Talk:Métis in Canada

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


Page move[edit]

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

Black Scots?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
Métis people do not only include those recognized by the Métis National Council. I suggest we take a hint from The Encyclopedia Canada [3] and have a section for Eastern Métis and another for Western Métis. I wonder whether we should further split Eastern Métis into Atlantic Métis and Québec Métis (or franco-métis? They also exist in Ontario so I hesitate franco-métis may be a preferred term). Murmullo (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (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)

I once met a Metis speaking traveler from the N.W. territories, who claimed Ukranian and Inuit descent, he did not speak English, but did speak Russian and Ukranian. That was decades ago he must of been from a very remote place we communicated in broken French. I can't verify this with documentation, but maybe others like this exist in the region. AnimalNorth (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into it again and found something that comfirms ukrainian influence on Métis music [4]:

Tunes adopted from Ukrainian, Swedish, Icelandic and English settlers also entered the prairie repertoire from the late 1800s on.

After reflecting on this, I think there is a simpler reason for my confusion. Cultural artifacts from Métis people [5] were probably showcased at the same time as Ukrainian artifacts [6]. Further the floral designs on the Métis clothing are reminiscent of floral designs found in Eastern Europe. Raisaroo (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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]

I found a lot of answers to the topics above here: [7]:

  • quote (page 70): Canada's Metis were formally recognized as an aboriginal people in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982
  • quote (page 70): There is no general agreement on criteria for an exact definition
  • quote (page 70):some western Candians hold that Metis are only those who can trace their ancestry to the Red River settlement
  • from page 70: explains why sometimes metis was defined as having one aboriginal grandparent
  • quote (page 71):one proposed definition would include persons with any degree of Amerindian blood who are not registed on a reserve
  • page 71: why often metis meant aboriginal mother and white father - native status was not passed through mother
  • page 71: explains the whole Quebec issue. Quote:the policy of creating one nation discouraged the emergence of a separate Metis identity during the French regime. .... thus, mixed-blood children identified with one side or the other of their heritage
  • page 72 and onwards: explains the western front developpement of the Metis and the creation of a seperate cultural identity.

My conclusion is that we have to talk about Eastern Metis as distinct from Western Metis. There is a completely different understanding as to what it means to be Metis due to a different environment and history. This is further complicated by the complexe relationship between aboriginal people and colonialists. Murmullo (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historic Métis communities in Canada’s east that is recognized by the Provinces, the Federal Government, Canada’s courts of law, or the historic Métis Nation. There are people who have recently begun self identifying as “Métis” since the Powley and Daniels SCC decisions in those areas requesting hunting rights, resource access, and opposing legitiment Indigenous land claims. They have formed organizations that arrogate Métis identity and Métis cultural symbols for their own gain. But that have no connection to the historic Métis culture that developed in the Red River prior to European control. The people of the east are more properly described as people with métis heritage who practiced the culture of either parent or a combination of the two. This page is filled with inaccuracies and unsupported statements that further spread this misinformation. In attempting to clean this up, I’m accused of “disruptive editing.” Ridiculous! MétisJim (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said that your edits were WP:POV. I have asked for input from WP:CANBOARD Meters (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the basics....as in where we first appear READ ME.--Moxy (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

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[edit]

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

Paul Martin[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 merge. Distinct history, different political status. --Qyd 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as well, for the reasons set out by Qyd. The Métis have a distinct status and historic role in Canada. Skeezix1000 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in concurrance with Qyd. Cross-border ethno articles are sometimes inherently problematic and require separate articles (the Okanagan people, Ktunaxa and Blackfoot article(s) further cases in point. Different histories, constitutionalities, different social and cultural realities. An equivalent would be to make Cajun and Acadian a merge...Skookum1 19:24, 1 November 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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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]

I agree, the article needs to be scrutinized by someone who is Metis. As for the "finger weaving" comment. There should be an article in regard to this art form in general. Examples of finger woven sashes, bags, and other items can be found not only in the Americas, but in Australia, Borneo, and Africa. There ar numerous sources for information on techniques, uses at contact (European), and ethnic style/ use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.133.216.50 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger weaving was a common form of weaving among Native Americans/First Nations. Here are a few articles both on technique and the significance of the sash to the Métis. Today the Métis sash is woven on a loom.
Native American Finger Weaving in the Eastern Forestshttp: //www.nativetech.org/finger/belts.html Fingerweaving - Part 1 http://www.nativetech.org/seminole/sashes/instructions.php Fingerwoven Sashes and Garters http://www.nativetech.org/seminole/sashes/index.php
Métis sash maker has special creations for the Year of the Métis http://www.saskvalleynews.com/2010/04/metissashmaker/ The Metis Sash http://www.killarneyhistory.com/minj2003sash.html Métis Sash http://www.metisnation.org/culture--heritage/symbols-and-traditions.aspx Niineta (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this conversation late, and my comment may be moot now, but just to clear up any confusion people unacquainted with «  le fléché » may have: it's really an extremely complex form of braiding. In English it's called "finger weaving" to distinguish it from loom-and-shuttle, over-under textile manufacture, but the real difference is the bending and/or twisting of the strands around each other, which produces the titular "arrowheads" in the finished product.

The ceinture fléchée is essentially a very wide, flat braid, produced not by interweaving strands into a grid configuration, but by twisting them around each other; strictly-speaking, it isn't woven at all. If you think of it in those terms, you won't get trapped trying to imagine a possible difference between "finger" weaving and other kinds of weaving. FWIW. Laodah 19:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV/contradictory wording[edit]

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??[edit]

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]

? Why does it say you are from the United States and you are saying you are in Nova Scotia 50.98.90.172 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no metis communities in Nova Scotia. I myself can be considered metis, however metis and Metis are not the same. Please take in consideration that metis is a noun that has coined by Europeans and was used long before Europeans arrived in Canada. Adanrom (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed graffiti.[edit]

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

Series Sidebar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
I think specific articles on each is a good idea (although I think only one over-arching “Red River Métis” article would do the trick, rather than three); Add another for Ontario & Québec Métis & US Métis who don’t self-identify with the Red River continuüm (maybe merge with Atlantic? if the historical continuity justifies it?). Also, maybe we should make Anglo-Métis a redirect for countryborn? By the time the country-born started referring to themselves as Métis, the two traditions had begun to coalesce into one, correct? Also, I feel like there should be a distinction made between the different Métis language communities, although I have no idea how you would do it:
  1. Historically Cree
  2. Historically Ojibwe
  3. Historically Saulteaux
  4. Historically Métis French
  5. Historically Bungee English
  6. Historically Michif
  7. Historically English/Scots
  8. Currently Cree
  9. Currently Métis French
  10. Currently Michif
  11. Currently English the overwhelming majority
Here I have listed just the different language groups among the Red River Métis alone (so I don’t think it’s right to describe them as simply “the historically Michif-speaking Métis”); I haven’t taken into consideration the East coast Québec French Acadian French and Mi'kmaq populations. I know that’s a ridiculous list, I just thought I’d start by casting the net wide and then we can discuss condensing. Important questions are: How are each of these language groups regarded in terms of one another? Eg: Do the Michif-speaking Métis feel they are closely related to the Métis French-speaking Métis, and if so is that feeling stronger than any connection they might feel for English-speaking Métis? I think the first task here is uncovering or establishing a hierarchy/taxonomy of Métis peoples. What do you guys think? — Muckapedia17:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the term Western Métis to refer to Red River Métis as it is a more overarching term and more commonly used. My suggestions for disambiguation (should this be in Metis (disambiguation)
  • Metis (generic term, also spelled métis): french term referring to someone of mixed heritage
  • Métis and variants there-of: Ethnic term refer to a specific mix
  • Métis: ethnic French-Canadian term used from (date) to (date) to refer to the offspring of male French colonist with a Female Amerindien (is this where the specific tribes get mentioned)
  • Anglo-Métis, etc...
  • Métis Nation
  • Métis History
  • Métis languages (e.g. Mischif)
  • Music, culture, etc...
  • Métis Nation (legal status, concept) people: citizens of the Métis Nation. They have their own history and culture. Recognized as a separate Nation in Canada with s. 35 (?? check) rights as set out in Powley case. Métis Nation includes Ontario Métis Nation, Acadian Métis Nation, etc...

Specifics for each regional group:

Atlantic Métis
Acadian Métis
Québec Métis
Ontario Métis
Western Métis

I Support the reorganization :) Murmullo (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Métis or Metis[edit]

Metis doesn't need an accent in English. It may have come to English via French at some point, but it originated in Romanic or Latin and got the accent from French. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary observes it as an English word with no accent. Examples of its use in English are found dating back to the early 1800s. English doesn't generally use accents on words it has accepted. It seems that in recent years, the accent has been resurfacing in media, almost as an affectation rather than just an error. Using the accent in an English Wikipedia article doesn't help. Rgsswpg (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Métis in Canada has an accent because it was coined by the French settlers. I also think dropping the accent ignores the history of the word and the people. The original term métis, coined by habitants, referred to the offspring of a male French-voyageurs and female Native American. They are the ones who ended up founding what is now known as the Métis Nation. The generic term métis can be used without an accent.Murmullo (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBC, Supreme Court of Canada and Métis narion use an accent on Métis in English, further support for keeping the accent Murmullo (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many Cajuns have Canadian Metis Roots[edit]

DNA research is confirming that many Cajun people of Louisiana (whose ancestors originally migrated from Quebec) have Metis DNA markers. Adding a section on the Cajun / Louisiana offshoot branch of the Canadian Metis people is therefore well warranted.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision[edit]

We are currently (October 31, 2012) working on new additions to this article - If your wish to help see below.Moxy (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pls edit at User:Murmullo/sandbox

Reorganization of Métis articles[edit]

Intro:

  1. explain the French term métis
  2. acknowledge that it is a complex term with several meanings depending on region, historic vs contemporary use, legal use. [1]
  3. explain how term still gets used in modern context?



Deleted[edit]

Deleted on July 13, 2017 Not necessary as this should be in the sub-section about Canadian metis Métis communities descended from unions between Native Americans and white settlers have developed over the centuries since European contact. In Canada, Métis in the western regions were heavily involved in the fur trade, and formed communities that have retained a unique culture.

Sources[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

  • Paul R. Magocsi; Multicultural History Society of Ontario (1999). Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples. University of Toronto Press. p. 70.
  • Jacqueline Peterson (June 15, 2001). New Peoples: Being and Becoming Metis in North America. Minnesota Historical Society Press.
  • Nicole J. M. St-Onge; University of Regina. Canadian Plains Research Center (June 30, 2004). Saint-Laurent, Manitoba: Evolving Métis Identities, 1850-1914. CPRC Press.
  • Patrick C. Douaud (October 30, 2007). The Western Métis: Profile of a People. CPRC Press.
  • Irene Ternier Gordon (February 1, 2011). A People on the Move: The Métis of the Western Plains. Heritage House Publishing Co.
  • Martha Harroun Foster (January 30, 2006). We Know Who We Are: Métis Identity in a Montana Community. University of Oklahoma Press.
  • Brenda MacDougall (February 10, 2010). One of the Family: Metis Culture in Nineteenth-Century Northwestern Saskatchewan. UBC Press.
  • Thomas C. Pocklington; University of Regina. Canadian Plains Research Center (1991). The Government and Politics of the Alberta Métis Settlements. CPRC Press.

Clarification of Métis people in Canada[edit]

The specific meaning of métis in Canada varies depending on context. Further, there is no consensus on the definition of métis in Canada and the définition of Métis people. [2] [3]

Consequently, most authors on this subject start by clarifying the terminology they will use. Sometimes you will see the term halfbreed (sang-mêlé in French) as the generic term for mixed-race and Métis used to refer to Western Métis. 

[4] Other authors will make the distinction between small m métis and capitalized M Métis. [3]

History[edit]

Origins[edit]

The history of the Métis begins with the French coureurs des bois and voyageurs.

Western Métis[edit]

By 1815, we have evidence of the existence of a Métis community in Red River dependant on the fur trade. The hunter and trapper Jean-Baptiste Lajimonière asks Lord Selkark for Catholic priests in exchange for his services to the Red River colony [5]


Legal Status[edit]

Ontario[edit]

To receive an Aboriginal Status Card with The Ontario Metis Family Records Center you only need to demonstrate that you have aboriginal ancestry. [6] However, it is unclear whether this card allows people to have the same fishing and hunting rights as citizens of the Métis Nation. To become a registered member of the Communities of the Voyageur, you need to have aboriginal ancestry that is also French Canadian. To be granted citizenship within the Métis Nation of Ontario you must demonstrate Métis ancestry and swear that your a Métis in accordance with the following definition:[7]

Métis means a person who self-identifies as Métis, is of historic Métis Nation Ancestry, is distinct from other Aboriginal Peoples and is accepted by the Métis Nation.

In Nov. 2008, the Ontario government signed the Ontario-Métis Nation Framework Agreement with the Métis Nation of Ontario where it recognized the special status of the Métis Nation in Ontario and sets a framework for an intergovernmental relationship.[8]

Refs[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/metis/
  2. ^ Paul R. Magocsi; Multicultural History Society of Ontario (1999). Encyclopedia of Canada's Peoples. University of Toronto Press. p. 70.
  3. ^ a b Jennifer S.H. Brown. "Métis". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Vol. online version. Historica Foundation. Retrieved October 31, 2012.
  4. ^ Patrick C. Douaud (October 30, 2007). The Western Métis: Profile of a People. CPRC Press. p. 1
  5. ^ Canada-Québec 1534-2010, Jaques Lacoursiere, Jean Provencher, Denis Vaugeois, ISBN 978-2-89448-653-5 at page 268, citing Mgr Albert Tessier, Canadiennes. Fides, Montréal, 1962: 120. Lajimonière quitte la rivière Rouge le 1er novembre 1815. Il atteint Montréal deux mois plus tard et livre son message à Selkirk « au cours de la soirée du premier de l’an »
  6. ^ Ontario Metis Family Records Center
  7. ^ Métis Nation of Ontario Citizenship Application Form Métis Nation of Ontario Citizenship Application Form
  8. ^ [1] and [2]

Links[edit]

Interesting links that may not meet reference level but informative

The Metis Culture developed primarily in Detroit; Wisconsin & Minnesota especially south of Lake Superior[edit]

The Metis Culture developed primarily in Detroit; Wisconsin & Minnesota especially south of Lake Superior, and later in Red River, Manitoba. The first significant Metis settlement was Acadia but most preferred to call them selves Arcadians.[1] By the 1700s, the French presence in the Great Lakes region was well established, and even after Great Britain took control of Canada and the upper country in 1763 at the conclusion of the French and Indian War, young French-Canadian men continued to dominate the fur trade and live among the Indian tribes of the Great Lakes. It was their presence that established the foundation for the Métis culture that emerged there. [2]68.44.188.39Kevin Lajiness 11:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dgarneau/metis.htm
  2. ^ http://www.uwgb.edu/wisfrench/library/articles/metis.htm~~~~

External link suggestion[edit]

Hello,

  • (my apologies if I'm writing this incorrectly, this will only be my second foray into wikipedia)

Would it be possible to add this to the External Links - Western Canada section: Rupertsland Centre for Métis Research http://www.rupertsland.org/research/rcmr/

Would it be possible to add this to the External Links - Other section: metisinthecourts.ualberta.ca Site includes interviews with legal and history experts on Métis issues.

Many thanks, Rorossier (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done – 29611670.x (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

accent on the e leads to "bad title" page[edit]

I know that this is the correct spelling, but I tried to put the URL into a document (North American keyboard) and when I check the link afterwards it tells me "bad title". The accent is not represented, and so my machine cannot find the link. Is there anything one can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metawitch (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

accent on the e leads to "bad title" page[edit]

I know that this is the correct spelling, but I tried to put the URL into a document (North American keyboard) and when I check the link afterwards it tells me "bad title". The accent is not represented, and so my machine cannot find the link. Is there anything one can do?Metawitch (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new legal status in Canada[edit]

This will need to be added re legal status, there will be more to follow as the new definition takes root.Skookum1 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reorder sections[edit]

the article gives a very brief introduction and then immediately jumps into the modern controversy over legal status and modern identity. this is very confusing for a person who doesn't even know what a Métis is, much less has a stake in the legal interpretation. propose moving the "distribution" and "history" sections to just after the introduction, and move "self identity and legal status" to the bottom of the page. i have no political stake in this; it's just how i think *_people pages should be organized. for example the British_people article does it this way. i realize that putting this section at the bottom might convey an impression that it's not important, but the entire article is already about the Métis people and there is a separate métis article which prominently links here. Fennfoot (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

use of "race" in hatnote[edit]

that's so completely off base it needs no further comment; other wording for that must be found.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New ruling from Canada - is first paragraph inaccurate?[edit]

Metis just now are constitutionally considered "Indians" per a Supreme Court decision yesterday[1].

The first paragraph sort of implies this has been the case for a while. Just a request to correct it when the new information is edited in by someone for the page. Thanks.

142.163.93.160 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/metis-ruling/article29628869/

'aboriginal' or 'Aboriginal'?[edit]

Dear Patar knight,
I hope you are keeping well? Thank you for your recent edits on this article, which intrigued me and prompted me to send you the present query: are the "aboriginal" people of Canada ("aboriginal" = "people existing in a land before the arrival of colonists") also referred to with an upper case 'A', like the native population of Australia? My dictionaries have both spelling, and single out the Australian Aborigines as the only group with the upper case 'A'. If the same is done in Canada also, please would you kindly tell me if this is a new development? There's no rush, but thank you for letting me know, at your convenience.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted standard today is to capitalize, see [8], [9]. It's also recommended to to not just it as a standalone noun, but those edits would take more time. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patar knight,
Thank you very much for your prompt and informative reply; very interesting link you included; thanks. When you have more time, please amend the second sentence,: "It's also recommended...." as I don't understand the point you're trying to communicate; thank you in advance.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 16:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's recommended not to use "Aboriginal" as a stand alone noun as opposed to as an adjective in a noun phrase (e.g. "Aboriginals" vs "Aboriginal peoples", "an Aboriginal" vs. "An Aboriginal person"). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is now recommended to use Indigenous -see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/cbc-aboriginal-becomes-cbc-indigenous-1.3765790 Murmullo (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous is the more widely used term in Canada now. Indigenous is also capitalized in Canadian media to refer to Indigenous people, per the latest Canadian Press Style Guide: Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). OttawaAC (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Métis in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Métis in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly unlikely: "Geneticists estimate that 50 percent of today's population in Western Canada has some Aboriginal ancestry".[edit]

It seems **highly** unlikely to me that the Metis account for half of the population of Western Canada. The link for the reference for this statement is broken, but Googling the terms of the ref and I found the following, which is probably what it was referencing: <https://www.genealogy.com/ftm/l/a/j/Kevin-C-Lajiness-NJ/FILE/0010page.html>. This is not an authoritative source, and it makes wildly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the extent of the Metis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow of Arjuna (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"metis" vs "Metis" edit war[edit]

Does anyone want to support the IP's attempts to rewrite this section? IP has made 9 attempts so far (I think). This is typical, although the specific changes have varied. 'Lower case "m" refers to anyone with a 50/50 blood quantum and not necessarily someone with aboriginal ancestry. The noun is used around the world to describe people whom can be referred to as half breed.' seems particularly problematic. Meters (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Métis_in_Canada&oldid=1137030885"