The article 'Who Are The Métis' by AHF illustrates exactly what I've been writing about recently in re "myth" and "legend".
People who look into the ethnicity of the Métis patriarchs will quickly discover they were not European. The majority appear to have been Eurasian (Y DNA Haplogroup R1b1a2) which is neither Asian nor Caucasian but intermediate between Asian and European (Central Asia, maybe North Africa origin?), although there were also more than a few African and West and East Asian patriarchs as well.
As for language, they had their own, first the now lost (except for survival of some words in Louisiana and perhaps some words in joual) "Acadian trade language" and as well their Indigenous "mother tongues". Then Michif. So it's absurd to say they were even "French speakers".
As for being "French", the french observe jus soli, the law of naturalisation, rather than jus sanguinis. Even if some of the engaigés (short term contract workers) had actually born on french soil (naturalised as "French"), when their three year contracts with the french were up, they were freemen. Any children they fathered who were born in North America were also free, not slaves and not subject to anyone in europe.
It probably irked and still irks the British Crown, who made sure with its laws that children of slaves were themselves born slaves in the Virginia colony, that the French Crown at the time freed these multi-ethnic, multiracial, "mixed", Métis people after their contracts were done. Labelling them retroactively as "French" when they were not even francophone, and revising history, concealing the truth, it seems obvious what the agenda is there. "The French" were never their owners, just their employers.
As for "most interracial marriages" being "officially discouraged"? Not by the French Crown: "our young men will marry your daughters and we shall be one people" (pledge made by Samuel de Champlain 1633 & 1635) -- literally true with many of the nobles sent here from France who married Indigenous women to form their trade alliances. Their descendants are still here because when the French returned to France, their children remained behind as they were not considered French because they had not been born on French but on North American soil.
It wasn't just frowned upon by the British, marriage between "races" (as defined by the British Crown "white" supremacists) -- miscegenation -- was against the law by 1713! "Frowning on" something does not include dehumanisation and genocide. It does not include labelling of people as "savages" and "beasts". Nor does it include paying bounty on scalps, including those of women and children.
They have to create this "myth" and "legend" to try to conceal their ignorant racism and ancient hatred of all the free "coloureds" and browns there are on the planet -- both in their homelands and in North America where they married in to Indigenous families and communities. Which include(d) the "Celtic / Basque" peoples -- who are Eurasian ethnicity rather than Caucasian.
-- Kisikewiskw, 20 Dec 2011
Reference: Indigenous American Genetics
"French Heritage" study at family tree
* Read a copy of AHF's 'Who are the Metis' here.
Make / read comments on the Kisikew Forum
tags: aboriginal, acadia, acadien, africans, ahf, albannach, basque, basque diaspora, breton, british, british crown, canada, celtic basque, central asia, champlain, contract workers, cymry, dna, east asia, engaige, engage, ethnicity, ethnic basques, eurasian, first people, france, free africans, freemen, french heritage, fur trade, haplogroup, highland clearances, highlanders, historical revisionism, irish, jus sanguinis, jus soli, la cadie, legend, metis, miscegenation, mixed race, multi-ethnic, multiracial, myth, naturalisation, north africa, north america, one people, pre-columbian, race, racist, samuel de champlain, scalping, scots, slaves, slavery, un peuple, virginia colony, west asia, white race, white supremacist, who are the metis
Tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/ca244kk
0 comments:
Post a Comment