It encompasses baseball, friendship, family and the struggle for equality and equity in a racially divided world. The movie fails in portraying the real racial tensions that were encountered by Jackie Robinson. In lieu of the audience, the movie provides a lot of white heroes and humor that deflects uncomfortable racial moments. However, can anything less be expected from Hollywood?

Chadwick Boseman plays a great rendition of Jackie Robinson, physically matching the part, he also provides a sense of emotion in the character that allows the audience to sympathize with Mr. 42. Harrison Ford portrays General Manager Branch Rickey and really puts on a performance, always in character and inspiring. The supporting cast also had some notables mixed with new comers to the Hollywood scene, but all gelled together well. I would rank this film a 8 out of 10, mostly for inspiration, acting and creating a positive emotional feeling. I believe it failed slightly in capturing the immense difficulty that Robinson encountered, unllike Maris who was played by Barry Pepper in *61, in that film one could feel the stress that Maris was encountering while chasing Ruth's home run record (much more conflict) with the same positive ending and light hearted humor.

"A movie to go see for those needing a positive inspiring pick me up from the real world"

Roy Pogorzelski

Idle No More 2012 (The Pogo Perspective)

2013-01-13T11:45:00.001-08:00

It has been awhile since I turned to the blog to express my opinions. However, arriving back from Europe in December to start teaching at the First Nations University, I realized I came at a very important political time for Indigenous Canadians and Concerned Canadians (I say concerned because unfortunately Canada is full of people that take no interest in political movements, but are the to first to air their ignorant opinions).

The Canadian government (or Harper's government as he would rather it be referred to) decided to pass undemocratically through parliament an omnibus Bill C-45. This bill passed through so quickly it would make kidney stone patients jealous. The idea behind the bill is that it eliminates the protection of 2.5 million lakes and rivers, it also eliminates the environmental protection from unscrupulous development companies that enjoy filling our waterways with nuclear waste.

Protecting our Water should be important to ALL CANADIANS!!

This has also become a violation of the rights for First Nations people entrenched in treaties that were signed on a nation to nation basis on mutual trust and sharing of this land. Another important element is that the treaties only covered 6 inches under the ground, anything deeper would have to be re-negotiated and make further arrangements for those natural resources.

The Harper government has also declared to make amendments to the Indian Act that would open up lands to privatization, corporate development and national capitalism. He is also interested in a new method in which we negotiate modern treaties, which would endure the same capitalist effect.

Arriving back, I heard of a Chief named Theresa Spence from the community of Attawapiskat who would endure a hunger strike, even willing to die in order to get a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor General David Lloyd Johnston to discuss Bill C-45 and the current colonial relationship between Stephen Harper and Aboriginal people in Canada.

Idle No More (Chief Spence)

A movement organized by 4 strong Indigenous women (Idle No More, 2012) sprung into action sweeping through the nation and capturing the attention of not only Canadians, but the entire world. A movement resembling the strong political organizing of the 1970's when Trudeau's Liberal government tried to pass the White Paper of 1969 (an Act to assimilate First Nations treaties, reserve lands and culture into the mainstream).

Taiaiake Alfred stated in his book "Peace, Power and Righteousness" that it would be unrealistic in the present to see Canada create another Bill that would undermine Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. However, a man that made a Residential School apology to all those that survived a shameful part of Canadian History (Harper's minority government) is now attempting to develop our resources to the highest bidder, so that Canada can grow into a capitalist, every man for them self society.

Harper at Residential School apology (June 11, 2008)

Harper getting his face painted on the Blood Reserve as a show of mutual respect!

This runs deeper then just the neglect for Aboriginal and Treaty rights, Bill C-45 deliberately tells all Canadians that the current administration is willing to destroy the environment, the drinking water and the beauty of Canada without consulting, being accountable or caring about the voices of all Canadians.

When I am travelling and representing proudly overseas my identity as a Canadian, I am informed by many new friends that they love Canada's nature and the beauty of the environment. Much like the Scandinavian countries with amazing nature, especially Norway and governments that better represent a functioning democracy bound on protecting their lands for future generations; most Canadians stand "Idle", scratch their heads and start pointing fingers at the First Nations people (often time in generalizations). First Nations people are referred to this because of their diversity as nations, as their eco-systems change from the Northwest Coast to the Eastern Woodlands, the political structures, needs of the community and traditions are different.

However, instead of some Canadians understanding what our capitalist conservative government (that has ran a deficit into the billions over the last 6 years) envisions for this great country; they start to point fingers at First Nations leadership and start attacking the personal finances of Chief Theresa Spence.

In my opinion, Chief Spence is a symbolic figure of this grassroots movement, she is an individual that put herself forward to gather the attention of the international community. Whether or not people believe she is on a real hunger strike, her symbolism is gathering responses to the issues of environment, nation to nation relationships and treaties. Indigenous people have always been intricately connected to Mother Earth and have emerged as leaders against capitalism, corporate greed and consumerism to ensure all Canadians understand what exactly is at stake.

It is easy for ignorant people to make this about race, ignoring the concept of "national solidarity". However, my people the Metis fought hard to protect Canada, as they brought Manitoba into confederation (against a Prime Minister that wasn't even Canadian, but Scottish). They fought gallantly for their rights in 1885 as Canadians against a paramilitary police force (NWMP) made up of "foreigners" that had no connection to this land.

John A Macdonald (Born in Glascow Scotland)

However, our people got deemed terrorists, rebels and traitors and our patriotic Canadian born leader (was hung by a Scottish Prime Minister). I am a patriotic Metis Canadian that embraces the idea of "functioning democracy", but what is happening at the moment is not a country based on equal, or equitable rights, it is a conservative country based on division, generalizations and capitalist greed.

Canadian Patriot Louis Riel (Born in St.Boniface, CANADA)

It is easy for certain Canadians to point the finger and generalize Indigenous leadership, it is easy to start bashing Chief Therese Spence, it is easy to express your words in an anger and hate filled way, but if you decide to speak against the movement, at least have the courtesy to be informed, aware and open-minded. That is why I am "Idle No More", I am encouraged to see the youth rise up with a modern day grassroots movement to bring all Canadians together to say in a democratic way to our government "it is time to start governing for Canadians (all Canadians) and not just the 1-2% that will benefit from corporate greed in the development of our natural resources".

I am proud of my First Nations brothers and sisters for standing up for the rights of all Canadians, now it is time for all Canadians to fight with us to protect what we love most about Canada (the nature).

Roy Pogorzelski

SEVEN OAKS!!

2011-11-29T15:48:00.000-08:00

Written By: Roy Pogorzelski

Date: November 29, 2011

Title: Seven Oaks!!

Cuthbert Grant

This is a short story about the first organized Metis leader Cuthbert Grant, during the days of the fur trade wars. The Metis predominantely worked for the Northwest Company and competed against the Hudson Bay Company for complete monopoly over the fur trade in Canada. I have submitted this for a cmpetition with Glimmer Press. Hoping it does well, your comments and feedback would be much appreciated. Most of this was worked on at the Emerging Writers Residency at the Banff Centre, and eventually will be turned into a book. Enjoy!!!

SEVEN OAKS!!

JUNE 19, 1816

Cuthbert Grant gazed sharply across the lush green grove, taking notice of the swaying branches of the Oak trees. The whirling wind swooshed by his ears, drowning out distractions. Perched a top his trusted steed, he identified the ant like bodies in the distance, as those of the rival fur trading company.

Engaging his thoughts, he pondered; why would this birdbrain, Semple, decide to block the passage way? Burning lava was building in the pit of his stomach, melting through his ribs, blazing the lining of his interior. There was a need for the furs to be delivered, later this evening to the fort.

Wondering how to relieve this awful gut wrenching hatred for Governor Semple, he adjusted his sash, wrapped tightly around his waist, as if loosening it was the answer to counselling out this feeling. Slightly turning his head, he scoured the faces of his most trusted men.

He fixated his eyes on Joseph Aubichon, a short, stocky, simple, grungy, but strong as a mule trader. Envisioning Joseph in an exchange with Semple, was like sending whisky to an alcoholic, he would be consumed in a matter of seconds.

Beside Joseph, was Cyprien Morin, a comedian, inherent with the gift of gab, a real ladies man, always the life of the party, but their was one problem; he had an itchy trigger finger, both in actuality and metaphorically. A simple dumfounded glare, a comment under the breath, this man would spiral into a fit of rage compared to that of Poseidon angrily tossing a ship and eventually swallowing it at sea.

Ahhh, Albert Gernault, an intelligent, well spoken, respected gentleman, who strongly conceived that laughter was the supreme medicine for avoiding expressing other emotions. One problem, Gernault loathed Governor Semple, being chased, followed, scared by these British fur trading men. Grant knew, if the opportunity arose, Gernault would grasp at the chance to terminate him.

Grant grew increasingly frustrated as he surveyed his patriots, cupping the bone of his chin, with a thoughtful stroke; he immediately waved off the idea of sending “Big Jean”. Jean Baptistse Aubichon, brother of Joseph, was an enormous man-beast in stature, resembling a mythical Centaur, with powerful legs, broad shoulders and a silent, yet confrontational demeanour. When Jean decided it was a whisky night, seats immediately opened up at the local watering hole.

Grant required an individual with a calm disposition, who was able to deliver a peaceful message, without sparking conflict. Not wanting to damage the furs, lose the furs, or worse, one of his men’s lives.

AH HUH, directing his attention at the youngest man in their party, Francois Bouvier. He was an eighteen year old, charismatic, charming, bi-lingual and well groomed. His calming attitude; quite cultivated, but on rare occasion his immaturity shone through like a sun fighting the clouds to appear noticeable. Francois prompted memories of Grant as a young man.

Grants throat tightened as a shrill sound quivered his tonsils, as he strained the soreness from his eyes, challenging the wind, “FRANCOIS”.

Francois perked up on his horse, the familiarity of this voice, baffled, curious; he sat their eyeballing Grant like a perplexed child that had just been unwillingly selected by their teacher to answer a question.

Grant, summoned Francois, with a hand gesture to advance closer, so that he did not have to continue to strain his vocal muscles.

Francois apprehensively approached, wondering why Grant was interested in speaking with him.

“Come here François”, Grant fanned his hand faster, attempting to motivate a quicker pace.

“Yes, Mister Grant?”, he said inquisitively.

“I need you to negotiate with Governor Semple a safe passage through Seven Oaks” a task, Grant was knocking on wood, would create an opportunity, not a problem.

“What should I say?” eyes wide, eyebrows lifted, sweat starting to bead just under his hairline, startled by this request.

“To report that we have commercial property from the Northwest Company and we need his men to withdraw and allow us to pass peacefully”, Grant emphasizing that peace rather then fight was the objective.

Grant observed Francois closely, assuming he grasped the expectations of this request. Hoping, wishing, waiting for a response; finally Francois with a hesitant nod of his head, took a relaxing breath and understood the responsibility that had been bestowed upon him.

Grant still a bit leery gave a short nod.

Francois’, veins visible, as he gripped the reigns, commanded his horse to turn his head and leaving a cloud of dust, raced off towards Semple.

Semple, slumped atop his horse, distracted by the nervous chit chat of the settlers, “GOVERNOR SEMPLE!!” shook the inside of his right ear drum, his neck crackled as he swung to the direction of the sound.

“WHAT!” annoyingly, he hollered at the volunteer as his voice sliced through the wind.

“Sir, there is a rider approaching”, the volunteer swung his arm; pointing in the direction from which Francois was advancing.

He squinted through the wind to see a man on horseback approaching at a quick speed, the shadow moving faster then the actual figure. The man came to a halt twenty yards from where Semple and his men were positioned.

Semple, straining his eyes, recognized this young man. He was that young trouble maker that enjoyed his whisky, and in some occasions would harass the Scottish settlers in the area. Semple snapped the reigns, kicking his horse in the side, sped off to meet face to face with this young delinquent.

Francois’ chest inflated as he took a deep nervous breath, swallowing the cool air and then re-releasing it to the wind. Semple, overjoyed that Grant would choose a youngster, who could barely grow facial hair, approached alone with his chest puffed high, his shoulders elevated forward and a very stern and unforgiving authoritative look to his face.

“What is it that you want” quite irritated, while staring Francois in the face.

Francois responded “Mister Grant wants to know, what the purpose of blocking us from our destination is? We would like to peacefully pass, without any confrontation”.

Semple furrowed his brow in a thought provoking way, as he studied this request from the young man “What is your business, passing the Fort” he inquired.

Francois attempting to hide his nervousness remarked with a building poise, “we have commercial property from the Northwest Company that needs to be delivered to the Northwest trading Fort by tonight”.

Semple laughed so hard, he almost fell off of his horse. He retorted “over my dead body, I have the right mind to arrest you in front of your half-breed friends”.

Meanwhile, Grant fumbled in his pocket, searched for his eye scope and slowly transferred it to his right eye and with his right hand; he pulled on the scope to define his field of focus. He observed through his enhanced field of vision, Semple and Francois engaging in discussion.

The lava in his gut started to boil again, but was mixed with a queasy nervous feeling, anticipating that the stubborn Semple, was not going to make things easy on Francois.

The bubbling feeling of lava in his stomach was immediately halted when his adrenaline froze the insides of his body and he spotted from the distance, Semple clutch the arm of Francois.

Grant lowered his scope and sped off, in record breaking time towards the skirmish, his men alarmed, shocked and excited, followed at a quick pace behind their leader.

Francois continued to attempt to wiggle his arm free from the firm grasp of Semple. The Hudson Bay Company Governor was always willing to exert his self-induced authority on any mixed blood supporters of the French trade. Detecting the riders approaching, red sashes flapping in the wind, a blue flag accompanying the traders, led by Grant; Semple was interested in taking this opportunity to crush these traders and have them all arrested for trespassing.

Semple without turning his head brought his hand up and with his index finger, moved it in one fluid motion summoning the settlers, volunteers and his traders to approach the inevitable standoff.

Francois, his face a disappointed red colour, responded with rage and a new found assurance, “with what authority Semple, you are not the rule of this land, this here is God’s land, you are simply a trespasser, besides with an army like that, you’re either a brave man or a very stupid man”.

Semple observed the sudden change of emotion in the young man and realized he had triggered some sort of deep anger, but he also attributed this to the forming semi-circle that accompanied Grant, surrounding Bouvier.

This did not alarm Semple, being Governor of the Red River did not come at an easy price. He had been face to face with Indians, he had dealt with Half-Breeds for many years and had survived on this land for decades, he new his authority and was not afraid to implement his will, even if it meant endangering the lives of the men that had raced out to form a straight military line behind him.

Semple still having a handful of arm, tugged Francois closer “You are under arrest by the order of the Hudson Bay Company”, he affirmed.

Bouvier hastily ripped his arm away, almost jerking Semple off his horse. Guns were cocked, pointing at one another, daring, wondering, who would succumb to the pressure and fire the first shot.

Grant gawked at Semple, who was cockily smirking at him, daring him to fight. Just at that moment, a young settler, anxious and nervous, accidentally with a deafening sound fired his weapon. This created an orchestra of bangs, as shot after shot rang out of their guns, only hesitating a moment to reload.

Grant’s heart punched, beat and pounded the inside of his chest. Bang, the kick back of the gun sent a vibrating jolt of electricity through his arms. Bang, with every shot, a silent calmness resonated, his chest deflated, his heart slowed as if he was envisioning shapes in the clouds. Feeling sedated, the battle in slow motion, his peripherals distracted by the circus of cluttered bodies surrounding him. CRACK, his body went limp, as the force of the blow turned his frame, crackling ribs lead into weightlessness, as gravity floated his body in slow motion towards a bed of green.

Face down, groggy; Grant clenched a handful of grass with his right hand. His eyelids half open, he examined this insignificant piece of grass and acknowledged the land he protected intimately. Dazed, confused, believing this must be a nightmare. A large rock pinned his stomach to the ground as he turned his head slightly, blood trickled off his forehead bypassing his eye. He noticed a shadowy figure standing over him, breathing deeply, in his blackness this man resembled death.

With one last inch of energy, Grant`s shoulder blade crackled as he turned his head, to catch a glimpse of the man who would forever be known in history books as the `BUTCHER OF GRANT`. Meeting the old man`s eye, memories of his time in Red River, glimpsed through his mind, flashing scenes from his life.

As Grant had finally succumbed to the fierce blow he had received, a calming darkness resonated through his body, creating lightness in weight, waiting for the last breath to escape his body.

BANG!! Grant clenched, holding tighter the grass that provided much needed support. Continued darkness, no pain vibrated through his body, his own assumptions of the discomfort of death shattered. Continuing to lay there, the silence of a deafened ear evident, Grant managed to send a message to his brain to open his eyes.

Groggy, light entering his retinas, pain pounded the inside of his forehead like it was being used as a drum in a parade. With his hands underneath his chest, he lifted with all the strength his biceps could muster. Feeling a tight grab under both armpits, he was suddenly flung like a stuffed doll to a standing position, but resting his arms around the shoulders of two large burly pillars.

With squinted eyes, still adjusting to the brightness, he saw one of his men; sash in one hand, blue flag rippling in the wind in the other with arms outstretched. Unsure, of what was happening, Grant slightly turning his head, felt the blood flow increase to his wobbly legs and requested his supports set him on the ground.

Grant scoured the men’s bodies that rested in the deep green grass. His eyes fixated on the waist of the men, hoping not to see a tightly tied sash associated with death. Bodies littered the ground, as Grant untied his sash, relieving pressure on his stomach and touched it to the bloody spot of his forehead. Still searching the men, he noticed the furs were all gathered, what was salvaged and piled together.

The wind whipping his eyes, Grant slowly moved towards the isolated middle ground, where, what would be forever known in the history books as the “Battle of Seven Oaks” began. Stumbling, he noticed two bodies laying across form one another, both had plummeted off their horses after taking a lead ball.

Shockingly, Grant recognized one of the bodies as Governor Semple’s, curled up, motionless, lifeless, in this moment he was no longer an enemy, but a fallen soldier. Grant stood over Semple’s body; this tyrant of the Metis, now ancient history, he new that this battle would not go unnoticed.

Turning slowly, with a relieved feeling of a Mother who just realized all her children were safe, captured a disturbing image. Stumbling, he knelt down beside a limp body, the redness of the sash, loosened off his waist, noticeable.

Grant began furiously shaking the shoulder of the body, hoping, preying to solicit a response. Nothing, the soul had left this body and ventured to another world. Reluctant to turn the body, as he swivelled his head to the men starting to gather around him, hoping to catch a glimpse and take attendance of who was still breathing.

Turning his attention back to the body, he slowly turned the shoulder as the body rolled to reveal, what Grant feared, it was the face of Francois Bouvier. A tear building in the corner of his eye, fell and descended down his cheek at a quickened pace, straight to the jaw, held there for a moment and then continued it’s journey, as it blended in with the sleeve of Grant’s coat.

His brigade of sharp shooting Métis snipers, loyal, obedient, strong, knew they had gained a rather important victory, but this single moment, single battle, single hour, single day, single summer would resonate in Grant’s memory for the rest of his life.

The Story of My Step-Grandpa's Destroyed Liver

2011-11-15T08:35:00.000-08:00

The Story of My Step-Grandpa’s Destroyed Liver

PICTURE: Attached to story the rope, this is Nathan's second guest blog!!

Bio: Nathan Adler is a writer and artist who works in many different mediums, including video, film, drawing & painting, as well as glass and installation. Nathan was the first place winner of the 2010 Aboriginal Writing Challenge http://www.our-story.ca/nathan-adler.html, he has had his writing published in Redwire magazine, Canada’s History magazine, and as a part of the Odemin Giizis Festival. He is currently working as a glass artist, and is a member of Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation.

Every year when October 31^strolls around, I always think of my step-grandpa Frank, because October 31^st, Halloween, was his birthday. He passed away several years ago. When I was a teenager, we would visit our grandmother and our step-grandfather in their apartment in Guelph, Ontario. My siblings and I never called our step-grandpa “grandpa”, we just called him by his first name: Frank.

And Frank. Well. He liked to drink. Or at least, he used to. His liver gave out, and then he couldn’t drink at all without getting violently sick. Drinking just didn’t feel good to him anymore.

The doctor told him, he was about to get cirrhosis of the liver, if he didn’t quit drinking, and the organ wouldn’t be able to recover. He was at the point of no return. The organ could recover to a certain extent, but only if he quit drinking. If he didn’t quit, he’d get Cirrhosis. He had to give up beer and alcohol or face the prospect of Cirrhosis and ultimately death, which isn’t much of a choice at all.

My brothers and I were not yet nineteen yeas old, which is the drinking age in Ontario. Not that we didn’t drink already. We’d been to our fair share of house parties, drunken field parties, or just hanging out drinking a few beers on a Friday night. Someone’s older brother or sister would always buy us beer.

So it wasn’t all that strange that Frank would always offer us a Beer. Just because he couldn’t drink without getting violently sick, didn’t mean that he didn’t still yearn for a drink. He always kept the fridge well stocked with beer though he never drank it himself. Not anymore. It was only a short distance from his favorite chair in front of the T.V. in the living room to the fridge in the kitchen.

Perfectly chilled. Ice cold. Beer.

So every time we’d visit, he’d reach into the fridge and hand us a beer. It could be 11:00 AM on a Sunday morning, we could already be hung-over from the night before, we could be sick; but it didn’t matter. He’d hand us that perfectly chilled, ice cold, beer with a look of thirsty expectation on his face.

Thirsty anticipation. The anticipation of a dry alcoholic tongue, that hadn’t tasted a drop in years. The anticipation of vicarious satiation, vicarious sensation and the long-missed absence of blessed intoxication; it was impossible to refuse. It was usually Molson, Miller, or Labatt 50. Nothing fancy or imported. Then he’d watch as we cracked the puckered metal seal, the mist rising out of the brown glass like early morning fog. He’d watch as we raised the beer bottles to our lips, and took that first swig, Adam’s apple bobbing, the quiet shook shook sound, as we swallowed, and the air pressure tightened with the transfer of cold beer and the surrounding air re-filling the previously occupied vacuum. A big smile plastered on his face as he watched with rapt attention, and re-lived the experience he had once enjoyed.

My grandparents kept the heat in their apartment cranked, so we usually did get thirsty.

Frank had a seven-inch scar on his abdomen where he’d stabbed himself with a knife attempting to commit suicide. I don’t know whether it’s easier to stab yourself in the stomach than it is to stab yourself in the heart, but I imagine the grinding of metal on bone as you tried to force the blade past your rib-cage, would be a lot more difficult than simply stabbing yourself in the soft fleshy pulp of your stomach. Unfortunately, or luckily, depending on the way you looked at it, stabbing yourself in the stomach isn’t as lethal as stabbing yourself in the heart. Although I don’t recommend trying it.

I guess those shakes of withdrawal as your coming down from a lifetime of the over-drinking, must be pretty rough. Maybe when you get over wanting to kill yourself, it might be a good idea to keep a stockpile of beer in your fridge, just in case your grandkids come by to visit, and you can enjoy a nice, ice cold, perfectly chilled beer. Vicariously. I’m sure that if they have a working liver to spare, they won’t mind lending you theirs.

Even if it is 11:00 AM on a Sunday morning.

Let that be a warning to those of you who like to drink, a little bit too much. If you really enjoy drinking, then it might be a good idea to practice moderation, or your liver could give out, you’ll have to face the prospect of Cirrhosis and death, and then where will you be? Not drinking anything at all, that’s where.

And that would suck, big-time!

Metis Identity - Chapter 3/Conclusion/Recommendations

2011-11-15T08:21:00.000-08:00

CHAPTER 3

1. COURTS, POLICY AND CONTEMPORARY QUESTION OF MÉTIS IDENTITY

This chapter will discuss the contemporary development of Métis identity through government policy. Government policy has lead to a definitional approach to Métis identity, which has been taken on by the court system and Métis organizations. As well, further examination of current issues of Métis identity will be examined. Responses from the questionnaire will continue to be used in this chapter.

Chartrand (2002) mentions that from confederation until the early 20^th century, a key issue for Canada was how to deal with the “Indian Question” and the related “Métis Question”, which was motivated by Canadian western expansion. He also goes on to articulate that the apparent solution as far as the Métis were concerned was to absorb them within existing First Nations bands and to pursue individual allotment schemes of their lands, so as to break their collective identity. In that case, the overall goal of the Canadian Government was the complete absorption of the Métis into mainstream society (p 196).

1.1) White Paper of 1969

In 1969, the Prime Minister of Canada introduced the “White Paper” on Aboriginal policy, which proposed an elimination of Aboriginal status, treaty rights, collective land holdings and to transfer the responsibility for Aboriginal peoples from the federal government to the provincial government’s (Schouls, 2003, p 4) This policy had an assimilationist objective, which claimed that Aboriginal people should be integrated into the mainstream Canadian society, ignoring their specific cultural identities. The government claimed that through this policy, the social, educational and economic problems of the Aboriginal peoples would be addressed. The government did not take into account that the problems encountered through being a marginalized peoples, were the direct result of the denial of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the first place. This policy sought to eliminate discussion of Métis, First Nations and Inuit cultural identity, with the hope that the rights associated with these peoples would be eliminated (Schouls, 2003, p 42).

Although this policy was heavily resisted, some individuals agreed with this approach to Aboriginal policy, such as Thomas Flanagan (2000). He is critical of government policy that has placed individuals into divided categories with separate legal rights. He believes that Aboriginal people have fallen into this trap because of the claims by Aboriginal leaders about original occupancy; traditional nationhood and historical cultural equivalency (p 70). He supports the idea that no people should have special rights and that it would be improved for people, if they recognize that Canada is made up of earlier and later immigrants. Flanagan agrees with Trudeau’s (1969) approach to Aboriginal policy and supports the idea of Canada being one nation of one certain kind of people (p 78-79). However, others disagree with this type of policy, Tully (in Schouls, 2003) claims that Aboriginal communities governed themselves through their own institutions, authoritative traditions and interpretation for centuries. In that case, it gives expression to the distinct cultural “customs and ways” that lie at the heart of what it means to be Aboriginal (p 45).

Tully goes on to state; those Aboriginal leaders utilized the language of nationhood as a method of preserving their cultural identities as distinct peoples as well as safeguarding their own social institutions (in Schouls, 2003, p 46). Therefore, as a shield against this assimilation policy, Aboriginal people used their cultural identity, history and language to separate themselves from the dominating and fragmenting colonial culture. In 1970, Aboriginal people in response to the “White Paper” countered with the “Red Paper”. The Red Paper was a resistance to the policy of assimilation and contradicted all the proposals of the white paper. Aboriginal people united and gathered a delegation that convened with the federal government, along with support from non-Aboriginal Canadians. Based on their strong resistance and support, they convinced the government to change this radical policy. This policy also leads to an emergence of Aboriginal organizations, which renewed political energy against the injustice and cultural harm that came from policies of assimilation (Schouls, 2003, p 4). This policy was an aggressive attempt at destroying the cultural identity of the Métis nation. Although, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada resisted this policy, other policies have also affected Métis identity.

1.2) Lovelace Case and Bill C-31

Section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act[1] states that an Indian women marrying a non-Indian man ceases to be an Indian, as do her children within the meaning of any statute or law in Canada (Daniels, 1981, p 4). First Nations women would lose their right of being involved with community governance and services attached to being status Indian. These women are also deprived of the right to live in their cultural community. Whereas, if an Indian man married a non-Indian woman, the women would gain Indian status. This was a paternalistic policy that discriminated against First Nations women and their children (Daniels, 1981, p 4). During this period many First Nations women and children had their status eliminated, which often lead to many of these people joining up and identifying with the Métis population as a mixed race (Purich, 1988, p 23).

On July 30, 1981, a woman by the name of Sandra Lovelace took her case to the international arena to be judged by the Human Rights Committee (HRC). Sandra Lovelace is a Maliseet woman from Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick. In 1970, she married an American Caucasian and moved with him to California (Borrows & Rotman, 2003, p 630). She lost her status as an Indian in accordance with section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Act. After her marriage ended a few years later, she returned to the reserve and found she was denied housing, education and health care that was provided to status Indians (Sandra Lovelace 1947-). In this case Sandra Lovelace claimed that the Act was discriminatory on the grounds of sex and contrary to articles 2 (1), 3, 23 (1) and (4), 26 and 27 of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (Sandra Lovelace vs. Canada).

The HRC maintained that the loss of status did not amount to a violation because at the time, the Covenant did not come into force until August 19, 1976. Therefore, the HRC could only consider human rights violations on or after August 19, 1976 (Borrows & Rotman, 2003, p 632). The Committee, however, did state that after the date, she did suffer from the effects of discrimination and violation of her human rights (Borrows & Rotman, 2003, p 633). In that case, according to the HRC, Sandra Lovelace had a legal right to return to her reserve community. Although this ruling had no legal effect in Canada, it placed further moral obligation on the government to respond (Isaac, 2004, p 528). This resulted in the introduction of Bill C-31 as an amendment to the Indian Act.

Bill C-31 was implemented on April 17, 1985 as an attempt to abolish discrimination against First Nations people that had previously lost their status. Bill C-31 restores Indian status to women, enfranchised Indians[2] and children of Indian women that married non-Indian men (Isaac, 2004, p 528). Through this bill, section 6 of the Indian Act was created, which declares individuals that are eligible for Indian status “those who had status before April 17, 1985, members of a group declared by Cabinet to be a band, those who lost status by sexually discriminatory provisions or enfranchisement, children with both parents with status and children with one parent with status under one of the above categories” (Elliot, 1997, p 17).

Bill C-31 at the time it was implemented appeared as an achievement, which allowed for the removal of the discriminatory clauses against women, their children and enfranchised persons in the Indian Act. Nevertheless, Bill C-31 and section 6 has introduced a new process of losing status through marrying out, or having children with non-status people as is explained clearly by Frideres & Gadacz (2005, p 32).

Frideres and Gadacz (2005) state that section 6 has been divided into two sections: a 6(1) and a 6(2) Indian. Section 6(1) identifies those who lost or were denied status as a result of the Indian Act prior to 1985. On the other hand, section 6(2) registers only the child of one parent who was, or was entitled to be, registered under only 6(1) (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 32). Between 1985 and 2001, over 112,000 have gained back Indian Act status; of those who gained it back three quarters were women. According to the 1999 Indian register, since the introduction of Bill C-31, the majority of individuals at an alarming 66.96% were granted status as a 6(2) Indian (Elliot, 1997, p 17). This is negative because as Section 6 of the Indian Act reads “If a 6(1) person marries a 6(1) person, then the child is 6(1); if a 6(1) person marries a 6(2) person, the child becomes 6(1); if a 6(1) person marries a non-Indian person, then the child become 6(2); if a 6(2) person marries a 6(2) person, the child become 6(1) and if a 6(2) person marries a non-Indian, then the child becomes non-Indian” (2005, p 32). Therefore, children of a 6(2) Indian parent are immediately penalized if they are married to a non-Indian person. The individuals reinstated with Indian status were mostly given 6(2) statuses. Also if a 6(1) marries a non-Indian they get reduced to the status of 6(2), so within generation status can be lost (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 32).

Section 6 is discriminatory because it sets up further loss of Indian status, so children become non-status Indians with limited Aboriginal rights. As well, it has created the idea that First Nations people should marry other First Nations people in order for their children to maintain status, which is also discriminatory. This is important because it has had an effect on Métis identity. Métis people that could qualify to retain Indian status, often applied and were reinstated, which would provide them and their children access to treaty rights and services for status Indians (Purich, 1988, p 23). As Purich (1988) claims, which is also supported by Frideres and Gadacz (2005), First Nations that had lost status prior to 1985 considered themselves to be of Métis identity. When Bill C-31 was passed many of these people applied for status and the Métis nation population numbers greatly decreased (p 23).

As well, since to certain individuals the term “Métis” encompasses all mixed blood people of Aboriginal descent, individuals that end up losing their First Nation status through section 6, place themselves in the immediate category of Métis, rather than that of a non-status Indian (Purich 1988, p 23). Frideres & Gadacz (2005) mention that when a First Nations person lose status, they lose their treaty rights and opportunity to live on the reserve. In that case, they automatically feel Métis even though they are not included in the current definition. This feeling is attributed to the fact that they have one parent that is Indian and one parent that is Euro Canadian (p 33). However, this is not true because these people have never engaged in the culture, since being Métis is cultural in definition, these people are not included, but they attempt to be, which causes problems with identifying Métis individuals and creates uncertainty with the understanding of who is Métis (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 33). Generally most Métis organizations are prepared to recognize non-status Indians as being Métis, but on the condition that they identify themselves with the Métis culture (Purich 1988, p 23).

1.3) Canadian Constitution Act of 1982

Prior to the establishment of Bill C-31, the 1982 Canadian Constitution Act recognized and affirmed the Métis as an Aboriginal group with protected rights. Throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, the Métis came to the conclusion that constitutional change was needed, both to protect their culture, way of life, secure a land base and rights to self-government (Purich, 1988, p 180). Schouls (2003) states that a culture becomes a nation if the members within believe they are entitled to territorial sovereignty. In that case, communities will be able to ensure their distinct identities if they are granted collective rights within the country (p 6). The Métis nation wanted to be included in the constitution of Canada, so that they could ensure their unique group identity remained intact and their rights as Aboriginal peoples were recognized. However, the first drafts of the constitution in 1978 and 1980 had only included “Native Peoples of Canada”, which may or may not have included the Métis people. It was in 1981 that the word “Métis” first appeared and was included in a draft of the constitution. This amendment to use the word Métis took on the view that they were indeed Aboriginal peoples of Canada and that their rights would be protected (Purich, 1988, p 185).

In 1982, the Métis were finally acknowledged as a distinct group because the repatriated Canadian Constitution recognized the Métis as one of Canada’s three Aboriginal Peoples (Barkwell et al,; 2001, p 17). Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act reads as follows “ (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed and (2) In this Act, ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada” (Teillet, 2004, p 15). Having constitutionally protected rights was important for the Métis people of Canada. This is also important for the Métis because as already mentioned, no other country has constitutionally recognized mixed blood people as Aboriginal (Lischke & McNab, 2007, p 61-62).

However, the celebrations were short lived, after their inclusion into section 35; the provincial governments took a new position. Provincial governments across Canada argued that recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights were only a moral and political obligation. Also that Aboriginal rights as legal rights did not exist until they could be proven in court (Lischke & McNab, 2007, p 61-62). This has forced provincial governments to employ the court system to pass decisions based on the approach of Aboriginal rights in section 35. As well, the courts have also made decisions on who is allowed access to these rights. This is based on the fact that Canada “recognized and affirmed” Métis rights, but did not define them. This has become a central legal question that has furthered the identity debate about “Who are the Métis for the purpose of section 35?” (Isaac, 2008, p 1). Isaac (2008) states that until this can be determined, the analysis required on the extent and nature of Métis rights will have to be decided (p 1). The question of Métis identity takes on many challenges related to culture, history, law and modern politics and even though there have been many attempts to define a Métis person, this has proven a difficult task (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 64).

1.4) Crown verse Powley (2003)

The Powley case is both significant and historic for the Métis people of Canada. It is the first time since the recognition and affirmation of rights in section 35, that the Supreme Court of Canada has tested Métis Aboriginal rights (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 84). Steve Powley and his son Roddy Powley, shot a bull moose near Sault St Marie (in Ontario) on October 22, 1993. They did not contain the proper documentation required at that time for moose hunting, which included a valid hunting licence. After shooting the moose, Steve Powley placed a tag on its ear indicating the date, time and location of the kill. He also noted that the moose was to provide meat for the winter. He wrote his Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association membership number on the tag (Isaac, 2008, p 8).

One week after killing the moose, the Powleys were charged with unlawfully hunting moose and knowingly possessing game hunted in contradiction to Ontario’s Game and Fish Act. They both entered pleas of non-guilty and argued that as Métis they held an Aboriginal right to hunt and fish for subsistence purposes. The courts agreed with the Powley’s, that all members of the Métis community in and around Sault St Marie have an Aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food. However, the case was appealed and taken to the Supreme Court of Canada to render a decision (Isaac, 2008, p 8).

First, the Supreme Court had to assert whether hunting and fishing was a traditional practice of the Métis, which was fixed in a pre-contact time frame. Consequently, the Métis people are an outcome of colonization, there would have to be a date of effective control of the community, so in this case the court determined that the date of effective control by the Métis people in Sault Ste Marie was 1850 (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 68). Determining effective control of a community is an aspect that must be resolved in all future Métis rights cases. The court decided that hunting was an integral aspect to the culture of the Sault Ste Marie Métis community because evidence supported hunting as an important feature of current Métis life. Furthermore, the court decided that the Powley’s were hunting within their traditional territories. In sum, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Powleys, claiming that the people of that community had a right to hunt and fish under s.35 (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 81-82).

The Supreme Court also provided clarity around the question of “who are the Métis” by adopting the view that “the term Métis in s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian and Inuit forebears” (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 84). The Métis of Canada share the common experience of having forged a new culture and a distinctive group identity from their Indian or Inuit and European roots. This enables the court to speak in general terms of “the Métis” (Isaac, 2008, p 9). It is important for the issue of Métis identity that the court mentioned, for the purpose of section 35, that Métis identity is not based on simply biological mixing, but that mixed ancestry is simply one component of what is required (Isaac, 2008, p 9). The court established that the Métis are a distinct culture within a separate group identity in Canada. This decision portrays that the court thought of Métis being more than a mixed race, but rather that they acquired a unique cultural identity.

In Powley, the Supreme Court was asked to consider the legal meaning of the term “Métis”, for the purpose of determining if there was a Métis right to hunt for food. The Court stated that it was formulating a general criterion of the Métis for the purpose of asserting a claim under s.35, but their approach sets the context and tone for future public policy development (Isaac, 2008, p 9). On the issue of identity the court claimed that “S.35 must reflect the purpose of this constitutional guarantee to recognize and affirm the rights of the Métis held by virtue of the continuity between their customs and traditions and traditions of those of their Métis ancestors” (Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 85).

The Supreme Court went on to list three broad factors that provide the indication of Métis identity: 1.) self-identification as a Métis person; 2.) evidence of ancestral connection to an historic Métis community and 3.) a demonstrated acceptance by a modern Métis community. This idea of ancestral connection to a community, may be easier to prove for western or northern Métis individuals than “other” Métis, that may not be able to prove ties to a “historic community”, so definition can restrict some Métis from accessing these rights in section 35 (Isaac, 2008, p 10).

Lishcke & McNab (2007) further elaborate on the criteria set out by the court. Self-Acceptance means that an individual must self-identify as being Métis. The court has singled out identification as perhaps the most important factor for determining who the Métis are for the purposes of section 35, which is determined by a voluntary act of association by the individual. Ancestral Connection to a historic Métis community goes further than just self-identifying; an individual must have ancestral connection that they can prove to the historic Métis nation. This includes no minimum blood quantum and the “ancestral connection” may be by birth, adoption or other means. Lastly, Community Acceptance means that an individual must prove that they have been accepted by a modern Métis community. This is about the past and ongoing participation in a shared culture, in the customs and traditions that reveal a Métis community’s identity (p 67).

There have been other court cases that have dealt with the issue of Métis identity. As well, there have been many provincial cases, which have further elaborated the courts findings in Powley, with relation to Métis Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights. However, Powley has set the criteria and standard for which all other cases will be elaborated. Powley also took it upon itself to set criteria for defining who exactly the Métis people are for the purpose of section 35. Therefore, when a Métis community or individual attempts to make use of their rights, the government investigates these cases in court before making a decision, which further narrows and restricts the usage of their recognized and affirmed rights. In Powley, the court suggested criteria for identifying present day Métis rights holders, which has been taken into consideration by Métis organizations when determining criterion of their membership[3] (Lischke & McNab, 2007, p 66).

1.5) Present Métis Identity and Challenges

As has been discussed, one major issue revealed from the constitution and case law (Powley and others) to date more directly relates to the question “Who are the Métis?”. The determination of this question for Aboriginal people as “Métis” has been a growing concern and issue since the Constitution Act of 1982 (Chartrand, 2002, p 26). There are a number of reasons for the confusion surrounding the term Métis and who is Métis for the purposes of section 35. As was stated earlier, the term Métis has been used in the colonial context to describe all individuals of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry, which was addressed in Powley. The Métis have also been viewed more restrictively as those that can trace their ancestry back to the historic Métis nation. Another complicated aspect is the close kinship, social and geographic relations with First Nations including intermarriage between these two groups. These issues have caused considerable confusion around defining a Métis person (Lischke & McNab, 2007, p 3).

During the constitutional conference in 1983, the MNC[4] stated that “We the Métis are an historic Aboriginal nation. During the 18^th and 19^th centuries we developed our own cultural identity, lifestyle and political consciousness and asserted our rights through the formation of provisional governments in both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Though defeated militarily at Batoche in 1885, we have waged an incessant struggle for justice through successive political associations” (Purich, 1986, p 181). This is the early claim of the MNC to the development of a continued desire to enforce a strong recognition of Métis identity in Canada.

The duty of defining the Métis question of identity has been a task assigned to the Métis themselves, although the Supreme Court has suggested certain criteria. This task has been based on a heated division between two organizations, the MNC and RCAP. RCAP has recommended the following definition

“Every Person who: (a) identifies himself/herself as Métis; (b) is accepted as such by the nation of Métis people with which that person wished to be associated, on the basis of criteria and procedures determined by that nation be recognized as a member of that nation for the purposes of nation-to-nation negotiations and as Métis for that purpose”(Walkem & Bruce, 2003, p 64).

On the other and the MNC defines a Métis person as:

“Métis means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is of historic Métis Nation ancestry, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples and is accepted by the Métis nation. Historic nation means the Aboriginal people then known as Métis or Half-breeds who resided in Historic Métis Nation Homeland. Historic Métis Nations homeland means the area of land in west central North America used and occupied as traditional territory of the Métis or Half-breeds as they were known. Métis nation means the Aboriginal people descended from the Historic Métis Nation, which is now compromised of all Métis Nation citizens and is one of the ‘aboriginal peoples of Canada’ within s.35 of the Constitution Act of 1982” (Lischke & McNab, 2007, p 3).

The major difference is that the MNC associates the reference of Métis in section 35 solely and exclusively to descendants of the Red River and Métis involved in the scrip system. RCAP represents Métis people that reside in NWT, Labrador, certain parts of Ontario and Métis identifying populations in Quebec. These Métis people do not depend on the Red River connection or the scrip system as a component to their identity (Chartrand 2002, p 216).

The MNC definition has been criticized by many groups as being too narrow and focusing too much on western Canada. It is argued by other Métis people and organizations that, because of their Indian origin, they should have some Aboriginal rights. They also claim that the MNC definition is limited to those mixed blood people to whom the federal government made promises in the 1870s and 1880s (p 26). Mark Stevenson (in Lischke &McNab, 2007) asserts that the MNC definition appears to limit the Métis people to the area of the Prairie Provinces. The MNC primarily represents the Prairie region, which reiterates the fact that the Métis people emerged as a distinct socio-cultural entity that allowed for the birth of the Métis Nation. Therefore, the descendants of these Métis established the historic Métis Nation (p 6).

The Provincial Métis organizations agree with the MNC on the definition based on self-identification, mixed Aboriginal and European ancestry and community acceptance, but there is variance on the issue of geographic origin of ancestry. For example, The Labrador Métis define the geographical location as specifically to Labrador. Nova Scotia and Quebec do not place geographic limits on the ancestry of their members. Rather, in this case, any individual who is of mixed Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage and who resides in the province can become a member. However, they must prove access to section 35 rights by passing the “Powley Test” through the court system (see Footnote 3)(Lischke & McNab 2007, p 7).

The Métis involvement in the defining process is crucial because if left up to the federal government, then more confusion would ensue. This can be based on the experience of the First Nations people under the Indian Act and other government policy such as Bill C-31 (Purich 1988, p 28). Imai (1999) claims there are as many definitions as there are people doing the defining, so that part of the complexity lies in the fact that different descriptions are used for different purposes. Schouls (2003) claims that people who happen to share historical continuity through characteristics of ancestry, culture, or territory should decide whether it is important to be defined from within, from the perspective of their members (p 11). In spite of this, the major part of the confusion is caused by the differences between Métis peoples own definitions of themselves and definitions imposed on them by the constitution or by legislation (p 10).

The courts have laid out suggestive criteria on Métis identity, which must be required of individuals, when section 35 rights are tested in the courts. The court in Powley recommended that Métis individuals must provide proof that they self-identify, are accepted by a Métis community and have connection to the Historic Métis Nation. The MNC has adopted this criterion in self-defining their own membership (Chartrand, 2002, p 216). This question of defining the Métis people in section 35 is essentially the task of construing a term in the Constitution of Canada. The determining process and analysis of Métis identity for the purpose of section 35, which has guided the identity process, has allowed the Métis Nation to make the decisions as it pertains to Métis identity (Chartrand, 2002, p 272).

The participants in the questionnaire, as mentioned before, provided responses about their personal definition of a Métis person. Some mentioned mixed, but others included a cultural aspect to the definition such as Mary, “My definition of a Métis person living in Canada is a mixed blood person with Aboriginal and European ancestry (whether it be French or English does not matter) who is actively living the Métis culture of their Métis ancestors as best as they know how to do” (Questionnaire, 2008). It is important to note that she also mentions that “living the culture”, but adds “as best as they know how to”. This is interesting because it places the onus of the cultural definition on a Métis person, but opens up interpretation to the individual on the extent to their knowledge and knowhow of their culture. Perhaps this can be an included element that allows Métis individuals the freedom of engaging in aspects of the culture that they are aware of, or that is available to them (Questionnaire, 2008).

In the answers of the questionnaire, the idea of belonging to the historic Métis Nation as listed in the MNC definition was not mentioned by any of the participants. In fact, one participant Cody stated “I don’t believe in exclusive definition; i.e.) One has to be a member of a historical Métis community” (Questionnaire, 2008). As well, as stated earlier Gabriel claimed that a person’s ancestors should not have had to come from the Red River and that it is an unfair assessment of being Métis (Questionnaire, 2008). As Green (2003) discusses, the political deciding of who is in/who is out of the membership by the courts, the MNC, RCAP, Canadian/provincial government and provincial Métis organizations raises the political question of who gets to decide. Her intentions are not to dismiss the idea or recognizing the value of cultural practices, but discussing the problematic idea of political organizations creating definitions that invoke a sense of discrimination within their own culture (p 1). This idea of descending from a historic Métis community, as laid out in Powley and through the MNC definition, has restricted the geographic limitations to the Canadian prairies. This has created a who’s in/who’s out type of policy around Métis identity.

However, as mentioned earlier there is unanimous consent on self-identification and community acceptance within Métis organizations, courts and governments. In the questionnaire, the majority mentioned mixed as a prime defining marker using the pan-istic/biological approach to the definition, but three respondents discussed the importance of self-identification and two discussed community acceptance, with none of the participants discussing being descendants from the historic Métis nation as a criterion for defining Métis people (Questionnaire, 2008).

Jean Legasse (1958, in Lussier, 2009) conducted a study called “People of Indian Ancestry in Manitoba”. In this study, there were twenty participants who were invited to define what the terms Métis or Half-breed meant to them. The findings included: 1.) any person of mixed White and Indian blood having not less than one quarter Indian blood, but that does not include Indian (under Indian Act) or non-treaty Indian; 2.) Métis are people that live in poor housing similar to Indians on the reserve; 3.) Any full blooded Indian person living as a White person, this enforces that they be considered Métis; 4.) An upbringing with a hunting and fishing economy even if embraced the White way of life and 5.) People with Indian background who do menial tasks or are generally employed with part time jobs. They usually live in poorer housing and reside in poverty. For example, if a person held a position as an office manager and was a respected member of the community, then they are not Métis (p 46).

In this study, it was interesting that the responses of the participants were based on common societal stereotypes about Métis identity. If an individual had a decent job, did not live like Indians, performed administrative tasks and had a good standard of living, they would no longer be considered Métis within the dominant society of Canada (Legasse 1958, in Lussier, 2009, p 46). On the other hand, if the individual met the requirements of the early mentioned findings, then they were considered Métis. In Legasse’s (1958) study, many of the participants described Métis identity as stemming from a mixed culture of Indian and European ancestry. This is also the case within the 2008 questionnaire, as the majority of the participants included a mixed criterion. Presently, times have changed from 1958, so the information and responses from Métis people have transformed considerably. This can be attributed to the new resurgence of Métis nationalism and a deeper understanding and acceptance of Métis culture and history by the majority of Canadian society[5]. The Métis respondents in the questionnaire accepted the definition based on miscegenation, self-identification and community acceptance. However, as stated earlier, there was no recorded importance on an individual having to be a descendant from the historic Métis nation (Questionnaire, 2008).

Lussier (2009) claims that acceptance of the past and current definitions of Métis identity, which are imposed on communities, present a unique identity and unity crisis for the Métis people. Narrow local concerns, language, geographic division and politics, have all promoted disunity and identity problems amongst once a proud and ambitious group (p 46). However, Lussier does not emphasize how the current Métis definitional problem has emerged from the acceptance of the Métis in section 35, which has caused the desire of Canada through the courts to define these people for the purpose of accessing their rights. He does underline, however, that Métis history needs to be re-emphasized and not re-written and that discussions must go on at the community levels to advance Métis identity on a provincial scale, forgetting regional, religious and linguistic differences (p 46).

Métis identity has become a complex discussion in contemporary Indigenous studies because there are many aspects and complications, that it is fraught with difficulties in determining the membership of a mixed race. This paper has attempted to illustrate the clash that is contemporary Métis identity along with the constant struggles of their ancestors. As a Métis Nation, it is important that a unifying understanding is made about their identity, so that politically the Métis nation can move forward. Approaches have been made to address the question of current Métis identity through the courts and Métis organizations, which has raised debates and questions about identifying Métis individuals. Foster (2004) also discusses the importance of the Métis themselves in reformulating their identity by attempting to change the public’s perception and changing the perceptions of their own people. This has been made possible through cultural awareness programs by Métis organizations and through negotiations with the national and provincial governments (p 314).

RECOMMENDATIONS

As this paper has portrayed, the issue of Métis identity in Canada is fraught with many challenges and obstacles. These not only exist between the different Aboriginal organizations, but also between Canadian society, Métis communities, governments and the court system. It is important for Métis governments to spread more awareness of the Powley decision, understanding of section 35 and their significance on issues of Métis identity. Steps have been taken through the MNC website and the websites of provincial organizations, but more efforts need to be accomplished in bringing this to a larger majority of Canadian citizens.

Awareness of the current policy, definitions and issues around Métis identity should be provided through conferences and seminars, which encourage government employees, interested members of Canadian society and Métis individuals a chance to understand the current ideas of Métis identity. As well, awareness of Métis current events should be provided through pamphlets or updates to Métis individuals that have self-identified. This would allow for Métis individuals an opportunity to understand the complexities and complications with Métis identity, which would allow for more involvement at the community level in discussing “who is a Métis?”.

It can be agreed with Lussier (2009) that deciding Métis identity needs to be done at the community level, to include individual members of the many Métis communities, so a collective compromising group identity, that enlists the voice of Métis individuals can be established. This would be a difficult task, but the results would be interesting and informative. A recommendation is to propose a larger qualitative research project, which could be conducted throughout the Canadian provinces, where notable Métis populations exist. This research study could be carried out by independent Métis researchers, who interview Métis individuals that self-identify and comprise the provincial membership of the Métis nation. The interviews would ask questions about issues of identity and their opinions on a proper definition of who is a Métis person. This type of research project could advise Métis political organizations about the common preference of their people as it pertains to these issues. This type of project would include the voice at the community level and perhaps assist in unifying all communities, in agreeing upon membership in Métis political organizations, so as to avoid separation the Métis nation.

It is difficult to deny the fact that the courts and the Canadian government want to assist in defining the Métis for the purpose of accessing the rights in section 35. The importance is based on the idea that if a pan-istic approach to Métis identity was used based solely on “mixed blood”, then the amount of people with access to these rights would be extremely numerous, which could cause further confusion, not only for Canada and the courts, but for Métis people themselves. This is the reason for the need to create a recognizable approach to identifying Métis individuals. However, the approach should not reject Métis communities, who do not fit the current MNC definition. It has been stated that certain aspects of the current definition have been agreed upon, such as: self-identification, mixed ancestry and community acceptance, but there has not been unanimous consent on having origins that stem from the historic Métis Nation homeland (Red River/ Prairies).

This has created a divide between western Métis and Eastern/northern Métis communities based on the geographic limitations of the MNC definition to western Canada. Métis people are a communal Aboriginal group whose decisions to identify their membership should be made together, to ensure the formation of appropriate membership criteria. As was emphasized, in the questionnaire, none of the nineteen respondents (western Canada) mentioned that an individual should prove descent from the historic Métis Nation. It is agreed that a collective Métis identity emerged from the early building of Métis nationalism in the Red River, but ancestry to this region should not compromise those, that did not reside and contribute to collective western cultural identity. Through French colonial policy in the east, mixed people began to appear. Therefore, there are Métis in that area, which understood their mixed relations and shared commonalities, so they should for all intents and purposes be included within the confines of the Métis identity process. In that case, it is recommended that the MNC drop the idea of descending from the historic Métis homeland and allow for an opening of community acceptance and recognition of other Métis communities.

As one of the respondents claimed, it is not fair to make Métis people prove they are from a historic community. Of course the study only included the voices of nineteen respondents, but it would be interesting to carry out a larger study to observe how many individuals discuss this in their self-definitions of a Métis person. It can be agreed that self-identification and community acceptance is a vital aspect to Métis identity. Therefore, this would also include the courts dropping this idea of a Métis person being descended from a historic Métis community. Based on census data it is understandable that the majority of the Métis population resides in the Prairie Provinces and western Canada, but this should not play a pivotal role in the determining of a collective group identity, since there are notable Métis communities in the east and north of Canada.

Another recommendation should be around the confusion of the self-identification approach to Métis identity. What does this mean to self-identify? Is it simply saying that one is Métis? Or is it based on cultural criteria? I understand that when a person self-identifies as being Métis, in order to access the rights in section 35, they must move on to further criteria that would assist in proving their identity. If one feels Métis, then are they Métis? Naturally, the Métis Nation stemmed out of mixed relations between Europeans and Indians, therefore, can anyone of mixed identity just identify? Through policy and the courts the answer is “no”, but it is important to ask these questions because this idea has remained an unclear question. Therefore, if one self-identifies, but has no need to access the rights found in section 35, or does not seek membership in a Métis community and cannot prove it through genealogical evidence, then through their self-conceptualization they are Métis.

In spite of this, if they would need to access the rights guaranteed to the Métis through section 35 by self-identifying and living the lifestyle, but do not have acceptance from a community, they will not be considered Métis. How about the case, of a person who gains Métis community acceptance, self-identifies and lives the culture, but is not from the origins of mixed ancestry, should they be denied membership based on the biological qualifications to being Métis. I would have to suggest that being Métis aside from the biological aspect should be cultural in definition. I understand that this could also be restrictive in essence, but believe that it is not as confined as the historic Métis Nation clause. This still allows individuals to self-identify, but in the case of accessing rights, they should have to be involved culturally through their self-identification. Obviously the main question here is how does one prove their cultural involvement? Questions should be asked: Why do you self-identify as being Métis? Is being Métis important to you? These are obviously difficult questions to answer, but would provide a more selective approach to the more general idea of self-identification.

This is just a recommendation on the definitional approach to being Métis. Of course, many individuals can self-identify and that is that, they can live and be proud to be Métis. However, for the purpose of section 35 and accessing the rights, which were recognized and affirmed, this criterion can be more structured through self-identification guidelines. This would open up the definition from the idea of the Historic Métis homeland, so as to include all recognized Métis communities and self-identifying individuals.

Another problem is that when Métis people attempt to access their rights, the Provincial and Federal Government have depended upon the court system to define and determine the extent of Métis rights. In that case, it has narrowed and restricted through case law the access of Métis people to these rights: most often the rights tested are hunting, fishing and land rights, in the case of the loss of land that was promised in the Manitoba Act. This has caused the absolute need to define, determine and place restrictions on Métis identity. The Governments should attempt to alleviate this dependence on the court system and to create a dialogue with Métis governments and organizations, so that the rights of the Métis people could be enhanced through discussions. This could possibly formulate an effective and clearer understanding about Métis identity, without the confusion that has been created through government policy and the dependence on the court system.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the Métis people of Canada were the creation of mixed unions between First Nations peoples and European explorers/traders. These unions created a “new peoples” with a shared background and experience in the new world. The mixed peoples emerged as interpreters, guides, traders and translators in the east of Canada. They carried with them a cultural identity that blended elements from both their maternal and paternal lineages. These people understood that they endured a similar experience as a mixed race and carried this culture with them as they engaged in the early economy of Canada.

Eventually the fur trade expanded into western Canada, so many Métis individuals decided to follow the trade, some for adventure and some based on the economic advantages. The Métis people settled at the forks of the Assiniboine and Red Rivers, which became known as the Métis homeland, where they were employed as traders for the NWC. This homeland allowed for a collective Métis cultural identity to cultivate and develop into a unique and distinct identity that was separate from both their First Nations and European identities. The arrival of new Scottish settlers to their homeland produced discomfort, but also an opportunity to unify and defend their homeland. Some scholars have claimed that the fur trade wars between the HBC and the NWC were the reason that the Métis nation was created. Other scholars claim that the Métis through their shared experiences already developed a distinct and unique identity. In fact, the Métis people were aware of their mixed identity and shared experiences, but it was the fur trade that hurried the process of a strong sense of Métis nationalism.

Events such as the 1816 Battle of Seven Oaks, the 1849 Sayer trial and the 1869 sale of Rupertsland to Canada, intensified Métis nationalism and created a strong collective cultural consciousness in present day Manitoba. It demonstrated the authority and success they encountered as traders and hunters in the prairies. Their population in the Red River in 1870 displayed their growth and prosperity. In 1869, they resisted the Dominion of Canada, and through the leadership of Louis Riel and the Métis provisional government, they were able to bring Manitoba into the Dominion of Canada in 1870. They gained a major victory by having their cultural rights and land rights protected in the Manitoba Act, which allowed them to secure concrete evidence of a recognizable identity.

Unfortunately, Canada did not uphold the Manitoba Act, so many Métis migrated further west into present day Saskatchewan and Alberta. They continued their collective identity and set up new Métis communities where they once again had to defend their rights in 1885. The building of Métis nationalism and the struggles through resistance to ensure the respect of their rights produced some notable Métis identities such as: Cuthbert Grant, Louis Riel and Gabriel Dumont. Post 1885 was a difficult period for Métis identity. Although several assimilated into either First Nations or Euro Canadian communities, the Métis that survived in their impoverished communities were able to maintain the cultural memories and traditions of the Métis nation.

They maintained cultural aspects that have been passed on from generation to generation. In this paper, Métis dance (Red River Jig), Métis sash (symbol) and the language of the Métis were used as examples. From the period between 1885 and the 1960s, it was the hope of Canada that the Métis people would be assimilated and integrated into two categories: First Nations and Euro Canadian. Assimilation policies were Canada’s approach to the Aboriginal question, as was exampled in 1969 with the White Paper. However, Aboriginal peoples came together to protect their cultural rights. In 1982, section 35 of the Canadian constitution act, which allowed for the recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal and treaty rights, established the Métis officially as one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Section 35 took the issue of Métis identity to a whole new level as the government asked the question “Who are the Métis?” for the purpose of accessing these rights. As was mentioned, the colonial definition of a Métis person was an individual of biological mixed First Nation and European descent. However, if this were the definition, the people claiming rights in section 35 would be in between one to two million. Therefore, a pan-istic approach based on biological descent cannot be the only factor in identifying Métis people because they emerged from a unique and distinct culture, which possessed their own political and economical autonomy in the 1800’s. On top of that, identifying Métis individuals cannot be based on an objective approach because no physical characteristics typify a Métis person. Therefore, Canada has had to use a subjective approach based on such things as self-identification.

As Redbird mentioned, this has made the term Métis confusing, it has become a catch phrase for people with no identity to latch onto. Individuals have started to identify as Métis because of their need to belong to a group. An example can be found in the confusion of Bill C-31, which has given Indian status back to individuals that previously identified as Métis. For those individuals that lost Indian status, they assume, based on a biological approach, that they are Métis. This caused considerable confusion for the Métis nation and for the Canadian government on the issue of Métis rights. Although these rights were recognized and affirmed, they were never defined, so they needed to find individuals that are of Métis origin to start the process of defining section 35 rights.

Canada decided that this would be resolved by taking Aboriginal rights in section 35 to the court system. Powley (2003) became a landmark case for the Métis and answered some questions in regards to Métis identity. Firstly, they resolved the question around Métis being a biological definition and claimed although it is an aspect of their identity, which it is not the only acceptable criteria, but that being Métis means being associated with a culture that is distinctly Métis. Secondly, the court suggested criteria that should address the issue of Métis identity and comprise membership for the purposes of section 35. This criterion includes: self-identification, community acceptance and descent from historic Métis nation. Thirdly, they address the issue of identifying Métis communities and establishing there date of effective control.

One positive thing is that the Métis people themselves have been provided the opportunity to comprise their own membership. This has caused the MNC to create a definition that is similar to the Powley recommendations. Other than being biologically Métis one must also: self-identify, gain community acceptance and descend from the historic Métis nation. This has created a divide between the MNC and RCAP because RCAP has represented Métis communities that are excluded from this definition based on the geographic boundaries to the historic Métis nation. The Historic Métis nation comprises the geography of western Canada and parts of Ontario. The reason for the connection to the historic Métis nation is based on the emergence and crystallization of a collective group identity in the Red River area. Therefore, communities in eastern or northern Canada have a difficult time through the courts or the MNC in accessing their rights in section 35. This creates a divide and disunity amongst the Métis nation.

As mentioned earlier, Métis people should be unified, just like the Métis of the 1800’s. Métis communities should be accepted from all over Canada in the national definition of Métis. It has been widely accepted from Métis organizations, individuals, governments and courts, that self-identification and community acceptance as an individual Métis person is important. However, the nineteen individuals in the questionnaire do not mention that a person should be descended from the historic Métis nation homeland and a few individuals even mentioned their displeasure with that clause. The questionnaire served as a personal influence to the paper, but it is recommended that Métis communities involve the individuals that comprise their membership. This could be done by performing qualitative research projects among the membership and ask at the community level for individual’s definition of a Métis person.

Perhaps a research project of this nature could create a collective definition, or provide ideas and insights at the community level into the debates over Métis identity. It is also recommended that the MNC and the courts drop the historic Métis nation homeland criterion and add a cultural component to self-identification. When people self-identify, it should be based on their knowledge of the culture, maybe take an easy cultural challenge, but this is just a recommendation to address the complexities around self-identification. Many scholars believe that if one feels Métis then they are Métis, but others feel they need to live and know it. For this reason, more awareness to Métis individuals should be provided through pamphlets sent to their residence on the Powley case and the MNC definition for membership, along with an idea of their provincial membership criterion. The challenges and obstacles created by section 35 around the whole issue of Métis identity fails to have one concrete answer, which has proven the many complexities on establishing the identity of a mixed group.

REFERENCES

Alcoff, Linda., & Mendieta, Eduardo (eds). (2003). Identities: Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ahmed, Sara. (2000). Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post Coloniality. London: Routledge.

Barkwell, Lawrence., & Dorion, Leah., & Prefontaine, Darren (eds). (2001). Métis Legacy. Winnipeg: Pemmican Publications Inc.

Borrows, John., & Rotman, Leonard. (2003). Aboriginal Legal Issues: Cases, Materials and Commentary. Markham (Ont): LexisNexis Butterworths.

Bumstead, J.M. (2001). Louis Riel v. Canada: The Making of a Rebel. Winnipeg: Great Plains Publishing.

Canadian History Websites. [11.08.2009: www.atwaterlibrary.ca/~canhist/].

Casey, E. S. (1996). How to get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time. Phenomenological prolegomena. In Feld, S., & Basso, K.H. (eds). Senses of Place. Sante Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 13-52.

Chartrand, Paul (ed). (2002). Who are Canada’s Aboriginal People?:recognition, definition and jurisdiction. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing.

Chartrand, Paul. (2007). Aboriginal Identity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Journal of Canadian Issues, Fall 2007, pp. 109-112.

Daniels, Harry. (1981). Native Peoples and the Constitution of Canada: the Report of the Métis and Non-Status Indian Constitutional Review Committee. Ottawa:Mutual Press.

Donaud, Patrick (ed). (2007). The Western Métis: Profile of a People. Regina: University of Regina Canadian Plains Research Center.

Duck Lake Regional Interpretive Center: Métis Sash Image. [11.08.2009: www.dlric.org/gift_shop.html].

Dyck, Noel., & Archetti, Eduardo (eds). (2003). Sport, Dance and Embodied Identities. Oxford: Berg.

Elliot, David. (1997). Law and Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. North York (Ont): Captus Press.

Flanagan, Thomas. (2000). First Nations: Second Thoughts. McGill: Queens University Press.

Foster, John. (2004). The Plains Métis. In Morrison, Bruce., & Wilson Roderick (eds). Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, pp 297-313.

Frideres, James., & Rene Gadacz. (2005). Aboriginal Peoples in Canada: 7^th Edition. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Friesen, John., & Friesen, Virginia. (2004). We are Included: Métis People of Canada Realize Riel’s Vision. Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.

Fur Trade Stories: From 1600-1867. [11.08.2009: www.furtradestories.ca/details.cfm?content_id..].

Green, Joyce. (2003). Cultural and Ethnic Fundamentalism: The Mixed Potential for Identity, Liberation and Oppression. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.

Goldthorpe, J.E. (1996). The Sociology of Post-Colonial Societies: Economic Disparity, Cultural Diversity and Development. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Gordon, Irene. (2005). The Battle of Seven Oaks: and the Violent Birth of the Red River Settlement. Canmore: Altitude Publishing.

Goulet, George., & Goulet, Terry. (2006). The Métis: Memorable Events and Memorable Personalities. Calgary: FabJob.

Government of Canada: Canadian Military Heritage. [11.08.2009: www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_533.asp].

Hedican, Edward. (1995). Applied Anthropology in Canada: Understanding Aboriginal Issues. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hall, Stuart., & de Guy, Paul. (1997). Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.

Imai, Shin. (1999). Aboriginal Law Handbook. Ontario: Carswell Publishing.

Indian Act. [08.04.2009, Elder’s Voices: http://www.abheritage.ca/eldersvoices/history/aboriginal_indian_act.html].

Fact Sheet: 2006 Census Aboriginal Demographics. [03.05.2009, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/cad-eng.asp].

Isaac, Thomas. (2008). Métis Rights. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan Native Law Center.

Lischke, Ute., & McNab David. (2007). The Long Journey of a Forgotten People: Métis Identity and Family Histories. Waterloo: Wilfird Laurier Press.

Lussier, A.S. (1978). The Métis: Contemporary Problem of Identity. Manitoba Pageant, 23(3), Spring 1978, [15.04.2008, Manitoba Historical Society Full Text: http.mhs.mb.ca/docs/pageant/23/metisidentity.shtml].

MacEwan, Grant. (1981). Métis: Makers of History. Saskatoon: Western Producer Prairie Books.

Maclean, Don. (1988). Home from the Hill: A History of the Métis in Western Canada. Regina: Gabriel Dumont Institute.

Manitoba Historical Society: Red River Resistance. [11.08.2009: www.mhs.mb.ca/.../29/redriverresistance.shtml].

Manitoba Life and Times: Photo Album, Birth of Manitoba. [11.08.2009: manitobia.ca/cocoon/launch/en/photos/Resistance].

Manitoba Métis Federation Inc: The History of the Métis Flag. [11.08.2009: http://mmf.mb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=9].

Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. [15.03.2009, World Wide Web: www.mn-s.ca]

Métis National Council. [15.03.2009, World Wide Web: www.metisnation.ca/mnc/index.html].

Métis National Council: Further Information on Section 31 Manitoba Act, Métis Grants. [06.06.2009, World Wide Web: http://metisnationdatabase.ualberta.ca/MNC/man1.jsp].

Morton, Desmond. (1979). Rebellions in Canada. Toronto: Grolier.

Purich, Donald. (1986). Our Land: Native Rights in Canada. Canada: James Lorimer and Company Ltd.

Purich, Donald. (1988). The Métis. Canada: James Lorimer and Company Ltd.

Pelletier, Joanne (ed). (1985). Red River Insurrgence, 1869-1870. Regina: The Institute.

Peterson, Jacqueline., & Brown, Jennifer. (1985). The New Peoples: Being and Becoming Métis in North America. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Racette, Calvin. (1952). Métis Development and the Canadian West: Contrasting Worlds:Changing Times:Ending an Era. Canada: Calvin Racette.

Roosens, Eugeen. (1989). Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis, Frontiers of Anthropology: Volume 5. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Sandra Lovelace: 1947-. [25.02.2009, World Wide Web, http://www.mta.ca/about_canada/study_guide/famous_women/sandra_lovelace.html].

Sandra Lovelace v. Canada. [25.02.2009, Lawsite: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Sandra+Lovelace+verse+Canada&meta=].

Schouls, Tim. (2003). Aboriginal Identity, Pluralist Theory, and the Politics of Self-Government. British Columbia: UBC Press.

Sealy, Bruce., & Lussier, Antoine. (1975). The Métis: Canada’s Forgotten People. Winnipeg: Manitoba Métis Federation Press.

Sealy, Bruce. (1976). Cuthbert Grant and the Métis. Agincourt (Ont): Book Society of Canada.

Smulders, Sharon. (2006). “What is the Proper Word for People like you?: The Question of Métis Identity in Search of April Raintree. Journal of English Studies in Canada, 32(4), pp. 75-100.

Stanley, George. (1992). The Birth of Western Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Teillet, Jean. (2004). Métis Law Summary. Toronto: Pape and Salter.

The Canadian Design Resource: Métis Nation Flags. [11.08.2009: www.canadiandesignresource.ca/.../?p=2602].

Tremaudan, A.H. (1982). Hold High your Heads: (History of the Métis Nation in Western Canada. Winnipeg: Pemmican Publications.

Turner, T.S. (1980)The Social Skin. In Cherfas, Jeremy., & Lewin Roger (eds). Not Work Alone: A Cross Cultural View of Activities Superfluous to Survival. London: Temple Smith, pp. 112-140.

Walkem, Ardith., & Bruce, Halie (eds). (2003). Box of Treasures or Empty Box? Twenty Years of Section 35. Canada: Theytus Books Ltd.

Metis Identity in Canada Thesis - Chapter 2

2011-11-08T14:26:00.000-08:00

CHAPTER 2

1. CULTURAL IDENTITY

This chapter will explore characteristics and issues pertaining to the discussion of Métis identity. This will involve using examples of Métis cultural identity, debate around self-identification and other arguments that have arisen with the questions of Métis identity. The reason for exploring the idea of Métis cultural identity is because, as has been stated, they are the only mixed race in the world that has emerged to have their rights as Aboriginal people constitutionally protected. This chapter will begin to include the quotations and dialogue from the questionnaire.

1.1) Maintenance of specific cultural items/practices

Walkem & Bruce (2003) claim that it is primarily culture that sets the Métis apart from other Aboriginal peoples. Many Canadians have mixed Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal ancestry, but this does not make them Métis or even Aboriginal (p 64). As Gabriel (born in 1966 from Saskatchewan), in the questionnaire responded “just because someone has found out they are Métis does not mean they are “Métis”, meaning you have to live it, many people are exploiting the Métis[...]Taking stories and legends and making them their history without feeling it inside” (Questionnaire, 2008). This quote discusses that self-identification is not enough, that one must identify with the cultural aspects and portray the importance of “living the culture” versus just self-identifying.

Green (2003), states that culture remains an essential context for individual and collective identity, and that it is through culture that our individuality is made meaningful (p 8). The Métis people during the “Forgotten Years” 1885-1960’s, who retained their culture through memory and continued practice, were able to continue to pass it down orally to their children. This practice also acted as a form of resistance to the pressures of the colonial regime and the threat of cultural assimilation and extinction. Frantz Fanon (in Green, 2003) makes the analysis that “an indigenous culture under a colonial regime lives continually under the strain of knowing that its very existence is at risk. Faced with the perpetual need to resist this threat, very old traditions are forced into service playing new roles in defence of the culture” (p 8). On the other hand, Swan and Jerome (in Foster 2004) claim that cultural memory is often suppressed in the face of discrimination, where people (as in the case of the Métis) are meant to feel ashamed of their Aboriginal background and are taught to forget about their Aboriginal ancestors while promoting immigrant (European) relatives, who were acceptable in the dominant society based on their physical appearance (p 32).

In the case of the Métis, after 1885 the destruction of cultural memory occurred because of Canadian society branding them as “rebels” and “traitors” to the national state. This caused many to abandon cultural practices and forget aspects of Métis culture. However, Emma LaRocque (in Green, 2003) states that Aboriginal people are dynamic peoples whose cultures although seriously disturbed, where not entirely erased by the colonial process (p 9). Those that maintained the culture and traditions have provided the Métis with an opportunity for “cultural recovery” and a chance to spur Métis nationalism in the present (Green, 2003, p 8). All nineteen respondents in the Questionnaire replied that they were interested in learning and understanding Métis history for two main reasons: so that the unique culture of the Métis could be carried on into the future and to understand their own identity and history (Questionnaire, 2008).

According to Goldthorpe (1996), culture refers to a complete way of life: a complex whole including language, material culture/technology, social institutions, and religious, moral and artistic values. A cultural identity is a combination of these elements in a pattern that is recognizably different from other cultures (p 149). Johan Gottlieb Herder (in Alcoff & Mendieta, 2003) argued that a nation is constituted through its language and culture. Language and culture were not just merely aspects of the social environment within which people make their lives, but are constitutive of their very identity (p 271-272). Herder also claims that human identity exists only in a framework of interpretation, which is provided by language, cultural symbols and creates awareness of ourselves and others (Alcoff & Mendieta, 2003, p 271-272). The three cultural elements, which will be mentioned in this thesis, that are important to Métis identity include: language, sash and Red River Jig.

The Métis created an absolutely distinct language; they often refer to their spoken language as “Michif”, which was named after them. “Michif” is a unique and structured language that consists of Plains Cree, Saulteaux (First Nations languages) and French; however Cree and French are the dominant components (Barkwell et al.; 2001, p 23). Michif is not just a random mix of languages because it incorporates a grammatical structure where the First Nations words are the verbs and the French words are the nouns. As well, the grammatical structure of the Cree language is used for the verbs and the French structure used for the nouns. Many of the Metis speakers of the time did not speak Cree or French, but conversed in Michif. Although French and Cree speakers can recognize elements of their language in the spoken tongue of Michif, to many it is difficult to understand. Presently, many of the remaining Michif speakers are found mostly in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta (Historic Métis Homeland) (Barkwell et al., 2001, p 23).

However, many of the younger generations of Métis people have not learned this language. This can be attributed to the aggressive assimilatory policies of Canada. Therefore, fear that it will eventually become extinct exists. Métis organizations in many of the provinces have started language revitalization for young people for this reason (Métis Nation of Saskatchewan, 2009). The emergence of a specific language has been an important component of Métis culture and as Garry (born in Saskatchewan in 1957) responded to the question “Whether Métis heritage is important to you?” states “Especially our language....When I was young our parents or extended families did not speak our language to us because they were told not to; so the majority of us did not learn to speak our tongue and sooner or later I fear our language will be extinct” (Questionnaire, 2008). This is an example of the importance of language to culture and also the significance that needs to be placed on the revitalization of this language, or an important aspect to culture, as Herder stated, will disappear (Alcoff & Mendieta, 2003, p 271-272).

Herder also mentioned the importance of cultural symbols to culture (Alcoff & Mendieta, 2003, p 271-272). The most important Métis symbol in representing Métis identity is the Métis sash. Turner (1980) discusses the importance of body paint and bodily adornment of the Kayapo tribe that live on the southern borders of the Amazon Forest (p 115). Although Turner refers to body painting and adornment as a form of dress amongst this indigenous tribe, it compares in symbolic importance to the meaning of the sash to Métis cultural identity. Turner mentions that the Kayapo possess a quite elaborate code of what could be considered dress; he also states that this fact escapes notice to the western observer because it does not contain any involvement with clothing. The Métis sash is also a symbol that from an outsider’s perspective resembles a colourful scarf, but to Métis people is a symbolic representation of their culture and identity (p 115). For the Kayapo, body painting is a serious matter. The method in which an individual is painted characterizes their individual identity and through the body painting a collective group identity (p 113). The sash can be compared to the body painting of the Kayapo, based on its significance to Métis cultural identity (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 32).

The Métis sash is a finger woven belt with a blend of bright-coloured fibres woven into a decorative pattern (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 32). The sash is truly a North American invention representing the diversity of the French Canadians, First Nations and Celtic heritage of the Métis. The colours of the sash represent certain aspects of their history. RED is the Métis bloodshed over the years in fighting for their rights, BLUE is the depth of their spirit, WHITE is the connection with earth and the creator, BLACK represents the dark period when Métis suffered dispossession and depression, GREEN signifies fertility and growth, WHITE AND BLUE woven interchangeably represents the colours of the Métis national flag and YELLOW represents prosperity for the Métis nation (see appendix figure A) (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 33). As represented here the sash has been important as a historical and modern day symbol of Métis identity, which allows Métis people in the present to carry on the sash as an emblem of a collective Aboriginal identity in Canada.

Aside from the sash being an attractive addition to their clothing, it also served for a number of functional purposes: a belt wrapped around the coat to keep them warm, a scarf to keep warm in winter, a strap or sling passing across the forehead and over the shoulders to support a load on the back, a rope for such purposes as pulling a Red River cart out of the mud when stuck, a wash cloth and towel, a first aid emergency sewing kit and an emergency blanket (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 33).

As was stated, the Métis sash has actually emerged with the culture into the present. It also portrays stories of the past, when Métis people proudly wore this and continue to wear this as an emblem of their identity (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 32). Although the sash is different from body painting in comparison, Turner (1980) assists in illustrating the importance of dress and symbols to certain cultures, that may not be understood by outside observers (p 115).

Another important aspect to Métis cultural identity that has remained as a symbol of Métis nationalism is through dance, more importantly the Red River Jig. Dyck & Archetti (2003) note that dance is concerned in the production and expression of embodied identities (p 1). They also claim that dance is something that sparks widespread participation, critical appreciation and endless interpretations by performers and their audiences (p 1). Dance is not only attributed to leisure, but also associated with the production, reproduction and competition of identities. Therefore, the embodied identities created by dance are playful yet serious and categorical yet personal, which is transferred to the field of leisure (Dyck & Archetti, 2003, p 2). The importance to dance as it relates to the Métis commences with the unofficial Métis anthem, which is a fiddle tune referred to as the “Red River Jig”. This tune widely known and central to Métis identity, is accompanied by a popular Métis dance of the same name (Barkwell et al., 2001, p 170).

Métis dance consists of vigorous foot tapping, which some believe is the direct descendent to the beat of the drum. Like the music, Métis dance is a mixture of Scottish, Irish, French and First Nation origins. The foot work remains close to the floor and is continuous throughout the dance. Although there are many steps and movements, there are three main steps and it is the third step with a scuff, which gives a unique sound to Métis dance (Barkwell et al,; 2001, p 170). The Red River Jig varies according to different regions; some dancers have as many as twenty to thirty steps, with a competition to see who can do the fanciest footsteps. The dancer uses the three basic movements, to a certain fiddle note until the music changes. At that moment, the dancer changes to a fancy jig step until the fiddle goes back to the original note. This process is repeated as long as new jig steps can be created, but if an individual or couple runs out of steps they usually sit down. This has become known as the national dance of the Métis, which is still performed in the present (Barkwell et al,; 2001, p 171).

1.2) DISCUSSION ABOUT MÉTIS IDENTITY

Aside from the cultural representations and aspects to Métis culture, much debate still centers on “Who are the Métis?” and “How can these people be identified?”. Roosens (1989) states that cultural traits by which an ethnic group defines itself never comprise the totality of the observable culture, but are only a combination of some characteristics that the actors describe to themselves and consider relevant (p 12). This explains that it is up to the Métis collectively to define their cultural traits, which places the onus on individuals to identify with the cultural traits of the Métis nation. The term “Métis” is difficult to define because of its diversity, and those that identify as Métis often have different criteria for defining themselves (Imai, 1999, p 84). Hall (1997) states that identities are constituted from within and are not based on outside representation, which explains that if people feel Métis then they are Métis (p 75). Frideres & Gadacz (2005) ask the question “Who is Aboriginal?” and explain two different ways to establishing identity using both objective and subjective criteria (p 17).

The first is the objective approach to self-identifying, which establishes indicators that are visible to other observers. These individuals who have similar attributes such as skin pigmentation, hair texture, bone structure, language and eye colour. Then based on an objective (concrete) approach to identification, these individuals would be considered Aboriginal (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 17). The subjective approach is utilized from the aspect of self definition. One problem for Métis consists of the unavailability of measurable objective criterion of physical appearance to make judgement, which is not a practical method for determining a Métis person. However, based on an objective approach to identifying Métis individuals, if society through ones physical appearance deems an individual as Aboriginal, then they will be considered Aboriginal by outsiders. For example, if objectively one views a dark skinned person and assumes they are from Africa, then in their mind and perhaps in the minds of others they are considered African. On the other hand, this individual may have been born in Canada and identifies as a Canadian, then in the individuals self-perception they are Canadian (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 17). Therefore, according to subjective criterion the identity of an individual lies in their conceptualization of self. Trying to measure self-conceptualization is a difficult task, but can only inform us of the degree to which a person feels Métis (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 17).

The government of Canada has opted for the subjective approach in determining an Aboriginal person, which has created confusion for Canadians in attempting to define who is Métis, Indian, or Inuit. For example, after 1885 till the 1960’s, if Métis people gave ample evidence that they were white, he or she would normally be treated as such. If Métis individuals lived in a house rather than a tipi, wore cotton clothes rather than clothes made out of animal hides and had short hair they would be treated as non-Aboriginal (Frideres& Gadacz, 2005, p 23). At this time the government only wanted two categories of peoples: First Nations and non-First Nations, so many Métis people stopped self-identifying and joined one of these two groups, which caused a loss to both individual and a collective identity (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 23).

Lussier (2009) claims that a contemporary problem with Métis identity is based on the flexibility of Métis people choosing their identity. The author asks this question “When is a Métis no longer a Métis?” and the answer provided is “When he/she no longer considers himself/herself as Métis” (p 46). Among any culture, as Roosens (1989) points out, internalizing ethnic identity is an important aspect of identifying with an ethnic group (p 15). The same counts for Métis people, but self-identifying for Métis individuals should also mean identifying with the unique and distinct cultural aspects of being Métis. This was also displayed in the quote mentioned by Gabriel earlier, who stated, that just because someone has Indian blood does not mean they are Métis, one must have to embrace the culture and “feel it inside” (Questionnaire, 2009). Chartrand (2002) agrees with this aspect by saying that “mixed ancestry is not the foundation of the identity of the Métis people; many other people have mixed ancestry” (p 293).

Green (2003) also discusses the idea of “belonging”. She states that belonging is a human need and that nationalism, related forms of collective identity formation and celebration are expressions of that need. As well, the search for belonging hinders those whose socio-political context is deprived of a meaningful community (p 4). Sarah (born in 1967 in British Columbia) stated in the questionnaire that “I am not First Nations nor am I White. So all I have is Métis” (Questionnaire, 2008). She also mentions that, because of her dark physical appearance “I was not accepted by the White culture, but was not accepted by the First Nations as well, so I identified with the Métis culture” (Questionnaire, 2008). These quotes portray a need to belong to a group. In Sarah’s case based on physical appearance, she is not accepted into the “White” society and based on not being considered an “Indian, she has decided to identify as a Métis person. Belonging appears to be most meaningful when it affirms one’s origins, identity, values and relationships (Green, 2003, p 4).

Looking back at Roosens’ (1989) idea of self identity being an important aspect of ethnic identity, this poses a slight controversy for the Métis nation. Former president of the Ontario Métis Society (ONS), Duke Redbird, believes that, although the political status of the Métis has improved considerably, the ethnic status of today’s Métis is largely mythical due to it being a self-attributing phenomenon. By mythical he is claiming that the name Métis becomes a catch-all for people with no identity to hang on to. Therefore, the term Métis can become some sort of non-culture for Métis people themselves (Hedican, 1995, p 212). Although this quote can encompass some truth, it is also problematic in that the political/identity resurgence of the Métis people is based on many years of disclusion, shame, discrimination and assimilation attempts, which has played a significant role in affecting both the individual and collective identity of the Métis people. It can be agreed that the term Métis has encompassed a number of meanings by those internalizing what it means to be Métis, but there is a learning and understanding process involved in reclaiming one’s Métis identity.

Presently, many Métis are reclaiming pride in their cultural history through this are taking an active interest in their identity. In the questionnaire, all nineteen of the respondents claimed they are proud to be Métis. However, a few of the people that, although claiming to be proud, also stated that they were reluctant to inform others right away that they were Métis. For the few that do not, the reasons were because they were worried about the opinion of others (Qustionnaire, 2008). On the other hand, Mary (born in 1972 from Saskatchewan) in the questionnaire responded about the issue of informing people “I am Métis first before I am Canadian. If I am Canadian then I am assimilated and I refuse myself to go down that way” (Questionnaire, 2008).

This re-emergence of Métis group nationalism has assisted in the contemporary attempts to understand who the Métis people are. Of course, this has spurred some individuals to locate their identity, or to cling to the term as a sense of belonging, but is nonetheless part of present issues that surround the term Métis. Schouls (2003) notes that nations are created by feelings of nationalism, and that nationalism is the idea that distinctive cultural and political attributes of the collective identity are in a position to be best protected based on the structures of these nations (p 8). Schouls then goes on to state that Aboriginal identity is based on a threefold experience of: (1) the experience of colonization reinforces awareness of Aboriginal ethnic identity; (2) Aboriginal identity is based on the process of self-identification by those that are linked to one another through the process of colonization and having been in the past and (3) presently marginalized has often spurred the desire to survive as a distinct and unique identity (p 53).

This threefold process can be attributed to an identity approach associated with the self-identification process. Schouls (2003) mentions that Aboriginal identity exists because these individuals who happen to share ancestry, historical elements of culture and politics decide that it is important to be members of the same collective group identity (p 53). The idea of self-identification has often lead to difficulties in census data, in recording the amount of Métis people that self-identify, which has lead to a difficulty in recording the current numbers of the population.

Estimates of the number of Métis range from less than 500,000 to more than 1 million, which is dependent upon different sources. In 1980, a report by the Native Citizen Directorate for the Secretary of State estimates the following figures: Métis and non-status Indian core population 300,000 to 435,000; Métis and non-status Indian self-identifying 400,000 to 600,000 and Métis and non-Status Indian noncore and not self-identifying 1 million to 2.5 million (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 40). These figures portray the difficulties at reaching concrete figures on the Métis population.

In 1981, Statistics Canada placed the Métis population at 98,260, which appears very specific compared to the previous numbers. The main problem in determining the numbers of the Métis population is the difficulty in defining “who the Métis are” because the term is internalized differently. This was problematic because officially the term Métis was used to incorporate all Indian people who are Non-Status Indian or Inuit, which flawed Métis census figures (Purich, 1988, p 22). To address this issue, in 1986 people were asked if they considered themselves to be an Aboriginal person and specifically if they considered themselves to be Métis, Indian, Inuit and non-Status Indian. However, the results were not accurate because many Indian communities boycotted the census and on top of that approximately 125,000 non-Aboriginals misunderstood the question and identified as Aboriginals (Purich, 1988, p 21).

Prior to this, in 1941, the Métis were placed on the census as Half-breeds and the figures reported a Canadian total of 35,416 Métis, with the Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) with the largest populations. However, this is also a flawed number because the term Half-breed had a derogatory meaning; so many Métis people had no desire to categorize themselves this way. In the early 1980’s, Métis spokespeople themselves estimated the population to be around 700,000 thousand (Purich, 1988, p 21). Currently, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) list on their website that according to the 2006 census, one third of all Aboriginal people identify them self as Métis and that the Métis experienced the highest population growth at 91%, reaching an estimated 389,785 peoples (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2009). This is census data, so how accurate the census is must be questioned. The vast differences in census figures portray the difficulty in accurately estimating the Métis population and this can be attributed to the idea of self-identification.

As Goulet & Goulet (2006) state in their book “Why should we care to what degree exactly of mixture we possess European blood and Indian blood? No matter how little we have one or the other, do not both gratitude and filial love require us to make a point of saying ‘We are Métis’” (p 14). Although this quote is discussing the degree of blood, which is not a requirement for identifying as Métis, it borders the idea of, as Chartrand (2002), mentions a “Pan-Aboriginal approach” to Métis identity. This approach according to Chartrand emphasizes a “mixed blood” linked to a First Nations family anywhere in Canada as the form of Métis identity (p 295). If this were the case, then the population would be over a million people. As Chartrand recognizes, this would fail to distinguish the exceptional circumstances, which gave rise to the Métis people in western Canada, and would fail to reflect the long and wide experience of other countries where “mixed blood” or “mestizo” people are not regarded as separate indigenous people, but are either a part of the general population or part of the indigenous nations (p 295). This is the case in the USA, where “mixed blood” people have either had to assimilate into general population, or remain part of Indian tribes (p 295). Jacques Rousseau (1970, in Peterson & Brown, 1985) an eminent Quebec biologist, stated that 40% of French Canadians could find at least one First Nations in their family tree, due to the colonial policy of the French in the New World (p 19). This shows the further difficulties with the biological pan-istic approach to identifying Métis people.

The MNC has been recognized since 1983 as the political representative of the Métis Nation by actions of the Canadian government. The MNC has decided to base their definition of Métis (which will be discussed more in-depth in the next chapter) on identity based through time and generations, rather than on the concept of racial ancestry (Chartrand, 2002, p 293). The question “What is your personal definition of a Métis person in Canada?” was asked in the questionnaire and thirteen out of the nineteen respondents stated that the definition was based on racial mixing, or the Pan-Aboriginal approach, so this might conclude that many Métis people feel that being Métis, has to do with coming from a mixed background. The other respondents based theirs on more cultural definitions or the certain criterion that have been accepted by organizations, governments, or the judicial system (see further) (Questionnaire, 2008).

As well, confusion exists around the “historic Métis” and the “other” Métis. Currently in Canada, the Métis people are identified as a western phenomenon of the Prairie Provinces (Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta). However, in a biological sense Métis people have also emerged on the western coast as well as in the east as direct descendants of the early colonial encounters (Peterson & Brown, 1985, p 19). Peterson & Brown (1985) also explain that, in the east or in the St. Lawrence Valley, a clearly defined sense of separate identity did not occur due to the foundation of a new nation as was the case in the west (Red River Region). This can be attributed to the fact that in the east the French element remained, while contact with Métis that migrated west occurred much later and the French influence had been greatly reduced in the early 1800’s (p 21).

Purich (1988) notes that the term Métis refers to anyone of mixed blood, but has often been used to refer to those that are the descendants of the western Canada Métis, that united to protest their grievances with the HBC and Government of Canada (p 155). In that case, the term “Métis” has commonly been taken to refer to the Red River Métis population that emerged in the Red River colony in the 17th and 18^th centuries. The Métis populations of the west are amalgamated into a single identity known as the “Historic Métis Nation” as the MNC refers to them (Foster, 2004, p 315). In September 2002, the MNC defined a Métis person as: one who self-identifies; is of historic Métis ancestry and accepted by a Métis community, distinct from other Aboriginal peoples and is able to trace their roots back to the Red River in the 1800’s. This would make the geographic area of the Métis in the national definition limited to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, although some parts of BC and Ontario may be included (Foster, 2004, p 315).

Another organization the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), which was created in the summer of 1990, represents those communities that are excluded from the MNC definition such as in: parts of Ontario, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and Labrador (Isaac, 2008, p 5). This is another aspect of the complexities of Métis identity. In the questionnaire, on the question about defining Métis identity, one respondent, Gabriel, stated “First Nation and European blood; that is mixed! Don’t believe that your ancestors had to have settled in Red River to be considered Métis. That would not be fair; it is not fair” (Questionnaire, 2008). Here emphasis is placed on the definition based on a “mixed race”. Also he agrees with the RCAP, that the geographical limitations to the historical Métis nation should not apply when defining a Métis person because “it is not fair”.

As has been stated, another issue with Métis identity is the feeling of shame about their ethnic identity, which occurred following the years after 1885. This has caused an issue with younger generations of Métis, whose parents were ashamed to discuss their identity with their children as a way to protect them from discrimination. Lussier (2009) suggests that if the Métis are remembered for anything at all in Canada, it is usually for the 1869 and 1885 resistances. This could explain why in the present those that integrated or assimilated with the French Canadians still may renounce their identity (p 46). Mary in the questionnaire responded “I was raised in a home where being Aboriginal; much less Métis; was very much taboo. When I was fifteen; I learned and I began searching my roots thereafter” (Questionnaire, 2008).

This is not an uncommon occurrence in many Métis households as Cody (born in Manitoba in 1952) stated “My family kept much of this quiet while I was growing up and tried to assimilate. They always admitted to having-a bit of Indian back there, but tried to minimize the significance” (Questionnaire, 2008). Howard Adams (in Hedican, 1995), discusses the discrimination that Métis people faced in their community (p 212). Adams states “that in my half-breed ghetto, finding a job was always difficult because the only employers were white. It mattered little that I did not look truly Indian: all local employers knew whether I was half-breed or white. Seeking employment as a Native was more than looking for a job it was asking to be insulted” (p 212). Maria Campbell (in Hedican, 1995) in her book “Halfbreed” agrees and discusses the remorse and bitterness her parents experienced as a result of the Métis experience in western Canada (p 213). She states “I never saw my father talk back to a white man....I never saw him or any of our men walk with their heads held high before white people” (p 213). These were the issues that many Métis people encountered, they had been shamed by the dominant society and often it was easier to just go unnoticed then to stand out (p 213).

Hedican (1995) claims that another problem that Métis people faced is that they must convince outsiders that they have a valid claim to a distinct Aboriginal status in Canadian society. Métis have had to negotiate their distinct identity in the face of two opposing forces, First Nations and Euro Canadian, which have not readily accepted their existence. Both groups have dismissed Métis claims, which caused difficulty in laying claim to a legitimate cultural identity that is distinct from both First Nations and Euro Canadians identities (p 214). The lack of recognition of their distinct culture has often referred to the Métis people as the “Forgotten people” (Imai, 1999, p 83).

It was not until after World War II and the emergence of cultural minority groups that the Métis issues gained more recognition and local organizations were created (Donaud, 2007, p 13). The Native Council of Canada (NCC) was created in 1971 with the goal of achieving First Nations and Métis participation in the life of modern Canadian society, Donaud (2007) provides an excerpt from the council’s declaration of rights:

“We the Métis and non-status Indians, descendents of the “original people” of this country, declare: That Métis nationalism is Canadian nationalism. We embody the true spirit of Canada and we are a source of Canadian identity:...That we have the right to preserve our identity and to flourish as a distinct people with a rich cultural heritage....that we are a people with right special status n confederation.” (p 13).

This declaration asserts an old Métis claim of them being the true Canadians. Both Indians and Whites are immigrants with only a difference in time between their respective arrivals, whereas the Métis represent a genuinely indigenous hybrid race. In this way they have the best of both worlds (Donaud, 2007, p 13). This claim displays the end of the period of shame and the beginning of a modern form of nationalism and pride among the Métis nation.

Embracing Identity: Hopping Around Canada - Guest Blog Bruce Pascoe

2011-11-01T08:39:00.000-07:00

Embracing Identity: Hopping Around Canada - Guest Blog Bruce Pascoe

Hopping Around Canada - Guest Blog Bruce Pascoe

2011-10-30T17:37:00.000-07:00

Guest Blog: Bruce Pascoe

Bruce Pascoe is an award-winning Australian writer, editor and anthologist. His books include Shark, Ruby-eyed Coucal, Ocean, Earth and Nightjar. Bruce has also written a number of non-fiction works, the latest include Convincing Ground, a Wathaurong language dictionary and The Little Red, Yellow, Black Book. His novel, Bloke, was published in 2009. The children’s novel, The Chainsaw File, was published by Oxford in 2011. Dark Emu, Fog, a dox and Imperial Harvest are imminent.

Hopping Around Canada

After fourteen hours on Air Canada from Australia and a self imposed drought it was with alarming enthusiasm that I fronted the bar of Vancouver’s Georgian House Hotel and, after casting a glance at the unfamiliar taps, chose to go safe and ordered a pint of Stella. Bliss. The second pint was even better. The Jade Emperor in Chinatown didn’t look too promising but the BBQ duck was the size of a goose and superb. Once again natural conservatism prevented me from drinking anything more adventurous than Moosehead, but as it helped me survive Toronto in 1986 I owed it respect. There was a special on offer for 500ml of Yungshin or something similar. I wasn’t tempted.

Next day we boarded the Rocky Mountaineer to Banff. The Mountaineer staff were on strike so we had to pass the picket line to get to the train where the new staff greeted us; strike breakers, just what any good socialist despises.

Needless to say I was anticipating the evening beer with even greater enthusiasm than the previous 17, 146 days of my amber research. The scabs (Australian for strike breaker) served a Whistler Pale Ale and later a Lager. I don’t know if it was the extreme tension my labour principles were under or whether, in fact, Whistler is a very good drop. I enjoyed it immensely.

First night, Kamloops, a town whose only grip on reality is to relieve Mountaineer tourists of their cash. Nevertheless the draft Heineken in the pub revived me and just as well because the eating experience at the Mongolian BBQ was eccentric and manic but surprisingly palatable. The music, however, was so loud I was too nervous to drink. Back on the Mountaineer next day I re-introduced myself to the Whistler and later that night in Banff was involved in a round of drinks with an American I felt sure I didn’t know but the beverages were all quite fine.

While working in Banff I maintained my stamina with a slab of Moosehead and several sorties into Keith’s and the last bottle of Prosecco on the mountain. They don’t serve it after summer. Don’t ask me why, I’m from Australia.

On return to Vancouver it was back to the Jade restaurant in Chinatown. This time I took up the offer of the Yungshin 500ml special and after 38 ml decided this was a mistake. Brewing to the Chinese is like cooking to the English. A mystery.

After some reassurance at the Georgian Court’s brace of taps it was on to Vancouver Island and Port Alberni. Port Alberni is the birthplace of the beverage we now call beer. I don’t know this for a fact but PA is the second ugliest city I have ever seen and I’m just presuming the incentive to produce forgetting juice would be higher here than anywhere else.

The closest restaurant was the Jaded on Third Avenue but one glance at the patrons staring morbidly at the TV news had us moving along to the next which was the Bavarian. It looked closed but we pushed on the door and it swung inwards and there was a gush of light and laughter and we thought we’d stumbled on the last of Hitler’s Youth, but it was just a restaurant that specialized in strudels and schnitzels and sauerkraut and anything else that started with ‘S’, thus the naming of the SS I suppose, but I’m not much good at history so it could be wrong.

The dumpling waitress was keen for me to try the Natureland lager, and being from Australia I was too polite to refuse, not to say scared. It was OK but then I tried the Hermann’s Dark lager. It is produced on the island and tastes like smoke. It is dense and dark and particularly seductive. I had two.

Next day, having escaped Port Alberni’s understanding of architecture, we travelled on the Frances Barkly to Bamfield where they prefer their stores shut. If they’re open you are urged to purchase and piss off. A little flustered I avoided the Buds and Heinekens and Molsons and grabbed six of the only cans I didn’t recognize . And so I was introduced Granville Island’s Cypress Honey Lager. If my eyes had been good enough to recognize the word cypress I would have avoided it like a month in Port Alverni. Several dramatic interventions with bottles of Retsina had made me allergic to anything coniferous. I couldn’t even sit on a pine bench without feeling bilious. That’s what I always told my football coach anyway.

But welcome, welcome, welcome to the good old Cypress Honey Lager. Smooth and creamy it was a joy to drink, although it has to be understood it was the only beer in the fridge. But if you’ve got this far you know I’m not too fussy. Thank you Canada. (869)

Metis Identity in Canada Thesis - Intro and Chapter 1

2011-10-30T17:29:00.000-07:00

I am slowly attaching my thesis on Metis Identity in Canada Chapter by Chapter, have a quick read and wait for the next installment, if you are interested in a copy, just comment and leave an email and I can send you a copy of the thesis. It explores the history/culture of Metis identity in Canada, enjoy the read and please comment to let me know what you think?

Keep in mind this will be skipping Methodology/Limitations and just getting to the Chapters....

INTRODUCTION

The Métis people of Canada are the descendants of European fur traders/explorers and First Nations women. Although it is unsure exactly when the first Métis person lived or when contact between First Nations and Europeans occurred, most scholars situate it in the 16^th or early 17^th century (Barkwell, Dorion, & Prefontaine, 2001, p 17). Consequently, through this contact, the Métis have been successful in creating a new mixed collective identity in Canada, often being referred to as “The New Peoples” (Barkwell, et al, p 13). The Métis as early voyagers, traders, guides and interpreters emerged as an economic and political force in western Canada. As well, a recognizable Métis homeland was established at the forks of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in present day Manitoba, where their culture and identity were able to develop and mature.

Métis nationalism in Canada has gained significance through early military resistance and constant struggles to entrench their collective group identity in Canada, as an Aboriginal people. Some scholars suggest that it was the fur trade wars between the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) and Northwest Company (NWC) that created Métis group identity. However, although these fur trade wars assisted in the process of nation building, the Métis began creating a collective consciousness through an understanding of their shared experiences in eastern Canada, as voyagers, interpreters, guides and traders. This allowed these mixed individuals to realize the need to come together as a unique group in the new world.

Through significant battles and situations such as: the 1816 Battle of Seven Oaks, the 1849 Sayer Trial, the 1869 Red River Resistance, the 1870 Manitoba Act and the 1885 Northwest Resistance, the Métis have been able to solidify a strong sense of Métis nationalism and identity, which they have continued to maintain in the countless attempts by Canada to assimilate them into the mainstream Canadian society.

The identity debate for Métis people is not a new occurrence. Confusion over who is Métis has been relevant since the beginning of colonization. The hope after 1885 was that the Métis would eventually be consumed into the mainstream vacuum of Canada, during this time Métis rights were ignored and considered not important. This became a difficult period for many Métis individuals, families and communities. In this period, Métis identity was able to remain intact through the maintenance of cultural memories. Examples of these memories that are discussed in this paper include: the Métis sash (cultural item and symbol of Métis identity), the Red River Jig (dance) and through the creation, maintenance and revitalization efforts of Michif (Métis Language). These and many other cultural elements assisted in maintaining their collective shared history in several Métis communities as a constant reminder of their ancestors.

In the 20^th century, through government policy and the use of the judicial system, the Métis identity debate has become fraught with challenges. These policies include the: 1969 White Paper, 1985 Bill C-31, 1982 s.35 Canadian Constitution Act and the Supreme Court decision in Powley (2003). It was section 35 of the 1982 Canadian Constitution Act that provided constitutional recognition and affirmation of Métis people’s rights. As well, the Métis were included as one of the three Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Section 35 was important for the recognition of their collective identity, but created the problem of, who is considered Métis for the purpose of accessing Aboriginal rights. This has created a need by Métis organizations, governments and the courts to create a definitional approach to identifying rights holders.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada in Powley encountered the issue of Métis identity. They claimed that Métis identity is not based on a biological mixing between First Nations and European, but rather it is a group of people that together gained a political consciousness and distinct cultural group identity. As well, the court provided a criterion for identifying Métis individuals, which includes: self-identification, acceptance into a Métis community and descending from the Historic Métis nation. The court set the criterion for further court cases on the issue of identity, but the defining is left up to the Métis nation itself.

Métis political organizations have used the suggested criterion that was provided in Powley to determine their membership. The Métis National Council (MNC), which represents the Métis nation nationally and internationally, has included that to be Métis; one must be descended from the “historic Métis Nation”, which is considered geographically in western Canada. Therefore, this would exclude certain Métis individuals from communities in eastern and northern Canada. Therefore, it is important to understand the arguments and debate around Métis identity.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the unique occurrence, preservation, challenges and question of Métis (Aboriginal) identity as a mixed race in Canada through the emergence and continuation of a collective group identity, government policy, the court system and Métis organizations. The importance of this paper is justified through the fact that the Métis people are the only mixed race, which has constitutionally recognized and protected their rights as Aboriginal peoples. This paper, will explore why and how this occurred. In reading this paper it is important to understand the terminology that surrounds the Aboriginal peoples of Canada[1].

[1] In this paper, there will be many terms that the reader should understand such as: Indian is a term used in Canadian policy and is the term that was given to refer to the inhabitants of the New World; Aboriginal is a term that encompasses all three groups, Inuit, First Nations and Métis; Indigenous is the term that is used to describe the Aboriginal peoples internationally; Métis/Half-breed is the term accepted for the mixed race, but the term Half-breed was formerly used, but has become a derogatory term in the present; First Nations is the present term for Indians, which represents all First Nations people. Status Indians is an individual that has First Nations status through the Indian Act. Treaty Indian is an individual that is a member of a band that signed the treaties. Non-Status Indian is an individual that lost their Indian status through the Indian Act.

CHAPTER 1

1. MÉTIS ORIGINS

This first chapter will illustrate the colonial encounters between the First Nations people and Europeans, in which unions between these two cultures formed a mixed race. It will also display the construction and emergence of a collective Métis identity. This will be discussed through their role in the fur trade and through their construction of a strong economic, political and social confidence. Métis cultural identity matured by acquiring and maintaining a homeland, which allowed for the growth of Métis nationalism through early Métis political action such as: Battle of Seven Oaks, Sayer Trial, Red River and Northwest Resistance, which will be discussed throughout the course of this chapter. It is important to note the significance of these events in the construction of a unique and distinct mixed cultural identity in Canada, which paved the way for the discussion of present issues of Métis identity.

1.1) Colonial encounters

According to Goldthorpe (1996), colonization is not an equal process. Large differences occurred between the culture of the colonials and the pre-existing cultures of the peoples subjected to colonial rule (p 46). The expansion of Europe resulted in people of ‘white’ appearance and European descent dominating ‘native’ or ‘colored’ populations. This gave rise to the myth about ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ races, which was accepted by Europeans and implemented in colonial policy (Goldthorpe, 1996, p 46). The original use of the word “Indian” to designate the first inhabitants of the New World is attributed to Christopher Columbus who, landing on the island of San Salvador in 1492, believed he had reached India (Tremaudan, 1982, p 1).

Prior to colonization, the Indigenous people held absolute empire over the forests, plains, mountains, rivers and lakes. They lived by hunting and fishing, travelling from one region to another according to need or season, living in easily transported tents, clothing themselves in animal skins, especially that of the bison, their most precious game (Tramaudan, 1982, p 1). Colonial encounters disrupted the identity of these two cultures (European and First Nation) and, through the process of miscegenation (mixing), transformed and created a new mixed identity (Ahmed, 2000, p 12). The two most prominent European nations that explored the land of present day Canada were the French and the British. In most European societies, intimate relationships between the indigenous inhabitants and the colonials were met with disapproval. One exception was the French society (Goldthorpe, 1996, p 63).

The French were more willing to engage the Indigenous inhabitants to a greater extent than did the British. They were interested in trade and establishing a colony, whereas the British were mostly concerned with First Nations lands and resources (Donaud, 2002, p 2). Initially, the French were completely dependent on the First Nations people, but this relationship soon changed through marriages between French fur trappers and First Nations women. Inter-marriage soon became common practice and was encouraged by French authorities as a way to strengthen their social and military relations with the First Nations, for the continuation and protection of their role in the fur trade (Frideres, & Gadacz, 2005, p 12).

The rulers of “New France”, the established French colony, believed that the First Nations people needed to be civilized and Christianized, but also had the idea that the French colonists should merge into a single race with the First Nations people (Purich, 1988, 30). In fact, policy in France considered Indians who converted to Christianity as French citizens. A common practice in New France was to send young boys to live amongst the First Nations people, to learn their culture, to intermarry and to solidify trade and military alliances (Purich, 1988, 30). Friesen and Friesen (2004) quote Samuel de Champlain (French Explorer) as saying “Our young men will marry your daughters and we shall be one people” (41). This quote displays the French intention of integration, which assisted in the creation of a mixed race, that embraced strong family bonds with both their mother (First Nation) and father (French).

The experience with the British on the other hand was more negative. As stated, the British were interested in obtaining First Nations lands and resources by any means necessary. The interests of the First Nations people were ignored when it came to the colonial relationship with the British (Frideres, & Gadacz, 2005, p 14-15). British men came to the new world to engage in work as fur traders for the British controlled HBC. At the beginning of the fur trade in Rupertsland (present day Canada), the HBC employees were forbidden close personal contact with their First Nation hosts (Mclean, 1988, p 27). The director’s regulations in the Company’s Governors Orders for the Men’s Behaviour dated September 26, 1714, stated “1.) All persons to attend prayers; 2.) To live lovingly with one another, not to swear or quarrel but to live peaceably without drunkenness or profanes; 3.) No man to meddle, trade or affront any Indians, nor to concern themselves with women.....Men going contrary (to this order) to be punished before Indians” (Maclean, 1988, p 28). However, rule number three was often broken, eventually dropped and these relations became accepted. This shaped the beginnings of a mixed race of both English and First Nation, but unlike the French often the family bonds were not as strong, due to the lack of desire to integrate with the First Nations peoples (1988, p 28).

The Métis people of Canada have been referred to as the “New Peoples” because they emerged through interrelations between two distinct groups, First Nations and Europeans (Barkwell, et al, 2001, p 13). The word Métis is derived from the French language and simply means “people of mixed blood” (Friesen & Friesen, 2004, p 43). In the past, a number of other words have been used to refer to the Métis, they include: Bois Brule (burnt wood because of their dark complexion), Michif (also the name of the Métis language), Half-breed and Country born. The term Métis was noticed by the early Métis to represent the people in the most satisfactory way possible, thus it has become the term that is used (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 14). Eventually the Métis were employed as guides, interpreters and message carriers for the fur trade companies in the East. As well, they quickly became frontier traders themselves and acted as middlemen between the First Nations people and trading companies (Purich, 1988, p 157).

1.2) Fur Trade War:1816 Battle of Seven Oaks

Although Métis identity as a mixed identity developed in Eastern Canada, it was not until the early nineteenth century that the concept of Métis nationalism gained momentum (Sealey, 1976, p 5). In 1759, the French were defeated by the British at the battle of the Plains of Abraham, which gave the majority of control in the New World to the British, with the exception of Quebec. This victory also gave the British dominance over the fur trade industry (Purich, 1988, p 35). In the nineteenth century, the market for furs was very aggressive and French traders from Montreal, Quebec were eager to engage in the fur trade business. The idea of more profit and adventure inspired many independent and experienced merchants of the fur industry to expand their operations westward. The majority of these traders were Métis and worked for the NWC, which rivalled the HBC for control of the fur trade in Canada. Following the fur trade west, provided the Métis an opportunity to situate themselves in a specific homeland, where their cultural habits as a mixed identity could flourish and develop into a strong group identity (Racette, 1952, p 8).

Casey (1996) claims that culture is carried through our bodies. Through this, the individual’s self-perception of their body encompasses their identity, which carries their culture into a certain environment (p 34). He goes on to claim that to be cultural, or to have a culture, one must inhabit a place sufficiently and intensively in order to cultivate it (p 34). In this case, culture becomes embodied into an individual through its basic actions and understanding of their background. The Métis people’s eagerness to expand west to follow the fur trade, allowed for the Métis through their bodies and self-perceptions of their shared identity to carry their culture into the region of the Red River (Manitoba). This allowed for a homeland where Métis culture and identity could be cultivated to take on a distinct cultural form, which was separate from both the First Nations and European backgrounds. Casey also claims that through the body, knowledge of a place is acquired, which allows the place (Red River region) to become cultural in character full of experiences, histories, languages and thoughts (p 34).

Nevertheless, scholars and authors such as Giraud (1973) and Stanley (1936) often claim that Métis identity and nationalism was created by external factors such as the fur trade. They claim that through the competition of the fur trade companies, the Métis were able to establish a group identity during their work for the NWC (Barkwell, et al., p 19). However, others question the importance of the fur trade on the creation and formation of Métis group identity. Donald Purich (1988) discusses former president of the Ontario Métis and Non-Status Indian Association (OMNIA), Duke Redbird as claiming that:

“the most common assumption with the early Métis is that the conflict between the NWC and HBC created the first sense of identity among the Métis...That the Métis existence is a result of human relationships and not political machinations is largely ignored by most writers. The birth of the Métis came about as a result of a “participation mystique,” a desire of people wanting to get together. It had no intentional political function even though the result created political and cultural changes that played a major role in the history of Canada” (p 38).

The Métis people did have a common shared history, which brought these similarities into a group collective. The fur trade simply created an opportunity to unify as a group to defend their lands and culture. Therefore, Purich (1988) mentions that Redbird’s comments reflect a similar feeling among many Métis, that historians (mostly non-Aboriginal) have overemphasized the role of the fur trade in the formation of the Métis nation, which have down played the role of their First Nations ancestry (1988, p 38).

Aside from these differing views of scholars as to the development of Métis identity, the fur trade presented an opportunity for the Métis to unite as a group and defend their homeland. The confluence of the Assiniboine and Red Rivers (presently downtown Winnipeg) became the heart of the Red River settlement, or Métis homeland (Morrison & Wilson, 2004, p 301). The settlement would play a main role in the history of the Plains Métis, who resided within its boundaries and hinterlands (Morrison & Wilson, 2004, p 301). In the early 19^th century, the Métis homeland was presented to an influx of Scottish settlers, referred to as the Selkirk Settlers. The constant fur trade wars between the HBC and the NWC often caused tension between the newly arrived settlers and the Métis because of the differences in both groups associations with the two fur trade companies. In 1814, a proclamation was issued by the HBC Governor, known as the Pemmican Proclamation, which stated that all the goods produced in the Red River could only be used by the colony and could not be sold to the fur trade companies (Gordon, 2005, p 44).

The main concern of the proclamation was the well being of the new settlers and its intent was to ensure they had a constant food supply. The Governor of the settlers declared that there would be jail time for anyone trading pemmican outside the colony, which infuriated the Métis and the NWC (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 58). The new settlers took the side of the HBC, while the Métis took the side of the NWC, which were in favour of free trade. In July 1814, another proclamation was issued, which prohibited the use of horses to hunt buffalo. This further enraged the Métis because it directly interfered with their livelihood, so together with the NWC, they opposed this proclamation. The NWC provided the Métis with a flag (Blue with a White infinity sign), which provided the Métis with a symbol of national pride. The Métis with the support of the NWC decided to oppose the HBC’s restrictive proclamations and defend their rights to the land (Racette, 1952, p 14). The Métis understood the need to protect their lands and livelihood from the newly arrived settlers, so they came together to display their authority in the Red River to the HBC and the settlers. These restrictive proclamations mixed with the competition between the HBC and NWC fur trading companies, lead to what is known as the “Battle of Seven Oaks” (Goulet & Goulet, 2006, p 60).

In March, 1816, as a part of the ongoing fur trade war, the HBC seized Fort Gibraltar, which was the NWC’s trade post at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers (Racette, 1952, p 14). The HBC along with their Governor attempted to continue to enforce the proclamations against the Métis by setting up a brigade along the banks of the Red River. The Métis lead by their leader Cuthbert Grant[1] approached the brigade on June 19to investigate the situation, discuss the actions of the HBC and the reasons behind the brigade. However, the Métis were intercepted by the Governor and many settlers at a ravine known as Seven Oaks. A battle ensued and the Métis emerged victorious, which was an important triumph for them as a collective group in the region. This assisted in providing the Métis with a confidence in their nation to protect their lands and culture from the increasing number of settlers and oppressive restrictions of the HBC. This battle also demonstrated to the HBC that they had no authority to pass laws on the Métis lands because they could not be enforced. However, after the victory that the Métis celebrated in 1816, they came across another challenge. In 1821, the NWC and the HBC amalgamated, which allowed the HBC to gain complete control over the fur trade (Racette, 1952 p 6-7).

1.3) 1849 SAYER TRIAL

Due to the amalgamation of the NWC into the HBC, many Métis people found themselves laid off by the HBC, or unemployed. The Métis, because of their experience and expertise in hunting and trading began working independently by engaging in free trade with American traders (Purich, 1988, p 47). They became independent traders on the prairies and by 1843; the free trade had grown successfully until it was beginning to seriously intrude upon the HBC’s trade profits (MacLean, 1988, p 62). The free trade displeased the HBC, so the company created laws that would control all the trade in the region. This included arresting Métis fur traders for trading with anyone other than their company (Racette, 1952, p 6).

In 1849, the HBC charged Guillaume Sayer, Norbert Laronde, Andre Goulet and Hector McGinnis, four Métis, with trading against the monopoly; as an attempt to make an example of these young traders. This became a famous trial on the prairies because the Métis, lead by Jean Riel (father of the famous Louis Riel, see further) decided to use this particular case to test the ability of the HBC to enforce its laws in the Red River (MacLean, 1988, p 62). This trial, which became known as the Sayer trial, would mark the end of the HBC’s effective monopoly in Rupertsland (Purich, 1986, p 159). When the accused reached the bench, the court house was surrounded by 200 to 500 Métis. The HBC charged the four men with free trading, but could not enforce a penalty because of the unified and strong support from the Métis nation, so the supplies were given back and the accused were free to leave (MacLean, 1988, p 63).

The excited Métis stormed out of the court house yelling “Long Live Liberty” and “Sayer is Free” (MacLean, 1988, p 63). Maclean also quotes Jean Riel as stating

“We want more than an acquittal of Sayer and his co-accused ...for having trafficked in a few furs without the Company’s permission. We demand that from now on trading be free all across the country and that all hunters and merchants have the right to buy, sell or exchange furs without first having to get permission from the Company....We intend to be free. I proclaim here and now that from this time forward trade is free” (p 63).

This event, which proved the strong collective identity of the Métis in defending their rights to free trade, was an important step forward in the building of Métis nationalism. After the trial, free trading increased and the HBC’s authority was further reduced on the Métis in their homeland (Racette, 1952, p 20). The HBC had difficulties in controlling the free trade and eventually decided to sell the land that held their trade monopoly, to the Dominion of Canada.

1.4) 1869 RED RIVER RESISTANCE

In 1869, rumours were accumulating in the Red River Settlement about the HBC selling the land to the Dominion of Canada (at this time consisting of four provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec). Eventually in 1869, the land was sold by the HBC to the Dominion of Canada (Pelletier, 1985, p 7). The settlers were eager and supported this transfer, but it is important to note that in the 1871 consensus, there were nearly 10,000 Métis counted out of a total population of 12,000 (Frideres & Gadacz, 2005, p 37). This displays the authority and influence the Métis encompassed in negotiating the recognition to their lands and culture. In fact, Louis Riel (see further) estimated the total Métis population at more than 25% the total First Nations population: 40,000 First Nations and 15,000 Métis (Foster, 2004, p 297). The Métis felt uneasy because they were not consulted by the HBC on the apparent sale of their lands to Canada (Pelletier, 1985, p 4).

The main concern of the Métis was that the current amalgamation with Canada would open up their lands for a large influx of settlers. The Métis were interested in being a part of Canada, but wanted to ensure that their lands and culture be respected, with the vast amount of settlers that would arrive in the Red River (Pelletier, 1985, p 7). The Métis designated a leader, Louis Riel[2], an educated young man that was into politics and law, which made him a perfect fit to negotiate with the Canadian government. On October 11, 1869, eighteen Métis including Riel stopped a land surveying party in the Red River that was sent by the Government of Canada to address how to divide the lands in the region. This message was sent back to the Canadian government, which forced the government to recognize the collective consciousness of the Métis people in the Red River (Morton, 1979, p 56).

The Métis lead by Riel formed a National Committee to represent their rights as a group. They proved their power in the area by not allowing people to enter their territory through the posting of guards; the Métis, as was stated, were concerned greatly about the influx of settlers that would crowd them out and endanger their livelihood (Morton, 1979, p 56). On November 2, 1869, Riel ordered the takeover of Fort Garry (present day Winnipeg), which allowed the Métis to control the largest HBC post that produced most of the food, clothing and money in the Red River region. From Fort Garry, Riel established a declaration of the People of Rupertsland and the Northwest, which allowed the Métis the right to form their own government (Purich, 1988, p 161).

On November 16, the Métis gathered to plan a solution for negotiating with the Canadian government. Riel proposed the establishment of a Métis Provisional Government. However, the English Métis did not agree with this action, so a list of rights was drafted up that met the approval of the English Métis (Racette, 1952, p 22). The initial rights listed were: Métis culture is respected in Canada, two Métis representatives in senate, four in house of commons, properties, rights and privileges guaranteed, bilingual public business, bilingual Lieutenant Governor and bilingual judges (Pelletier, 1985, p 21-22).

On December 8, 1869, despite having only the support of the French Métis, Riel established a Provisional Government anyway that would protect the lives and property of the Métis. The Métis placed their flag at the fort alongside the HBC flag to represent the takeover. They discussed with government officials their intentions about the list of rights, but the government could not guarantee their acceptance (Pelletier, 1985, p 15). The initial Provisional Government consisted of forty delegates; twenty were French Métis and the other twenty English Métis. On February 10, 1870, the Métis formed a second provisional government to negotiate with the Canadian government because Prime Minister John. A. Macdonald refused to accept the transfer of the land and did not accept the idea of the Métis Provisional Government (Pelletier, 1985, p 17-18).

The second Provisional Government elected twenty-four delegates of which twelve were French and twelve were English. As mentioned earlier, the Métis were a large majority in the early 1870’s that asserted a great deal of influence in negotiating with the new Canadian government, who lacked a military, a police force and access of transportation to send a military to confront the Métis. This allowed the Métis a strong bargaining position to entrench their rights in the region and to maintain a land base for their nation (Purich, 1986, p 163). Eventually, the Métis list of rights would be accepted on May 12, 1870 and became effective July 15, 1870. This list would be known as the Manitoba Act, which brought the province of Manitoba into Canadian Confederation (Purich 1986, p 162).

1.5) 1870 Manitoba Act/Scrip

The Manitoba Act of 1870 included many of the Métis demands: it granted province hood, created bilingual institutions and guaranteed Métis property rights (Purich, 1986, p 162). As for the property rights, two guarantees were significant. First, 1.4 million acres would be granted to the Métis. Second, the act guaranteed those already in possession of land would be left in peaceful ownership of it (Purich, 1986, p 163). As Section 31 reads:

“And whereas, it is expedient, towards the extinguishment of Indian Title to the lands in the Province, to appropriate a portion of such ungranted lands, to the extent of one million four hundred thousand acres thereof, for the benefit of the families of half-breed residents, it is hereby enacted, that, under regulations to be from time to time made by the Governor General in Council, the Lieutenant Governor shall select such lots or tracts in such parts of the Province as he may deem expedient, to the extent aforesaid, and divide the same among children of half-breed heads of families residing in the Province at the time of the said transfer to Canada, and the same shall be granted tot he said children respectively, in such mode and on such conditions as to settlement and otherwise, as the Governor General in Council may from time to time determine” (Métis National Council, 2009).

The Manitoba Act, which entrenched Métis identity in a legal document, was a victory for the Métis. However, the government immediately began making arrangements to extinguish Métis land claims and did not begin allotting land until 1873. In 1874, the allotment system was changed to issue land scrip or money scrip, which Métis families could take land or could take the money. Often the land that Métis families were provided with was in awful condition, so they elected to take the money scrip. Later the allotment system was changed again and previous Métis allotments were cancelled, so Métis who had received allotments lost them to land speculators (Maclean, 1988, p 106). MacLean (1988) quotes Prime Minister John. A. MacDonald as saying “These impulsive Métis have got spoilt by the emeute (uprising) and must be kept down by a strong hand until they are swamped by the influx of settlers” (p 106).

Immediately it was demonstrated by the Canadian government that the Manitoba Act was not to be respected and that Métis identity was not an important issue. Even when Métis people were on hunting expeditions they would return to find their land suddenly occupied by settlers (Racette, 1952, p 7). As well, with the issuance of scrip, fraudulent land speculators laid their claim into Métis lands. Often land scrip would be sold to speculators for half its price, in several circumstances parcels of Métis land was frequently issued to the same Métis individual twice, so it could be sold to a speculator. Additionally, Métis land was from time to time signed over directly to land speculators. On top of that, hundreds of Métis scrip was also mysteriously destroyed in a fire while being shipped to Ottawa in the early 1870’s (Purich, 1986, p 165). Although the scrip program had very negative consequences in the case of land rights, it had certain positive consequences for Métis identity. Foster (2004) states that the various scrip commissions that were declared in the 1870’s to the 1920’s have acted to create a massive administrative, statistical and genealogical archive, which has documented certain Métis identities (p 312).

As well, Métis leader Louis Riel, a wanted man by the Canadian government, had fled to the United States of America (USA), but first stated “It does not matter what happens now. The rights of the Métis for their religion, their language and land have been assured by the Manitoba Act. This is what I wished. My mission is finished” (Pelletier, 1985, p 24). However, these occurrences with Métis lands forced many Métis families to migrate further west to Saskatchewan and Alberta (Racette, 1952, p 8). Barkwell et al., (2001) claim that after 1878, the Métis both outnumbered and impoverished disappeared as a viable political force in the West (p 75).

1.6) 1885 Northwest Resistance/Diaspora

In 1885, some 1,500 Métis had established villages and stable communities on the banks of the South Saskatchewan River, with the centre of their settlement being Batoche. They had created mills, churches, stores, pool rooms and all the other necessities one could find in a small community (Purich, 1986, p 171). In the first federal survey, carried out between 1871 and 1879, none of the surveyors could inform the Métis whether their property rights would be recognized. In the 1880’s, western Canadians, including Euro Canadian settlers and First Nations bands were extremely dissatisfied, due to the economic depression to which Ottawa did not properly react (Purich, 1986, p 171).

Ottawa’s response to the crisis irritated the First Nations bands because rations that were agreed upon in the treaties were severely cut, and the people had to remain on their poor quality reserve lands, which restricted the opportunity to engage in hunting or fishing activities for subsistence purposes. The settlers were also upset due to the lack of a representative government, the high cost of shipping goods to the west and the cost of manufactured goods (Purich, 1986, p 172). Purich also mentions news paper editorials in the Edmonton Bulletin and the Prince Albert Times suggesting that a resistance was necessary to make Ottawa pay attention to western concerns (p 172). The Métis of Batoche came together with the white settlers from Prince Albert to write a petition to Ottawa about their concerns in 1884, but the Canadian government responded that the economic conditions prevented them from providing any services (1986, p 172).

In that case, the Métis on behalf of all western grievances decided to summon Louis Riel, the one individual who had success negotiating with the Federal government in 1869/70, from the states, in order to bring a list of grievances to the Government. Riel figured that with the settlers, First Nations and Métis, Canada would be forced to listen, so he created a Provisional Government in an attempt to unite the people and get a response from Ottawa, but with the lack of communication from Ottawa, he prepared for armed resistance (Morton, 1979, p 74). Riel appointed Gabriel Dumont[3] to be in charge of the military operations (Racette, 1952, p 18).

The English speaking Métis were content with the previous list of rights they had ensured in 1870 and withdrew support. Riel felt that with a Provisional Government the same could be done in the Saskatchewan area as was concluded in Manitoba in 1870 (Racette, 1952, p 18). However, negotiation did not work as well for the Métis. In 1870, the Métis were the politically dominant force in the west, but in 1885, the Canadian government had a larger military and a Northwest Mounted Police Force (NWMP) accompanied by many volunteers (Racette, 1952, p 19).

On March 26, 1885, hostilities occurred at Duck Lake (Saskatchewan), the NWMP under the command of General Crozier sent a small number of men to obtain supplies from Duck Lake, but were turned away by a group of Métis headed by Gabriel Dumont. The NWMP recruited a larger army and returned to Duck Lake, where a battle ensued, the Métis although outnumbered ended up victorious. The hostilities would continue and eventually the Métis were defeated at the Battle of Batoche (still a Métis community, but also a historic site in Saskatchewan). The NWMP surrounded the Métis village and dug trenches. The Métis fought bravely to protect their village, but after three days became low on ammunition and had to start retreating (Racette, 1952, p 14). The NWMP took this opportunity to attack the village and defeat its inhabitants. Louis Riel surrendered; the Canadian government charged him for high treason and sentenced him to death. On November 16, 1885, he was lead to the gallows and executed. Louis Riel is considered a hero of the Métis nation for continuously struggling and ensuring that Métis rights remained respected and remembered within Canadian history (Racette, 1952, p 16-20).

Following 1885, many Métis families fled the area of Batoche (Purich, 1986, p 173). They found themselves branded as “rebels” and “traitors” and were placed in an impoverished state, with their rights virtually disappearing (Barkwell et al., 2001, p 77). Barkwell et al., (2001) label the period from 1885-1960 as the Forgotten Years for the Métis people (p 77). They maintained their traits of identity at the family and individual level, but the days of national activity were finished. The Métis people became marginalized and impoverished and encountered heavy discrimination. They were forced away from living on Indian reserves and denied education because they did not pay taxes on their “road allowance” [4] homes (Barkwell et al., 2001, p 77). A large rift in Métis identity was the consequence.

The Rope

2011-10-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

The Rope
Guest Blog: Nathan Adler

Nathan's Bio:

Nathan Adler is a writer and artist who works in many different mediums, including video, film, drawing & painting, as well as glass and installation. Nathan was the first place winner of the 2010 Aboriginal Writing Challenge http://www.our-story.ca/nathan-adler.html, he has had his writing published in Redwire magazine, Canada’s History magazine, and as a part of the Odemin Giizis Festival. He is currently working as a glass artist, and is a member of Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation.

The Rope

Oskana Ska, Pile of Bones

The Queen’s City, Regina

Sask.

We go on a walking tour called:

“IN THE FOOT-STEPS OF RIEL!”

We see the Court House where He was Sentenced

a Plaque in the park

a Statue, of Sir. John

and the Place where they brought The Body after they Executed him

it used to be a Church, But Now

it’s a Drop-in Centre for Troubled Youth

We go on a tour of the RCMP Heritage Museum

We See, hanging on the wall

The rope

The Rope

they used to hang him with

We take tasteless photo’s

my brother, posing

in front of the noose

eyes bulging

tongue lolling out

“. . . And just over there

is where they executed him,

over there by those barracks . . .”

strange

that on the site, where such an important Historical Figure Was Executed, there isn’t

some kind of Museum dedicated to the preservation and history of Metis culture.

Instead

there’s an RCMP Heritage Museum symbolizing the Authority and Power of The

State, A warning to all those who would challenge it.

maybe not so strange

“It’s a really nice space”

We say polite things

about the building

to our tour-guide.

I Jigged Last Night!!

2011-10-16T10:07:00.000-07:00

I Jigged Last Night!!

By: Roy Pogorzelski

Completely alone,

Identity strong,

Waiting in Anticipation,

It’s time to go on.

My first performance,

Scared to death,

Trying to Breathe,

Remembering the steps.

All eyes on me,

The fiddle starts to play,

A familiar tune,

Makes my legs automatically move.

Their out of control, as the fiddle changes,

Basic, fancy, basic, fancy,

My legs remind me,

What my mind forgets.

The loud sound of inconsistent clapping,

The cheering with every new step,

Body feeling tired,

Adrenaline taking over.

Sweat rushing down my face,

Breathing heavily,

Finally the last step,

Music ends.

The people stand and clap,

Tiredness kicks in,

Being Métis promoted,

Mom, guess what?

I Jigged Last Night!!

I Hear the Beating of the Drum

2011-10-16T09:57:00.000-07:00

Christine McFarlane is a published writer-with three creative stories "Choosing the Path to Healing" in Growing Up Girl- Voices from Marginalized Spaces, "As A Child" in Yellow Medicine Review.Most recently a short story "Mother: An Essay" was published in the Spring 2011 Issue of Yellow Medicine Review, a poem "I Remember" in xxx ndn, a book by the Aboriginal Writer's Collective of Manitoba, and a short story titled "The ER" published by Survivor Chronicles. Christine contributes and writes a regular column titled "Life's Journey" in the Native Canadian newsletter of Toronto Ontario, writes regularly for Anishinabek News, and First Nations House magazine that is based out of the University of Toronto. She is the recipient of the President's Award 2011 from the University of Toronto for Most Outstanding Native Student of the Year. Lastly, she writes occasionally for Windspeaker and likes to experiment with different genres- going from journalistic style, memoir, poetry and prose.

I Hear The Beating of the Drum:

Guest Blog: Christine McFarlane

I hear the beating

Of the drum

Voices rise

In unison

Hey a

I hear the beating

Of the drum

Voices rise

In unison

Pride rises

Within

Hey a

Hey

I hear the beating

Of the drum

Voices rise

In unison

My foot

Begins to tap

I want to sing

Raise my voice

Alongside everyone

Hey a

I want to dance

Just like the dancers

Who circle the drum

I feel happiness

A sense of calm

As I stand and listen

To Mother Earth’s

Heart beat

I hear the beating

Of the drum

Voices rise

In unison

It’s like the shawl

I have kept wrapped around me

Has risen

Hey a

I am home

Red Steps to Glory

2011-10-03T17:20:00.000-07:00

Look at those Red Steps,

Long, tiring, boring, but beaming with glory

Climb those Red Steps,

Quickly!! Before I get warm

Can you hear the “Sound of Music?”

Mozart performing,

It’s at the top,

Just keep climbing

You’re getting closer,

Smell those Saaz hops,

Let your nose carry you to the top,

Just keep climbing

Getting thirsty,

That’s the power of these steps,

Starting to sweat,

Just keep climbing

My elegance will not disappoint you,

My hoppy personality won’t scare you,

I am definitely getting bitter waiting for you,

Just keep climbing

Wipe the sweat from your brow,

You are finally here,

Enjoy the party; you earned your Stiegl,

It was worth the climb

By: Pogo

White Beauty

2011-09-27T17:17:00.000-07:00

Born in 1992, 19 years old,
Talented, award winning Blonde,
A Franco Canadian, complexion white.

She took my breath away!!

From the first time I set eyes on her,
She stole 5% of my soul.

She smelt of spices, citrus and fresh bread baking in the oven.

Ever since that first meeting,
She has been there for me,
The ingredients that have created this masterpiece,
Have provided me with a life long companion.

Bad Times - cheering me up
Good Times - celebrating with me
Sad Times - comforting me
Lonely Times - keeping me company

Her name is Blanche de Chambly,
My friend, my companion, my buddy,
I look forward to our next visit.

The Black Goddess

2011-09-27T17:09:00.000-07:00

Dublin, Ireland, 1759.
A brilliant man creates a Black Goddess.

Playing the harp by St. James Gate,
Her body dry, burnt and roasted,
Her head is strong, hair is thick,
Made creamy by naturally grown products.

Consuming her body,
Important to maintain her head,
Go Slow!!!
It took her 109.5 seconds to get ready this evening.

Her magic grips you,
Be Careful!!
She wants to be loved,
She draws in people, overflows the streets.

You will be back,
Her deliciousness addicts you,
Arthur Guinness!
You have created one popular monster.

Thank you!!!