Métis: Race, Recognition, and the Struggle for Indigenous Peoplehood by Chris Andersen (review)

IN MÉTIS: RACE, RECOGNITION, AND THE STRUGGLE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLEHOOD, Andersen examines the misrecognition and racialization of the Métis. Who are the Métis? In my experience, many Americans (Native and non-Native) have no idea that the Métis even exist and/or are confused about who they are. I study Anishinaabe identity and racialization and did not have a firm grasp on Métis identity. I have read some scholarship on the development of the Métis at both Red River and Sault Ste. Marie that generally described them as people of mixed ancestry who formed a new and distinctive culture. I found this scholarship a bit perplexing as many peoples have some mixed ancestry and maintain a variety of distinct identities (i.e., there are many people who have mixed ancestry who are not Métis). As it turns out, I am not alone. Andersen explains that most Canadians think that “Métis” means mixed or mixed-race as a result of a wide range of systems that have validated and reproduced this idea. Métis is often thought of as a racial category.

In contrast, Andersen explores Métis in terms of political, peoplehood-based relationships, highlighting that this is a major shift in both scholarship and popularly held beliefs. He notes that the mere fact of the mixed ancestry of a people does not make them Métis, noting, “From my perspective, whether or not an Indigenous individual or community self-defines as Métis today, and whether or not the Indigenous community is ‘older’ than Red River, if the individual or group lacks a connection to the historical core in the Red River region, it is not Métis” (6). Andersen effectively contrasts the racialized definition of Métis with a nationhood-based positioning, placing Métis in connection to a “national core.” Andersen effectively explores the complex tensions between racialized and national discourses about Métis.

There are several repercussions of the racialization of Métis identity. Andersen points out that if Métis are mixed then First Nations and Inuit must not be “mixed”—otherwise, to be mixed is not distinctive. Furthermore, if Métis are mixed and First Nations and Inuit are not, then Métis must be less Indigenous. Consequently, the racialization of Métis identity has effects beyond the Métis. Andersen discusses the ways in which an emphasis on biological origins results in the misrecognition of political status. Andersen employs an events-based narrative as the basis for a nationalist Métis identity to highlight the ways in which events facilitated and honed collective self-understandings of Métis identity.

He tackles the challenging issues surrounding the ways in which Statistics Canada and the Canadian courts have, in many cases, both legitimated and replicated problematic and dangerous racialization of Métis. Andersen does a superb job of engaging with the scholarship of the field, allowing the reader to gain a clear understanding of its historical trajectory and where Andersen’s work stands in comparison. He ends with a series of suggestions for the ways in which both the census and the courts can better recognize and support Métis peoplehood. In addition, he calls for scholars to write about Métis in non-racialized ways and delineates five strategies for doing so. Métis is an important contribution and I expect that it will spur lively discussions, productive critiques, and shift the scholarship in the field.