Talk:Métis people (Canada)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Page move
I moved this page here for the reason given at Talk:Métis. John FitzGerald 01:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Black Scots?
Is there a source for this term? I've done considerable reading on Metis history and have not come across it anywhere else. I doubt its validity, the anglo-metis peoples were commonly known as countryborn, native english, mixed bloods, halfbreeds, or by francophones as les metis anglais during the 19th century. Wyldkat 9:08, 12, Nov 2006
[edit] Bunge?
I seem to remember a language called Bunge or Bungee (pronounced BUN-gee?) which was a mixture of Cree/Obibway and Scot Gaelic spoken by Metis of Scottish origin. Anyone know anything about it? I can't find a thing online, but I thought it might be worth a mention on here. Although, perhaps the lack of evidence is proof it shouldn't be mentioned..... CWood 23:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Article has been written, maybe by you who knows: Bungie; could probably use expansion, more examples if anyone has any.Skookum1 17:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IPA
I've changed the SAMPA to IPA and removed the convertIPA template. But I'm not at all convinced that the second suggested pronunciation of the French can be correct. By the way I've not added the IPA notice template, on the assumption that it's redundant when using the IPA template (so that the characters should display correctly). Any views on this? rossb 23:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The second pronunciation was provided as an example of how Métis say it when speaking French (as opposed to Mechif). The note explaining that was removed. If the transcription is wrong it's my fault. Should be like the pronunciation in français de France but with short vowels replacing long. John FitzGerald 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The way the pronunciations are written is probably confusing/ambiguous to many readers. . . .
[edit] Eastern Métis
This article only contains information on the Western Métis (i.e. from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia) with no information on the Eastern Métis (i.e. from Labrador, Quebec, et cetera). As I understand it, they are two seperate but related peoples with different cultures and histories. I don't feel I know enough about them to add to them to this article, but if anyone else does know more, please add it. --Lesouris 17:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
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:
- 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)
- 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)
Thankyou, that is helpful. Raisaroo -- 16:37, January 10, 2006 (Mountain time)
The Powley Ruling in 2003 (Supreme Court of Canada) was a landmark decision in terms of legally recognizing the existence of Metis in eastern Canada; essentially the court said that although the definition of Metis does not apply to just anyone of mixed aboriginal and european heritage, it does apply to people of mixed heritage with distinct customs and traditions recognizable to the group's identity and separate from both their aboriginal and european forebears. The Powley Decision conferred aboriginal rights specifically to a group is Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario but left the door open for other self-identified Metis groups (like those in Quebec and Labrador) to pursue formal recognition.Caribougrrl 20:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
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)--
[edit] Merge?
How come there's a separate article for the word Métis? The modern ethnic group in North America is already dealt with in Métis people, and the use of this French word to refer to people elsewhere is explained under Mestizo. If that article is intended to refer to anyone of part-French ancestry from Indochina to the Pacific to the Caribbean, then I think it should be much more explicit about that. //Big Adamsky 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Population
It was blank, so I put in the # my book said. Cameron Nedland 04:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Martin
Is he really partially Metis? I have not read anything like that about him from any of the websites. Can someone please verify or confirm this fact? AWDRacer 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recognition
I don't believe that the Canadian government recognized the Metis until after the rebellion had been underway for quite some time. The statement stating that the feds had already recognized them as a legitimate government is incorrect, I believe. Please confirm or disprove. Homagetocatalonia 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clarify?
The article says that the Metis were the first to use saddles. That is certainly not true worldwide, and that should be clarified.195.221.241.130 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Saddles?
I too came here to comment on the following
Metis people were famous for their horsemanship and breeding of horses. They were the first people to use saddles and to have horse races.
Does the author mean the first of the indigenous peoples? If not, then this statement about 'the first people to use saddles and to have horse races' must be wrong, as europeans bought the horse to america in the 15th century.
The Metis people didn't even exist until the seventeenth century-- a few thousand years after the development of saddles. I'm assuming that horseraces date back to antiquity. I'm taking this out Stevecudmore 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Métis people (Canada) and Métis people (USA)
What's the rationale? The Sioux have a borderland history much like the Métis' (see David G. McCrady, Living with Strangers: The Nineteenth-Century Sioux and the Canadian-American Borderlands (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2006)), but Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles for "Sioux (Canada)" and "Sioux (USA)". The Métis have traditionally lived close to the national border and crossed it frequently. It would make more sense to have one article on "Métis people" with a section on "Métis experiences in the United States." Llajwa 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose merge. Distinct history, different political status. --Qyd 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose for the reasons Skookum stated. Fremte 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. Different countries, different history. --Mayfare 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- ""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)
[edit] Quebec
Why is Quebec not mentioned at all (except in the name of an external link)? Badagnani (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pronunciation
"The Métis (pronounced /ˈmeɪtɨs/ "MAY-tis" in English" must surely be wrong: the citation for this statement is the Oxford English Dictionary, but that has to be of only marginal relevance given that the vast majority of Métis are in Canada. In my current overseas location I don't have a current Oxford Canadian Dictionary or other Canadian reference text at hand but I certainly well recall the universal merriment that greeted former premier Ross Thatcher of Saskatchewan pronouncing the word as the Wikipedia article suggests is correct ("Métis at Tim Horton's for coffee eh?") The OED is British English; it is Canadian English that is appropriate here. Masalai (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Culture:finger weaving
Prior to my edit the article described the Ceinture fléchée sash as being "made by [sic] of yarn 'woven with one's fingers.'" The latter phrase was a 'Text to display' aliased link to an as-yet-nonexistent article titled 'finger weaving', and as such looked rather odd on the page, being displayed in red type, yet not looking like a very likely prospective article title! (Technical: Should Wikimedia use alias text with a 'faux' link?)
That phrasing ("one's fingers") also seemed to imply (rather improbably) that the wearer must have fashioned the article himself. After cleaning up the wording (retaining the link to a future 'finger weaving') article, I was left with several questions. The factual questions are;
The term seems to imply weaving without the use of a loom. Is it possible and practical to weave a long strip of fabric in an elaborate pattern without a two-dimensional holding fixture? Is this a real technique?
Is it a traditional technique for making Ceinture fléchée sashes?
Has a similar technique been used elsewhere?
The organizational question is this; If this technique is used elsewhere there may be a need for the proposed finger weaving article, but if it is in fact used for and is unique to the Ceinture fléchée, shouldn't the technique section of that article be the place to describe it, rather than in a separate article?
Mrnatural (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)