Jump to content

Talk:Métis in Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnimalNorth (talk | contribs) at 14:38, 25 March 2010 (→‎Black Scots?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page move

I moved this page here for the reason given at Talk:Métis. John FitzGerald 01:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Black Scots?

Is there a source for this term? I've done considerable reading on Metis history and have not come across it anywhere else. I doubt its validity, the anglo-metis peoples were commonly known as countryborn, native english, mixed bloods, halfbreeds, or by francophones as les metis anglais during the 19th century. Wyldkat 9:08, 12, Nov 2006

I've heard 'black' used as a nickname for one trapper in Canada who spoke metis. Via my extended family from the Iceland-Canadian settlements I've heard mention of a relative as "Black John" who took Metis as his second language as a career decision, first language being Icelandic. AnimalNorth (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunge?

I seem to remember a language called Bunge or Bungee (pronounced BUN-gee?) which was a mixture of Cree/Obibway and Scot Gaelic spoken by Metis of Scottish origin. Anyone know anything about it? I can't find a thing online, but I thought it might be worth a mention on here. Although, perhaps the lack of evidence is proof it shouldn't be mentioned..... CWood 23:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article has been written, maybe by you who knows: Bungee; could probably use expansion, more examples if anyone has any.Skookum1 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

I've changed the SAMPA to IPA and removed the convertIPA template. But I'm not at all convinced that the second suggested pronunciation of the French can be correct. By the way I've not added the IPA notice template, on the assumption that it's redundant when using the IPA template (so that the characters should display correctly). Any views on this? rossb 23:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The second pronunciation was provided as an example of how Métis say it when speaking French (as opposed to Mechif). The note explaining that was removed. If the transcription is wrong it's my fault. Should be like the pronunciation in français de France but with short vowels replacing long. John FitzGerald 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The way the pronunciations are written is probably confusing/ambiguous to many readers. . . .

Eastern Métis

This article only contains information on the Western Métis (i.e. from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia) with no information on the Eastern Métis (i.e. from Labrador, Quebec, et cetera). As I understand it, they are two seperate but related peoples with different cultures and histories. I don't feel I know enough about them to add to them to this article, but if anyone else does know more, please add it. --Lesouris 17:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there are no Métis organisations east of Ontario, which means the so-called Métis in those areas likely do not meet all the requirements of the MNC definition. --Kmsiever 05:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is the Corporation métisse du Québec et de l'Est du Canada : http://www.metisduquebec.ca/
There is indeed a great number of people who identify with their metis origins but do not fit the requirements to be considered Métis by the Métis of the West. -- Mathieugp 15:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer. What I meant is that there are no Métis organisations east of Ontario recognised by the Métis National Council. There's more to being Métis than simplying thinking you are Métis. --Kmsiever 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Montreal and learned in Histoire du Quebec and Canada that Métis meant a child born from a French Canadian man and an indian woman so whan I moved to Alberta and learned that there was a "Métis" nations, I was very confused. From my limited research the Métis Nation in the Prairies region of Canada have a distinct culture demonstrated by distinct art and language (Mischif). The Métis in the West also had their own settlements and villages. I am trying to learn more about the Métis in Quebec, I think their they were simply assimilated into the aboriginal or French community. I did have another question, did the Alberta Métis have any ukrainian influence? I thought I read that at the Alberta Museum but may be confused... Raisaroo -- 18:54, December 12, 2005 (Mountain time)

"Constitutionally Recognized" Western Métis? Sorry, I don't find this in any legal document referring ot the Métis Nation, except those limited publications of the MNC. I would suggest removing this "constitutionally recognized" unless someone here can provide a citation from the Constitution Act or a formal treaty stating that Métis are one and the same with Western Métis. Have also spoken to colleagues at INA about this and no support for these claims. Also, you should have mentioned the CAP which was the forerunner to the MNC and continues today to serve Métis interests. Neutral point of view is policy on Wikipedia. --Gunnar--

This organization claims there are Quebec and Eastern Canadian Métis which have been forgotten by history:
http://www.metisduquebec.ca/
I believe that, living so close to the large Franco-Catholic population of the St-Lawrence and the Maritimes, the Eastern Métis were indeed assimilated to those who call themselves Québécois or Acadiens today. The others got categorized as Natives. -- Mathieugp 03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Raisaroo, I'm not 100% certain of your question, but the Alberta Métis predate Ukrainian Canadians by a good 100 years. Ukrainians arrived in Western Canada in the late 19th Century, while Métis were in the area basically from the first fur trade forts in the late 1700's. The two groups did live side by side in numerous instances, but I'd stop short of saying that the Métis were influenced by the Ukrainians. CWood 03:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that is helpful. Raisaroo -- 16:37, January 10, 2006 (Mountain time)


The Powley Ruling in 2003 (Supreme Court of Canada) was a landmark decision in terms of legally recognizing the existence of Metis in eastern Canada; essentially the court said that although the definition of Metis does not apply to just anyone of mixed aboriginal and european heritage, it does apply to people of mixed heritage with distinct customs and traditions recognizable to the group's identity and separate from both their aboriginal and european forebears. The Powley Decision conferred aboriginal rights specifically to a group is Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario but left the door open for other self-identified Metis groups (like those in Quebec and Labrador) to pursue formal recognition.Caribougrrl 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm pleased to inform you that there is a large Metis community in Atlantic Canada. There are at least 6 different council's that I am aware of and thats just in Nova Scotia. my home council has a population of several hundred. They are legally recognized by the Government of Canada... however they are not recogized by the Metis National Council(which is a western organisation) , which is not, in fact, a national council established by the Government, but rather is a self appointed group who has determined for themselves who is and isn't Metis. Most groups outside of the MNC do not consider the MNC claim on legitimacy to be the sole claim on the Metis name.http://www.geocities.com/nsmetis/ - Confederacy of Nova Scotia Metis Website. --JHenryHubbard 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

People in the East are considered to be metis (with a lower case 'm' denoting that they are merely mixed). The Metis in the West are referred to in the proper form. Being a cultural group has nothing to do with the mixing of cultures. Being mixed Indian and European does not make one play the fiddle, speak Michif, wear a sash, or any of the cultural markers of the Metis. The Metis culture is marked by language, systems of governance, economic background, cohesion, and a declaration of being a nation, that is distinct from both European and First Nation people's. If one thinks that Metis people are merely mixed, they have completely missed the boat altogether. Metis specifically refers to those people who have links to the historic Metis communities of the prairies that rose up against the government of Canada in an inter-nation struggle for autonomy. This is why the MNC, and Metis in the West do not agree with there being a Metis in the East, but a metis. Having these two articles together compromises the identity and leads to further false claims to there being a Metis in the East, of which there is no visible culture of history that makes them a distinct people from any other group in the East. Being Metis has three legs to it for membership as well: having lineage to the Historic Metis Communities, being accepted as part of the nation by the community, and being self-identified. If one fails in one of these areas they are not Metis, which I am sure almost all of the Metis in the East would fail. It is a well known fact that the establishment of a European presence in the St. Lawrence River Valley was marked by wide spread metissage, and this definetly means that a large majority of people living in the east have a mixed ancestry blood. This doesn't make them a distinct culture, and therefore does not make them a distinct nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.56.14 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

How come there's a separate article for the word Métis? The modern ethnic group in North America is already dealt with in Métis people, and the use of this French word to refer to people elsewhere is explained under Mestizo. If that article is intended to refer to anyone of part-French ancestry from Indochina to the Pacific to the Caribbean, then I think it should be much more explicit about that. //Big Adamsky 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the political organization and distinct heritage of the "traditional Metis", as opposed to Canadian constitutional language's use of the word to mean "anyone of proven native and non-native lineage", what we used to be able to call a halfbreed. The Metis Nation does not include a lot of the latter people, who have no links to the particular mixing of peoples in the Prairies and adjoining regions of BC and ON that produced a distinct culture and people; who are the Metis Nation. Confusingly "Metis" does not necessarily mean only members of the "Metis Nation". Myself I'm a bit taken aback to see BC included among their "homeland" as the Metis Nation were only involved in early BC as employees of the fur companies and hirelings of the explorers; some may have been out here ("out here" means on this side of the mountains) but I guess they mean up in the Peace River Block - our chunk of the Prairies.Skookum1 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population

It was blank, so I put in the # my book said. Cameron Nedland 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Martin

Is he really partially Metis? I have not read anything like that about him from any of the websites. Can someone please verify or confirm this fact? AWDRacer 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

I don't believe that the Canadian government recognized the Metis until after the rebellion had been underway for quite some time. The statement stating that the feds had already recognized them as a legitimate government is incorrect, I believe. Please confirm or disprove. Homagetocatalonia 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Metis drew up a Bill of Rights during the Red River Resistance. One of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that when a people have no responsible government to govern them, as had happened when the HBC had moved out of the area, and Canada had not yet moved in, a people have the right to govern themselves. Since the Bill of Rights was what was used to create dialogue with the Government of Canada over the confederation of the postage stamp province, Manitoba, this makes the claim of them being a legitimate government valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.56.14 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

The article says that the Metis were the first to use saddles. That is certainly not true worldwide, and that should be clarified.195.221.241.130 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddles?

I too came here to comment on the following 

  Metis people were famous for their horsemanship and breeding of horses. They were the first people to use saddles and to have horse races.

Does the author mean the first of the indigenous peoples? If not, then this statement about 'the first people to use saddles and to have horse races' must be wrong, as europeans bought the horse to america in the 15th century.

The Metis people didn't even exist until the seventeenth century-- a few thousand years after the development of saddles. I'm assuming that horseraces date back to antiquity. I'm taking this out Stevecudmore 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Métis people (Canada) and Métis people (USA)

What's the rationale? The Sioux have a borderland history much like the Métis' (see David G. McCrady, Living with Strangers: The Nineteenth-Century Sioux and the Canadian-American Borderlands (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2006)), but Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles for "Sioux (Canada)" and "Sioux (USA)". The Métis have traditionally lived close to the national border and crossed it frequently. It would make more sense to have one article on "Métis people" with a section on "Métis experiences in the United States." Llajwa 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is puzzling to me as well. Considering how poor the Métis people (USA) article is, I see no reason there should not be a merger of both articles, to be renamed Métis people (North America). Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed a {{mergeto}} tag on the USA page, I totally agree, it would just be duplicated content. I don't even see the need to put (North America). Just calling it Métis people should suffice. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly oppose - something to keep in mind is that in Canada, Metis are considered an aboriginal people. They have a distinct culture. In the USA, most of the use of the term Metis refers to people of indigenous and non-indigenous backgrounds. There is rarely any cultural component, and virtually no common tie in. If the two articles are merged, this distinction should be emphasized in the new article. --Kmsiever 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there good sources on this? My sense was that some US communities that are genealogically linked to Canadian Metis, like the Turtle Mountain people (mixed French-Ojibwa-Cree, speak Mitchif), call themselves Indians rather than Metis. (See Gerhard J. Ens, “After the Buffalo: The Reformulation of the Turtle Mountain Metis Community, 1879-1905,” in New Faces of the Fur Trade (1998), 139-152.) Llajwa 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the {{mergefrom}} tag to this article to complete the proposal. I support the merger, and I understand your concerns Kmsiever, though I agree with Llajwa that there is commonality between the Métis in the US and those in Canada. Any differences in terminology can be dealt with in the "new" article. You are probably right, Chabuk, that the (North America) is unnecessary, I am simply uncertain as to whether the term "métis" is used anywhere else in the world. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, where are we on this question, folks? Overall, the feeling was that this should be done, provided that it is done right. So, shall we? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons Skookum stated. Fremte 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Different countries, different history. --Mayfare 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Oppose"" merge. While they are not a distinct phenomena, in particular Canadians know the metis people to have the ancestry and history that is laid out in the article, the U.S. article can't be substantiated by blending, needs its own contributions of specific history, etc.NewMind 07:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec

Why is Quebec not mentioned at all (except in the name of an external link)? Badagnani (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

"The Métis (pronounced /ˈmeɪtɨs/ "MAY-tis" in English" must surely be wrong: the citation for this statement is the Oxford English Dictionary, but that has to be of only marginal relevance given that the vast majority of Métis are in Canada. In my current overseas location I don't have a current Oxford Canadian Dictionary or other Canadian reference text at hand but I certainly well recall the universal merriment that greeted former premier Ross Thatcher of Saskatchewan pronouncing the word as the Wikipedia article suggests is correct ("Métis at Tim Horton's for coffee eh?") The OED is British English; it is Canadian English that is appropriate here. Masalai (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this. All the Métis I know pronounce it "MAY•tee". I don't know a single person who pronounces it "MAY•tis". --Kmsiever (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture:finger weaving

Prior to my edit the article described the Ceinture fléchée sash as being "made by [sic] of yarn 'woven with one's fingers.'" The latter phrase was a 'Text to display' aliased link to an as-yet-nonexistent article titled 'finger weaving', and as such looked rather odd on the page, being displayed in red type, yet not looking like a very likely prospective article title! (Technical: Should Wikimedia use alias text with a 'faux' link?)

That phrasing ("one's fingers") also seemed to imply (rather improbably) that the wearer must have fashioned the article himself. After cleaning up the wording (retaining the link to a future 'finger weaving') article, I was left with several questions. The factual questions are;

The term seems to imply weaving without the use of a loom. Is it possible and practical to weave a long strip of fabric in an elaborate pattern without a two-dimensional holding fixture? Is this a real technique?

Is it a traditional technique for making Ceinture fléchée sashes?

Has a similar technique been used elsewhere?


The organizational question is this; If this technique is used elsewhere there may be a need for the proposed finger weaving article, but if it is in fact used for and is unique to the Ceinture fléchée, shouldn't the technique section of that article be the place to describe it, rather than in a separate article?

Mrnatural (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article needs to be written by a Metis person. Of course fingerweaving was done by a person, and without a loom. Thats why it is called fingerweaving! The sash is a traditional article.... so of course its a traditional technique. Fingerweaving may be used else where, but the designs, colours, and symbolism are wholly Metis, and is a cornerstone of the culture (why would you seperate something so integral to a culture in a separate article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.56.14 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV/contradictory wording

The opening says this:

The Métis are descendants of marriages of Cree, Ojibway, Algonquin, Saulteaux, and Menominee aboriginals to Europeans,

While in the "little-M Metis" section it says this:

Little 'm' métis refers to those who are of mixed native and other ancestry, and is essentially a racial definition. Big 'M' Métis refers to a particular sociocultural heritage and an ethnic self-identification that is not entirely racially based.

Both of the statements in the second item are clearly synthesis, i.e. analysis unsupported by documentation and imputed by the contributor's own notions/ideas. But how can a definition based in a "particular sociocultural heritage and...ethnic self-identification NOT be racially-based?? If someone is part-Tlingit and part-Norwegian, or part-Secwepemc and part-Ukrainian, but not part-Ojibway/part-Norwegian or part-Saulteaux/part-Ukrainian, how is that not a racial distinction??. Small-m metis are how "we" (non-aboriginals) are supposed to refer to "halfbreeds" now, since that term has been adjudged to be racist/offensive. Distinguishing between capital-M Metis and small-m Metis is what seems clearly to be "racially based", not the other way around. I respect that the constitutional guarantees for Metis that were made in recent years were meant as a redress for the historic Metis community, but we were told (the rest of us) that "metis" would now mean all peoples of proven part-aboriginal heritage, not just from specific traditional-Metis aboriginal iineages Cree, Ojibway, Algonquin, Saulteaux, and Menominee - or the traditional Scots or Irish or French Canadian "European" heritage - "small-e european" perhaps, to distinguish from the older meaning of European). Matter of fact, I have a friend who does have a Metis card but who is not from the stated exclusive groups - her aboriginal ancestors were Kwantlen. In light of this, much of the content of this article seems POV, as discriminating against people who are constitutionally Metis, or might be, because they are not from teh approved groups that the core/traditonial Metis organizations/intellectuals do not want to admit to. Either a new term is come up with for small-m metis - and I mean a new term constitutinoally, not in Wikipedia - or this article should be more sensitive about relegating people from the "wrong" ethnic backgrounds to a lesser status. Again, the "racial logic" of the two quoted items is contradictory, also POV and I think you ahve to agree between those two quotes is also contradictory.Skookum1 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Metis in Eastern Canada??

I find it interesting that the headline section states:

Their (Métis) homeland consists of the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, as well as the Northwest Territories.

As a Métis living in Nova Scotia and a member of the Eastern Woodland Métis Nation, I find this hard to belived. So have I been mislead by my father & grandfather all these years? Or does the fact that this statement was posted on Wikipedia inform me that I am not a Métis person. I know of several other Nations in Atlantic Canada. Just a bit of a refresher on your facts: the first marriages between European and Native People of this land happened right here in Nova Scotia in the 1600s! Most of this article appears to have been inflenced by the Métis National Council (MNC), especialy when you read their website and read this article. The MNC is simply an organization in itself and not the sole voice for the Métis people, nor is the organization appointed by the government as the principal interest group for Métis people. MNC is simple a group of Nations... an association. They seem to feel that Eastern Métis do not exist. Wikipedia sounds alot like the Canadian government... telling us who we are, when we already know who we are. Digby 12.177.4.134 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed graffiti.

Made small edit to remove a vulgar comment. Xikipedia (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series Sidebar

Started this "Ethnic Series sidebar template" to bring together some of the main topics related to the aboriginal peoples of Canada so that the articles stand alone and do not overlap each other in content. What is your opinion? SriMesh | talk 03:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Template:Indigenous Peoples of Canada[reply]

removed text

Have removed unverifiable statement Marie Olivier Sylvestre Manitouabeich married Martin Prevost, This marriage was to be the first marriage, on record, between an Indian girl and a French colonist. The marriage took place on the third of January, 1644, at Québec. Their decendants would not qualify legally as Metis.... I will reacsherc this claim to fine a ref or if it is true.

NWT Metis Nation

Why is the NWT Metis Nation (http://www.nwtmetisnation.ca/) not recogized as part of the larger Metis group?--207.6.238.214 (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization/rethinking

I realize that some of this has been discussed before but not completely.

The Métis-related articles seem to me a little confused and disorganized. Some observations:

  • Obviously "métis" is a generic term used in a lot of ways both in North America and around the world. IMHO it makes no sense to have articles using this name unless the topic of any particular article is clear. This article, for example, seems to be trying to cover "all people in the geography of Canada that anybody might refer to as Metis". That is no more meaningful than "all people in the geography of Canada that anybody might refer to as tall".
  • There are meaningfully distinct groups in Canada and elsewhere that have gone by the name Métis. This article is talking primarily about the Michif-speaking group but it attempts to lump in other groups as well.

I would propose reorganizing the articles so that they discuss meaningful ethnic groups. Perhaps something like the following:

IMHO, this type of reorganization would be more meaningful. Note that I am not asserting that "Red-River Métis" is the correct name. This was just a suggestion.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


sounds like a great idea...The article has come a long way this year!!..But anything to help would be good...I would say if we talk about one group we SHOULD talk about them all a bit!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Métis_in_Canada&oldid=351973296"