All My Relations -The Other Metis-
Part 1 - Metis Identity and Definition

Introduction

The inappropriate application of Euro-Canadian terminology to North American Aboriginal peoples has become a popular subject in recent years. Still, it cannot be denied that if there is one over-riding issue in the dialogue between Metis people and other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people, it is the issue of Metis identity and how, or if, or by whom, the term is defined.

The issue of who is, or is not, an Indian or an Inuit is complex, but in most cases quickly boils down to a few fundamental issues on which most people can at least agree to disagree. Somehow, the issue of who identifies as French, or English, or German, or Chinese, or even Canadian rarely seems to come up. The issue of Metis identity, however, seems, like quick silver, to multiply in complexity the more it is touched on.

In order to stay focused on the potential for useful solutions to the issues raised in this paper, all of the factors in the discussion on identity and definition will be related to the use of the term "Metis" in the Constitution Act of 1982 as a fulcrum on which everything else is balanced.

To understand why this issue is so mercurial, the backdrop against which terminology related to Metis has developed must be carefully outlined. The semantic issue has been exhaustively explored elsewhere but this paper will examine the framework of human interaction in which Metis identity and definition take place. It will certainly be necessary to refer to legal and academic issues, but this paper intends to focus more sharply on the human factors involved in those issues.

Metis have been referred to as a living bridge between Aboriginal and Non- Aboriginal cultures. At one meeting, the Metis Commissioner, Paul Chartrand, pointed out that bridges have to expect to be walked on by both sides. In another context, Metis could also be described as living treaties between Indian and non-Aboriginal cultures. Both of these images help to explain why Metis is so hard to define. Like mercury, the concept of Metis identity is at once fluid and elusive.

In an effort to be helpful, this paper will attempt to clarify the context in which issues of identity and definition take place. There is no question that the issue is an emotional minefield and is too often over-heated when the issues of identity, membership, citizenship, nationality, and beneficiary are carelessly mixed together. This issue is further complicated when the factors of identity and factors related to definition are confused with each other. By examining all of these factors separately, it may be possible to trace a critical path to a workable solution to the issues raised by identity and definition.

It will also be necessary to examine a number of factors in terms of their effect on the context in which Metis identity is formulated. The paper will demonstrate that the use of terminology significantly, and often negatively affects Metis identity. There are also effects generated by cultural, socio-economic, historical and political circumstances. The paper will describe cultural circumstances which seem to foster Metis identity and other cultural circumstances in which Metis identity does not seem to develop at all. Historical factors are more significant for some Metis groups than for others, but they certainly must be taken into account. This is particularly necessary where the popular history of a particular era or area masks, ignores, obscures, or mis-represents the existence of a Metis population. Metis populations were perceived (and perceived themselves) differently in different periods of Canadian history.

Finally, the paper will look at the effects of other factors that are often ignored or avoided. The creation of borders has a marked impact on the way in which Metis populations were treated. In the modern area the legal and academic theory has had a major impact on both public and official perception of how and where Metis people fit in the emerging negotiations between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Canadians.

All of these factors influence how Metis perceived themselves in Canada and how they were and are perceived by other Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal populations. Each must be examined in order to understand the issue of Metis identity and definition.

Criteria for Identity

"I, myself, am a question which is addressed to the world, and I must communicate my answer, for otherwise I am dependent on the world's answer." C.G. Jung

The questions "Who am I?" and "Who are you?" are among the most fundamental in modern human experience. The possible responses to those questions are as variable as the human condition and the cultures that produce those conditions. The response from a given individual or community or nation, can also vary with time, place and circumstance. To give a valid response, the conditions under which the question is asked -- and answered-- must be fully understood. To avoid misunderstanding it must be clear what question this section of this paper will attempt to answer, which is:

"Who are the Metis referred to in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?"

It is necessary to be equally clear about why the question is being asked. Although the term "Metis" is used in the Constitution to identify one of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, the term itself is not defined. At this precise point, the issue of identity and the issue of definition are at least distinct, if not actually different. If only for purposes of clarity, this paper will maintain that distinction and/or difference for as long as it will serve to increase understanding of the issues. That means there are several other questions to answer:

"Can/Should/Must/How will/ Metis be defined?"

and

"Why are the first two questions being asked, at all?"

The last question is the simplest to answer. The first two questions are being asked because there appears to be differences of opinion in both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community as to how those questions might be answered. There are political, legal, economic, cultural, and social repercussions which are dependent on the answers to those questions.

And given the basic purposes of this paper, the Commission is asking for advice and information on how to address these questions so they can fulfill their mandate.

The first question is more difficult to answer because the answer relies on the response to still more questions. It is necessary to have some idea of why anyone wants to call him/herself Metis. It is also necessary to know why anyone else should care if a person calls him/herself Metis, or not.

At the risk of backing into the conclusions that might be drawn from this paper, the paper will begin by establishing a framework for Metis identity before addressing the separate issue of definition. Research papers previously contracted by the Commission deal in considerable detail with how the term "Metis" has been used, and how that usage has changed and varied in different places and times. There is general agreement that there are three fundamental factors involved in Metis identity. These are:

1. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry

2. Self-Declaration

3. Community validation or acceptance

As straightforward as that list might seem at first glance, it only takes us forward a few steps before it begins to generate as many problems as it solves. Each of these three conditions for Metis identity are individually capable of generating many fears and anxieties. If narrowly interpreted, the three conditions taken together could prevent almost any given individual from being recognized as a Metis within the context of Section 35. If the list is given the broadest possible interpretation, there are up to 10 millions of Canadians who can claim to be Metis if they so choose.

This paper stands at the entrance of a very treacherous maze. In order to address these issues this paper must, as was pointed out earlier, examine the backdrop against which these criteria for identity arise.

The Effect of Terminology

Inevitably, the process of developing and asserting identity becomes intertwined with terminology. Even though we seem, in this paper, to be dealing with a single term --the term "Metis"-- there is a multiplicity of terminology that is historically associated with what would, today, be called Metis populations. In fact, collecting those terms has resulted in a list of 36 names that have been applied to Metis people which can be found on page 12. It appears there are as many terms applying to Metis as there have been Indian, colonial, and immigrant languages on the North American continent.

Every book or article related to Metis will say that the word Metis means "mixed" --which is true enough, as far as it goes. The books will also say that it was applied to people born of mixed Indian and White, usually French, blood. That is also true, at least at one particular time and in one particular region --but it does not go far enough to give any real understanding of even the basic hereditary background of modern Metis peoples.

Most Metis people today are not so much the direct result of Indian and White intermixing any more than English Canadians today are the direct result of intermixing of Saxons and Romans. Most Metis today are the direct result of Metis intermarrying with Metis, or Metis with Whites, or Metis with Indians, or with Inuit, or with Blacks, or with Orientals. Most Metis today are born of one of more parents who are Metis.

Perhaps our Cree brothers have the most accurate description of Metis. They called us the "Ootip ayim sowak" --"the people that own themselves, or that nobody owns." In one university class a Cree student said that, in his community, the phrase would mean "Those who govern themselves."

Before this paper is concluded, it must be noted that neither the term "Indian" or the term "Metis" originated from within the communities that those terms are applied to today, "Indian" is no more definitive, or even descriptive of an indigenous population in North America than is the term "Metis." There were no "Indians" in North America before 1492.

Certainly there were Hopi, and there were Déne and there were Anishnawbe, but there was no population who referred to themselves as Indians. It was an externally imposed terminology and, as we have seen, involved externally imposed definitions. In a. slightly different context, the same can be said of the term "Metis."

Some might object to this argument on the basis that the term was only used in the western "homeland." The objection raises the question of how the term evolved, and whether or not it originated, as most people assume, with Red River. An early printed reference to the term is on a map of the St. John's River in New Brunswick in 1778 as Ile de Mettise (sic). It is not known if the population of that Island actually applied the term to themselves. A river near Mont-Joli has been named La Rivière Mitis (sic) since the early 1800s. Where that river meets the St. Lawrence is a community named Mitis.(sic)

It is clear that the term "Metis," itself, was used outside the Red River area long before it became commonly used in the west. There is insufficient research to determine if the populations of the areas where the term has been used, actually used it to describe themselves. Most writers apply the term "Metis" to Red River people, but few have examined when and how people indigenous to Red River used or applied the term to themselves.

Determination is made more difficult by the fact English documents most often use the term "Halfbreed" while French translations use the word "Metis." The word Metis" does not appear in the English versions of the Manitoba and Dominion Lands Acts, but the word "Halfbreed" does.

As leader of the expedition from Upper Canada to Red River in 1857, George Gladman, himself a mixed-blood born in Red River, referred often in his reports to "Indians" and to "natives of the country" but did not use the terms "Metis" or "Halfbreed." Henry Youle Hind, in his reports on the same expedition makes references to "Indians" and to "Halfbreeds. Those in Red River who drafted the Declaration of the People of Rupert's Land and the Provisional Government's List of Rights did not used the word "Metis" to describe themselves in the document. In fact the only terminology used is that of "uncivilized and unsettled Indians," "male native citizens," and "foreigners being a British subject."

There is no question that Riel, who, it must be remembered, was educated in Montreal, uses the term "metisse" in his poetry in 1870 and an 1885 article written by him and published in The Globe shortly after his death contains the often-published quote, "..should we not be proud to say, 'We are Metis?' The point is, the external application of terminology does not guarantee that term accurately communicates the expression of an internal identity.

By the same token, when a particular term, is used by a given community (such as the Metis constituency of the NCC in 1982)), an external --or even constitutional-- use of that term cannot legitimately be restricted later to only a sub-group of that population. If, for example, this restrictive principle were applied to the term "Canadian," then it would apply only to the descendants of those Halfbreeds outside Quebec city who were first called "Canadien" in 1632.

In 1982, if a person of Aboriginal ancestry wanted to publicly declare him or herself as an Aboriginal person there were only three choices. In terms of public perception, government policy and, for the first time, constitutional law, one (or more) of only three boxes had to be checked -- Indian, Inuit, or Metis. In fact, between 1942 and 1985 it was not even possible to check Metis or Halfbreed on a Canadian census form. In the 1991 Census there are eight different categories of Metis response -- not including the response of Indian/non-Aboriginal.

Socio-Economic Identifiers

Since, paradoxically, terminology, itself, is not particularly helpful in consideration of the processes of Metis identity and definition, a more useful frame of reference for our discussion is needed. From a socio- economic point of view, there are several basic characteristics which can be identified as common to all of the mixed blood groups to which this variety of terminology applied. Those characteristics are:

1. Mixed parentage of Indian and non-Indian sources.

2. Indigenous lifestyle based on local resources.

3. Kinship networks related to both Indian and non-Indian as primary basis for political and economic life.

4. Distinguished by outsiders (both Indian and non-Indian) as distinct from both Indian and non-Indian society.

5. Self-identified (although the specific terminology varied) as distinct from both Indian and non-Indian society.

These identifiers are presented as guideposts to help make the connection, in terms of identity and definition, between mixed-blood communities at various places and times in Canadian history.

Historical/Political Identifiers

In the 1977-80 land claims research projects to identify and document the potential claims of Metis and non-status Indians in Canada, useful data had to be extracted from literally thousands of pages of primary and secondary source materials. In the course of that exercise, researchers became aware of a pattern of events that seem to embroil virtually every mixed blood community the project examined. The elements of that pattern are presented here as historical and political guideposts to help us make the connection, in terms of identity and definition, between mixed-blood communities at various places and times in Canadian history.
 

1. The existence of one or more mixed-blood communities.

2. The community exists in advance of and is economically and politically independent of major white settlement.

3. An outside group attempts a take-over of the area.

4. A negotiation process is begun, usually by the half-breed group, to establish recognition of possession, or shared jurisdiction of land with the outside group.

5. The negotiation process fails.

6. One or more armed encounters ensues.

7. The leadership of the half-breed community is recognized.

8. Legal and political techniques are imposed which dispossess the half-breed community.

As a rule-of-thumb, this paper proposes that any community, whether historic or current, which experiences a majority of the listed circumstances and proposes to identify itself as a Metis community, should seriously be considered as a candidate for that identification. Examples of the indicators will be noted in historical background section of the paper.
 

The Effect of Culture

It is a given, in the context of modern sociology, that the culture into which an individual is born strongly affects how that individual experiences him or herself. The relationship between culture and identity is virtually inseparable, and correspondingly, a crisis in identity can be experienced when a given culture is under stress. When a given culture is in some form of major transition, the impact on the identity of members of that culture is often profound. These factors have played and still play a major role in the development of Metis identity.

In the context of discussion with the Constitutional Review Commission of the NCC in 1991, a description was offered to explain the variety of situations in which Aboriginal people can find themselves.

1. There are Aboriginal people who live in a "traditional" land-based culture in both a physical and spiritual sense.

2. There are other Aboriginal people who are, for most purposes, completely assimilated into Euro-Canadian life.

3. There are still other Aboriginal people who are in transition between those two "states" of being.

4. Some of these people live their lives in a bi-cultural mode or in a state of dual identity.
This paradigm is particularly useful when comes to understanding shifts of identity and definition among Metis peoples. It is important to note that in recent years, even Census Canada has recognized this transition phase works in both directions. While some Aboriginal people are assimilating into Euro-Canadian identity, others who seemed to have been assimilated are reclaiming their Aboriginal heritage.

One of the factors that makes discussion of "Metis-ness" so confusing to observers is the bewildering range of human circumstance that the term seems to cover. Skin and hair colour range from exceptionally dark to virtually fair and blonde. Lifestyles of different Metis range from subsistence hunting and gathering peoples to multi-corporate urban realities. Spiritual orientation ranges from the deeply traditional, through various Christian models, to the urban pagan and the atheistic.

This diversity is best examined through the Tizya paradigm of a traditional/transitional/assimilation modality. There are Metis individuals and communities who reflect each of these modes. In rural, remote and Northern Canada there are Metis who live a hunting/gathering subsistence kind of lifestyle which virtually matches the historic descriptions of 18th Century Metis lifestyle. These individuals and communities could be described as "traditional" Metis. At the other end of the scale there are completely urbanized populations of Metis who are struggling to reclaim their heritage.

In between is a population who are experiencing a fluid, changing, and often bicultural identity process between Indian, Metis and non-Aboriginal cultures. In terms of the three basic criteria for Metis identity, the amount of influence culture may have on an individual has little to do with the "amount" of Aboriginal ancestry in an individual. There can be no doubt however, that the mores of any given culture have an enormous effect on whether or not an individual will self-identify as a Metis -- as opposed to identifying as an Indian, or a non-Aboriginal. Culture can have an absolutely determinative impact on the acceptance or rejection of any given individual as being part of a particular Metis community.

Over a decade of research on Aboriginal issues, it became evident that some areas of Canada have very few "indigenous" Metis, compared to others. Specifically, the coastal areas of Canada, British Columbia, and the Maritimes, had a very low percentage of self-identifying Metis peoples, compared to Ontario or the prairie provinces. It is rare to meet an Iroquois or Haida mixed blood individual who identified as a Metis.

One possible explanation springs from the fact that in those societies where the women determine the membership criteria of the community, rules that would exclude their own children are rare, regardless of who the fathers of the children might be. In these cases there would be no motivation to identify as Metis, simply because the children would be raised with the identity of their mothers.

In societies where Aboriginal fathers make the rules, or where the patrilineal bias of the Indian Act was applied, there is a tendency to be more protective of their own children, even if the mothers were white. and Membership or participation in the community was more likely to be denied to the children of white fathers. Those same children would often be rejected by white communities as well. As a result, over a number of generations, a population of mixed blood progeny were virtually forced to create their own communities, in order to be relatively free of both white and Indian prejudice.

Certainly, there were many other factors at play. The further back you look in the history of Aboriginal-White contact, the more likely mixed blood children would be raised in the Indian community. After 1876, the increasingly restrictive clauses of the Indian Act included the children of white women who were married to registered Indians as band members, but excluded the children of Indian women who were married to white men, or to Metis or even to full-blooded Indians who were not registered.

The Effect of Location

Another major factor in both the development (or lack of development) of Metis identity, and in how Metis populations were treated, was the effect of the temporal and/or physical location of a given half-breed population. As we shall see, the mixed-blood populations in Acadia and New France were embroiled in a different set of historical circumstances, than were those of Sault Ste. Marie, or Red River. All of those communities fit most of the socio-economic and historical and political identifiers listed above, but only one of them is commonly identified in Canadian history today as a Metis community.

The policies of British Crown toward mixed bloods differed from those of the colonial authorities and differed again among the Federal and Provincial governments after Confederation. The creation of international, colonial, national, and provincial, and borders, as we shall see in the historical background in this paper, also played a major role in how mixed-blood communities were identified and dealt with in both colonial and modern-day Canada.