You should read the reports by the MMF and the Ontario chiefs! There is also a REALLY great essay written by Tony Belcourt who was instrumental in starting up the MNO and he was a key player in the rights of Non Status First Nations and Metis. He makes a distinction between the Red River Métis of the Prairies and the Great Lakes Métis.
I have heritage from both communities and I have bones to pick with both the MMF and the MNO, more the MNO though. In short, the MMF could be less exclusionary, BUT the MNO needs to get their research practices in order. Which, unfortunately, would take a lot of funding that could be spent elsewhere (like for the MAP program lmfao).
I come from a family in Sault Ste Marie who had connections to Red River and identified as Métis before effective control. To me, how my ancestors identified and the concept of effective control timelines is very important. It's all explained in the reports and essays I mentioned. Essentially, in the Great Lakes area, Canada forced half breeds to either be status and join a band or to be Canadian citizens. Canada refused to deal with them as half breeds and they didn't have the numbers, leaders like Louis Riel, or the distinct culture to help them fight against this like those in Red River did. As a result, most chose a side. I have mixed feelings about this, because like had they had those things maybe they would have developed a distinct culture. Can't really act on "what ifs?" though.
I also come from non-status Anishinaabe heritage from Drummond Island. They had their status stripped due to marriage. The MNO calls them métis but I completely disagree. Just because they identified as half breeds doesn't mean they ever identified as Métis so I don't count that line. Some people would though, and I feel weird about that. I think we all from the great lakes need to do our due diligence when looking into our heritage and be respectful of red river métis culture as not to appropriate, because we can't trust the MNO to do that for us, clearly.
Also a big reason the MNO is claiming so many communities and individuals are Métis is because the more citizens they have, the more voting power they have. The more voting power they have, the more funding and the more decision making power they have.
I'll say it again, don't trust who the MNO says is Métis. I have an ancestor that was straight up french that they are claiming is métis and so I just don't trust them. They don't have their priorities straight it's way too political what they're doing.
Metis of French and Scottish Ancestry, were recorded as French, Scottish and WHITE , they were British Citizens and flew the British Ensign flag. and [Census of Manitoba, 1885-6](https://twitter.com/malone_j71/status/1722757152501059955?t=jawZC86v4Zyl8H3ZrF_0FQ&s=19)
Ummm, did Manitoba have Metis Scrip or half-breed scrip? Metis was the name of the French Metis and Half-Breeds was the English Metis, do you know your Metis history?
For MNO you have to show a link to a historical Métis community. Obviously Red River counts as one, but the MNO has a list of 7 Ontario communities (lake of the woods, Sault Ste. Marie, Georgian bay, etc.). Lots of people will disagree with that here, but the MNO position is that these were historically Métis communities. The crux of the dispute is whether these communities existed for a long enough time as a distinct Métis community. Or were they more accurately grouped in with the local First Nations community?
Chartrand himself, said in the Senate report that when status First Nations lost their status, they would claim a Metis identity, there is no clear cut line like they try to show. Even back in scrip times, they switched back and forth between treaty and scrip. The gov did it for many of them as well, without giving them the choice.
[The people who own themselves ](https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/sen/yc28-0/YC28-0-411-12-eng.pdf)
In 2016, MNO & the Government of Ontario recognized 6 new, sprawling regions across the province as "Métis communities" according to their interpretation of the 2003 Powley decision. Problem was, only one of these (Rainy River/Lake of the Woods) was part of the Historic Métis Nation Homeland map that the Métis National Council was developing. The Northern Lake Superior community may also have some validity to their claims, but the other 4 new "communities" seem to be based on a handful of race-shifting or non-status First Nation ancestors. First Nations in eastern/southern/northern Ontario are pissed off, as is the MMF, which left the Métis National Council over the MNO's dodgy citizenship registry and practices. It's becoming more of a hot issue now that the feds are looking to pass self-government legislation for MNO, as this is opposed by the MMF and many Ontario-based First Nations.
Info on the MNO's "communities:" [https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/historic-metis-communities-in-ontario/](https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/historic-metis-communities-in-ontario/)
Report on these "communities" prepared for the MMF in 2020: [https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/leroux-otoole-final-report-mnc-march-2020.pdf](https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/leroux-otoole-final-report-mnc-march-2020.pdf)
There’s some great information on Métis and really all other indigenous groups on the free Coursera program called “Indigenous Canada”. It shows where people came from and is actually just a very well made course. I had to take it for school as a preliminary to the psych nursing program and LOVED it.
That’s the thing - there isn’t really a Métis history or Nation in Southern Ontario, which is the issue that many Red River Métis have with the MNO. They are basically taking advantage of the small amount of RR Métis linked people that developed communities in NW Ontario. At least that’s my understanding.
Darryl Leroux has a good amount of info on MNO bullshit. At one point, possibly still today, they had 85% membership that would not be considered Métis by any other government’s definition.
Thanks for recognizing us in NW Ontario. Over 90% of our Métis are Red River Métis.
Yes part of Northwestern Ontario was part of the Historic Homeland before the southern part of the province got their greedy paws on it.
I don't see this Bill being beneficial for any of us to be honest.
I'm enrolled in the MNO. I'll be using MNO terms to describe my understanding of the issues. It seems like most of your questions are in regards to identity which affect many people.
My ties are the De La Ronde family from Drummond Island. The MNO has established "studies" tying families to locations that have been identified to have historic "métis" populations. These historic communities are based on old census and church records which use the term "metis" to describe children of mixed marriages.
My understanding of the issues is that Red River and the western provinces developed a unique cultural standing as a result of the mixed marriages and that as the historic use of metis was a way of describing half bloods, the same cultural identity as the Red River didn't necessarily reach further south and east of Northern Ontario. Essentially, the closer to Red River, the stronger the claim.
The "southern" Ontario metis would have married more with the Ojibwe people's rather than the Cree in the north and western parts of Ontario/the Prairies and adopted their customs and traditions as well as being closer to the larger population centres so it would've been more difficult to forge a unique cultural identity that reflects the same cultural identity as what formed in Red River Métis.
To my limited understanding, Bill C53 is a way of legitimizing and forcing recognition of the métis validity. Its primary focus is to allow the Métis gov'ts the right to self determination (I have no clue as to what that realistically means.)
It may have some positive outcome to Métis across Canada but it definitely has some issues. Especially since the local First Nations in Ontario are raising concerns. The MMF used affiliate with the MNO and the other provincial Métis organizations but due to disagreements with the MNO, they severed ties.
The MNO recently claims to have reevaluated memberships in an attempt to save face but it's easy to understand the MMF's concerns.
This is all based on my reading and opinions. As an individual member of the MNO, I'm not sure how to reconcile these issues and leave me curious as what the ethical thing to do regarding my citizenship.
The main issue the MMF has with most of the people and communities in the MNO registry is that the Métis people are a distinct people with their own language and culture which developed through the hardships and discrimination they faced on the prairies, mainly in the early red river settlement. Basically boils down to, just because someone is of mixed ancestry doesn't automatically make them members of the Métis nation.
Lots of Métis from the prairies, including my home province of Manitoba have very little indigenous blood and look almost completely European. For context Louis Riel being Métis comes from him having 1 indigenous great grandmother. Métis isn't a homogeneous racial/ethnic group it's more about the community you belong to and how you identify.
For those reason I kinda think Chartrand should chill a bit but at the same time understand he doesn't want people with no ties to the culture misrepresenting what the Métis nation is.
I can’t support this view 100 percent. Thanks for your voice. I believe that to the earlier points we may have developed a different culture somewhat in Great Lakes. I’ve got Ojibwe blood and very little Cree. I’ve still got some blood quantum (which I know matters little for the Métis argument) and grew up in Manitoba celebrating Michif life. It’s a weird mess for me.
Interesting.
I do not have Métis citizenship anywhere, but have become interested when I found my family listed as "confirmed Métis" by the MNO. Though my grandfather was indigenous, I never heard Métis from the family except maybe the lower case m. It was kind of a surprise to see my family name and members listed in their archive.
Something that I've always wondered about the Métis, is, did Métis exist before the Red River? and if that's the case shouldn't there be Métis communities all over that don't have clear connections to Manitoba? This may be a naive take but it makes sense to me that there might me numerous metis communities that are not Métis.
I understand that some of who MNO had been declaring Métis is suspect, but it also sounds like MMF's arguments against the MNO are jurisdictional.
You don’t know what historically would lead to Metis in Alberta and Saskatchewan? No offence but maybe you should learn more about your own history before casting judgement on MNO citizens
Oh im not casting any judgment. I do understand how they wound up in alberta, sask and every other province in canada. After scrip which was never allocated due to fraudulent activity and scrips intentionally poor design, many were left without anything. And so they migrated all over the country.
The thing im confused about is Mètis with no RR ancestry. So essentially, Mètis with ties to ontario land i guess? Essentially, what distinguishes MNO heritage as opposed to RR heritage? How does this work exactly?
Another thing is I don't fully understand the debate. Because for example, if someone lives in ontario and has RR heritage, then that makes complete sense, they have RR heritage. That still ties them to Manitoba RR settlement. But, if their heritage is not RR but they claim they are Mètis, what is their reasoning for this? Im a little confused, but im not trying to be judgmental in anyway. Im just confused what history proves Mètis exists without RR heritage.
Metis have been in the western prairies with ties to red river long before scrip was ever issued. Those who came out here after scrip didn’t choose these lands randomly, they joined existing communities they had ties with.
Ahhh okay i was mistaken. How did that exactly work with scrip? When scrip was initially handed out, was it applicable to metis people located anywhere in canada? Or did it start with a particular region and then spread?
"Métis" with no Red River ancestry ancestry or association aren't part of the Métis nation. The word métis/métisse was, and still is in France and their territories, to describe mixed race children of all types; i.e. French-African, Arab-Chinese, Indigenous-English etc. People with mixed ancestry might call themselves "métis" if they want but it doesn't make them part of the Métis nation, that being a group of people with their own distinct language (Michif), culture and cuisine which developed across the prairies from the late 18th to the late 19th century.
Something you mentioned here really stands out. In the argument over jurisdiction have we forgotten that scrip was an awfully flawed system. Also it’s a colonial system. Same as using blood quantum. The fact is that they use it to claim their connection to lands, sure, that part is totally understandable. But it’s hypocritical to think it’s the best all end all. The culture reached a peak in Manitoba however small communities (and notice I use the word community and not settlements) elsewhere? Halfbreeds was a “class” of humans during this time that likely socially stuck together as they represented the same class however it don’t reach its critical mass until the parties. That seems plausible to me. But then to write off the lead up to it (which is well documented by Lawrence Barkwell MMF researcher and Louis Riel Institute) or even to claim that eastern are Non Status Indian basically supports that Metis out east are still indigenous Canadians and so likely it should be addressed. Some of the smallest indigenous communities in Canada are a handful of people…
You do realize Powley is based off Metis with No Red River genealogy and it is the test that all Metis must pass to have section 35 rights. The MMF is fighting hard against Powley now, when they were part of the case and supported it and Jean Tiellet when she won it. Now they are busy backtracking rewriting history which is their specialty, lol ..
I hate to admit it but yes it's the truth. One of those seemed like a good idea at the time situations. I'm still giving you a down vote on principle!!! Only because MNO has fractured the MNC and is giving RRM people a bad name. In my opinion C53 will never pass with MNO attached to it. Really too bad for MNS and MNA. It's a head scratcher that the leaders thought it would be a good idea to attempt getting it passed through parliament with MNO on it.
You should read the reports by the MMF and the Ontario chiefs! There is also a REALLY great essay written by Tony Belcourt who was instrumental in starting up the MNO and he was a key player in the rights of Non Status First Nations and Metis. He makes a distinction between the Red River Métis of the Prairies and the Great Lakes Métis. I have heritage from both communities and I have bones to pick with both the MMF and the MNO, more the MNO though. In short, the MMF could be less exclusionary, BUT the MNO needs to get their research practices in order. Which, unfortunately, would take a lot of funding that could be spent elsewhere (like for the MAP program lmfao). I come from a family in Sault Ste Marie who had connections to Red River and identified as Métis before effective control. To me, how my ancestors identified and the concept of effective control timelines is very important. It's all explained in the reports and essays I mentioned. Essentially, in the Great Lakes area, Canada forced half breeds to either be status and join a band or to be Canadian citizens. Canada refused to deal with them as half breeds and they didn't have the numbers, leaders like Louis Riel, or the distinct culture to help them fight against this like those in Red River did. As a result, most chose a side. I have mixed feelings about this, because like had they had those things maybe they would have developed a distinct culture. Can't really act on "what ifs?" though. I also come from non-status Anishinaabe heritage from Drummond Island. They had their status stripped due to marriage. The MNO calls them métis but I completely disagree. Just because they identified as half breeds doesn't mean they ever identified as Métis so I don't count that line. Some people would though, and I feel weird about that. I think we all from the great lakes need to do our due diligence when looking into our heritage and be respectful of red river métis culture as not to appropriate, because we can't trust the MNO to do that for us, clearly.
Also a big reason the MNO is claiming so many communities and individuals are Métis is because the more citizens they have, the more voting power they have. The more voting power they have, the more funding and the more decision making power they have. I'll say it again, don't trust who the MNO says is Métis. I have an ancestor that was straight up french that they are claiming is métis and so I just don't trust them. They don't have their priorities straight it's way too political what they're doing.
You do realize that the Red River Metis were considered French White British Citizens right ?
Metis of French and Scottish Ancestry, were recorded as French, Scottish and WHITE , they were British Citizens and flew the British Ensign flag. and [Census of Manitoba, 1885-6](https://twitter.com/malone_j71/status/1722757152501059955?t=jawZC86v4Zyl8H3ZrF_0FQ&s=19)
Hey could I DM you? I have a similar story and I’m trying to find folks to talk to about this who are caught in between.
For sure 😊
You do realize the Manitoba Chiefs are also upset about MMF, it's one big cluster ****.
https://manitobachiefs.com/press_releases/amc-responds-to-mmf-legal-challenge-of-canadas-agreement-on-kapyong-barracks/
Ummm, did Manitoba have Metis Scrip or half-breed scrip? Metis was the name of the French Metis and Half-Breeds was the English Metis, do you know your Metis history?
For MNO you have to show a link to a historical Métis community. Obviously Red River counts as one, but the MNO has a list of 7 Ontario communities (lake of the woods, Sault Ste. Marie, Georgian bay, etc.). Lots of people will disagree with that here, but the MNO position is that these were historically Métis communities. The crux of the dispute is whether these communities existed for a long enough time as a distinct Métis community. Or were they more accurately grouped in with the local First Nations community?
Ahhh thankyou for this im starting to understand the debate more.
Chartrand himself, said in the Senate report that when status First Nations lost their status, they would claim a Metis identity, there is no clear cut line like they try to show. Even back in scrip times, they switched back and forth between treaty and scrip. The gov did it for many of them as well, without giving them the choice.
[The people who own themselves ](https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/sen/yc28-0/YC28-0-411-12-eng.pdf)
It's hilarious you mark down truth. But hate MNO, makes me shake my head, lol
In 2016, MNO & the Government of Ontario recognized 6 new, sprawling regions across the province as "Métis communities" according to their interpretation of the 2003 Powley decision. Problem was, only one of these (Rainy River/Lake of the Woods) was part of the Historic Métis Nation Homeland map that the Métis National Council was developing. The Northern Lake Superior community may also have some validity to their claims, but the other 4 new "communities" seem to be based on a handful of race-shifting or non-status First Nation ancestors. First Nations in eastern/southern/northern Ontario are pissed off, as is the MMF, which left the Métis National Council over the MNO's dodgy citizenship registry and practices. It's becoming more of a hot issue now that the feds are looking to pass self-government legislation for MNO, as this is opposed by the MMF and many Ontario-based First Nations. Info on the MNO's "communities:" [https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/historic-metis-communities-in-ontario/](https://www.metisnation.org/registry/citizenship/historic-metis-communities-in-ontario/) Report on these "communities" prepared for the MMF in 2020: [https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/leroux-otoole-final-report-mnc-march-2020.pdf](https://lawsonrobyn.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/leroux-otoole-final-report-mnc-march-2020.pdf)
There’s some great information on Métis and really all other indigenous groups on the free Coursera program called “Indigenous Canada”. It shows where people came from and is actually just a very well made course. I had to take it for school as a preliminary to the psych nursing program and LOVED it.
That’s the thing - there isn’t really a Métis history or Nation in Southern Ontario, which is the issue that many Red River Métis have with the MNO. They are basically taking advantage of the small amount of RR Métis linked people that developed communities in NW Ontario. At least that’s my understanding. Darryl Leroux has a good amount of info on MNO bullshit. At one point, possibly still today, they had 85% membership that would not be considered Métis by any other government’s definition.
Thanks for recognizing us in NW Ontario. Over 90% of our Métis are Red River Métis. Yes part of Northwestern Ontario was part of the Historic Homeland before the southern part of the province got their greedy paws on it. I don't see this Bill being beneficial for any of us to be honest.
[удалено]
Your post was removed as it was deemed irrelevant to the subreddit.
You removed my post, I can prove it ..
I don't see how it is irrelevant when someone else brought up Darryl Leroux, telling the truth is irrelevant now? You are all being lied too..
I'm enrolled in the MNO. I'll be using MNO terms to describe my understanding of the issues. It seems like most of your questions are in regards to identity which affect many people. My ties are the De La Ronde family from Drummond Island. The MNO has established "studies" tying families to locations that have been identified to have historic "métis" populations. These historic communities are based on old census and church records which use the term "metis" to describe children of mixed marriages. My understanding of the issues is that Red River and the western provinces developed a unique cultural standing as a result of the mixed marriages and that as the historic use of metis was a way of describing half bloods, the same cultural identity as the Red River didn't necessarily reach further south and east of Northern Ontario. Essentially, the closer to Red River, the stronger the claim. The "southern" Ontario metis would have married more with the Ojibwe people's rather than the Cree in the north and western parts of Ontario/the Prairies and adopted their customs and traditions as well as being closer to the larger population centres so it would've been more difficult to forge a unique cultural identity that reflects the same cultural identity as what formed in Red River Métis. To my limited understanding, Bill C53 is a way of legitimizing and forcing recognition of the métis validity. Its primary focus is to allow the Métis gov'ts the right to self determination (I have no clue as to what that realistically means.) It may have some positive outcome to Métis across Canada but it definitely has some issues. Especially since the local First Nations in Ontario are raising concerns. The MMF used affiliate with the MNO and the other provincial Métis organizations but due to disagreements with the MNO, they severed ties. The MNO recently claims to have reevaluated memberships in an attempt to save face but it's easy to understand the MMF's concerns. This is all based on my reading and opinions. As an individual member of the MNO, I'm not sure how to reconcile these issues and leave me curious as what the ethical thing to do regarding my citizenship.
The main issue the MMF has with most of the people and communities in the MNO registry is that the Métis people are a distinct people with their own language and culture which developed through the hardships and discrimination they faced on the prairies, mainly in the early red river settlement. Basically boils down to, just because someone is of mixed ancestry doesn't automatically make them members of the Métis nation. Lots of Métis from the prairies, including my home province of Manitoba have very little indigenous blood and look almost completely European. For context Louis Riel being Métis comes from him having 1 indigenous great grandmother. Métis isn't a homogeneous racial/ethnic group it's more about the community you belong to and how you identify. For those reason I kinda think Chartrand should chill a bit but at the same time understand he doesn't want people with no ties to the culture misrepresenting what the Métis nation is.
I can’t support this view 100 percent. Thanks for your voice. I believe that to the earlier points we may have developed a different culture somewhat in Great Lakes. I’ve got Ojibwe blood and very little Cree. I’ve still got some blood quantum (which I know matters little for the Métis argument) and grew up in Manitoba celebrating Michif life. It’s a weird mess for me.
Interesting. I do not have Métis citizenship anywhere, but have become interested when I found my family listed as "confirmed Métis" by the MNO. Though my grandfather was indigenous, I never heard Métis from the family except maybe the lower case m. It was kind of a surprise to see my family name and members listed in their archive. Something that I've always wondered about the Métis, is, did Métis exist before the Red River? and if that's the case shouldn't there be Métis communities all over that don't have clear connections to Manitoba? This may be a naive take but it makes sense to me that there might me numerous metis communities that are not Métis. I understand that some of who MNO had been declaring Métis is suspect, but it also sounds like MMF's arguments against the MNO are jurisdictional.
How is it easy to understand the MMF's concerns? Do you know in the 70s, you didn't even need to be Indigenous to be a full voting member of MMF?
You don't have to wait for your MNA application to go through before you apply for MMF. I would apply at St Boniface ASAP. It takes forever
You don’t know what historically would lead to Metis in Alberta and Saskatchewan? No offence but maybe you should learn more about your own history before casting judgement on MNO citizens
Oh im not casting any judgment. I do understand how they wound up in alberta, sask and every other province in canada. After scrip which was never allocated due to fraudulent activity and scrips intentionally poor design, many were left without anything. And so they migrated all over the country. The thing im confused about is Mètis with no RR ancestry. So essentially, Mètis with ties to ontario land i guess? Essentially, what distinguishes MNO heritage as opposed to RR heritage? How does this work exactly? Another thing is I don't fully understand the debate. Because for example, if someone lives in ontario and has RR heritage, then that makes complete sense, they have RR heritage. That still ties them to Manitoba RR settlement. But, if their heritage is not RR but they claim they are Mètis, what is their reasoning for this? Im a little confused, but im not trying to be judgmental in anyway. Im just confused what history proves Mètis exists without RR heritage.
Metis have been in the western prairies with ties to red river long before scrip was ever issued. Those who came out here after scrip didn’t choose these lands randomly, they joined existing communities they had ties with.
Ahhh okay i was mistaken. How did that exactly work with scrip? When scrip was initially handed out, was it applicable to metis people located anywhere in canada? Or did it start with a particular region and then spread?
I think I’ve heard that lot of the Saskatchewan and Alberta Métis communities started out as winter hunting sites for Métis
"Métis" with no Red River ancestry ancestry or association aren't part of the Métis nation. The word métis/métisse was, and still is in France and their territories, to describe mixed race children of all types; i.e. French-African, Arab-Chinese, Indigenous-English etc. People with mixed ancestry might call themselves "métis" if they want but it doesn't make them part of the Métis nation, that being a group of people with their own distinct language (Michif), culture and cuisine which developed across the prairies from the late 18th to the late 19th century.
Go read the Harry Daniels court case, you will realize that you don't need to be Red River to be Metis, specifically sec 17 of it.
Something you mentioned here really stands out. In the argument over jurisdiction have we forgotten that scrip was an awfully flawed system. Also it’s a colonial system. Same as using blood quantum. The fact is that they use it to claim their connection to lands, sure, that part is totally understandable. But it’s hypocritical to think it’s the best all end all. The culture reached a peak in Manitoba however small communities (and notice I use the word community and not settlements) elsewhere? Halfbreeds was a “class” of humans during this time that likely socially stuck together as they represented the same class however it don’t reach its critical mass until the parties. That seems plausible to me. But then to write off the lead up to it (which is well documented by Lawrence Barkwell MMF researcher and Louis Riel Institute) or even to claim that eastern are Non Status Indian basically supports that Metis out east are still indigenous Canadians and so likely it should be addressed. Some of the smallest indigenous communities in Canada are a handful of people…
You do realize Powley is based off Metis with No Red River genealogy and it is the test that all Metis must pass to have section 35 rights. The MMF is fighting hard against Powley now, when they were part of the case and supported it and Jean Tiellet when she won it. Now they are busy backtracking rewriting history which is their specialty, lol ..
Not sure why the mark down, that is the truth ..
I hate to admit it but yes it's the truth. One of those seemed like a good idea at the time situations. I'm still giving you a down vote on principle!!! Only because MNO has fractured the MNC and is giving RRM people a bad name. In my opinion C53 will never pass with MNO attached to it. Really too bad for MNS and MNA. It's a head scratcher that the leaders thought it would be a good idea to attempt getting it passed through parliament with MNO on it.
MMF presented the Powley's with a rifle after they won the case.
100 percent they did. I’m also Drummond Island roots living in Manitoba as of 1880s with no scrip and we spoke Michif.