Métis 101
Endnotes
|
Métis 101 Endnotes |
| Note
1 - See The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons, Gabriel Sagard,
1632: quoted in Emerging Identities, Selected Problems and Interpretation
oin Canadian History, Paul W. Bennett, Cornelius J. Jaenen, Prentiss Hall
Canada Inc., Scarborough, Ontario, 1986, pg 7. Return
Note 2 - "While this severe Climate, and the Poverty of the Country discourages all but the Natives, its healthfulness is such ...(that) this country must, to the end of time, be people by the Canadian Race, who have already taken such firm root ... that any new stock transplanted will be total hid ... except in the towns of Quebec and Montral." Sir Guy Carleton, November 1767 quoted in The Integration of the Province of Quebec into the British Empire 1763-91, Pierre Tousignat, Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Return Note 3 - It is obvious that many mixed blood communities and individuals in colonial Canada did not actually call themselves Metis, nor were they called Metis by others. The point to be understood here is that descendants of those mixed blood communities have the right to identify themselves as Metis today as the term is used in Section 35 of the Constitution Act. Return Note 4 - It is extremely difficult to articulate this difference to to even third and fourth generation Canadians who nonetheless spend their lives viewing their world through what I am forced to call "immigrant mentality." I was virtually shocked into an awareness of this difference during the First Ministers Conference on Aboriginal Matters between 1982-92. On the government side of the table sat people who thought of themselves as the sons and daughters of immigrants -- and often publicly expressed great pride in that fact. On the other side of the table sat the Aboriginal delegations all of whom thought of themselves as indigenous peoples or the descendants of the indigenous peoples of Canada -- and often publicly expressed great pride in that fact. The most common language of the meetings was English, although there were French, and Inuit interpreters available through a headset system. As the meetings wore on, it became very obvious to me that the participants -- even though they used English words for the most part -- were using the same words to mean different things and different words to mean the same thing. Not much wonder there was so little agreement during these meetings! It finally seeped through my thick head that these different uses of the same words was based on a fundamentally different view of the reality each was dealing with. On the government side of the table were people or the descendants of people who had consciously, or unconsciously decided being in their indigenous homeland WAS NOT AS IMPORTANT as whatever motivated them to LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND and come to Canada to make new lives for themselves. On the other hand the Aboriginal delegations were struggling to make these government people understand that the most significant factor in their lives was their INDIGENOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR NATIVE LAND. Surely this must be the last thing an immigrant, in the literal sense of the word, wanted to hear. In fact, many literally could not hear it -- it made no sense to them. Others -- especially the more recent immigrants -- very much resented being reminded of that fact. An obvious example was the meaning associated with
the word -land-. Government delegates spoke of land in terms of control
and ownership and economic exploitation of resources and international
competition for those resources. The formal Indian delegations were much
more likely to speak of land in the context of their very identity as peoples
and the role of their homelands in the continuation of their traditional
cultures and spiritual way of life. In short immigrant mentality
says "I own the land." Indigenous mentality says "The land owns me."
Not much wonder there was so littel agreement at these meetings! Return
Note 5 - This confusion has still another layer since academics began showing an interest in Metis history. Many of these writers apply the term Métis as a matter of category or classification to any of mixed blood. One result of this is that genealogical researchers make the assumption that this or that family was recognized by their community as Metis when, in fact, that may not be the case. Return Note 6 - "The first [impact on Metis] is the effect of constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights in subsection 35(1) in 1982. The second is the judicial articulation in 1984 in Guerin v. The Queen of the Crown fiduciary obligation. This obligation has subsequently been clarified in the constitutional context and, arguably expanded, by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in Sparrow v. The Queen in 1990. In the unanimous judgment delivered jointly by Chief Justice Dickson and Mr. Justice La Forest the Court made clear that not only does the fiduciary obligation exist to the benefit of "Aboriginal peoples" (as opposed solely to Indians registered under the Indian Act), but that this obligation forms part of the rights that have been "recognized and affirmed" within subsection 35(1)." from:- Do the Métis Fall Within Section 91(24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and if so, What are the Ramifications in 1993?, Morse, Bradford W., Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1993. Return Note 7 - The Metis National Council (MNC) was not formed until after the term "Metis" was negotiated into the constitution although the founding organizations of the MNC (Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan) were affiliates of the Native Council of Canada at the time negotiations took place. Return Note 8 - To the dismay of some, I also accept the possibility that a person might "change identities" several times in a lifetime as information becomes available and circumstances change. I met one man several years ago who had 11 different labels attahced to him by various organizatins and agencies over his lifetime. I do think it should be possible under specific circumstances for an individual to maintain a dual identity. There are virtually hundreds of people today who were Metis and had identified themselves as Metis for decades and then found themselves elligible to register as Indians under the Indian Act via Bill C-31. Since that registration is strictly a government-based regulation, and has no real connection to being or not being Indian (in the cultural sense) I see no reason why an individual registered under Bill C-31 could not maintain a personal identity as Metis. I do NOT, however, think it should be possible for a person to identify as Metis only to access Metis rights or benefits and then change to some other identity only in order to be elligible for some other claim or benefit. Each case should be judged on its own merit. Return Note 9 - The Baker Lake case, among others, struggled with the issue of when, precisely British Sovereignty was actually established in any given locality. Technocrats say the Prolamation of 1763 did the deed. Others argue the sovereignty must be more than technical, it must involve a capacity to control or regulate. To the extent that the weight of evidence is on the side of the need to demonstrate control, it can be said that many Metis communities were established long before effective British sovereignty and therefore their Aboriginal title is intact. Return Note 10 - The concepts of "surrender" and "extinguishment" of Aboriginal title has been the basis of a running battle betweenNative and non-Native negotiators from first contact. On the one hand, governments claim that treaties were legal mechanisms by which a given Native population "surrendered" all of their rights and claims to a particular geographic area. Most Aboriginal negotiators assert that those who signed those treaties had no authroity to "sell" land which they did individually own and that, in any case, it is not possible to "surrender" Aboriginal Title since that is the birthright of every Aboriginal person of every generation to come. It is not, from that point of view, salable, surenderable, or extinguishable. Return Note 11 - This was the wording of the Constitution as it patriated in 1982. Between 1983, when the first First Minister's Conference (FMC) was held and 1984 when the first amendment was formalized, this wording was dropped with --as far as I know -- no formal consultation with the national Aboriginal organizations. It was replaced with a commitment to hold more Constitutional conferences which would include Aboriginal matters. Return |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||