Update on Métis baptisms absent from recorded History

This post is an update of my December 28, 2018 post which lists and provides original Métis baptisms.

There’s a claim that Québec’s study of its inhabitants has been thoroughly examined since 1966, when the Programme de recherche en démographie historique (PRDH, Research Programme in Historical Demography) at the Université de Montréal undertook the exhaustive reconstruction of the population of Quebec from the beginnings of French colonization in the seventeenth century. This objective has been realized in the form of a computerized population register.
This basic information is complemented by various socio-demographic characteristics drawn from documents: socio-professional status and occupation, ability to sign his or her name, place of residence, and, for immigrants, place of origin. (direct quote from their website)

The PRDH continues to be an important reference tool used by genealogists, researchers and academics worldwide. Its claim to have computerized each and every baptisms, marriages and burials have directed the course of all modern-day theses on french colonization.

After more than 10 years of inquiry concerning the lack of inclusion of Métis baptisms in the parish of Ste-Geneviève de Berthier, I received a casual response from one of directors and founders of the PRDH, Professor Bertrand Desjardins:

Translation: Cf. the PRDH: The acts of the Métis have been raised like all the others, but we do not consider “Mitif” and “Mitive” are surnames. We add them to the Genealogical Dictionary when the father can be identified”

Two sentences. No official response from the group who purports to rely basically on exhaustive gathering of data from the parish registers of old Quebec. By systematic attribution of baptism, marriage, and burial certificates to the respective individuals – a “family reconstitution” made on the basis of names and family ties.

That’s all I received. Two casual sentences that say so much about patriarchy and erasure that plague the mindset of Academics.

How many such records have been excluded from the tool used by academics who study Indigenous Peoples who lived in the territory of “Nouvelle-France” prior to effective control and whose conclusions project the erasure of Indigenous Peoples and historic communities?

Advertisements

Nouveau conflit territorial entre Premieres Nation au Québec: mon opinion personelle en tant que Métis

Ici au Québec, les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ont à nouveau réussi à s’impliquer dans la gouvernance territoriale des peuples autochtones et ont réussi à se diviser pour conquérir.

Le gouvernement a transformé un traité de paix et d’amitié de 1760 entre la nation Wendat et les Britanniques en un conflit foncier territorial.
Voici le document en question:

“Ceci certifie que le chef de la tribu des Indiens Hurons, venu à moi au nom de sa nation, pour se soumettre à sa majesté britannique afin de faire la paix, a été reçu sous ma protection avec toute sa tribu; et aucun officier ou parti anglais ne doit les molester ou les interrompre en revenant à Lorette, et ils sont reçus dans les mêmes conditions, avec les Canadiens, être autorisés à faire librement de leur religion, de leurs coutumes avec la liberté de commercer avec les Anglais – recommandant aux officiers commandant les postes de les traiter avec bonté sous ma main à Longueuil, ce 5 septembre 1760.
Par ordre du général, John Cosman, adjut. Genr.

Je ne peux même pas imaginer les pertes en vies humaines et la terreur que la nation Wendat avait traversée pour parvenir à ce point de soumission, après plus d’un siècle de protection des Français.

Depuis des temps immémoriaux, bien avant l’arrivée des colons européens, les Premières nations Innu, Maliseet, Abenaki et Atikamekw ont vécu de façon continue sur le territoire de leurs ancêtres.

Historiquement, en ce qui concerne les zones de chevauchement, ils ont toujours été en mesure de partager et de gérer l’utilisation des terres de manière harmonieuse. Il appartient aux peuples autochtones de décider ce que nous voulons ou ne voulons pas sur leurs territoires.

En tant que peuple de contact post-européen, les Métis qui partagent les territoires doivent respecter le fait que les Premières Nations sont les premiers intendants de la terre et que nous devons suivre leurs conseils sur ces questions.

La population autochtone du Québec ne représente que 2,29% (1,43% si l’on exclut les Métis de la population autochtone totale); déjà moins de la moitié de la moyenne canadienne de 4,87% – (2016).

Nous séparer en groupes encore plus petits et distincts facilite leurs objectifs de division qui régissent depuis longtemps.

Pire encore: ils nous obligent à nous battre pour chaque morceau de terre nécessaire à la continuité de nos traditions. C’est l’enfer.

Nous sommes plus forts quand nous sommes unis.

My humble opinion for Métis in Québec, as we face a new territorial battle between First Nations.

Here in Quebec, the provincial and federal governments managed again to involve itself into Indigenous territorial governance and succeeded in its regular operation of dividing to conquer.

The government turned a 1760 Peace and Friendship Treaty between the Wendat Nation and the British into a territorial land dispute.
Here’s the document in question:

“This is to certify that the Chief of the Huron Tribe of Indians, having come to me in the name of his Nation, to submit to his Britannick Majesty, to make peace, has been received under my protection with his whole Tribe; and henceforth no English officer or party is to molest, or interrupt them, in returning to their settlement at Lorette, and they are received upon the same terms, with the Canadians, be allowed the free excursion of their Religion, their Customs with Liberty of trading with the English – recommending it to the Officers commanding the posts to treat them kindly given under my hand at Longueuil, this 5th day of September 1760.
By the General’s command, John Cosman, adjut. Genr.

I can’t even imagine the loss of lives and the terror the Wendat Nation had gone through to get to this point of submission, after more than a century of protection from the French.

“From time immemorial, well before the arrival of European settlers, the Innu, Maliseet, Abenaki and Atikamekw First Nations have lived continuously on the territories of their ancestors.

Historically, when it came to areas of overlap, they have always been able to share and manage land use harmoniously. It’s up to Indigenous Peoples to decide what we want or do not want in their territories.”

As a People of post-European contact, Métis who share the territories need to respect that First Nations are the the first stewards to the land and we need to follow their guidance on such issues.

The Indigenous population of Quebec is only 2.29% (1.43% if we exclude Métis from the total Indigenous population); already less than half of Canada’s average of 4.87% – (2016).

Separating us into even tinier, distinct groupings facilitates their longstanding goals of division to rule.
Even worse: they force us to fight each other for every piece of land necessary for the continuity of our traditions. It’s Hell.

We are stronger when we are united.

Nicholas Montour: first Indigenous member of Quebec’s National Assembly

The Quebec National Assembly must change its description of the first Indigenous representative, Nicholas Montour:

They have bleached his identity:

Source: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/fr/deputes/montour-nicholas-4543/biographie.html

Biography

“Probably born in the United States, in 1756, and baptized on October 31, 1756, in the Dutch Church of Albany, in the colony of New York, son of Andrew (Henry) Montour, Indian Agent and Interpreter, and his second wife, Sarah Ainse (was later a shopkeeper).

Trained as a clerk in the fur trade, most notably for Joseph Frobisher in 1774. He stayed in the West for many years and then, around 1792, settled in Montreal. Was a shareholder of the North West Company. Purchased in 1794 the Distillery Company of Montreal; also invests in real estate and real estate in Montreal, in the seigneuries and in the townships. In 1799, moved to Pointe-du-Lac, near Trois-Rivières. He was a justice of the peace.

Elected Deputy for Saint-Maurice in 1796; generally supported the Party of Bureaucrats. Not represented in 1800. Admitted in 1790 to the Beaver Club of Montreal.

Died in the lordship of Pointe-du-Lac, on August 6, 1808, at the age of 51 or 52 years. Buried in the Protestant cemetery of Trois-Rivières, August 8, 1808.

Had married Geneviève Wills, daughter of Meredith Wills, merchant, and Geneviève Dunière, on February 17, 1798, in Montreal’s Christ Church.

Father-in-law of Charles-Christophe Malhiot. Nephew by marriage of Louis Dunière and Pierre Marcoux.

Source: DBC.

Date of update of biography: May 2009″

Nicholas is actually the son of Sarah (Sally) Ainse, Oneida Nation diplomat, and Sattellihu Andrew Montour, a prominent interpreter and negotiator in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

The great-grandparents of Nicholas Montour were Marie Mite8agami8k8e of the Algonquin Nation and Pierre Couc, from the small mission to the Pachirini Trois-Rivières fiefdom.

This Indigenous man, described in his day as Métis, made his fortune in the fur trade and was a shareholder of the North West Company.

80 years after the small mission granted to the Sachem Pachirini of the Algonquin Nation was removed from the Indigenous Peoples, Nicholas chose to use his fortune to buy a seigneury at Pointe du Lac, near Trois-Rivières, where he built houses, “at his own expense and on land owned by him, provide refuge of wandering and vagabond savages” (HISTORY OF THE PARISH OF YAMACHICHE BY ABBE N. CARON PRIEST, CHANOINE, CURÉ OF MASKINONGÉ, 1892.)

Nicolas was justice of the peace and deputy for the great county of Saint-Maurice, which at the time covered the entire territory from Berthierville to Batiscan.

The Montour family remained responsible until the abolition of the seigneurial regime in 1855.

Many of his descendants are recognized members of the Manitoba Métis Nation:

The National Assembly of Quebec must modify the description of this Great Man to celebrate the identity of the first Indigenous MNA in Québec.

Nicholas Montour: Premier député autochtone du Québec

L’assemblée nationale du Québec se doit de modifier sa description du premier représentant autochtone, Nicholas Montour:

Ils ont blanchi son identité.

Nicholas est le fils de Sarah (Sally) Ainse, diplomate de la Nation Oneida, et de Sattellihu Andrew Montour, un interprète et négociateur important en Virginie et en Pennsylvanie.

Les arrière-grands-parents de Nicholas Montour étaient Marie Mite8agami8k8e de la Nation Algonquine et Pierre Couc, de la petite mission au fief Pachirini Trois-Rivières.

Cet homme autochtone, décrit dans son temps comme étant Métis, a fait fortune dans la traite de la fourrure et fût un des actionnaires de la Compagnie du Nord-Ouest.

80 ans après que la petite mission accordée au Sachem Pachirini de la Nation Algonquine a été retirée des autochtones, Nicholas a choisi utiliser sa fortune afin d’acheter une seigneurie à la Pointe du Lac, près des Trois-Rivières, où il a bâti des maisons, “à ses dépens et sur un terrain à lui appartenant, pour y réfugier des Sauvages errants et vagabonds” (HISTOIRE DE LA PAROISSE D’YAMACHICHE (PRÉCIS HISTORIQUE) — PAR — L’ABBE N. CARON PRÊTRE, CHANOINE, CURÉ DE MASKINONGÉ, 1892.

Nicolas fût juge de paix et député pour le grand comté de Saint-Maurice, qui à l’époque couvrait le territoire entier de Berthierville jusqu’à Batiscan.

La famille Montour demeura responsables de leurs censitaires jusqu’à l’abolition du régime seigneurial en 1855.

L’assemblée nationale du Québec se doit de modifier la description de ce Grand Homme afin de célébrer l’identité du tout premier député autochtone du Québec.