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 16th or early 17th 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 20th 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 19th 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 19 to 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.
Posts
The blog is really nice and helpful and I would like to appreciate it for that.
ReplyDeletethesis writing service Canada