Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Beyond binaries: mixed-blood Indigenous inequalities

Beyond binaries: mixed-blood Indigenous inequalities This article explores existing research related to mixed-blood Indigenous individuals in an effort to reveal a more complete picture of social inequality that exists within and between the binary categorization of Indigenous and non- Indigenous within Canada. Tracing a line through past and present discriminatory assimilationist policies, this article reveals the pervasive challenges associated with living as a mixed-blood Indigenous person in this country. Marked by a perpetual struggle to gain recognition from both Indigenous and settler populations, individuals living within this marginal identity face a structure of inequality that is little explored in contemporary research literature. Keywords Canada, Indian status, Indigenous, inequality, Métis, mixed-blood Over the past few decades, there have been several Introduction significant modifications related to government recognition In much of the Indigenous scholarship in Canada that and Indian status. Of particular note was the addition of presently exists, sociological perspectives related to Métis (one of Canada’s three recognized Indigenous Indigenous Peoples in this country tend to be centred on groups, encompassing a distinct culture reflecting their binary conversations related to differences and inequalities blend of Indigenous and European ancestry) as a recognized apparent between Indigenous and non-Indigenous popu- Indigenous people group under Section 35(2) of the lations. While certainly important, these broad stroke Constitution Act 1982 (Bell, 1991). Furthermore, Bill C-31 conversations tend to diminish each of these people groups was introduced to amend the Indian Act 1985; the into a homogeneous categorization that betrays the true amendment removed the mechanism that formerly stripped diversity inherent therein (Satzewich & Wotherspoon, 2000; an Indigenous woman of her status upon her marriage to a Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). The impossibility of fitting the non-Indigenous man (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s sheer diversity and complexity of over 600 Indigenous Association of Canada, 2018). Both of these developments, groups into simplistic European-imposed categories has alongside other gains, marked significant milestones in the resulted in a variety of complications and exclusions that are re-conceptualization of Indian status and Indigeneity, as felt and fought differently within each Indigenous society they opened up new legal avenues for government (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). Perhaps most importantly, recognition of these identities. While these may be these conversations fail to recognize the lived realities and perceived in many ways as advancements, they should not struggles of those people who fall somewhere in-between be understood as broad sweeping wins on the side of the seeming duality of Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Indigenous Nations. Rather, these changes represent After over a century of exploitative and assimilatory amendments to government-led assimilatory polices that politics, Canada has established a foundation of deep continue to govern Indigenous rights and recognition in structural inequalities alongside a distrustful and strained Canada (Dennis, 2015; Lawrence, 2004). relationship between the Canadian government and As the boundaries of Indigeneity continue to be Indigenous Nations. Critical to the inflammatory friction contested, defended, redrawn, and reconstituted, there is that currently characterizes the federal government’s little research and recognition of the structural inequalities relationship with Indigenous Peoples is the identification marker known as Indian status. Simultaneously a sanctioned label for structural racism and a recognition of rights, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and maintaining Indian status has come to mean many things. Labrador, Canada Remarkably, Indian status has become so enmeshed with Corresponding author: rights and recognition within the Indigenous political Heather Dicks, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of landscape that one of the most prominent struggles in Newfoundland and Labrador, 230 Elizabeth Avenue, St. John’s, NL A1C relation to the issue of status has been a call for its expansion, 5S7, Canada. Email: hcdicks@mun.ca rather than its removal. 2 AlterNative 00(0) that are fomented through these processes. Specifically, to coalesce into firmer manifestations, ultimately culmi- research fails to consider the experience of those who have nating in the infamous Indian Act 1876. had to forge identities on the margins of government- The Indian Act 1876 essentially built upon the earlier regulated identity markers. This article will look at those assimilation policies to establish a crude framework, which scholars who are engaged in research and discussion was artificially laid onto Indigenous Peoples across related to the lived experiences of mixed-blood non-status Canada, extinguishing existing Indigenous self-governing Indians and Métis individuals in order to reveal a more structures, and coercively forcing these populations into a complete picture of social inequality that exists within and European-led understanding of what it meant to be between the taken-for-granted categories of Indigenous Indigenous (Lawrence, 2004; Native Women’s Association and non-Indigenous. of Canada, 2018). When the Indian Act 1876 came into effect, it defined Indians as “First. Any male person of Indian blood; Secondly. Any child of such person; Thirdly. Breeding out Indigeneity: the Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such Indian Act, 1876–1985 person” (Indian Act 1886, p. 1). Women were treated much like property would be within this Act, and provisions While the Indian Act 1985 represents the principal outlined the fact that status women marrying non-status document governing status among First Nations Peoples in men would lose their status, and non-status women who Canada, this Act evolved from several earlier policies, married status men would gain status (Indian Act 1886; which sought to formally negotiate relations between Native Women’s Association of Canada, 2018). Inter- Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. The Royal marriage between Indigenous Peoples and settlers was not Proclamation of 1763 first charted the manner in which an uncommon occurrence across the land, particularly colonial powers should engage with Indigenous populations during the fur trade era when relations between these and outlined the process by which the government could groups were stronger; the motivations for such unions respectfully acquire their lands (Government of Canada, varied from violent economic pursuits to a desire to expand 2013). Policy documents evolving from this proclamation kinship ties (Graybill, 2016; Van Kirk, 2002). Upon began laying pathways for greater assimilation of marrying a non-status man, however, these women were Indigenous Peoples into the settler culture that was quickly forced away from their cultural ties as they were required spreading across the land. In the Act for the better protection to relinquish their status (Naumann, 2008). of the Lands and Property of the Indians in Lower Canada At its core, the Act represented a forceful attack on 1850, the government of the colony of Canada officially behalf of the Canadian government to eliminate Indigenous gave itself the role of delineating what or who was Peoples and to acquire their land. Other provisions within considered an Indian (An Act for the Better Protection of the Act included the loss of status as a result of earning a the Lands and Property of the Indians in Lower Canada 1850; Lawrence, 2004). To be an Indian, according to this degree or becoming a doctor, lawyer, or clergyman. The Act, one had to have Indian blood; had to belong to a Body act of losing one’s status was treated throughout the or Tribe of Indians; or had to be married to, adopted by, or document as a positive development and was termed descended from such an individual (An Act for the Better enfranchisement; the government unashamedly devalued Protection of the Lands and Property of the Indians in Indigenous cultures and took for granted the societal goal Lower Canada 1850). Shortly thereafter followed the Act to of assimilation (Indian Act 1886; Native Women’s Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in Association of Canada, 2018). This Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Indians The Indian Act 1876 was not just a legally constricting 1857, also known as the Gradual Civilization Act 1857 and document, it was also a socially destructive artefact, the Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the particularly when considering gender politics. When Better Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Europeans arrived in North America, the role of women in Provisions of the Act 31st Victoria, Chapter 42, also known many Indigenous societies was honoured and respected. In as the Gradual Enfranchisement Act 1869. These Acts were these societies, they had a strong identity not rooted in developed as a means for Indigenous Peoples to voluntarily patriarchal subjugation and possession by men (Baskin, give up their status in return for a small parcel of land and 2019). However, this position of women was corrupted, the right to vote. Within the Gradual Enfranchisement Act alongside that of men, through the imposition of European 1869, the government also outlined patriarchal stipulations, ideals of gendered roles in society, as became embodied in by which the family of a non-status individual would also the Indian Act 1876 (Naumann, 2008). automatically lose their status (An Act for the Gradual Following the initial institution of the Indian Act 1876, the Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Management of federal government proceeded to enact new regulations Indian affairs, and to Extend the Provisions of the Act 31st which sought to restrict the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Victoria, Chapter 42 1869 An Act to Encourage the Gradual Peoples even further, while trying to forcefully assimilate Civilization of the Indian Tribes in This Province, and to their populations into the European mainstream. These Amend the Laws Respecting Indians 1857). It is no surprise regulations included restrictions on the behaviours and that Indigenous Peoples were unwilling to give up their movements of Indigenous Peoples, increased paths of culture, rights, and Indian status. Thus, the government’s enfranchisement, greater government control over Indigenous efforts to assimilate the Indigenous populations continued land, and, most disturbingly, the mandatory attendance of Dicks 3 Indigenous youth in residential schools (Native Women’s There have been efforts since the introduction of Bill Association of Canada, 2018). C-31 to further remove gender inequities that continued to Gradually, the brutal discrimination and assimilatory plague the Indian Act 1985. Of note, in 2011, Bill C-3 was practices perpetrated through the Indian Act 1876 began to introduced and later, in 2017 and 2019, additional changes be recognized. In 1960, Indigenous Peoples were granted were made to the Act through Bill S-3. Each of these the right to vote in federal elections and in 1961, compulsory amendments sought to further expand the ability for First enfranchisement was removed from the Act. In 1969, the Nations women to regain their status and the status of their government proposed the idea to eliminate the Act children, recognizing the cascading impacts of decades of altogether in a White Paper. Recognizing this as a threat to gender-based discrimination within the Indian Act 1876. Indigenous rights, including land rights, the Indigenous While these amendments made notable improvements, they populations in Canada reacted with a strong backlash. did not remove the tiered status system (An Act to Amend Ultimately, the White Paper was discarded (Native the Indian Act in Response to the Superior Court of Quebec Women’s Association of Canada, 2018; Tsukada, 2016). Decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) The Canadian government experienced mounting 2017; Assembly of First Nations, 2020; Government of pressure in opposition to the sexist tenants within the Canada, 2019; Indigenous Services Canada, 2020). Indian Act 1876. While this battle was left largely to an It is clear within the present status system that blood invisible backdrop for nearly the first century of the Act’s quantum continues to play a significant role in Canada’s existence, in 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples. Women released a recommendation regarding the repeal of Their hierarchical ranking of 6(1) and 6(2) Indians sexist provisions within the Act. In 1978, the government entrenches what is largely known as a second-generation formally acknowledged in a report the sexist nature of cut-off rule, which to many represents a system of racial women losing their status through marriage. It would not discrimination based on an enforced (mis)understanding of be until 1985, however, that Bill C-31 would come into blood-line purity (Naumann, 2008; Palmater, 2011). effect, finally removing the marrying out rule within the For those facing loss of status, they find themselves in a Indian Act 1985 (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s cultural no-man’s-land, sliding into the cracks between Association of Canada, 2018). settler and Indigenous identities. Some of these individuals While Bill C-31 was rightfully seen as a win for many have turned to the identity of Métis, naturally adding Indigenous Peoples, it also served as somewhat of a Trojan additional confusion in Canada’s perpetual battle to cleanly horse, as it established a new assimilatory measure delineate Indigenous identities (Naumann, 2008). achieved through the introduction of a tiered status system, The continued efforts on behalf of the government to which remains in effect today. This system ultimately breed out Indigeneity speak to a desire to limit enables the government to maintain a structure in which responsibilities associated with Indigenous rights. The Indigeneity can still be bred out. More specifically, sections political discrimination associated with these efforts is 6(1) and 6(2) Indian statuses legislate how Indigenous perhaps best illustrated in a comparison between Indigenous individuals inherit their Indian status. Section 6(1) includes identity politics and those of African Americans in the a variety of provisions associated with the entitlement to USA. Historically, having a large Black population was status according to lineage and historic connections beneficial to settler populations—as they represented a through the registration system. Section 6(2) is applied to slave base for exploitation—whereas having an Indigenous children with one non-Indigenous parent and one parent population was seen as detrimental, as they represented a with 6(1) status. As captured in Table 1, a child of a 6(2) population with unique rights, including rights to land, status Indian and a non-Indigenous person is not entitled to which the settler populations wished to claim. Given these status at all (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s Association contradictory incentives, European settlers employed an of Canada, 2018). expansive identity policy for African Americans, by which only a drop of African blood meant that the person would be identified as Black. Meanwhile, for Indigenous Table 1. The 6(1) and 6(2) Indian statuses in Canada. populations, a subtractive system was employed, in which Explanation of how Indian status Indian status formula Indigeneity was slowly diluted through engagement within can be passed on Parent + parent = child European society and, most notably, through intermarriage (Tuck & Yang, 2012; Wolfe, 2006). These conflicting A child of two parents who have 6(1) + 6(1) = 6(1) identity models continue to play a major role in how identity Indian status, either 6(1) or 6(2) 6(1) + 6(2) = 6(1) is constructed within these populations in Canada and the status, gains 6(1) Indian status. 6(2) + 6(1) = 6(1) 6(2) + 6(2) = 6(1) USA. A child with one parent who has 6(1) + no status = 6(2) 6(1) Indian status and one parent who is non-Indigenous gains 6(2) Fighting to be seen: non-status Indian status. Indians A child with one parent who has 6(2) + no status = no 6(2) Indian status and one parent status Although it remains an ambiguous and nebulous category, who is non-Indigenous is not non-status Indian currently refers to those who identify as entitled to Indian status. First Nations Peoples, but who are not officially registered 4 AlterNative 00(0) through the Indian Act 1985; they are typically mixed- those now categorized as non-status Indian make up a blood individuals who are ineligible for status as they have smaller group (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). fallen outside the stringent regulations captured within the This is a common perception regarding non-status Indian Act 1985 (Indian Act 1985; Siggner & Peters, 2014). Indians that, while true to an extent, ignores a more holistic In other instances, however, these individuals may represent recognition of the damage wrought by the Act’s sexist unrecognized Peoples, who, through historic injustices and measures. For instance, research has shown that, when Bill erasure tactics, have never had access to status (Lawrence, C-31 came into effect, there were many women who were 2012). already so removed from their communities that, while There is very little research conducted on non-status technically eligible for status, they felt both unwelcomed Indians within Canada, and this lack is particularly stark for and detached from their community-based Indigenous empirical research. Siggner and Peters (2014) represent one identity. These women, at times, chose not to pursue the of the few works in this field; using 1996, 2001, and 2006 often long and painful bureaucratic process of regaining long-form Canadian census data, they derived the non- status (Culhane, 2003; Lawrence, 2004). Moreover, the status Indian population in order to determine their assumption that Bill C-31 significantly reduced the category demographics and socioeconomic realities as compared to of non-status in one fell swoop is a line of thinking situated other populations in the country. In this study, they find that in a point in history, which neglects the continued relevance non-status Indians are more likely than any other Indigenous of the assimilatory regulations of the Canadian government group to live in urban centres. When looking at age profile, in moving generations of Indigenous children into this mobility, education, employment, income, parenting, and ambiguous and nebulous space of non-status (Palmater, housing, non-status Indians are found to be almost identical 2011). While there have been some continued gains on this to all other urban Indigenous Peoples. Comparing non- front, with more non-status people regaining their status status urban Indians to non-Indigenous Peoples, however, after Bill C-3 and S-3, there is still the perpetual issue of the reveals a different story. In almost all socioeconomic tiered 6(1) and 6(2) statuses. categories, non-status Indians fare worse than their non- Assessing the second-generation cut-off rule, Palmater Indigenous counterparts (Siggner & Peters, 2014). (2011) argues that this stipulation is leading to a growing Meanwhile, urban Indigenous Peoples across Canada tend number of non-status children and that ultimately Indian to be overrepresented in the poorest neighbourhoods within bands across the country should expect to eventually Canadian cities (Culhane, 2003). become extinct (Palmater, 2011). She argues that, although Dennis (2015) conducted research regarding the the Canadian government was the one to implement the pervasiveness of racism within situations of frequent crude Indigenous identifier of status, after over a century of contact and intermingling between Indigenous and non- using Crown categorizations, First Nation Bands themselves Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Within his research, he have begun to embody these delineations, leading to the noted that, despite frequent positive interactions with their same discrimination of racialized blood quantum being Indigenous neighbours, non-Indigenous people continue to applied at the community level (Palmater, 2011). perpetuate laissez-faire racism, blaming Indigenous Palmater strongly opposes the Canadian government’s Peoples for their disadvantaged position and denying any legal determination framework for First Nations Peoples. relevance of historic wrongs or need for retributive As she poignantly states, programmes. Within this research, he finds that racism of The use of one-quarter blood quantum or degree of descent this nature is not limited to status Indians but also extends from a status Indian as a means of excluding Indigenous to non-status Indians and Métis. This research again Peoples from registration as Indians is either racial highlights the similar disadvantages realized by those with discrimination or an analogous ground of blood quantum/ and without status (Dennis, 2015). descent because it perpetuates racist stereotypes about While non-status Indians face the same disadvantaged Indigenous People based on a physical characteristic over position as their city-dwelling status neighbours, Siggner which the affected individual has no control. Further, the and Peters (2014) note a critical difference they face: non- government has no business in determining what is an status Indians are not entitled to those government supports appropriate biological connection to equate with an Indigenous and services that are extended to status Indians. For identity through status. (Palmater, 2011, p. 118) instance, they do not have the right to live on reserve or engage politically in band activities. They are also excluded Palmater points to the provisions regarding status as from any government assistance provided to off-reserve having kept thousands of families of non-status Indians Indigenous Peoples (Siggner & Peters, 2014). from enjoying the fullness of their cultural heritage, According to Voyageur and Calliou (2001), in the past, including inhibiting access to Elders and cultural practices. the category of non-status Indian was primarily used to She claims that these injustices, while originating from a describe those individuals who had lost their Indian status colonial power, have resulted in discrimination and through the assimilationist policies implicit and explicit marginalization within Indigenous communities, essentially within the Indian Act 1876. It was also used to describe creating fissures along imaginary—yet legally relevant— Métis people and those of mixed descent in earlier years. heritage lines. She states that the invisibility of non-status They propose that since Bill C-31 came into effect in 1985, Indians has resulted in funding gaps and lower most of those who had lost their status regained it, and socioeconomic performance among these populations and Dicks 5 that the label of non-status Indian can be so harmful that it becoming distanced from their Indigenous heritage to begin should be considered a deprivation of freedom (Palmater, with. Indeed, she points out that many urban Indigenous 2011). youth were forced to grow up in a highly racist environment, where flying under the radar and trying to be seen as White Palmater claims that having proof of Indian status has meant survival. These survival tactics were necessary not now become a marker to others of true Indigeneity; it only in formal interactions but often were required in now dictates how you will be seen and treated by others everyday living among family and friends. In fact, it is within the Indigenous community. She states that the often the White family members of these mixed-blood imposed categorization of status and non-status Indians individuals who engage in psychologically manipulative as determined by the Canadian government has been acts of racism in order to quash any claims to Indigeneity demeaning to Indigenous Peoples (Palmater, 2011). within their family. This politically applied racial binary, Palmater (2011) suggests that rather than understanding when played out at the household level, results in mixed- and recognizing Indigenous Peoples through an imposed blood individuals feeling forced to fight for Indigeneity or lens of “status, blood quantum, residency, marriage partner, abandon it in submission to the dominant White culture. or tradition,” Canada should concentrate on Indigenous Many, however, find themselves somewhere in-between, Peoples’ holistic connections to Nations (p. 189). She feeling like they do not have a legitimate claim to either believes that the status versus non-status divide leads to identity in full. They find themselves having to “force their cracks within communities and detracts from the full lives into the categories available and to use brutal clarity, potential of members to meaningfully contribute. Moreover, silence, denial, and humor to deal with the ways in which the understanding of status continues to stem from a view they do not fit these categories” (Lawrence, 2004, p. 151). of pure Indigenous Peoples and culture from an historic Lawrence notes that the painful price associated with this time (Palmater, 2011). hidden identity is a generational loss of cultural knowledge Within this line of thinking, Palmater condemns and belonging and resulting feelings of ambiguity and Canada’s perpetual drive to see Indigenous Peoples through unbelonging in the Indigenous world (Lawrence, 2004). a romanticized understanding of a traditional culture Although mixed-blood urban Indigenous individuals existing before the arrival of Europeans. She asserts that “to sometimes tout the irrelevance of official Indian status, limit Indigenous people to pre-contact cultural practices not they also contradictorily view it as a seal of Indianness, and only locks them in a cultural time box, but sentences them one of their key aspirations is the expansion of the Indian to cultural death when change occurs over time” (Palmater, category to actually include them (Lawrence, 2004). This 2011, p. 64). She proposes that Indigenous Peoples must be struggle highlights the inequality that currently exists able to maintain their communal and cultural identities in a within Indigenous groups stemming from the colonial way that is flexible and takes into consideration the diversity legacy of crude racial categorization. Emphasizing this represented within the lived experience of being Indigenous. point, Lawrence (2004) states, This will be what ensures the long-term survival of these cultures for future generations (Palmater, 2011). Canada has been able to use Indian status to define who can be In her research on mixed-blood urban Indigenous considered Indian in ways that have alienated whole Peoples, Lawrence (2004) draws very similar conclusions communities from any access to a land base and permanently to Palmater (2011). She points out that mixed-blood fragmented Native identity through an extremely patriarchal Indigenous Peoples constantly have to negotiate external and racist system that has torn large holes in the fabric of denials and affirmations associated with their Indigeneity, Native societies. (p. 229) usually according to how closely they conform to externally imposed standards of what is understood to be Lawrence points to a need for connection between Indigenous. She notes that when Indigenous People are Indigenous Peoples in urban and reserve settings, so as to seen as behaving in a manner outside of an historic ensure the cultural health and survival of Indigenous groups. Mixed-blood urban Indigenous Peoples long for a understanding of Indigenous authenticity, they can be connection to their ancestors and to community which dismissed as being fake. This curtails the ability of racial legislation over centuries has eliminated. As more Indigenous Peoples to enjoy an uncontested identity in a Indigenous Peoples begin to live in cities throughout modern environment (Lawrence, 2004). Canada, looping in non-status individuals is critical for Lawrence argues that most mixed-blood Indigenous the survival of Indigenous cultures and populations individuals struggle in their ability to identify as Indigenous, (Lawrence, 2004). and she notes there is a highly gendered aspect to Indigenous While the struggle for recognition among non-status exclusion, pointing to an over-representation of people mixed-blood Indigenous Peoples progresses, there also with Indigenous lineage on their mother’s side identifying exists a legitimate desire within Indigenous communities to outside of strict Indian status. Understanding that women protect their cultural boundaries from settler trespassers. had a legacy of losing status as a result of intermarriage, Tuck and Yang introduce a concept of settler moves to this finding is not surprising (Lawrence, 2004). innocence, in which non-Indigenous individuals seek Lawrence points to the fact that as mixed-blood manners in which to latch onto Indigenous culture in such a Indigenous Peoples living in urban centres choose to look way that they can shed any responsibility for self-reflection seriously at their Indigenous heritage, they are confronting and escape the discomfort of settler-guilt. One of these the cultural genocide that in many cases resulted in them 6 AlterNative 00(0) moves to innocence is a phenomenon in which White In fact, it was not until 1982 that the Canadian settlers claim to have a long-lost Indigenous relative, which government formally recognized Métis as a legitimate grants them legitimacy in Indigenous spaces. This tactic, Indigenous group. At this time, Métis were included in the alongside widespread acts of cultural appropriation, is Constitution Act 1982 Section under 35(2) (Bell, 1991). enough to threaten the boundaries of Indigeneity (Tuck & This did not represent a concrete commitment, however, on Yang, 2012). behalf of the government, as the term Métis was left The attempted intrusion of White people into Indigenous undefined, and it did not clarify whether the Métis had spaces can leave Indigenous Peoples feeling defensive of existing Indigenous rights (Bell, 1991). their cultural boundaries and understandably leads to the Several years later, the rights of Métis were further cementing of defence walls. This is problematic, however, as defined through R. v Powley (2003). This case represented other mixed-blood Indigenous People are found outside of a dispute over hunting rights; however, it was historic in those walls. Naumann (2008) points to personal narratives of that it was the first major Indigenous case that specifically non-status Indians feeling unworthy of officially identifying concerned Métis rights. Since this time, two other major themselves as belonging to an Indigenous Nation and points cases have also come forward concerning Métis: Manitoba out that this tends to be most pronounced in cases of mixed- Métis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General) blood individuals who inherit distinctly European physical (2013) and Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern traits, such as light hair or eye colour (Naumann, 2008). Development) (2016). In Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. Likewise, Lawrence reveals the seeming importance of v Canada (Attorney General) (2013), the Supreme Court appearances in identity construction among mixed-blood declared that the Canadian government had failed in its urban Indigenous Peoples. She finds that mixed-blood constitutional obligation captured in the Manitoba Act individuals with paler skin tend to feel inauthentic in their 1870, which committed to providing land to the children own identity given their inherited genes, resulting in a of the Red River Métis. Thereafter, the government constant struggle among pale-skinned mixed-blood Indig- committed, through a Memorandum of Understanding, to enous Peoples against racial understandings of who they are seeking a solution with the Manitoba Métis Federation on and what they should look like (Lawrence, 2004). this issue (Government of Canada, 2016). In Daniels v Naumann points out that non-status Indigenous Peoples Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) are often excluded from reserve and band-life on account of (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that it was the federal their mixed ancestry and lack of status. Consequently, she government’s responsibility, rather than provincial notes, some of these individuals turn to the recognized governments, to enact on behalf of issues related to both category of Métis as a way of accessing a legitimate space Métis and non-status Indians, opening up potential new for their mixed identity (Naumann, 2008). avenues for future discussions related to the rights of these Indigenous Peoples (Daniels v Canada [Indian Affairs and Northern Development], 2016). The Métis identity Although the Métis are understood to have adopted a Exploring the Métis identity in the same context as non- unique culture of their own, there are still those who do not status Indians in Canada is a relevant layer in the discussion, ascribe to this culture but that are of mixed ancestry and as the historical struggles and present-day debates regarding thus self-identify as Métis (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). the racial and cultural parameters associated with Métis- Siggner and Peters (2014) point out that even though Métis ness mirror in myriad ways those struggles faced by First people originating from areas now known as British Nations Peoples grappling with the government recognized Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario appear to framework of status. have a relatively clear distinction of what constitutes a The Métis identity sits atop a complex nest of historical Métis, Indigenous Peoples of mixed descent coming from events and cultural convergences; this has led to a other parts of Canada seem to use this identifier more complicated, and often conflicted, understanding of these freely. This identity is tied up in an understanding of Métis Indigenous Peoples. The beginnings of this identity are in terms of their dilution of Indigenous blood (Siggner & found in the intermarriage of European and Indigenous Peters, 2014). Peoples, which resulted in a large group of individuals with There is also division within the Métis based on mixed ancestry that did not neatly fit within Indigenous or descendance from either the Red River area, which is settler identities (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). It is broadly situated in modern-day Manitoba or that claim ancestry recognized that the culture that emerged from this new from other parts of North America. Andersen (2014), for community was unique and thus represented a People on its instance, firmly asserts that the Métis people are a distinct own, and this community further coalesced in the form of culture originating from the Red River region. He proposes collective action for political and social independence and that this group should be understood in terms of peoplehood, direct confrontations in the pursuit of Métis nationalism rather than nationhood, and that their origin can be drawn (MacDougall, 2012). Ultimately, the Canadian government through an events-based history in which their identity was was forced to acknowledge their existence towards the end cemented through key historic moments. In particular, he of the 19th century, and established a shallow process of points to five such moments: the Battle of the Seven Oaks rights recognition, known as the scrip system, whereby in 1816, the disruption of the Hudson Bay Company’s Métis could receive from the government either money or a monopoly in 1849, the Battle of Grand Couteau in 1851, formal title to their land (MacDougall, 2012). the Red River uprisings in 1869–1870 and 1885, and the Dicks 7 dispossession of the Métis that rippled out from the felt as they were understood as falling in-between Manitoba Act 1870. Andersen cautions against superficial Indigenous and European identities; with an underlying understandings of Métis simply in terms of mixedness or assumption on the purity of those opposing identities, Métis hybridity between Indigenous and European ancestry and were understood to be something lesser (Andersen, 2014). refutes the idea that Métis from communities with no ties to Much like the struggles faced by mixed-blood non- the Red River Métis should be associated with this identity. status Indians, the racially ambiguous appearance of many Rather he stands firmly in the position that the Red River Métis can often lead them to be confused with their non- Métis are the only legitimate Métis, in that they are the ones Indigenous counterparts. At times, this results in Métis that actually adopted this identity historically. His key having to explain and justify their cultural existence. Often, argument rests on the premise that they can claim this however, Métis will opt for passing as a White person in identity because their ancestors did so (Andersen, 2014). order to remain invisible and thus avoid the uncomfortable Interestingly, throughout his argument, Andersen societal friction associated with not conforming to the utilizes similar language regarding the struggle of the dominant culture (Richardson, 2004). Métis to that experienced by present-day mixed-blood Meanwhile, akin to Tuck and Yang’s (2012) assertion that non-status Indians. Most notably, regarding the struggle a settler move to innocence involves claiming Indigeneity they face due to their mixedness and their longing for through a long-lost relative, Leroux (2019) points to a similar recognition. As he states, “Métis are classified as hybrid— phenomenon among French descendants claiming an with all the denigrating connotations of the term—in ways Indigenous ancestor as a basis for adopting the Métis identity that deny that which we seek most, an acknowledgment of (Leroux, 2019). Leroux has been forceful in his discredit of our political legitimacy and authenticity as an Indigenous people claiming Indigenous identities associated with mixed- people” (Andersen, 2014, p. 38). blood heritage, particularly those in academic and otherwise Chartrand (2003) follows much the same line of public facing positions, dubbing numerous individuals and reasoning as Andersen when it comes to defining the groups pretendians (Leroux, 2019). parameters of Métis. He affirms that the Métis identity should be associated with those people who have historic Analysis of existing literature ties to the Red River Métis only. He posits that “Aboriginal rights are based in history. Their present purpose is to There are currently over 1.6 million Indigenous peoples in protect the interests of Aboriginal peoples that were at stake Canada, representing 5% of the population; this includes upon the assertion of Crown sovereignty” (Chartrand, just over 820,000 First Nations people, representing 2% of 2003, p. 89). Thus, much like Andersen, Chartrand points the Canadian population. Non-status Indians make up a full to ancestral claims to Indigeneity as the legitimizing factor 23.8% of the total First Nations population within Canada in the adoption of a given Indigenous identity. He claims (Statistics Canada, 2017) or 14% of the total Indigenous that those Métis who are approaching their claim in terms population in the country (Government of Canada, 2020). of their mixedness between Indigenous and European This represents a substantial group of individuals who have ancestry should be viewed instead as disenfranchised First been excluded from formal recognition of their Indigeneity Nations and be treated in terms of their relation to First due to continued assimilatory policies on behalf of the Nations, rather than Métis peoples (Chartrand, 2003). government. This group is predominantly urban and, while Lawrence (2004), approaching the argument as a mixed- they share the same socioeconomic struggles as their urban blood Mi’kmaw (a member of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Indigenous neighbours, they are excluded from those rights people, eastern Canada) woman, stands in contrast to and services that might provide them with needed support Chartrand and Andersen, as she rejects the idea of the Métis and community connection. being narrowly understood through a lens of distinct Among the challenges that non-status individuals face is cultural difference stemming from Red River heritage. their ability to maintain a sense of identity in an ambiguous Instead, she argues that the identity would be more usefully and largely unrecognized space. Facing racial discrimination understood in terms of historic dispossession and exclusion from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, these resulting from racist categorizations embodied in the Indian people are left in an in-between position, where they must Act 1876 (Lawrence, 2004). constantly struggle to understand and receive recognition Likewise, Gunn (2015) refutes the idea of understanding for their identity. Métis in terms of Indians altogether and argues that Canada Ongoing debates within Métis Nations reveals a similar needs to recognize Métis for their internal characteristics as picture, with external battles being fought against the a people, not on their identity as it relates to that of First Canadian government in search of greater rights and Nations. She points to a changing definition of Indian recognition, while internal fissures reveal exclusionary according to the Canadian government, which inherently viewpoints associated with who can and cannot adopt the leads to a shifting Métis identity, given their relational Métis identity. This debate flows into the harbour of non- nature (Gunn, 2015). status Indians, as the identity of Métis, as understood in Similar to Gunn’s assertions, Andersen declares that terms of mixed European-Indigenous heritage, has been Métis should not be understood through a lens of Indianness, seen as an appropriate avenue to achieve legitimacy within as this ultimately obscures a legitimate understanding of some mixed-blood Indigenous communities (Naumann, this people. He points to discrimination that the Métis have 2008). 8 AlterNative 00(0) Andersen (2014) and Chartrand (2003) starkly highlight looking into the causes of Indigenous lateral violence in this heated debate ongoing on Métis identity. A rigid hold Australia has found that identity issues, internalized racism, on the historical legitimacy of the Métis identity stemming and issues associated with obtaining status were some of from a connection to Red River, while understandably a the key causes spurring this violence (Whyman, Murrup- relevant line of reasoning for the boundaries of the Métis Steward, et al., 2021). people, may be perceived as exclusionary to mixed-blood A thematic thread woven throughout all of the literature non-status Indians who have no other hope of attaining on non-status and Métis identities is the crude racialized recognition for their Indigeneity except through recognition categorization of Indigeneity imposed by the Canadian of their mixedness (Andersen, 2014; Chartrand, 2003). government, which cements Indigenous authenticity in a Like much debate regarding Indigeneity, it finds its romanticized historic view of what it means to be justification in a historical narrative that negates the Indigenous. This same categorization has become accepted changing reality of Indigeneity in Canadian societies. In his among Indigenous groups and appears to now be assertion that Indigenous recognition and rights are based inextricably tangled in those rights and entitlements owed on the historic moment when the Crown asserted to Indigenous Nations in Canada. The enjoyment and sovereignty, Andersen seemingly takes a past-tense view of protection of these rights plays out in a system of seeming colonialism which disregards to a large extent the continued internal colonialism which has embedded itself within the and evolving nature of the colonization of North America Indigenous landscape. The result has been a system of (Andersen, 2014). cracks and conflicts among Indigenous Peoples, manifested More generally speaking, the perpetual understanding in a structure of internal inequality that is little explored in of Indigeneity in historic pre-contact terms continues to current research literature. erode contemporary Indigenous identities. This is particularly salient when considering the growing urban Conclusion Indigenous population, where non-status Indians are most widely represented. Without a flexible, adaptable, and The findings presented herein expose the fact that many of evolving understanding of what it means to be an the assimilatory policies in Canada have succeeded and Indigenous person in contemporary Canada, Indigenous continue to succeed to this day with the continued relevance groups across this country risk confronting persistent and enforcement of the Indian Act 1985. Those who find cultural conflict from all sides. themselves in the margins of recognized Indigenous or This archaic understanding of what is understood to non-Indigenous identities face a whole spectrum of encompass an Indigenous person is also revealed in the unequal power dynamics, not addressed in the prevailing crude grasp of what these individuals should look like. For sociological binary of settler-Indigenous relations that many mixed-blooded Indigenous Peoples, there exists the currently dominates research literature in Canada. disjuncture between how they may look and how their This binary engenders an understanding of Indigeneity cultural heart beats. Race is a slippery and baseless concept that is rooted in an historic view of Indigenous Peoples built on perceived differences between people; yet, it has overlaid with a crude political configuration of what it means become a powerful societal tool and ultimately underpins to be Indigenous. This overly simplistic categorization leaves much of the government policy framework surrounding mixed-blood individuals fumbling to understand their place. Indigeneity in Canada. Thus, for mixed-blood individuals It also leaves little to no room for modern expressions of negotiating their often-White appearance in the face of Indigeneity, as these manifestations are dismissed as being their claim to Indigeneity, they are frequently left feeling inauthentic. disingenuous and uncomfortable in their own skin. This article has sought to expose a more complex Furthermore, as mixed-blood Métis and non-status understanding of social inequality as it exists not only Indians seek to navigate their peripheral identities, they are between settlers and Indigenous Peoples, but within and faced with a veritable minefield of Indigenous personalities between these Peoples. Mixed-blood non-status Indians and scholars diligently policing the boundaries of and Métis face unique challenges and experiences related Indigeneity. While this may seem a noble pursuit for those to their often-unrecognized identities. Occupying a seem- situated comfortably at the centre of their Indigenous or ingly liminal space within a framework of generational settler identity, for those straddling this dichotomous assimilation, mixed-blood non-status and Métis indi- understanding of Canada’s population, the erection of these viduals must fight for recognition in an arena with far forceful cultural borders may feel more akin to a witch hunt, fewer supports and connections. Indeed, as Lawrence with deep implications. Mixed-blood individuals who points out, differences arising from those legal restrictions embrace their Indigenous identities must be ready to defend that have been placed on Indianness “are the most divisive who they are in the face of heavy scrutiny. Those falling issues that Native People face in Canada today” (Lawrence, short of their critics’ expectations must face loss of 2004, p. 230). reputation, opportunity, or even career (Leo, 2022). Future research in social inequality related to Indigenous Beyond reputational risks, research has found lateral issues in Canada should consider those inequalities that violence (aggression directed internally between members exist within this more complex frame, in order to present a of an oppressed group) to be common within Indigenous true picture of what it means to be Indigenous in this communities (Whyman, Adams, et al., 2021). Research country. Dicks 9 Author’s note Culhane, D. (2003). Their spirits live within us: Aboriginal women in downtown eastside Vancouver emerging into visibility. Heather Dicks is a PhD candidate within the Department of American Indian Quarterly, 27(3), 593–606. https://doi. Sociology at the Memorial University of Newfoundland and org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0073 Labrador. She is a mixed-blood woman, with Mi’kmaq and Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) European heritage, from the island of Newfoundland, Canada. [2016] SCC 35945. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- csc/en/item/15858/index.do Declaration of conflicting interests Dennis, J. S. (2015). Contact theory in small town settler-colonial The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect context: The reproduction of laissez-faire racism in Indigenous- to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. white Canadian relations. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414564998 Government of Canada. (2013). 250th anniversary of the Royal Funding Proclamation of 1763. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng The author received no financial support for the research, /1370355181092/1607905122267#a6 authorship, and publication of this article. Government of Canada. (2016, July 15). Memorandum of understanding on advancing reconciliation (“MOU”). https:// ORCID iD www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1467055681745/1539711559006 Heather Dicks https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8879-6223 Government of Canada. (2019). Bill S-3: Eliminating known sex- based inequities in registration. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/ eng/1467214955663/1572460311596 Glossary Government of Canada. (2020). Annual report to Parliament 2020. Métis one of Canada’s three recognized Indigenous https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1602010609492/1602010631711 groups, encompassing a distinct culture reflecting Graybill, A. R. (2016). Native-white intermarriage and family in their blend of Indigenous and European ancestry 19th century North America. History Compass, 14(3), 105– Mi’kmaq a First Nations people, eastern Canada 115. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12303 Mi’kmaw a member of the Mi’kmaq First Nations people, Gunn, B. (2015). Defining Métis People as a people: Moving eastern Canada beyond the Indian/Métis dichotomy. Dalhousie Law Journal, 38(2), 413–446. References Indian Act 1886 SCC 28 (Can). http://caid.ca/IndAct1886.pdf Indian Act 1985 RSC 1-5 (Can). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ An Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of the eng/acts/i-5/fulltext.html Indians in Lower Canada 1850 SCC 42 (13 &14 Vic) (Can). Indigenous Services Canada. (2020). Frequently asked questions https://bnald.lib.unb.ca/legislation/act-better-protection- on S-3. Yukon Aboriginal Women’s Council. https://yawc.ca/ lands-and-property-indians-lower-canada-10th-august-1850 files/bill-s-3-faq.pdf An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Lawrence, B. (2004). “Real” Indians and others: Mixed blood Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Provisions urban Native peoples and Indigenous nationhood. University of the Act 31st Victoria, Chapter 42 1869 SCC 6 (Can). of Nebraska Press. https://dev.nctr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1869- Lawrence, B. (2012). Fractured homeland: Federal recognition Gradual-Enfranchisement-Act.pdf and Algonquin identity in Ontario. University of British An Act to Amend the Indian Act in Response to the Superior Court Columbia Press. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v3i3.21266 of Quebec Decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur Leo, G. (2022, June 1). Carrie Bourassa, who claimed to be Général) 2017 SCC 25 (Can). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ Indigenous without evidence, has resigned from U of Sask. eng/annualstatutes/2017_25/page-1.html CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian carrie-bourassa-resigns-1.6473964 Tribes in This Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Leroux, D. (2019). Distorted descent: White claims to Indigenous Indians 1857 SCC 26 (Can). https://dev.nctr.ca/wp-content/ identity. University of Manitoba Press. uploads/2021/01/Bill-an-act-to-encourage-the-gradual- MacDougall, B. (2012). The myth of Metis cultural ambivalence. civilization-of-Indian-tribes.pdf In M. Campbell, N. St-Onge, C. Podruchny, & B. MacDougall Andersen, C. (2014). Métis: Race, recognition, and the struggle (Eds.), Contours of a people: Metis family, mobility and for Indigenous peoplehood. University of British Columbia history (pp. 422–456). University of Oklahoma Press. Press. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General) Assembly of First Nations. (2020). What Is Bill C-31 and Bill C-3? [2013] SCC 33880. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/16-19-02-06- csc/en/item/12888/index.do AFN-Fact-Sheet-Bill-C-31-Bill-C-3-final-revised.pdf Native Women’s Association of Canada. (2018). The Indian Act said Baskin, C. (2019). Contemporary Indigenous women’s roles: what? https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- Traditional teachings or internalized colonialism? Violence Indian-Act-Said-WHAT-pdf-1.pdf against Women, 26(15–16), 2083–2101. https://doi.org/10. Naumann, D. (2008). Aboriginal women in Canada: On the 1177/1077801219888024 choice to renounce or reclaim Aboriginal Identity. Canadian Bell, C. (1991). Who are the Metis People in Section 35(2)? Journal of Native Studies, 28(2), 343–361. Alberta Law Review, 29(2), 351–381. https://doi.org/10. Palmater, P. D. (2011). Beyond blood: Rethinking Indigenous 29173/alr1566 identity. Purich Publishing. Chartrand, P. L. (2003). The hard case of defining “the Métis Richardson, C. L. (2004). Becoming Metis: The relationship People” and their rights: A comment on R. v. Powley. between the sense of Metis self and cultural stories. University Constitutional Forum, 12(3), C98D5G. https://doi.org/10. of Victoria. 21991/C98D5G 10 AlterNative 00(0) R. v Powley [2003] SCC 43. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/ Van Kirk, S. (2002). From “marrying-in” to “marrying- scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do out”: Changing patterns of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal Satzewich, V., & Wotherspoon, T. (2000). Political economy marriage in colonial Canada. Frontiers: A Journal of versus the Chicago school and internal colonialism: Class, Women Studies, 23(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1353/fro. “race,” gender and Aboriginal Peoples. In T. Wotherspoon & 2003.0010 V. Satzewich (Eds.), First Nations: Race, class and gender Voyageur, C. J., & Calliou, B. (2001). Various shades of red: (pp. 1–14). Canadian Plains Research Center. Diversity within Canada’s Indigenous community. The Siggner, A. J., & Peters, E. J. (2014). The non-status Indian London Journal of Canadian Studies, 16(19), 109–118. population living off-reserve in Canada: A demographic and Whyman, T., Adams, K., Carter, A., & Jobson, L. (2021). Lateral socio-economic profile. Aboriginal Policy Studies, 3(3), 86– violence in Indigenous Peoples. Australian Psychologist, 108. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v3i3.18582 56(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2021.1893 Statistics Canada. (2017, November 29). Focus on Geography 595 Series, 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- Whyman, T., Murrup-Steward, C., Young, M., Carter, A., recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Index-eng.cfm & Jobson, L. (2021). “Lateral violence stems from the Tsukada, H. (2016, May 2). Don’t Aboriginal peoples want colonial system”: Settler-colonialism and lateral violence in equality? What is it that they want then? The University of Aboriginal Australians. Postcolonial Studies. https://doi.org/ British Columbia. http://timeandplace.ubc.ca/developers- 10.1080/13688790.2021.2009213 stories/story-3-dont-aboriginal-peoples-want-equality-what-is Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png AlterNative SAGE

Beyond binaries: mixed-blood Indigenous inequalities

AlterNative , Volume 19 (2): 10 – Jun 1, 2023

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/beyond-binaries-mixed-blood-indigenous-inequalities-TAK17S007w

References (41)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023
ISSN
1177-1801
eISSN
1174-1740
DOI
10.1177/11771801231167654
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article explores existing research related to mixed-blood Indigenous individuals in an effort to reveal a more complete picture of social inequality that exists within and between the binary categorization of Indigenous and non- Indigenous within Canada. Tracing a line through past and present discriminatory assimilationist policies, this article reveals the pervasive challenges associated with living as a mixed-blood Indigenous person in this country. Marked by a perpetual struggle to gain recognition from both Indigenous and settler populations, individuals living within this marginal identity face a structure of inequality that is little explored in contemporary research literature. Keywords Canada, Indian status, Indigenous, inequality, Métis, mixed-blood Over the past few decades, there have been several Introduction significant modifications related to government recognition In much of the Indigenous scholarship in Canada that and Indian status. Of particular note was the addition of presently exists, sociological perspectives related to Métis (one of Canada’s three recognized Indigenous Indigenous Peoples in this country tend to be centred on groups, encompassing a distinct culture reflecting their binary conversations related to differences and inequalities blend of Indigenous and European ancestry) as a recognized apparent between Indigenous and non-Indigenous popu- Indigenous people group under Section 35(2) of the lations. While certainly important, these broad stroke Constitution Act 1982 (Bell, 1991). Furthermore, Bill C-31 conversations tend to diminish each of these people groups was introduced to amend the Indian Act 1985; the into a homogeneous categorization that betrays the true amendment removed the mechanism that formerly stripped diversity inherent therein (Satzewich & Wotherspoon, 2000; an Indigenous woman of her status upon her marriage to a Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). The impossibility of fitting the non-Indigenous man (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s sheer diversity and complexity of over 600 Indigenous Association of Canada, 2018). Both of these developments, groups into simplistic European-imposed categories has alongside other gains, marked significant milestones in the resulted in a variety of complications and exclusions that are re-conceptualization of Indian status and Indigeneity, as felt and fought differently within each Indigenous society they opened up new legal avenues for government (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). Perhaps most importantly, recognition of these identities. While these may be these conversations fail to recognize the lived realities and perceived in many ways as advancements, they should not struggles of those people who fall somewhere in-between be understood as broad sweeping wins on the side of the seeming duality of Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Indigenous Nations. Rather, these changes represent After over a century of exploitative and assimilatory amendments to government-led assimilatory polices that politics, Canada has established a foundation of deep continue to govern Indigenous rights and recognition in structural inequalities alongside a distrustful and strained Canada (Dennis, 2015; Lawrence, 2004). relationship between the Canadian government and As the boundaries of Indigeneity continue to be Indigenous Nations. Critical to the inflammatory friction contested, defended, redrawn, and reconstituted, there is that currently characterizes the federal government’s little research and recognition of the structural inequalities relationship with Indigenous Peoples is the identification marker known as Indian status. Simultaneously a sanctioned label for structural racism and a recognition of rights, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland and maintaining Indian status has come to mean many things. Labrador, Canada Remarkably, Indian status has become so enmeshed with Corresponding author: rights and recognition within the Indigenous political Heather Dicks, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of landscape that one of the most prominent struggles in Newfoundland and Labrador, 230 Elizabeth Avenue, St. John’s, NL A1C relation to the issue of status has been a call for its expansion, 5S7, Canada. Email: hcdicks@mun.ca rather than its removal. 2 AlterNative 00(0) that are fomented through these processes. Specifically, to coalesce into firmer manifestations, ultimately culmi- research fails to consider the experience of those who have nating in the infamous Indian Act 1876. had to forge identities on the margins of government- The Indian Act 1876 essentially built upon the earlier regulated identity markers. This article will look at those assimilation policies to establish a crude framework, which scholars who are engaged in research and discussion was artificially laid onto Indigenous Peoples across related to the lived experiences of mixed-blood non-status Canada, extinguishing existing Indigenous self-governing Indians and Métis individuals in order to reveal a more structures, and coercively forcing these populations into a complete picture of social inequality that exists within and European-led understanding of what it meant to be between the taken-for-granted categories of Indigenous Indigenous (Lawrence, 2004; Native Women’s Association and non-Indigenous. of Canada, 2018). When the Indian Act 1876 came into effect, it defined Indians as “First. Any male person of Indian blood; Secondly. Any child of such person; Thirdly. Breeding out Indigeneity: the Any woman who is or was lawfully married to such Indian Act, 1876–1985 person” (Indian Act 1886, p. 1). Women were treated much like property would be within this Act, and provisions While the Indian Act 1985 represents the principal outlined the fact that status women marrying non-status document governing status among First Nations Peoples in men would lose their status, and non-status women who Canada, this Act evolved from several earlier policies, married status men would gain status (Indian Act 1886; which sought to formally negotiate relations between Native Women’s Association of Canada, 2018). Inter- Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples. The Royal marriage between Indigenous Peoples and settlers was not Proclamation of 1763 first charted the manner in which an uncommon occurrence across the land, particularly colonial powers should engage with Indigenous populations during the fur trade era when relations between these and outlined the process by which the government could groups were stronger; the motivations for such unions respectfully acquire their lands (Government of Canada, varied from violent economic pursuits to a desire to expand 2013). Policy documents evolving from this proclamation kinship ties (Graybill, 2016; Van Kirk, 2002). Upon began laying pathways for greater assimilation of marrying a non-status man, however, these women were Indigenous Peoples into the settler culture that was quickly forced away from their cultural ties as they were required spreading across the land. In the Act for the better protection to relinquish their status (Naumann, 2008). of the Lands and Property of the Indians in Lower Canada At its core, the Act represented a forceful attack on 1850, the government of the colony of Canada officially behalf of the Canadian government to eliminate Indigenous gave itself the role of delineating what or who was Peoples and to acquire their land. Other provisions within considered an Indian (An Act for the Better Protection of the Act included the loss of status as a result of earning a the Lands and Property of the Indians in Lower Canada 1850; Lawrence, 2004). To be an Indian, according to this degree or becoming a doctor, lawyer, or clergyman. The Act, one had to have Indian blood; had to belong to a Body act of losing one’s status was treated throughout the or Tribe of Indians; or had to be married to, adopted by, or document as a positive development and was termed descended from such an individual (An Act for the Better enfranchisement; the government unashamedly devalued Protection of the Lands and Property of the Indians in Indigenous cultures and took for granted the societal goal Lower Canada 1850). Shortly thereafter followed the Act to of assimilation (Indian Act 1886; Native Women’s Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in Association of Canada, 2018). This Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Indians The Indian Act 1876 was not just a legally constricting 1857, also known as the Gradual Civilization Act 1857 and document, it was also a socially destructive artefact, the Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the particularly when considering gender politics. When Better Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Europeans arrived in North America, the role of women in Provisions of the Act 31st Victoria, Chapter 42, also known many Indigenous societies was honoured and respected. In as the Gradual Enfranchisement Act 1869. These Acts were these societies, they had a strong identity not rooted in developed as a means for Indigenous Peoples to voluntarily patriarchal subjugation and possession by men (Baskin, give up their status in return for a small parcel of land and 2019). However, this position of women was corrupted, the right to vote. Within the Gradual Enfranchisement Act alongside that of men, through the imposition of European 1869, the government also outlined patriarchal stipulations, ideals of gendered roles in society, as became embodied in by which the family of a non-status individual would also the Indian Act 1876 (Naumann, 2008). automatically lose their status (An Act for the Gradual Following the initial institution of the Indian Act 1876, the Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Management of federal government proceeded to enact new regulations Indian affairs, and to Extend the Provisions of the Act 31st which sought to restrict the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Victoria, Chapter 42 1869 An Act to Encourage the Gradual Peoples even further, while trying to forcefully assimilate Civilization of the Indian Tribes in This Province, and to their populations into the European mainstream. These Amend the Laws Respecting Indians 1857). It is no surprise regulations included restrictions on the behaviours and that Indigenous Peoples were unwilling to give up their movements of Indigenous Peoples, increased paths of culture, rights, and Indian status. Thus, the government’s enfranchisement, greater government control over Indigenous efforts to assimilate the Indigenous populations continued land, and, most disturbingly, the mandatory attendance of Dicks 3 Indigenous youth in residential schools (Native Women’s There have been efforts since the introduction of Bill Association of Canada, 2018). C-31 to further remove gender inequities that continued to Gradually, the brutal discrimination and assimilatory plague the Indian Act 1985. Of note, in 2011, Bill C-3 was practices perpetrated through the Indian Act 1876 began to introduced and later, in 2017 and 2019, additional changes be recognized. In 1960, Indigenous Peoples were granted were made to the Act through Bill S-3. Each of these the right to vote in federal elections and in 1961, compulsory amendments sought to further expand the ability for First enfranchisement was removed from the Act. In 1969, the Nations women to regain their status and the status of their government proposed the idea to eliminate the Act children, recognizing the cascading impacts of decades of altogether in a White Paper. Recognizing this as a threat to gender-based discrimination within the Indian Act 1876. Indigenous rights, including land rights, the Indigenous While these amendments made notable improvements, they populations in Canada reacted with a strong backlash. did not remove the tiered status system (An Act to Amend Ultimately, the White Paper was discarded (Native the Indian Act in Response to the Superior Court of Quebec Women’s Association of Canada, 2018; Tsukada, 2016). Decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur général) The Canadian government experienced mounting 2017; Assembly of First Nations, 2020; Government of pressure in opposition to the sexist tenants within the Canada, 2019; Indigenous Services Canada, 2020). Indian Act 1876. While this battle was left largely to an It is clear within the present status system that blood invisible backdrop for nearly the first century of the Act’s quantum continues to play a significant role in Canada’s existence, in 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples. Women released a recommendation regarding the repeal of Their hierarchical ranking of 6(1) and 6(2) Indians sexist provisions within the Act. In 1978, the government entrenches what is largely known as a second-generation formally acknowledged in a report the sexist nature of cut-off rule, which to many represents a system of racial women losing their status through marriage. It would not discrimination based on an enforced (mis)understanding of be until 1985, however, that Bill C-31 would come into blood-line purity (Naumann, 2008; Palmater, 2011). effect, finally removing the marrying out rule within the For those facing loss of status, they find themselves in a Indian Act 1985 (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s cultural no-man’s-land, sliding into the cracks between Association of Canada, 2018). settler and Indigenous identities. Some of these individuals While Bill C-31 was rightfully seen as a win for many have turned to the identity of Métis, naturally adding Indigenous Peoples, it also served as somewhat of a Trojan additional confusion in Canada’s perpetual battle to cleanly horse, as it established a new assimilatory measure delineate Indigenous identities (Naumann, 2008). achieved through the introduction of a tiered status system, The continued efforts on behalf of the government to which remains in effect today. This system ultimately breed out Indigeneity speak to a desire to limit enables the government to maintain a structure in which responsibilities associated with Indigenous rights. The Indigeneity can still be bred out. More specifically, sections political discrimination associated with these efforts is 6(1) and 6(2) Indian statuses legislate how Indigenous perhaps best illustrated in a comparison between Indigenous individuals inherit their Indian status. Section 6(1) includes identity politics and those of African Americans in the a variety of provisions associated with the entitlement to USA. Historically, having a large Black population was status according to lineage and historic connections beneficial to settler populations—as they represented a through the registration system. Section 6(2) is applied to slave base for exploitation—whereas having an Indigenous children with one non-Indigenous parent and one parent population was seen as detrimental, as they represented a with 6(1) status. As captured in Table 1, a child of a 6(2) population with unique rights, including rights to land, status Indian and a non-Indigenous person is not entitled to which the settler populations wished to claim. Given these status at all (Indian Act 1985; Native Women’s Association contradictory incentives, European settlers employed an of Canada, 2018). expansive identity policy for African Americans, by which only a drop of African blood meant that the person would be identified as Black. Meanwhile, for Indigenous Table 1. The 6(1) and 6(2) Indian statuses in Canada. populations, a subtractive system was employed, in which Explanation of how Indian status Indian status formula Indigeneity was slowly diluted through engagement within can be passed on Parent + parent = child European society and, most notably, through intermarriage (Tuck & Yang, 2012; Wolfe, 2006). These conflicting A child of two parents who have 6(1) + 6(1) = 6(1) identity models continue to play a major role in how identity Indian status, either 6(1) or 6(2) 6(1) + 6(2) = 6(1) is constructed within these populations in Canada and the status, gains 6(1) Indian status. 6(2) + 6(1) = 6(1) 6(2) + 6(2) = 6(1) USA. A child with one parent who has 6(1) + no status = 6(2) 6(1) Indian status and one parent who is non-Indigenous gains 6(2) Fighting to be seen: non-status Indian status. Indians A child with one parent who has 6(2) + no status = no 6(2) Indian status and one parent status Although it remains an ambiguous and nebulous category, who is non-Indigenous is not non-status Indian currently refers to those who identify as entitled to Indian status. First Nations Peoples, but who are not officially registered 4 AlterNative 00(0) through the Indian Act 1985; they are typically mixed- those now categorized as non-status Indian make up a blood individuals who are ineligible for status as they have smaller group (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). fallen outside the stringent regulations captured within the This is a common perception regarding non-status Indian Act 1985 (Indian Act 1985; Siggner & Peters, 2014). Indians that, while true to an extent, ignores a more holistic In other instances, however, these individuals may represent recognition of the damage wrought by the Act’s sexist unrecognized Peoples, who, through historic injustices and measures. For instance, research has shown that, when Bill erasure tactics, have never had access to status (Lawrence, C-31 came into effect, there were many women who were 2012). already so removed from their communities that, while There is very little research conducted on non-status technically eligible for status, they felt both unwelcomed Indians within Canada, and this lack is particularly stark for and detached from their community-based Indigenous empirical research. Siggner and Peters (2014) represent one identity. These women, at times, chose not to pursue the of the few works in this field; using 1996, 2001, and 2006 often long and painful bureaucratic process of regaining long-form Canadian census data, they derived the non- status (Culhane, 2003; Lawrence, 2004). Moreover, the status Indian population in order to determine their assumption that Bill C-31 significantly reduced the category demographics and socioeconomic realities as compared to of non-status in one fell swoop is a line of thinking situated other populations in the country. In this study, they find that in a point in history, which neglects the continued relevance non-status Indians are more likely than any other Indigenous of the assimilatory regulations of the Canadian government group to live in urban centres. When looking at age profile, in moving generations of Indigenous children into this mobility, education, employment, income, parenting, and ambiguous and nebulous space of non-status (Palmater, housing, non-status Indians are found to be almost identical 2011). While there have been some continued gains on this to all other urban Indigenous Peoples. Comparing non- front, with more non-status people regaining their status status urban Indians to non-Indigenous Peoples, however, after Bill C-3 and S-3, there is still the perpetual issue of the reveals a different story. In almost all socioeconomic tiered 6(1) and 6(2) statuses. categories, non-status Indians fare worse than their non- Assessing the second-generation cut-off rule, Palmater Indigenous counterparts (Siggner & Peters, 2014). (2011) argues that this stipulation is leading to a growing Meanwhile, urban Indigenous Peoples across Canada tend number of non-status children and that ultimately Indian to be overrepresented in the poorest neighbourhoods within bands across the country should expect to eventually Canadian cities (Culhane, 2003). become extinct (Palmater, 2011). She argues that, although Dennis (2015) conducted research regarding the the Canadian government was the one to implement the pervasiveness of racism within situations of frequent crude Indigenous identifier of status, after over a century of contact and intermingling between Indigenous and non- using Crown categorizations, First Nation Bands themselves Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Within his research, he have begun to embody these delineations, leading to the noted that, despite frequent positive interactions with their same discrimination of racialized blood quantum being Indigenous neighbours, non-Indigenous people continue to applied at the community level (Palmater, 2011). perpetuate laissez-faire racism, blaming Indigenous Palmater strongly opposes the Canadian government’s Peoples for their disadvantaged position and denying any legal determination framework for First Nations Peoples. relevance of historic wrongs or need for retributive As she poignantly states, programmes. Within this research, he finds that racism of The use of one-quarter blood quantum or degree of descent this nature is not limited to status Indians but also extends from a status Indian as a means of excluding Indigenous to non-status Indians and Métis. This research again Peoples from registration as Indians is either racial highlights the similar disadvantages realized by those with discrimination or an analogous ground of blood quantum/ and without status (Dennis, 2015). descent because it perpetuates racist stereotypes about While non-status Indians face the same disadvantaged Indigenous People based on a physical characteristic over position as their city-dwelling status neighbours, Siggner which the affected individual has no control. Further, the and Peters (2014) note a critical difference they face: non- government has no business in determining what is an status Indians are not entitled to those government supports appropriate biological connection to equate with an Indigenous and services that are extended to status Indians. For identity through status. (Palmater, 2011, p. 118) instance, they do not have the right to live on reserve or engage politically in band activities. They are also excluded Palmater points to the provisions regarding status as from any government assistance provided to off-reserve having kept thousands of families of non-status Indians Indigenous Peoples (Siggner & Peters, 2014). from enjoying the fullness of their cultural heritage, According to Voyageur and Calliou (2001), in the past, including inhibiting access to Elders and cultural practices. the category of non-status Indian was primarily used to She claims that these injustices, while originating from a describe those individuals who had lost their Indian status colonial power, have resulted in discrimination and through the assimilationist policies implicit and explicit marginalization within Indigenous communities, essentially within the Indian Act 1876. It was also used to describe creating fissures along imaginary—yet legally relevant— Métis people and those of mixed descent in earlier years. heritage lines. She states that the invisibility of non-status They propose that since Bill C-31 came into effect in 1985, Indians has resulted in funding gaps and lower most of those who had lost their status regained it, and socioeconomic performance among these populations and Dicks 5 that the label of non-status Indian can be so harmful that it becoming distanced from their Indigenous heritage to begin should be considered a deprivation of freedom (Palmater, with. Indeed, she points out that many urban Indigenous 2011). youth were forced to grow up in a highly racist environment, where flying under the radar and trying to be seen as White Palmater claims that having proof of Indian status has meant survival. These survival tactics were necessary not now become a marker to others of true Indigeneity; it only in formal interactions but often were required in now dictates how you will be seen and treated by others everyday living among family and friends. In fact, it is within the Indigenous community. She states that the often the White family members of these mixed-blood imposed categorization of status and non-status Indians individuals who engage in psychologically manipulative as determined by the Canadian government has been acts of racism in order to quash any claims to Indigeneity demeaning to Indigenous Peoples (Palmater, 2011). within their family. This politically applied racial binary, Palmater (2011) suggests that rather than understanding when played out at the household level, results in mixed- and recognizing Indigenous Peoples through an imposed blood individuals feeling forced to fight for Indigeneity or lens of “status, blood quantum, residency, marriage partner, abandon it in submission to the dominant White culture. or tradition,” Canada should concentrate on Indigenous Many, however, find themselves somewhere in-between, Peoples’ holistic connections to Nations (p. 189). She feeling like they do not have a legitimate claim to either believes that the status versus non-status divide leads to identity in full. They find themselves having to “force their cracks within communities and detracts from the full lives into the categories available and to use brutal clarity, potential of members to meaningfully contribute. Moreover, silence, denial, and humor to deal with the ways in which the understanding of status continues to stem from a view they do not fit these categories” (Lawrence, 2004, p. 151). of pure Indigenous Peoples and culture from an historic Lawrence notes that the painful price associated with this time (Palmater, 2011). hidden identity is a generational loss of cultural knowledge Within this line of thinking, Palmater condemns and belonging and resulting feelings of ambiguity and Canada’s perpetual drive to see Indigenous Peoples through unbelonging in the Indigenous world (Lawrence, 2004). a romanticized understanding of a traditional culture Although mixed-blood urban Indigenous individuals existing before the arrival of Europeans. She asserts that “to sometimes tout the irrelevance of official Indian status, limit Indigenous people to pre-contact cultural practices not they also contradictorily view it as a seal of Indianness, and only locks them in a cultural time box, but sentences them one of their key aspirations is the expansion of the Indian to cultural death when change occurs over time” (Palmater, category to actually include them (Lawrence, 2004). This 2011, p. 64). She proposes that Indigenous Peoples must be struggle highlights the inequality that currently exists able to maintain their communal and cultural identities in a within Indigenous groups stemming from the colonial way that is flexible and takes into consideration the diversity legacy of crude racial categorization. Emphasizing this represented within the lived experience of being Indigenous. point, Lawrence (2004) states, This will be what ensures the long-term survival of these cultures for future generations (Palmater, 2011). Canada has been able to use Indian status to define who can be In her research on mixed-blood urban Indigenous considered Indian in ways that have alienated whole Peoples, Lawrence (2004) draws very similar conclusions communities from any access to a land base and permanently to Palmater (2011). She points out that mixed-blood fragmented Native identity through an extremely patriarchal Indigenous Peoples constantly have to negotiate external and racist system that has torn large holes in the fabric of denials and affirmations associated with their Indigeneity, Native societies. (p. 229) usually according to how closely they conform to externally imposed standards of what is understood to be Lawrence points to a need for connection between Indigenous. She notes that when Indigenous People are Indigenous Peoples in urban and reserve settings, so as to seen as behaving in a manner outside of an historic ensure the cultural health and survival of Indigenous groups. Mixed-blood urban Indigenous Peoples long for a understanding of Indigenous authenticity, they can be connection to their ancestors and to community which dismissed as being fake. This curtails the ability of racial legislation over centuries has eliminated. As more Indigenous Peoples to enjoy an uncontested identity in a Indigenous Peoples begin to live in cities throughout modern environment (Lawrence, 2004). Canada, looping in non-status individuals is critical for Lawrence argues that most mixed-blood Indigenous the survival of Indigenous cultures and populations individuals struggle in their ability to identify as Indigenous, (Lawrence, 2004). and she notes there is a highly gendered aspect to Indigenous While the struggle for recognition among non-status exclusion, pointing to an over-representation of people mixed-blood Indigenous Peoples progresses, there also with Indigenous lineage on their mother’s side identifying exists a legitimate desire within Indigenous communities to outside of strict Indian status. Understanding that women protect their cultural boundaries from settler trespassers. had a legacy of losing status as a result of intermarriage, Tuck and Yang introduce a concept of settler moves to this finding is not surprising (Lawrence, 2004). innocence, in which non-Indigenous individuals seek Lawrence points to the fact that as mixed-blood manners in which to latch onto Indigenous culture in such a Indigenous Peoples living in urban centres choose to look way that they can shed any responsibility for self-reflection seriously at their Indigenous heritage, they are confronting and escape the discomfort of settler-guilt. One of these the cultural genocide that in many cases resulted in them 6 AlterNative 00(0) moves to innocence is a phenomenon in which White In fact, it was not until 1982 that the Canadian settlers claim to have a long-lost Indigenous relative, which government formally recognized Métis as a legitimate grants them legitimacy in Indigenous spaces. This tactic, Indigenous group. At this time, Métis were included in the alongside widespread acts of cultural appropriation, is Constitution Act 1982 Section under 35(2) (Bell, 1991). enough to threaten the boundaries of Indigeneity (Tuck & This did not represent a concrete commitment, however, on Yang, 2012). behalf of the government, as the term Métis was left The attempted intrusion of White people into Indigenous undefined, and it did not clarify whether the Métis had spaces can leave Indigenous Peoples feeling defensive of existing Indigenous rights (Bell, 1991). their cultural boundaries and understandably leads to the Several years later, the rights of Métis were further cementing of defence walls. This is problematic, however, as defined through R. v Powley (2003). This case represented other mixed-blood Indigenous People are found outside of a dispute over hunting rights; however, it was historic in those walls. Naumann (2008) points to personal narratives of that it was the first major Indigenous case that specifically non-status Indians feeling unworthy of officially identifying concerned Métis rights. Since this time, two other major themselves as belonging to an Indigenous Nation and points cases have also come forward concerning Métis: Manitoba out that this tends to be most pronounced in cases of mixed- Métis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General) blood individuals who inherit distinctly European physical (2013) and Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern traits, such as light hair or eye colour (Naumann, 2008). Development) (2016). In Manitoba Métis Federation Inc. Likewise, Lawrence reveals the seeming importance of v Canada (Attorney General) (2013), the Supreme Court appearances in identity construction among mixed-blood declared that the Canadian government had failed in its urban Indigenous Peoples. She finds that mixed-blood constitutional obligation captured in the Manitoba Act individuals with paler skin tend to feel inauthentic in their 1870, which committed to providing land to the children own identity given their inherited genes, resulting in a of the Red River Métis. Thereafter, the government constant struggle among pale-skinned mixed-blood Indig- committed, through a Memorandum of Understanding, to enous Peoples against racial understandings of who they are seeking a solution with the Manitoba Métis Federation on and what they should look like (Lawrence, 2004). this issue (Government of Canada, 2016). In Daniels v Naumann points out that non-status Indigenous Peoples Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) are often excluded from reserve and band-life on account of (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that it was the federal their mixed ancestry and lack of status. Consequently, she government’s responsibility, rather than provincial notes, some of these individuals turn to the recognized governments, to enact on behalf of issues related to both category of Métis as a way of accessing a legitimate space Métis and non-status Indians, opening up potential new for their mixed identity (Naumann, 2008). avenues for future discussions related to the rights of these Indigenous Peoples (Daniels v Canada [Indian Affairs and Northern Development], 2016). The Métis identity Although the Métis are understood to have adopted a Exploring the Métis identity in the same context as non- unique culture of their own, there are still those who do not status Indians in Canada is a relevant layer in the discussion, ascribe to this culture but that are of mixed ancestry and as the historical struggles and present-day debates regarding thus self-identify as Métis (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). the racial and cultural parameters associated with Métis- Siggner and Peters (2014) point out that even though Métis ness mirror in myriad ways those struggles faced by First people originating from areas now known as British Nations Peoples grappling with the government recognized Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario appear to framework of status. have a relatively clear distinction of what constitutes a The Métis identity sits atop a complex nest of historical Métis, Indigenous Peoples of mixed descent coming from events and cultural convergences; this has led to a other parts of Canada seem to use this identifier more complicated, and often conflicted, understanding of these freely. This identity is tied up in an understanding of Métis Indigenous Peoples. The beginnings of this identity are in terms of their dilution of Indigenous blood (Siggner & found in the intermarriage of European and Indigenous Peters, 2014). Peoples, which resulted in a large group of individuals with There is also division within the Métis based on mixed ancestry that did not neatly fit within Indigenous or descendance from either the Red River area, which is settler identities (Voyageur & Calliou, 2001). It is broadly situated in modern-day Manitoba or that claim ancestry recognized that the culture that emerged from this new from other parts of North America. Andersen (2014), for community was unique and thus represented a People on its instance, firmly asserts that the Métis people are a distinct own, and this community further coalesced in the form of culture originating from the Red River region. He proposes collective action for political and social independence and that this group should be understood in terms of peoplehood, direct confrontations in the pursuit of Métis nationalism rather than nationhood, and that their origin can be drawn (MacDougall, 2012). Ultimately, the Canadian government through an events-based history in which their identity was was forced to acknowledge their existence towards the end cemented through key historic moments. In particular, he of the 19th century, and established a shallow process of points to five such moments: the Battle of the Seven Oaks rights recognition, known as the scrip system, whereby in 1816, the disruption of the Hudson Bay Company’s Métis could receive from the government either money or a monopoly in 1849, the Battle of Grand Couteau in 1851, formal title to their land (MacDougall, 2012). the Red River uprisings in 1869–1870 and 1885, and the Dicks 7 dispossession of the Métis that rippled out from the felt as they were understood as falling in-between Manitoba Act 1870. Andersen cautions against superficial Indigenous and European identities; with an underlying understandings of Métis simply in terms of mixedness or assumption on the purity of those opposing identities, Métis hybridity between Indigenous and European ancestry and were understood to be something lesser (Andersen, 2014). refutes the idea that Métis from communities with no ties to Much like the struggles faced by mixed-blood non- the Red River Métis should be associated with this identity. status Indians, the racially ambiguous appearance of many Rather he stands firmly in the position that the Red River Métis can often lead them to be confused with their non- Métis are the only legitimate Métis, in that they are the ones Indigenous counterparts. At times, this results in Métis that actually adopted this identity historically. His key having to explain and justify their cultural existence. Often, argument rests on the premise that they can claim this however, Métis will opt for passing as a White person in identity because their ancestors did so (Andersen, 2014). order to remain invisible and thus avoid the uncomfortable Interestingly, throughout his argument, Andersen societal friction associated with not conforming to the utilizes similar language regarding the struggle of the dominant culture (Richardson, 2004). Métis to that experienced by present-day mixed-blood Meanwhile, akin to Tuck and Yang’s (2012) assertion that non-status Indians. Most notably, regarding the struggle a settler move to innocence involves claiming Indigeneity they face due to their mixedness and their longing for through a long-lost relative, Leroux (2019) points to a similar recognition. As he states, “Métis are classified as hybrid— phenomenon among French descendants claiming an with all the denigrating connotations of the term—in ways Indigenous ancestor as a basis for adopting the Métis identity that deny that which we seek most, an acknowledgment of (Leroux, 2019). Leroux has been forceful in his discredit of our political legitimacy and authenticity as an Indigenous people claiming Indigenous identities associated with mixed- people” (Andersen, 2014, p. 38). blood heritage, particularly those in academic and otherwise Chartrand (2003) follows much the same line of public facing positions, dubbing numerous individuals and reasoning as Andersen when it comes to defining the groups pretendians (Leroux, 2019). parameters of Métis. He affirms that the Métis identity should be associated with those people who have historic Analysis of existing literature ties to the Red River Métis only. He posits that “Aboriginal rights are based in history. Their present purpose is to There are currently over 1.6 million Indigenous peoples in protect the interests of Aboriginal peoples that were at stake Canada, representing 5% of the population; this includes upon the assertion of Crown sovereignty” (Chartrand, just over 820,000 First Nations people, representing 2% of 2003, p. 89). Thus, much like Andersen, Chartrand points the Canadian population. Non-status Indians make up a full to ancestral claims to Indigeneity as the legitimizing factor 23.8% of the total First Nations population within Canada in the adoption of a given Indigenous identity. He claims (Statistics Canada, 2017) or 14% of the total Indigenous that those Métis who are approaching their claim in terms population in the country (Government of Canada, 2020). of their mixedness between Indigenous and European This represents a substantial group of individuals who have ancestry should be viewed instead as disenfranchised First been excluded from formal recognition of their Indigeneity Nations and be treated in terms of their relation to First due to continued assimilatory policies on behalf of the Nations, rather than Métis peoples (Chartrand, 2003). government. This group is predominantly urban and, while Lawrence (2004), approaching the argument as a mixed- they share the same socioeconomic struggles as their urban blood Mi’kmaw (a member of the Mi’kmaq First Nations Indigenous neighbours, they are excluded from those rights people, eastern Canada) woman, stands in contrast to and services that might provide them with needed support Chartrand and Andersen, as she rejects the idea of the Métis and community connection. being narrowly understood through a lens of distinct Among the challenges that non-status individuals face is cultural difference stemming from Red River heritage. their ability to maintain a sense of identity in an ambiguous Instead, she argues that the identity would be more usefully and largely unrecognized space. Facing racial discrimination understood in terms of historic dispossession and exclusion from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, these resulting from racist categorizations embodied in the Indian people are left in an in-between position, where they must Act 1876 (Lawrence, 2004). constantly struggle to understand and receive recognition Likewise, Gunn (2015) refutes the idea of understanding for their identity. Métis in terms of Indians altogether and argues that Canada Ongoing debates within Métis Nations reveals a similar needs to recognize Métis for their internal characteristics as picture, with external battles being fought against the a people, not on their identity as it relates to that of First Canadian government in search of greater rights and Nations. She points to a changing definition of Indian recognition, while internal fissures reveal exclusionary according to the Canadian government, which inherently viewpoints associated with who can and cannot adopt the leads to a shifting Métis identity, given their relational Métis identity. This debate flows into the harbour of non- nature (Gunn, 2015). status Indians, as the identity of Métis, as understood in Similar to Gunn’s assertions, Andersen declares that terms of mixed European-Indigenous heritage, has been Métis should not be understood through a lens of Indianness, seen as an appropriate avenue to achieve legitimacy within as this ultimately obscures a legitimate understanding of some mixed-blood Indigenous communities (Naumann, this people. He points to discrimination that the Métis have 2008). 8 AlterNative 00(0) Andersen (2014) and Chartrand (2003) starkly highlight looking into the causes of Indigenous lateral violence in this heated debate ongoing on Métis identity. A rigid hold Australia has found that identity issues, internalized racism, on the historical legitimacy of the Métis identity stemming and issues associated with obtaining status were some of from a connection to Red River, while understandably a the key causes spurring this violence (Whyman, Murrup- relevant line of reasoning for the boundaries of the Métis Steward, et al., 2021). people, may be perceived as exclusionary to mixed-blood A thematic thread woven throughout all of the literature non-status Indians who have no other hope of attaining on non-status and Métis identities is the crude racialized recognition for their Indigeneity except through recognition categorization of Indigeneity imposed by the Canadian of their mixedness (Andersen, 2014; Chartrand, 2003). government, which cements Indigenous authenticity in a Like much debate regarding Indigeneity, it finds its romanticized historic view of what it means to be justification in a historical narrative that negates the Indigenous. This same categorization has become accepted changing reality of Indigeneity in Canadian societies. In his among Indigenous groups and appears to now be assertion that Indigenous recognition and rights are based inextricably tangled in those rights and entitlements owed on the historic moment when the Crown asserted to Indigenous Nations in Canada. The enjoyment and sovereignty, Andersen seemingly takes a past-tense view of protection of these rights plays out in a system of seeming colonialism which disregards to a large extent the continued internal colonialism which has embedded itself within the and evolving nature of the colonization of North America Indigenous landscape. The result has been a system of (Andersen, 2014). cracks and conflicts among Indigenous Peoples, manifested More generally speaking, the perpetual understanding in a structure of internal inequality that is little explored in of Indigeneity in historic pre-contact terms continues to current research literature. erode contemporary Indigenous identities. This is particularly salient when considering the growing urban Conclusion Indigenous population, where non-status Indians are most widely represented. Without a flexible, adaptable, and The findings presented herein expose the fact that many of evolving understanding of what it means to be an the assimilatory policies in Canada have succeeded and Indigenous person in contemporary Canada, Indigenous continue to succeed to this day with the continued relevance groups across this country risk confronting persistent and enforcement of the Indian Act 1985. Those who find cultural conflict from all sides. themselves in the margins of recognized Indigenous or This archaic understanding of what is understood to non-Indigenous identities face a whole spectrum of encompass an Indigenous person is also revealed in the unequal power dynamics, not addressed in the prevailing crude grasp of what these individuals should look like. For sociological binary of settler-Indigenous relations that many mixed-blooded Indigenous Peoples, there exists the currently dominates research literature in Canada. disjuncture between how they may look and how their This binary engenders an understanding of Indigeneity cultural heart beats. Race is a slippery and baseless concept that is rooted in an historic view of Indigenous Peoples built on perceived differences between people; yet, it has overlaid with a crude political configuration of what it means become a powerful societal tool and ultimately underpins to be Indigenous. This overly simplistic categorization leaves much of the government policy framework surrounding mixed-blood individuals fumbling to understand their place. Indigeneity in Canada. Thus, for mixed-blood individuals It also leaves little to no room for modern expressions of negotiating their often-White appearance in the face of Indigeneity, as these manifestations are dismissed as being their claim to Indigeneity, they are frequently left feeling inauthentic. disingenuous and uncomfortable in their own skin. This article has sought to expose a more complex Furthermore, as mixed-blood Métis and non-status understanding of social inequality as it exists not only Indians seek to navigate their peripheral identities, they are between settlers and Indigenous Peoples, but within and faced with a veritable minefield of Indigenous personalities between these Peoples. Mixed-blood non-status Indians and scholars diligently policing the boundaries of and Métis face unique challenges and experiences related Indigeneity. While this may seem a noble pursuit for those to their often-unrecognized identities. Occupying a seem- situated comfortably at the centre of their Indigenous or ingly liminal space within a framework of generational settler identity, for those straddling this dichotomous assimilation, mixed-blood non-status and Métis indi- understanding of Canada’s population, the erection of these viduals must fight for recognition in an arena with far forceful cultural borders may feel more akin to a witch hunt, fewer supports and connections. Indeed, as Lawrence with deep implications. Mixed-blood individuals who points out, differences arising from those legal restrictions embrace their Indigenous identities must be ready to defend that have been placed on Indianness “are the most divisive who they are in the face of heavy scrutiny. Those falling issues that Native People face in Canada today” (Lawrence, short of their critics’ expectations must face loss of 2004, p. 230). reputation, opportunity, or even career (Leo, 2022). Future research in social inequality related to Indigenous Beyond reputational risks, research has found lateral issues in Canada should consider those inequalities that violence (aggression directed internally between members exist within this more complex frame, in order to present a of an oppressed group) to be common within Indigenous true picture of what it means to be Indigenous in this communities (Whyman, Adams, et al., 2021). Research country. Dicks 9 Author’s note Culhane, D. (2003). Their spirits live within us: Aboriginal women in downtown eastside Vancouver emerging into visibility. Heather Dicks is a PhD candidate within the Department of American Indian Quarterly, 27(3), 593–606. https://doi. Sociology at the Memorial University of Newfoundland and org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0073 Labrador. She is a mixed-blood woman, with Mi’kmaq and Daniels v Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) European heritage, from the island of Newfoundland, Canada. [2016] SCC 35945. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- csc/en/item/15858/index.do Declaration of conflicting interests Dennis, J. S. (2015). Contact theory in small town settler-colonial The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect context: The reproduction of laissez-faire racism in Indigenous- to the research, authorship, and publication of this article. white Canadian relations. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414564998 Government of Canada. (2013). 250th anniversary of the Royal Funding Proclamation of 1763. https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng The author received no financial support for the research, /1370355181092/1607905122267#a6 authorship, and publication of this article. Government of Canada. (2016, July 15). Memorandum of understanding on advancing reconciliation (“MOU”). https:// ORCID iD www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1467055681745/1539711559006 Heather Dicks https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8879-6223 Government of Canada. (2019). Bill S-3: Eliminating known sex- based inequities in registration. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/ eng/1467214955663/1572460311596 Glossary Government of Canada. (2020). Annual report to Parliament 2020. Métis one of Canada’s three recognized Indigenous https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1602010609492/1602010631711 groups, encompassing a distinct culture reflecting Graybill, A. R. (2016). Native-white intermarriage and family in their blend of Indigenous and European ancestry 19th century North America. History Compass, 14(3), 105– Mi’kmaq a First Nations people, eastern Canada 115. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12303 Mi’kmaw a member of the Mi’kmaq First Nations people, Gunn, B. (2015). Defining Métis People as a people: Moving eastern Canada beyond the Indian/Métis dichotomy. Dalhousie Law Journal, 38(2), 413–446. References Indian Act 1886 SCC 28 (Can). http://caid.ca/IndAct1886.pdf Indian Act 1985 RSC 1-5 (Can). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ An Act for the Better Protection of the Lands and Property of the eng/acts/i-5/fulltext.html Indians in Lower Canada 1850 SCC 42 (13 &14 Vic) (Can). Indigenous Services Canada. (2020). Frequently asked questions https://bnald.lib.unb.ca/legislation/act-better-protection- on S-3. Yukon Aboriginal Women’s Council. https://yawc.ca/ lands-and-property-indians-lower-canada-10th-august-1850 files/bill-s-3-faq.pdf An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Lawrence, B. (2004). “Real” Indians and others: Mixed blood Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Provisions urban Native peoples and Indigenous nationhood. University of the Act 31st Victoria, Chapter 42 1869 SCC 6 (Can). of Nebraska Press. https://dev.nctr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1869- Lawrence, B. (2012). Fractured homeland: Federal recognition Gradual-Enfranchisement-Act.pdf and Algonquin identity in Ontario. University of British An Act to Amend the Indian Act in Response to the Superior Court Columbia Press. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v3i3.21266 of Quebec Decision in Descheneaux c. Canada (Procureur Leo, G. (2022, June 1). Carrie Bourassa, who claimed to be Général) 2017 SCC 25 (Can). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ Indigenous without evidence, has resigned from U of Sask. eng/annualstatutes/2017_25/page-1.html CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/ An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian carrie-bourassa-resigns-1.6473964 Tribes in This Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Leroux, D. (2019). Distorted descent: White claims to Indigenous Indians 1857 SCC 26 (Can). https://dev.nctr.ca/wp-content/ identity. University of Manitoba Press. uploads/2021/01/Bill-an-act-to-encourage-the-gradual- MacDougall, B. (2012). The myth of Metis cultural ambivalence. civilization-of-Indian-tribes.pdf In M. Campbell, N. St-Onge, C. Podruchny, & B. MacDougall Andersen, C. (2014). Métis: Race, recognition, and the struggle (Eds.), Contours of a people: Metis family, mobility and for Indigenous peoplehood. University of British Columbia history (pp. 422–456). University of Oklahoma Press. Press. Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v Canada (Attorney General) Assembly of First Nations. (2020). What Is Bill C-31 and Bill C-3? [2013] SCC 33880. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc- https://www.afn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/16-19-02-06- csc/en/item/12888/index.do AFN-Fact-Sheet-Bill-C-31-Bill-C-3-final-revised.pdf Native Women’s Association of Canada. (2018). The Indian Act said Baskin, C. (2019). Contemporary Indigenous women’s roles: what? https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- Traditional teachings or internalized colonialism? Violence Indian-Act-Said-WHAT-pdf-1.pdf against Women, 26(15–16), 2083–2101. https://doi.org/10. Naumann, D. (2008). Aboriginal women in Canada: On the 1177/1077801219888024 choice to renounce or reclaim Aboriginal Identity. Canadian Bell, C. (1991). Who are the Metis People in Section 35(2)? Journal of Native Studies, 28(2), 343–361. Alberta Law Review, 29(2), 351–381. https://doi.org/10. Palmater, P. D. (2011). Beyond blood: Rethinking Indigenous 29173/alr1566 identity. Purich Publishing. Chartrand, P. L. (2003). The hard case of defining “the Métis Richardson, C. L. (2004). Becoming Metis: The relationship People” and their rights: A comment on R. v. Powley. between the sense of Metis self and cultural stories. University Constitutional Forum, 12(3), C98D5G. https://doi.org/10. of Victoria. 21991/C98D5G 10 AlterNative 00(0) R. v Powley [2003] SCC 43. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/ Van Kirk, S. (2002). From “marrying-in” to “marrying- scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do out”: Changing patterns of Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal Satzewich, V., & Wotherspoon, T. (2000). Political economy marriage in colonial Canada. Frontiers: A Journal of versus the Chicago school and internal colonialism: Class, Women Studies, 23(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1353/fro. “race,” gender and Aboriginal Peoples. In T. Wotherspoon & 2003.0010 V. Satzewich (Eds.), First Nations: Race, class and gender Voyageur, C. J., & Calliou, B. (2001). Various shades of red: (pp. 1–14). Canadian Plains Research Center. Diversity within Canada’s Indigenous community. The Siggner, A. J., & Peters, E. J. (2014). The non-status Indian London Journal of Canadian Studies, 16(19), 109–118. population living off-reserve in Canada: A demographic and Whyman, T., Adams, K., Carter, A., & Jobson, L. (2021). Lateral socio-economic profile. Aboriginal Policy Studies, 3(3), 86– violence in Indigenous Peoples. Australian Psychologist, 108. https://doi.org/10.5663/aps.v3i3.18582 56(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2021.1893 Statistics Canada. (2017, November 29). Focus on Geography 595 Series, 2016 Census. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census- Whyman, T., Murrup-Steward, C., Young, M., Carter, A., recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Index-eng.cfm & Jobson, L. (2021). “Lateral violence stems from the Tsukada, H. (2016, May 2). Don’t Aboriginal peoples want colonial system”: Settler-colonialism and lateral violence in equality? What is it that they want then? The University of Aboriginal Australians. Postcolonial Studies. https://doi.org/ British Columbia. http://timeandplace.ubc.ca/developers- 10.1080/13688790.2021.2009213 stories/story-3-dont-aboriginal-peoples-want-equality-what-is Wolfe, P. (2006). Settler colonialism and the elimination of the Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Native. Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 387–409. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240

Journal

AlterNativeSAGE

Published: Jun 1, 2023

Keywords: Canada; Indian status; Indigenous; inequality; Métis; mixed-blood

There are no references for this article.