Daniels v. Canada: Racialized Legacies, Settler Self-Indigenization and the Denial of Indigenous Peoplehood

Abstract

In this commentary on Daniels v. Canada, we discuss the cultural power of legal discourse, and more specifically, we argue that the logics that various actors have drawn from Daniels work to marginalize, if not gut completely, policy logics that are based on a respect for Métis peoplehood. In doing so, we analyze one unintended yet predictable outcome of the decision: the growth of new self-declared Métis or Indian groups, such as the Mikinak Tribe of Québec, who see Daniels as an opportunity to capitalize on the perceived benefits of being Indigenous in Canada. We conclude that while Métis inclusion in s.35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and now in s.91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 due to the Daniels decision remains important, these developments should be understood and used, from a policy perspective, as building blocks for affirming Métis nationhood and the self-determining power of the Métis Nation.

Wiisaakodewininiwag ga-nanaakonaawaad: Jiibe- Giizhikwe, Racial Homeopathy, and “Eastern Métis” Identity Claims

“…Malette and Marcotte base their claim that Riel's Métis nationalism was inclusive of the so-called eastern métis on two quotations from him in addition to a quotation from Gabriel Dumont. The first of the two Riel quotations is instrumentalized in order to refute the scholarly argument that "eastern Métis" claims are a form of "self-indigenization" counter to Indigenous peoples (Andersen and Gaudry 2016).…”

Where are you From? Reframing Facilitated Admissions Policies in the Faculty of Health Sciences

“…The approach of the FIAP Indigenous working group was to think in broad terms of inclusion instead of exclusion and approach the applicant as an individual who brings with them unique stories based on specific lived experiences impacted by colonial policy and the breadth of diverse backgrounds across Indigenous nations, while considering how we could elicit those aspects of applicant diversity within a policy. We did so being mindful of the challenges emerging regarding definitions of Indigeneity raised by Indigenous scholars Gaudry and Andersen (2016), who state the following:…”

Institutionalization, neo-politicization and the politics of defining Sámi research

“…Accordingly, there are growing concerns within Indigenous Studies with the challenge that these movements present in relation to Indigenous self-determination and decolonization (Andersen 2008(Andersen , 2014Sturm 2010;Tuck and Yang 2012;Gaudry and Leroux 2017;Gaudry 2018;Gaudry and Andersen 2018; Reflections on the Daniels Decision 2018; Leroux 2019). The issue these scholars tackle is not bloodlines or notions of authenticity and "racial purity"; on the contrary, it is asserted that Indigenous Peoples do not tend to view identity and community membership in racial terms and that racialization of indigenous peoplehood is precisely part of the problem.…”