Overshadowed National Liberation Wars

An excerpt from a chapter titled ‘The Mixed Bloods’ from a conference presentation and edited book collection

During the 1840s, when the fur industry declined and the Bay’s [Hudson’s Bay Company] profits dropped, Halfbreeds were dismissed from service en masse. Although their European counterparts were granted “one hundred acres of land free of charge in return for their years of service,” the Halfbreeds were not provided with as much as a “thank you”. As for the Métis, they were not any better off. Beginning in 1830, they had eventually replaced the French Canadian trappers, but their prominence coincided with the decline of the fur economy and low profit margins. In effect, both the Métis and Halfbreeds were discarded when the fur trade’s reign finally came to an end. The Mixed-Bloods, being an underdeveloped class of unskilled workers were forced to turn to the land for their survival. They supplemented their meagre resources in a variety of ways. Some worked as blacksmiths, millers, and saddlemakers, while others established a pemmican industry. Another more lucrative occupation was the trade business with the United States.

Although the Halfbreeds could have obtained some work with the Bay as casual workers, such as tripmen, they apparently preferred their freedom. They joined the Métis and settled in the Red River region where subsistence farming on ten to twenty acres of land meant survival. It was a difficult existence at the best of times. Most did not have the luxury of ploughs or harrows; grain and hay were harvested with the sickle and scythe. Their limited livestock of sheep and hogs was used strictly for home consumption. The Métis practised a quasi-peasant type of farming patterned after the seigneurial system in New France. Each family had a share of the fertile soil for crops, with space to spare for hay and pasture, and access to the water for transportation and fishing. From Winnipeg to the Rockies, the Métis practised this farming pattern. They shared the land among themselves, but their peaceful coexistence was destroyed by the ambitious railroad bourgeois of Ottawa in the second half of the nineteenth century.

The collapse of the fur industry ushered the Mixed-Bloods into a renewed struggle for sovereignty. During the first half of the 19th century, industrial capitalism destroyed or transformed what remained of the mercantile economic structure. Industrialism required more land and raw materials to feed and support its infrastructure. In particular, it required a vast railroad system that would rob the Mixed-Bloods of their only financial security, their land and farming settlements. Faced by this threat to their livelihood, the Mixed-Bloods rallied together, ready to fight for their rights.

“Between 1830 and 1870 there were two distinct and separate periods of unrest in Red River, each marked by an agitation on the part of the Halfbreed inhabitants of the colony.”

“They objected to the lack of consultation, and they feared a Federal Government appointment. Under an apparently unsympathetic governor, the Métis and ‘country born’ were not to be given any form of representative government with which to make their views known.” The Mixed-Bloods’ grievances were both specific and general. Their new consciousness was the product of their struggles against oppression and their need to establish a distinct national identity, even if it meant violence. The Mixed-Bloods were committed to a separate national identity.

In turn, the colonizers became increasingly oppressive and brutal. “Officers of the Company at Fort Garry armed with muskets and bayonets broke open a Half-breed cabin and confiscated all the furs that it contained.” This type of action, however, only accelerated counteractivity. A decisive turning point in the liberation struggle was their freeing G. Sayer, a Métis trapper, who was arrested and imprisoned for “trafficking in furs” by the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1849. Sayer’s case was dismissed because of “The hostile manifestations of the Métis, three hundred of whom… were armed with rifles and buffalo guns.” This was a great victory that further elevated the Mixed-Bloods’ unity and served as one more reason to celebrate the cause of national liberation.

During the resistance struggles in 1869, the Métis and Halfbreeds realized for the first time that they had a common enemy, the ruling class in Ottawa and London. The two Métis groups drew closer together, fostering a national consciousness and identity, regardless of language and religious differences. Both the French Métis and English Halfbreeds were fighting for the same goal freedom from oppression and colonization. The general Mixed-Blood population realized that they needed a united struggle on a national level. The only true division between these two groups was drawn on class rather than cultural lines. Although the small group of English Halfbreed petite bourgeois tended to move towards the white mainstream, in so far as the whites permitted them, the rural proletariat and peasantry remained as a unified group fighting for their heritage and aboriginal rights. They claimed a historical and cultural right to the specific geographic boundaries in the Red River area.

Understanding the deceitful practices of the Ottawa government, the Métis organized a provisional government of the northwest territories, and increased pressure on Prime Minister Macdonald “to negotiate the terms for the transfer of the territory. On the same day another party seized control of Fort Garry.”

In 1884, the territories were engulfed by revolution. Farmers, settlers, workers, Métis, Indians — people of all walks of life — were politically agitated. A national liberation war of secession, one which Ottawa would not have been able to contain, was a strong possibility. However, much depended on the direction the Mixed-Bloods and Indian leadership took. To their disadvantage, “Riel had only sought to unite all parties in one common purpose, the constitutional redress of grievance.” Riel seemingly lacked the necessary counterconsciousness to lead a successful war against the colonizer’s powerful military force. He underestimated our people’s power and talents, and he lacked faith in their ability to fight for their sovereignty. He feared violence and did not want to fight for our independence.

In 1885 at Batoche, our people were attacked by Canadian and British mercenaries who seized our land. The desecration of the settlements reduced the Mixed-Bloods to homeless peasants. Their rich land and resources were seized by the white ruling class. Those who escaped genocide, execution and imprisonment were rendered prisoners by poverty, racism and oppression. Some Halfbreeds were able to continue farming, but even they were compelled to work part time or seasonally for low wages after that fateful battle. Our struggle for national liberation was abruptly and viciously quashed.

In the history of most nations, the national revolution represents a peak of achievement. It is the period when its people are most united, most involved, and most active in their fight for liberation. One person usually emerges as the revolution’s principal leader, and sometimes even as a hero. During periods of nation-state revolutions, there is little question about who assumes the role, but in the national liberation of colonies, the leader may be falsely chosen by imperialist manipulators.

We are told that although we lost both the 1870 and 1885 wars of national liberation, we had our hero, Louis Riel. It is true that Riel’s roots were with the Métis masses and that he gave superior leadership and made the greatest sacrifice for our people. But should his execution automatically make him our supreme hero? Is he truly our hero? We did not win our freedom or sovereignty. In fact, our people were worse off after his execution.

More importantly, there is no evidence to prove that Riel was a revolutionary during the 1870 liberation struggle. Riel acted as a reformist. He did not mobilize the Métis people in Red River for revolutionary war. He was strictly involved in constitutional negotiations for a provisional government. He did not organize revolutionary forces for action. In the end, Riel was banished from the British dominions and the provisional government was replaced by the military regime under Colonel Wolseley. And again, during the liberation war of 1885 in Saskatchewan, Riel merely acted as a negotiator. He took no part in the guerilla fighting and even commanded Gabriel Dumont to stop killing the police and soldiers, their enemies. Furthermore, Riel willingly surrendered to the military general, leaving the Métis people to scramble for their personal survival. If Riel had not been at Batoche, the Métis and Indians would have had a much better chance of winning in their liberation battle, and would have maintained control of their territory and established a nationhood.

As Métis, it is important that we analyze and resolve the contradiction between Riel, our supposed hero, and the revolutions. Riel’s life and leadership is one of the most overstudied topics handled by white historians. Our national liberation wars have always been overshadowed by an excessive emphasis on Riel; they are studied strictly as Riel rebellions. The colonizer has magnified Riel’s role to such an extent that other leaders have been relegated to subordinate roles or obscurity. Such leaders may be the true heroes of our liberation battles. Did Ambroise Lépine not play an equally important role as Riel in 1870 in Manitoba? The colonizer often contrives false images and myths about Indigenous leaders. The events surrounding Riel’s trial and execution should be placed in their proper historical context. Ottawa had its own agenda and political reasoning for killing Riel.

Today, colonizers still use Riel to fulfill their racist agenda. The statues of Riel, the posthumous pardon, and the new title as one of the founding fathers of confederation are all designed to serve our oppressors. Riel’s preeminence is largely the result of promotion propagated by the ruling class and its media. Government-sanctioned admiration is designed to indoctrinate our people into accepting reactionary and colonizing beliefs, particularly the constitutional matters. The same ideological ramifications hold true for the symbols and sites of our defeats during the liberation wars. To worship and revere a site, such as Batoche, where our ancestors suffered defeat is to return to subjugation and degradation. These publicity stunts never let us forget our defeats, and are meant to cast a cloud of humiliation and shame upon us to prevent us from trying the same again. One way to combat this is by reclaiming our identity and those of our ancestors. We should decide who are our heroes, not our oppressors.