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 "Métis"-- there is a multiplicity of terminology that is historically associated with what would, today, be called Métis populations. In fact, collecting those terms has resulted in a list of 36 names that have been applied to Métis people which can be found later in this paper. 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 Métis will say that the word Métis 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 Métis peoples. 

Most Métis 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 Métis today are the direct result of Métis intermarrying with Métis, or Métis with Whites, or Métis with Indians, or with Inuit, or with Blacks, or with Orientals. Most Métis today are born of one of more parents who are Métis. 

Before this paper is concluded, it must be noted that neither the term "Indian" or the term "Métis" 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 "Métis." 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 "Métis." 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, in the Red River (Winnipeg) area. 

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, Quebec 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 "Métis," 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 "Métis" 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 of the same documents use the word "Métis." The word Métis" 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, (And my great great grandfather, referred often in his reports to "Indians" and to "natives of the country" but did not use the terms "Métis" 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 "Métis" 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 Métis?' 

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 Métis 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 Huron 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 Métis. In fact, between 1942 and 1985 it was not even possible to check Métis 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.