A mini-series on misconceptions about the Métis: Part 1

tânisi kiyawâw, hello everyone! It’s been a while since I’ve written about Métis identity, and since the same misconceptions keep coming up, I thought I’d spend a little time addressing them, yet again. I’ve written about Métis identity before, specifically in this piece “You’re Métis? So which of your parents is an Indian?” and in the more clearly titled “Who are the Métis?” Feel free to read those as well, or the consolidated and edited version available in Chapter 4 of Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis & Inuit Issues in Canada.

So here’s the format. I’m going to list a misconception that I see being repeated, and I’ll break it down for you. I’m going to honour the fact that I have the attention span of a gnat, and not attempt to do it all in one go – hence the mini-series. I’ll address the next misconception when I get another burst of energy.

Métis is a French word that means “mixed” therefore Métis = mixed race people

Yes, the word “métis” originally comes from the French language. In French, it does literally mean “mixed,” though historically it was first used to refer to unions between people of different classes, before expanding to refer to people of different races once that social construct became all-encompassing. It has also been used to mark down a person’s occupation – métis, if they had more than one job description, for example.

In the context of Indigeneity, it was one of the terms applied by colonizers to the offspring of European and Indigenous people – many different terms were used by different colonial powers at different times and in different locations. In the Canadian context, it has evolved to refer to a specific group of Indigenous People with a shared history, culture, and geography – more on that later.

It’s worth mentioning that we pronounce Métis differently than it is in French. We say may-TEA. In French, that final ‘s’ is almost always pronounced whether it’s spelled métis or métisse – meh-TIS – and don’t argue with me on this. Go on and search “how to pronounce Métis in French.” One of the languages that we speak is Michif – a blend of Cree, French, a dash sometimes of Orcadian Scots, and in some areas, a lot of Anishinaabemowin. Thus when we say “Métis” we aren’t speaking French. We are speaking Michif.

A lot of people (Francophones generally) want to assert ownership over the term and its definition. OH WELL. The French were brutal colonizers, just as the English were, no matter the stories they tell themselves to the contrary. You can be a colonizer AND experience colonization at the same time. Insisting that the term is FRENCH and can only have the meaning it has in FRENCH is just ongoing colonization, and it’s boring.

I’m not claiming that no other definitions of the word exist – obviously it continues to mean “mixed” in the French language in France, here in Canada, and in other countries the French colonized. That, however, is not the context that matters.

The term Métis has legal recognition in the Canadian Constitution. In Section 35(2) we are listed as an Aboriginal people of Canada along with “Indians” (that’s the legal term, but the more common one is First Nations, which is a term that itself encompasses hundreds of culturally distinct Indigenous nations), and Inuit. This is not constitutional recognition of “mixed race people.” Claiming so is patently ridiculous – so stop it.

Who is “Indian” (a First Nations person), Métis, or Inuk (the singular of Inuit), has been further hashed out in case law, legislation, and policy. If someone offers you a really simple and clear definition, then I can pretty much guarantee you their definition is bogus. It is not at all clear and simple in Canadian law. I’ll get back to this later.

The decision to use the term Métis to refer to my specific Indigenous nation, was a political one made at a time when we were going to be excluded from the repatriated Canadian Constitution of 1982. Our political Elders made a strategic decision to use a term that is less disparaging than some of the other common names for our people. Maybe it’s led to some confusion in the present and a lot of folks want to retcon our actual history with their suppositions, but it got the job done, and it’s really, really hard to change the constitution, so here we are.

Historically, like all Indigenous nations, we have had several names. Some are exonyms (applied to us by people who are NOT us) such as Métis, Half-Breeds, Bois-Brûlés etc., and some are endonyms (names we call ourselves by) otipêyimisowak, Michif, etc. Métis people have called ourselves by different names at different times, in different locations – this is not some confusion on our part as to who we are, but rather reflects the diversity of our experiences. Again, this is common for most Indigenous Peoples. “Cree” and “Les Cris”, for example, are exonyms. Various endonyms include: nêhiyawak, nêhithawak, eeyou/eenou, and so on. Each endonym reflects a specific “Cree” people within a specific time and space. It can be advantageous to use a common name, even an exonym like Cree or Métis, to organize around. However, individual Métis can also refer to themselves with other terms, and this in no way invalidates their identities within our Nation.

This misconception is one of the most minor really, when it comes to discussions people tend to think they are qualified to have about who we are as Métis. It’s also the silliest, imo, so I thought I’d start with it first.