– Report questioning local Métis community’s ancestry
– War of words erupts over local Métis community’s ancestry.
Accident – Death – Obituary News :
A critical report has raised doubts about the legitimacy of the Georgian Bay Métis community’s root ancestors, questioning whether they are truly Métis. Led by University of Ottawa academics Darryl Leroux and Darren O’Toole, the report examined six Ontario communities recognized by the province in 2017. Specifically, the report highlights that the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO) “failed to demonstrate the existence of a distinct, rights-bearing Métis community in the Penetanguishene region.”
The report focuses on the unique case of Georgian Bay, where a pre-existing community is said to have “transplanted” from the United States to Penetanguishene and the greater Georgian Bay area. According to the report, many of the Georgian Bay VMFLs (verified Métis family lines) arrived in present-day Ontario around 1830 as part of the transfer of the British garrison from Drummond Island to Penetanguishene. The mean birth year for the Georgian Bay ‘Métis’ root ancestors is 1824, with a wide range in birth years.
One key point of contention in the report is the effective date of control chosen by the MNO for Georgian Bay, which is 1860. The report argues that this date does not align with the historical details provided for the region. The report suggests that a more likely effective date of control is between 1817 and 1840, which is earlier than the MNO’s selected date.
The report also questions the evidence used by the MNO to include certain VMFLs for Georgian Bay, specifically citing the 1840 “Penetanguishene Halfbreed Petition” and A.C. Osborne’s book. The report raises concerns about the reliability of these documents and notes instances where individuals identified as Métis had no Indigenous ancestry.
In response to the report, an MNO spokeswoman has dismissed the findings as cherry-picked information. However, independent researcher Ryan Shackleton of Know History has criticized the report, calling it a poor academic report with misquoted items. Shackleton, whose firm works for the MNO, defends the MNO’s registry and historic community claims, citing extensive genealogical historical research.
Despite the criticisms, the report by Leroux and O’Toole emphasizes flaws in the MNO’s research methodology and the questionable evidence used to support the recognition of the Georgian Bay Métis community. The debate surrounding the legitimacy of the Georgian Bay Métis community continues, with conflicting perspectives on the historical and genealogical evidence presented.
MMF cabinet minister Will Goodon has accused Leroux and O’Toole of publishing cherry-picked information and suggested that the MNO’s research is biased. Goodon, along with the Chiefs of Ontario, hosted a summit to address concerns of identity theft and false claims of Métis status. The debate highlights the complexities of defining and verifying Métis identity in Ontario and the ongoing disputes over historical and genealogical evidence.
While the MNO and independent researchers clash over the validity of the Georgian Bay Métis community’s roots, the broader issue of Métis identity and recognition in Ontario remains a contentious and complex topic. The conflicting perspectives and ongoing debates underscore the challenges of determining and preserving Métis heritage and culture in the region.
.
“War of words erupts over report questioning local Métis community’s ancestry”
“Report questioning local Métis community’s ancestry sparks controversy”.
