[DAJ42]

Red Metis asked about how history viewed those of us of mixed blood. That is a complicated question. Being an amateur historian allows me to state things that a professional couldn’t get away with saying. Unfortunately, I don’t have my sources in front of me, so this is from memory.

Remember, first, that the French had quite a few male immigrants to what is now Canada, but not a lot of women. Yet the men mostly seemed to marry. Who? Gotta have been the local Indians. I’ve seen conjecture, and I hold to this view, that most of the Acadians were of mixed French and Indian ancestry.

The series of wars atween France and England in the 1600s and 1700s mostly started in Europe and spilled over to the colonies. After the 3rd one of these, the English found themselves in possession of the area populated by the Acadians. They deported the Acadians to Louisiana. Why? NOT because they spoke French, as I was taught in school. No other French speakers were deported. They were moved from Acadia because they refused to swear allegiance to England and also refused to move to areas still held by France and swear loyalty to France. The Acadians appear to have been a fairly independent Metis society. The English couldn’t allow that, so they moved them.

The final French and Indian War was the one started by George Washington’s being sent by Virginia leaders into Pennsylvania to survey land for Virginia land speculators to sell. Prior to this time, French treaties with the Indians had made some provision for the status of the mixed bloods. After the English won the war and the French had lost New France, the terms of the English treaties with the Indians specifically excluded Caucasians from living west of the Appalachians. The treaties specifically stated that only Indians could live west of the mountains, while specifically excluding everyone else. A minor clause, however, did make some mention of the mixed bloods and they were allowed to remain where they were living at the time of the treaties. As was later seen in the Cuthbert Grant fight against the English, the Metis were mostly living in their own separate communities by this time, not living as either Indians or whites, but with their own culture and in their own settlements.

This changed drastically after the USA war of independence. My take is that this war started with Lord Dunmore’s War in 1774. A quick look at the leading Virginia families, which tended to provide much of the military leadership for the fledgling USA, shows that many of these families had been engaged in land speculation west of the Appalachians and stood to lose a lot of money if they couldn’t ever sell the land, which was a big problem with the English trying to disallow colonial settlement west of the mountains. “Give me liberty or give me death!” and “No taxation without representation!” are a lot more palatable to history than is “Let me make money via land speculation or else I’ll fight you!”

Anyhow, the new USA signed treaties of a sort with the Indians west of the Appalachians. NONE of these treaties made any allowances for the mixed bloods, the Metis. USA policy was pretty much assimilate or get out of the way. This policy has always suggested that one is either white or Indian, white or African, African or Indian. One must choose one, or in the case of the one drop rule and current Indian law, have it chosen for you. A legal classification of mixed anything with anything else has never been possible in the USA.

The Metis fought several wars and battles first against the English and later against Canada. It was always obvious that these were mixed bloods from Metis settlements, not Ojibwa or Cree or other Indian nations. This resulted with Canada having a long history of Metis, Indians and Eskimo.

This is in contrast to the USA, in that in the USA the mixed bloods settled with the Indian nations, or else assimilated into the white settlements, or had even assimilated into African communities especially in the South. As a result of the assimilation with one culture or another, a result that was arguably forced by the blatant exclusion of Metis from the first treaties between the USA and Indian nations, the USA has no provision for Metis or mixed blood.

For most of us here at Saponitown, I am convinced that the proper tack is to state that we are Eastern Siouan Metis, or of Lenape descent, or of Shawnee heritage, whatever the case may be. If one must belong to something, then attempting to get the Federal government to recognize Metis heritage would be a lot more likely than most of us ever being able to become members of any recognized Indian nation.

[sammarroq]

[Quote]I know who and what I am. My wife also knows who and what I am and accepts it. And that is all that is important, not what some government says that I am or am not. Government cannot change my ancestry, nor can I change the decisions to assimilate that my Indian ancestors made.[End Quote]

DAJ42,

I agree with you on this point wholeheartedly! Blessings,

Shirley

[techteach]

Just an aside from the discussion, DAJ42, your comments on the Acadians have been proven through DNA. There are several DNA projects online that are looking into DNA evidence for migration patterns. The Metis/Acadians have such a project. Recently, my mtDNA was found to match those of the Metis in Canada, giving me a place to pursue if I follow up my female line (That is not the line that is described in my signature line.).

In researching this, I found that the Acadians did indeed intermarry (The DNA proves this.). When removed, they were dropped at several places, not simply LA as I thought. Two places include locations where my ancestors come from, Baltimore and Port Tobacco. However, these two locations are places for the people in my signature line who do not connect with my mtDNA line until my great grandmother marries my great grandfather who comes from the people in my signature line.

I found that to be interesting though. The Acadian situation moved many mixed people to several parts of our country.

From Wikipedia: ” Quebec (2,000), Nova Scotia (1,249), Massachusetts (1,043), South Carolina (942), Maryland (810), Baie des Chaleurs (700), Connecticut (666), Pennsylvania (383), Île Saint-Jean (300), Louisiana (300), North Carolina (280), New York (249), Georgia (185), and along the St. John River (86). Another 866 were rejected by Virginia and subsequently sent to England. “

“The Acadians who were deported to what is now the United States were met by British colonists who treated them much like African slaves. Some Acadians became indentured servants. Massachusetts passed a law in November 1755 placing the Acadians under the custody of “justices of the peace and overseers of the poor”; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut adopted similar laws. “

And I agree with your comments.

Techteach

[Kamama]

I am so happy with what I am- I would only like to find other branches of the tree that my grandmother came off. Because, if you really think about it, there is someone out there that is. Thats what is so cool to find family!

[Author]

Posts