“RACE SHIFTING”, A MALICIOUS CULTURAL ACCUSATION

Since 2016, on a substantial government bursary, Darryl Leroux has made an academic career accusing cultural theft of those of his own people who dare to self identify as Metis. Like the official line of the Quebec provincial government he denies that Metis people ever existed in eastern Canada. Officially Quebec policy is that there are only one indigenous people living on reserves and registered by the federal government. Like many Quebecers, Leroux considers himself a “French Canadian white man” despite an admitted native ancestry.  So why is Quebec not generally acknowledging it’s special hybrid indigenous status?

    
Historical British colonial policy and discrimination from British settlers led to several centuries of identity adjustments. The outcome was, for many Quebec families, an overwhelming shame for having originated from European men and indigenous women. Social conscience unfortunately fed the idea that being identified as  “half breed” was far worse than being “French” or even being “Indian”.  Over the 18^th and 19^th centuries it’s people fiercely distanced themselves from their indigenous kin and  rebelled against British domination and assimilation.

    

It is preposterous to profess that the rise of  indigenous self identity today is a result of racial appropriation or racial theft. “Race shifting” is a woefully incorrect and derogatory description. One must consider the Canadian government’s multicultural policy, the constitution of Canada, the Human Rights Act as well as recent supreme court decisions as contributing  factors in the Metis identity issue. Also, finally, the pervading political climate: Namely, a government who officially recognizes cultural and identity differences but lack the courage to reconcile fairly with each and every indigenous descendant.

  

September 19, 2003, the Powley vs Canada supreme court decision cleared the way for a portion of Canada’s indigenous people to identify and claim their historical rights under the Constitution. For a time it was the go to test for Metis Identity. But on April 14, 2016, the Daniels  vs Canada supreme court decision finally rejected the premise that the Powley test was the only definition and that the term “Metis” can be defined as simply having native ancestry---from whom, the majority of  Quebecers originated! Despite the Daniels decision in 2016, the Powley test seems to have been hardwired in the minds of public authorities and very few, if any, are willing to acknowledge the Daniels decision.

Considering Canada’s recent about face from it’s earlier assimilation process, the eastern Metis in every province quickly woke up to the reality of an indigenous heritage that has long been supressed. The province of Quebec might be the closest result of Champlain’s dream of a new country of “mixed French people”; but centuries of determined resistance against “English” domination and assimilation evoked a strong sense of French legitimacy that buried all hope of an indigenous legacy.
     

Since the inception of the Canadian constitution, Canada prided itself on developing a fair and equitable country. The creation of the Canadian Human Rights Act guaranteed our right to identify and associate as we wish without prejudice or rebuke. Unfortunately, a weak political will has eroded this high ideal and biased academic opinion seems to have become the norm.

Canadians like Leroux are attempting to erase our right to identify as indigenous people, guaranteed by the supreme court of Canada. He is attempting to (a new word) "erace" or "racially rub out" our right to associate as we wish! 

   

As Canadian citizens, we are assured of a right to associate and identify individually as we wish, as set out by the Canadian Human Rights Act. When any person or institution interferes with or denies the rights of others under the Act, surely a reckoning is called for!