Sorry for going a little off topic in the OP. The issues raised are fascinating.
"How I had my cake and ate it too: White people bitching in postmodern North America."
2: There's another part to this -- "How I had my cake and ate it too, and the resulting trauma that should generate your sympathy".
Exactly. And I think you're totally right about codification, heebie.
Out of curiosity I visited the website of one of these supposed Métis nations in Québec, and it was the scammiest thing I had ever seen. I kept expecting a photo of Trump to pop up as I scrolled. "Send us money for our legal bills! We're so close to winning!"
3: Also, "Sure I ate the last cake, and I'm eating another cake right now, but how can I be sure about cakes to come? No wonder I can't sleep at night"
This is a simpleminded reaction, but there's a necessary conflict between tight rules that are inevitably going to be arbitrary and unjust around the edges, and loose rules that require the people participating in the system to act in good faith.
I guess that was a reaction to Tallbear's take in the second article, suggesting that people with some type of claim to indigenous status of some sort thoughtfully consider what their relationship is to indigenous communities and whether claiming indigenous status makes sense in light of the full context. This seems like a good way for anyone operating in good faith to behave, but not something that helps much in terms of resolving legal disputes between people who aren't operating in good faith.
To some extent, the legal status quo is holding firm and not admitting (afaik) any of the "Eastern Métis" groups in the first article to federal recognition. The problem is more extralegal: the groups persist, the issue of legitimacy gets muddled in public view, and many of their members truly, deeply believe they are doing the right thing and honoring their ancestors and so on. (They're definitely not all scammers.) There's a hard knot of motivated reasoning that keeps getting pulled tighter, even in the face of legal setbacks.
The Powley decision itself is tricky: I'm quite familiar with the history of that community, and I don't really know what to think. The Twitter guy does have a point. At the same time, there are tons of kinship ties between SSM and other Ontario communities and Red River/prairie communities, and I'm glad it's not my job to decide where to draw the line.
Me too, even though under normal circumstances I'd love to have arbitrary power over the lives of Canadians.
There's a continuing lively debate about whether an ancestor of mine, a woman who married a Frenchman in Beauport, Quebec in 1634, was French or Algonquin. Some other descendants -- there are a lot of us, because that's how it works -- tried to get official recognition of her as a qualifying ancestor. Nope: https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/d/dd/Grenier-41.pdf
Same woman mentioned in the first article?
In the case of the MNRS, its "grand chief " stubbornly defended the organization's policy to include a French woman as an Indigenous root ancestor during his testimony in the Parent case in October 2016. In his answer to the federal prosecutor's question about why he was discussing information about a specific MNRS root ancestor in an unprompted manner, Lavoie explained: "It's because [Françoise Grenier, married in 1634] is very contested by a lot of people who say that that she's not Métis, but we have documents from the period that say that there were no European women on the territory." Lavoie's statement is plainly at odds with my own genealogical research; I trace my ancestry back to at least half a dozen other French women in the St. Lawrence valley as of 1634--in addition to Grenier, who appears four different times in my family tree. When she was cited in another court as an Indigenous ancestor, that court found that there was no solid evidence of her indigeneity.
If she was from Egypt, she'd be both not European and not indigenous.
And if one's claim is meaningfully based on a single individual born 400 years ago, it seems to me that on any reasonable criteria, it's bullshit. If her great grandchildren had been accepted (and married into) an indigenous community, then you'd have a bunch of other people you could base a claim on. But just her?
Even if she appears 3 times in your tree, that's still 3 out of 8,000 or whatever slots.
I booted "Micmac Woman b. 1620-" out of a cousin's family tree, on the strength of DNA evidence. Pretty sure someone had uploaded a photograph.
But from the link in 10:
Many of the speakers have adopted traditional aboriginal ways of life and are actively involved in the aboriginal communities. Both [person A] and [person B] described their involvement in making drums from natural resources and in singing traditional native songs. All the speakers are very proud of their aboriginal heritage. [...] I was impressed with the oral history presented by many people at the hearing. It established they and their families were living and following an aboriginal culture. They live in Algonquin communities and are very active in their community.
How do you get anyone to back down from a position like that? It's like trying to pull someone out of a cult.
That and the profound denial of history on both small and large scale, yeah.
"It's because [Françoise Grenier, married in 1634] is very contested by a lot of people who say that that she's not Métis, but we have documents from the period that say that there were no European women on the territory."
But there were some European women in New France in the 1630s (vastly outnumbered by European men? Yes [hence the Filles du Roi scheme later in the 17th century...]. But still present, nevertheless), so this claim is just silly, and is easily refuted by looking at the RC parish registers for Notre Dame, Quebec, which begin in 1621...
Françoise Grenier seems to have been European. Wow, what a rabbit hole.
Wow, what a rabbit hole.
I'm going to assume that's a Métis insult meaning "slutty".
19 and 20 are exactly right.
16 But in 10 generations, no one married anyone of indigenous heritage?
Was she identified/characterized as "une sauvage" in the record of her marriage to Noël Langlois in 1634? No, she was not. She was almost certainly a European in La Nouvelle France, with origins in the Old France.
There's a lot of nonsense out there concerning French-Canadian ancestry. There's even more nonsense, perhaps, when it comes to Irish Canadian ancestry (I'm sorry, but no: our ancestors were NOT once the kings and queens of Ireland...). They were smallholder tenant farmers who emigrated to Upper Canada in search of land; and who never even gave a thought, I'm pretty sure, to the Indigenous peoples whose land they were usurping...
22.2: Apparently not, in a significant number of cases. "Of the 7,714 people on the AOO voters' list, it appears that 3,016 rely solely on one or more of the above-named individuals for their eligibility. This accounts for about 39% of the entire AOO voters' list." My uncharitable assumption in 16 was that a number of the people testifying on Françoise's behalf in court were looking at a drastic change in their self-understanding.
I guess I should feel bad that I'd need to ask a cousin if I wanted my great-grandparents' names. But at least I'm accurate for the generations after that.
I hope somebody wrote stuff down and will email it to me.
My nephew just asked for a family tree. Going to have a son at the end of the year, and wanted to think about names. He didn't seem that hot on Ichabod, although we descend from one. Maybe he'll want to go with Noel.
My nephew just asked for a family tree. Going to have a son at the end of the year, and wanted to think about names. He didn't seem that hot on Ichabod, although we descend from one. Maybe he'll want to go with Noel.
If you make up stuff about a Canadian ancestor, you might cause a funny court case in 400 years.
I have trouble believing that anything turns on whether this one woman turns out to be indigenous or not. Even if she really turned out to be indigenous, if they have no historical connection to the Metis then what difference does it make?
I have to admit that I do in fact prize individualism over collective well-being, and the block quote made me roll my eyes.
Anyway, maybe I can go to Canada this summer. They are supposed to open up in August.
The proper metaphor for people claiming through Françoise Grenier isn't 'one-drop.' It's 'subatomic.'
It's the homeopathic theory of heritage.
34: Yeah, the author of the first piece, Darryl Leroux, wrote an entire book on this subject, which I don't really recommend unless you are truly, passionately interested in French-Canadian genealogy (alas, I am not) -- the basic point can probably be gleaned from the website. Not endorsing it per se, but there it is.
31: I tend to agree, although I think she's mostly talking sense in this very specific context. Hey Walt, you and your family are okay in the low countries, I hope?
37: Yeah, nothing happened near us. I'm not clear on what happened, because it flooded to the east of us, and to the west of us. One theory I've heard is just that where we live is very flat, and the places with flooding were in valleys.
Glad to hear it. This can become the European flooding thread if you all want one. I'm sure there's some way to blame colonialism for it. Also, holy shit.