Hubbry Logo
Métis flagMétis flagMain
Open search
Métis flag
Community hub
Métis flag
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Métis flag
Métis flag
from Wikipedia

Métis flag
UseBlue version
Adopted1816
DesignInfinity symbol on a blue background
UseRed version
Adopted1815
DesignInfinity symbol on a red background

The Métis flag was first used by Métis resistance fighters in Rupert's Land before the 1816 Battle of Seven Oaks. According to only one contemporary account, the flag was "said to be" a gift from the North West Company in 1815,[1][2][3] but no other surviving accounts confirm this. Both the red and blue versions of the flag have been used to represent the political and military force of the Métis since that time.[4] The Métis flag predates the Flag of Canada by at least 150 years, and is the oldest patriotic flag that is indigenous to Canada.

The blue background flag has been accepted by the Métis National Council as the official flag of the Métis Nation. In 2013, the Métis National Council secured an official mark for the flag to protect it as a symbol of the Métis Nation, and ensure its collective ownership by citizens of the Métis Nation.[4]

Adoption of the flag in modern times

[edit]

The first flag of the Métis was long forgotten among the other flags adopted and flown by the Métis at various points of their political and national growth. In the mid 1970s, the Métis flag being flown by the Native Council of Canada had a green background, and on the flag was a ring of alternating shamrocks and fleur-de-lys around a bison. However, there was friction due to difference of opinions between the Métis Society of Saskatchewan and the Native Council of Canada, and this friction helped to spur the debate about whether there was a historic Métis flag that they should be using. A consultant was tasked by the Métis Society of Saskatchewan board of directors to research and present on historic flags used by Métis. There was debate about which flag to adopt, and especially the red or blue infinity flag, and the Métis Society of Saskatchewan board chose the blue version. The red and blue versions were subsequently adopted by other Métis governments across Western Canada.[5]

Design and symbolism

[edit]

The flag shows a white infinity symbol on a field of either blue or red. There are many interpretations of what the colours and symbol mean.

Several origins and meanings have been suggested for the infinity symbol flag:

  • The faith that Métis culture shall live on forever[6]
  • The mixing of the European immigrants and the First Nations peoples, with the two conjoined circles symbolizing the unity of two cultures.[6]
  • There might be a connection to the ouroboros, an ancient symbol that depicts a serpent or dragon eating its own tail, represented either in a circle or figure eight, symbolizing renewal and rebirth.[5]
  • Another possible interpretation of the infinity symbol is that it relates to traditional Métis and French Canadian dances, such as the quadrille, in which dancers move in a figure-eight pattern.[7]
  • There might also be a connection to Celtic knotwork and Scottish influences that include Celtic knots, figure of eight in Scottish country dance, jewellery, etc.[8]
  • Others have suggested that the symbol is derived from the Plains First Nations Sign Language for Métis (reported as the symbol for "cart" combined with the symbol for "Man" in reference to the Métis' use of the Red River cart), with the symbol for cart being formed by joining the thumb and forefingers on each hand with the hands held together to form two circles.[9]

There is debate about the historical interpretations of the colours of the Métis flags.

  • Some claim that the red background represents the colours of the Hudson's Bay Company and that the blue background represents the North West Company,[10] (though both the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Company flew red flags that were a modification of the Red Ensign).
  • Others argue that the blue flag represents the francophone Métis and the red flag represents the anglophone Métis.[citation needed]
  • Still others argue that the blue and white combination is based on both the Flag of Scotland, and the traditional colours of Quebec.[9][11]
  • And yet others have said that the red flag is for Manitoba and the Northwest Territory Métis, and the blue is for the Saskatchewan Métis (despite the first recorded sighting of the red flag in what is now Saskatchewan and the blue flag first being recorded in what is now Manitoba).[citation needed]
  • Another explanation for the colours of the flags is that they depend on how the flag is being used. Some argue that the red flag is the Métis Hunting Flag, letting the people around know that they were a hunting party and not a group going to war, and the guide for the day would be the flag-bearer.[12][13] Due to the potential for skirmishes and battles on the bison hunting trips, such as the Battle of Grand Coteau, the red flag could serve as a standard.[14]
  • Some have also suggested that the flag started out as someone's attempt to design a flag for the Métis, and was putting out feelers to trial a design, which is why there are both red and blue flags with the common feature being the white infinity symbol.[15]

The difficulty in knowing the accurate history of the origin of the flag and potential interpretations of the symbolism is that there are no known records that accurately describe the origin of the flag in a first-hand account or other written records of its creation.

Alternative hypothesis on the colours of the flag

[edit]

Prominent Métis lawyer, historian, and author Jean Teillet argues that the story of the origin of the Métis flag is an urban myth. Of the first three historic accounts of the Métis flag, only James Sutherland attributed the flag as a gift from the North West Company, based on rumours that he was told, and she argues for an exercise of caution in taking it as fact. Teillet and others argue that the Métis had a more active role in the origin of the flag, rather than being passive recipients of the flag or being manipulated by the North West Company.[2][3][5][16]

In 1815, popular fabrics in tradings posts that were available were calico, corduroy, plaid, and stroud. Stroud, a woollen, felt-like, broadcloth commonly used in making coats, was the only suitable material available for making flags. The common colours that were available at the time were green, red, and blue.[17] Teillet asserts that as a matter of practicality, the Métis would have used the material that was available to them for making flags. When they needed to make a new flag, they purchased the material that was available, and if red was not available, they might have chosen to use blue instead. Rather than being a strategic ideological decision to align colours with particular trading companies, her assertion is that the colour was a reaction to what was practical in that time and location.[2][3]

Until somebody shows me evidence of it I will stand firmly on my line, which is don't repeat that story. Just don't repeat it and have some faith in your own people that they have the intelligence enough to come up with their own ideas and don't attribute everything to everybody else.

— Jean Teillet, Windspeaker.com,[2] Battlefords News-Optimist[3]

History

[edit]

Originally, the flags that would have been flown in Rupert's Land and across the North-Western Territory were the Hudson's Bay Company flag and North West Company flag, respectively, and the Union Jack.

Métis oral tradition tells that the Métis developed the infinity flag for themselves, and called the flag Li Paviiyoon di Michif in the Michif language.[5][16] Some people tell a story that Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield gifted the Métis employed by the North West Company a flag in 1814, helping to create the Métis Nation,[16] but there are no records that directly confirm this version of events, and some that potentially contradict this story.

James Sutherland's accounts of the Métis flag

[edit]

The flag was first reported by James Sutherland in 1815 as red with an infinity symbol, and that it was being flown by Cuthbert Grant at Fort John in the Qu'Appelle area when a Hudson's Bay Company crew were rebuilding Fort Qu'Appelle (not to be confused with Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan built in 1864). In his account, Sutherland reported that the flag was said to be a gift from the North West Company given in early 1815, but provided no evidence to confirm this origin story for the flag nor did he state that it was a gift from Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield. The events reported in this account happened prior to Sutherland's arrival at Qu'Appelle on December 8, 1815, so were conveyed to him by Hudson's Bay Company Officer John Richards McKay and his party, who had arrived there in early October 1815 and had witnessed the events described.

... Alexander McDonell partner of the N.W.Co. arrived with a great parade of 40 or 50 Canadians, Freemen & Half-Breeds forming two distinct companies. McDonell led one of these consisting of Canadians with the Colours flying the other Company were Metis headed by Cuthbert Grant a Half Breed who has been regularly educated at Canada and has acted for several years as Clerk & still continue to act as such, to the N.W.Co. This Tribe had another Flag hoisted of what nation I know not it is red with a figure of 8 placed horizontally on the middle and it is said to be a present from the N.W.Co. along with some Swords and a few pairs of Pistols to these deluded young men the Half Breeds as a recompence for their exertions against the Colony Spring 1815 and as an incentive to encourage them to further mischief this ensuing season ...

— James Sutherland, Selkirk Papers, Narrative of James Sutherland, P.A.C., MG19E1, vol. 5, pp. 1946–47.[1]

Sutherland would also describe his first time seeing the flag at the arrival of John McDonald from Swan River in early 1816, though he did not provide an additional description of the flag.

Soon after Cameron returned to the Forks John McDonald of Swan River came on a visit & on his arrival two Flags were hoisted that is the N.W.Cos. Flag as the Flag Staff & the Half Breeds flag on a pole errected the top of their Bastion this was the first time they had shown the Half Breed Flag since my arrival indicated something.

— James Sutherland, Selkirk Papers, Narrative of James Sutherland, P.A.C., MG19E1, vol. 5, pp. 1950.[18]

Sutherland also discussed what he had been told about why the flag was flying.

However, we heard no more of the business for two or three days at this time the Canadians were in a state of intoxication. One old Canadian who was attached to us came to our house in this state. I put many Questions to him concerning what was going on at the N.W. House & what was the reason for hoisting the Half Breed flag he said I would know that before Summer came, that every thing bad against us & the Colony were in agitation. The flag was flying in honour of Cuthbert Grant having been appointed Captain General of all the Half Breeds in the Country and likewise as a rejoicing for the news brought by Swan River McDonald that the Half Breeds in Athabasca English River, Saskatchewan & Swan River were collecting under their several chiefs & had sent information that they would all join Grant Early in the Spring to sweep Red River of all the English.

— James Sutherland, Selkirk Papers, Narrative of James Sutherland, P.A.C., MG19E1, vol. 5, pp. 1951.[19]

Sutherland's account of these events was written sometime after the events and based on his memory, as he had destroyed his papers to prevent them from being taken by the North West Company.[1]

Potential contradictions of James Sutherland's account of the Métis flag as a gift

[edit]

However, the assertion that the flag was a gift for the Métis from Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield and the North West Company is potentially contradicted by other accounts of gifts being given to the Métis by the North West Company and people they employed, in which the accounts do not mention of the flag among other gifts being given.

A potential contradiction of Sutherland's suggestion that the flag may have been a gift is found in an account of gifts being given to the Métis by the North West Company on June 28, 1815, at Fort William. The gifts, which included two swords, were given for the actions of the Métis against the Red River Colony, but there is no mention of a flag being gifted to the Métis.

As respects the partners of the North West Company, whatever doubt may exist as to their being accessaries to the present and other offences before the fact, there can be little or none of many of them having become so afterwards; as also that they were thanked publicly for the services rendered the company, a feast prepared for them, and a suit of clothes given to each, and swords to two (Bostonois and Antoine Houle) who are in the regular employment of the North West Company and chiefs of their own party. Amongst the partners present on this occasion at Fort William, the following only are named; viz. Simon McGillvray (of London), Archibald N. McLeod, Duncan Cameron, Alexander McDonnell, Alexander McKenzie, Kenneth McKenzie and John McDonald of Fort Dauphin, although probably many others were there at the time, as Daniel McKenzie acknowledges of himself in his letter before-mentioned.

— Lieutenant General Sir John Coape Sherbrooke, Papers Relating to the Red River Settlement.[20]

Colin Robertson (then employed by the Hudson's Bay Company) describes gifts being given to the Métis at Fort Gibraltar in his journal entry from September 15, 1815 at Fort Douglas, but there is no mention of a flag being given by Macdonnell among the other presents given by Duncan Cameron to the Métis for their activity against the Colony in Spring 1815 (Macdonell and Cameron had arrived at Fort Gibraltar on two days before on September 13, 1815[21]).

The Metifś and Freemen were called into the Hall of the North West Company's Fort, commonly termed Gibraltar or Forks, where Cameron made a long speech praising their values and independent spirit, in driving away those that came to enslave them, and threw out some sarcastic remarks on myself, but unfortunately for him his presents, which consisted for 6 Gallons of Shrub and forty pounds of Plug tobacco, excited such discontent, that one half of his audience left the room before the harangue was finished, and came over to my house. When things were in this state at Gibraltar, I sent over Mr McLean and Geo Yearns to claim some horses belonging to the Settlement. On Mr McLean's arrival he demanded an interview with Mr A. McDonnell and Seraphim, when he asked them if they had given away his two horses to Marcella's Son. Mr A. McDonnell turned around to Seraphim and asked him, did you ever hear Marcella's Son say that I gave him the Horses. Yes Oh! I remember says Mr McDonnell that I said to the Halfbreeds in general "my lads all the Horses are certainly yours". Cameron came forward, and said, he would take his Bible Oath that he never said so, but he presumed the Halfbreeds considered the Horses as free booty, however, it appeared clear to me that the North West Company had given the Colonial Horses, Dogs, &c to the Metifś as payment for the active part they took in the affairs of last spring, so I shall act upon this in my attempt to disunite the Metifś and the North West Company.

— Colin Robertson, Colin Robertson diary, 1 July 1815 – 30 November 1815 pp. 211–2.[21]

Robertson also recorded details reported to him of a speech and gifts by Cameron upon Cameron's arrival in the Fall of 1814, and the gifts did not include a flag.

Rode out this morning with Meſsrs. Pambrun et Nolin, met with Cameron in his uniform, attended by Seraphim & Pangman. The Captain wished to be polite, but I mean to keep him at arms length until I bring him to a sense of his duty, a few of the Freemen called on me to day, and one of the them who appeared to be a good meaning and rather an intelligent fellow, gave me the heads of Cameron's speech on his arrive in the Fall of 1814. when the destruction of the Colony was resolved on at Fort Williams, after his arrival he sent for all of the Freemen and Metifś, within one or two days march of his Fort, some of the most credulous of them, he ordered in the name of the King, when he had aſsembled them in his Hall at Fort Gibraltar, he placed before them a Keg of Rum and half a roll of Tobacco, and addressed them in the following terms:

"My friends you are aware of the continuation of the war with America, and that an old Friend Mr W McKay is appointed a Colonel in the Army, he intends to attack the Americans at Prairie des Chien, should he not find them there, it is his intention to come here, for reinforcements. I therefore expect you will render him every aſsistance, but in the first place you must aſsist me in driving away the Colonists. If they are not driven away the consequences will be, that they will prevent you from hunting and by that means starve your families, for the truth of what I aſsert; here is a proclamation, forbidding you on pain of death to kill food for your children."

Here Seraphim, read that unfortunate edict of Captn McDonnells

"You hear my friends, continued Cameron, what he says, who gave him a right to the soil? by and bye he will be claiming your private property? will you be slaves? will you allow this man who calls himself Governor to put his foot upon your neck? Join me, and resist such acts of Tyranny! I would beg to inform you that I am appointed commanding Officer of Red River by an order of Sir George Prevosts the Governor of Canada and I still expect higher promotion, but even at present I have authority to bring such Freemen to Montreal to be tried for disobedience of orders." A person of the name of Lavemdom [?] observed "that if the Americans came to Red River and that he was commanded in the name of the King, he would certainly take up arms against them, but he conceived the Colonists to be British Subjects like himself and would not take up arms against them, indeed (continued this man) "before the Colonists came here I was clothed in leather, but now I am comfortable, and myself and family have plenty of both Cloth and Blankets."

Cameron felt extremely indignant at his remark, Lavemdom [?] then took up his hat and left the room, he was soon followed by a number of others, who refused the presents which Cameron had laid out for them. I am greatly astonished that these proceedings of Cameron did not put Captn McDonnell on his guard, or induce him to take some steps to counter the views of the North West Company.

— Colin Robertson, Colin Robertson diary, 1 July 1815 – 30 November 1815 pp. 218–220.[21]

Further to potential contradictions of Sutherland's account of the flag being a gift is a dismissal of rumours about Duncan Cameron's gifts to the Métis and the use of the Métis as a militia of the North West Company that was written by Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield in his book A Narrative of Transactions in the Red River Country in 1819. In this book, Macdonell does not mention himself or others gifting a flag to the Métis.

It has been falsely asserted, that the Bois-brulés were paraded and exercised in arms under the immediate inspection of Duncan Cameron. Mr. Cameron had only two Bois-brulés, Bostonnois Pangman and a boy, wintering with him: but there was a Camp of Bois-brulés and Canadian hunters at Pembina River, winter 1815, assembled as usual at that season for the collection of provisions, against whom Miles McDonell marched with a body of armed men, intending to possess himself of the produce of their hunt; but on his near approach, they called in their stragglers, and put themselves in a posture to receive the Governor, which astonished the party, and caused him to retreat to his government-house at Fort Daer; and to this attempt, may principally be attributed to the part which the Bois-brulés in general afterwards took against him and the Colonists.

— Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield, A Narrative of Transactions in the Red River Country: From the commencement of the operations of the Earl of Selkirk, till the summer of the year 1816.[22]

Macdonell also mentioned a general meeting that occurred at Fort William in 1815, but again he did not discuss a flag being given to the Métis.

At the succeeding general meeting at Fort William, Mr. Cameron was, unfortunately for himself, reinstated in his joint charge of the Red River district; but he had positive injunctions from his Partners to be guarded, cautious, and prudent, and to avoid all collision with his Lordship's Agents and Settlers; and it was found expedient that I should conduct the provision posts of Upper Red River as usual.

— Alexander Macdonell of Greenfield, A Narrative of Transactions in the Red River Country: From the commencement of the operations of the Earl of Selkirk, till the summer of the year 1816.[23]

Peter Fidler's accounts of the Métis flag

[edit]

Peter Fidler first reported a red Métis flag with an infinity symbol around March 12, 1816, on the Qu'Appelle River, and said that it had been see the previous fall, which corroborated Sutherland's account of John McDonald's visit to Qu'Appelle.[18][19] Fidler reported a rumour that he had heard that the North West Company was trying to direct the Métis to action against the Hudson's Bay Company and the newly established Red River Colony (the support was not unanimous among the Métis), but he did not attribute the flag to being a gift to the Métis.

About the 12th of March, the Canadian Northern Express arrived at River Qu'Appelle, accompanied by Mr. Jn. McDonald a partner of the N.W.Co. of the Swan River Department,— The Canadian and half-Breeds were liberally supplied with rum & was kept in a state of intoxication for two days — The day after the N.W.Co. Express arrived their flag was hoisted on the flag-staff, & a flag of the half-Breeds on the new Bastion. — The flag of the half-Breeds is about 412 feet square, red & in the middle is a large figure of Eight horizontally of a different colour. This flag was first displayed to the view of HBCo people last fall on the arrival of Mr. Alexr McDonell from the Forks, followed by the halfbreeds & freemen; at the same time the N.W.Co. flag was hoisted & followed by McDonell and all the Canadian Servants on their arrival at River qu'appelle house. The day after it was hoisted Polly, an old servant of the N.W.Co. & their Batteau builders came over to Mr. Sutherland on a visit in a private manner, who asked him the meaning of the half-Breeds flag being hoisted, a thing he had never before seen, he very emphatically replied that "before he left the River he would know it" — he was shortly after acquainted in a private manner that the half-Breeds had been directed by the N.W.Co. all to assemble at that place early in May, & that it was the intention of the N.W.Co. not only to root up the Colony but to seize all the Pemmican &c. belonging to the HBCo. — In consequence of hearing these alarming accounts Mr. Sutherland sent down an Express to the Colony sometime afterwards for a re-inforcement of armed men to assist in protecting the HBCo. property, on their passage down the River when the Ice permitted the Navigation; & Mr. Pambrun & 10 men was sent up from the Forks, & 6 from Brandon House for that purpose. — Reports were also current that the Servants of the HBCo. should all be driven from the Red River. — Mr. Cuthbert Grant, a Clerk to the N.W.Co. at River Qu'Appelle, a half-Breed is appointed to act as Commander-in-Chief over all the half-Breeds.

— Peter Fidler, Selkirk Papers, Narrative of Peter Fidler, P.A.C., MG19E1, vol. 6, pp. 2515.[24]

On June 1, 1816, Peter Fidler recorded in his Brandon House Journal that the Métis, under the leadership of Cuthbert Grant, were flying the blue flag with an infinity symbol when they attacked the Hudson's Bay Company's Brandon House, mere weeks before the Battle of Seven Oaks that happened on June 19, 1816. The reason for the change in the colour of the flag is not known, and Fidler did not provide information about the origin of the flag. In his narrative of the events to Lord Selkirk, Fidler did not report the changed colour, stating only that the flag was present.[25]

Saturday, at 12 past noon about 48 Half Breed, Canadians, Freemen & Indians came all riding on horseback, with their Flag flying blue about 4 feet square & a figure of 8 horizontally in the middle one Beating an Indian Drum, and many of them singing Indian Songs, they all rode directly to the usual croſing place over the river where they all stopped about two minutes, and instead of going down the Bank & riding acroſ the River, they all turned suddenly around and rode full speed into our yard — some of them tyed their horses, others loose fixed their flag at our Door, which they soon afterwards hoisted over our East Gate next to the Canadian House. Cuthbert Grant then came up to me in the yard & demanded of me to deliver to him all the keys of our Stores, Warehouses, &. I of course would not deliver them up — They then rushed into the House and broke open the Warehouse Door first, plundered the Warehouse of every article it contained, tore up part of the Cellar floor, & cut out the Parchment windows without saying for what this was done for or by whose Authority — Alexr McDonell Seraphim, Bostonois, & Allan McDonell were at their house looking on the whole time

— Peter Fidler, Brandon House post journal.[26]

Other flags used by the Métis

[edit]

Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia

[edit]

The provisional government, the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia, established by the Métis under Louis Riel on December 8, 1869, flew a flag. There are numerous descriptions of the flag that was flown by the provisional government:

  • A fleur-de-lis and shamrock on a white background[7][27][28][29][30][31][32]
  • A golden fleur-de-lis on a white background[7][33]
  • A golden fleur-de-lis with a black border on a white background[7][34]
  • A fleur-de-lis, shamrock, and small bison on the fly on a white background[7][35]
  • Three fleur-de-lis across the top and a shamrock in the centre of the bottom edge on a white background[7][36]
  • A fleur-de-lis and a shamrock with a large bison on the lower part on a white background[7][15]
  • A fleur-de-lis with a small bison in one corner on a white background[7][37]
  • A blue fleur-de-lis with a green harp and shamrock on a white background with a gold border[7][38]
  • Three crosses: a large scarlet-coloured cross in the centre, flanked by two smaller gold crosses; on a white background with a gold border[7][39]
  • A ring of fleur-de-lis and shamrocks arranged around a bison on a white background.[7][40]
  • A ring of fleur-de-lis and shamrocks arranged around a bison on a green background.[5]

Provisional government of Saskatchewan

[edit]

The provisional government was established by Louis Riel at Batoche on March 19, 1885. There were at least two flags used by the provisional government. The first was described as:

Louis Riel raised the standard the day before St. Joseph's Day [March 18], calling the revolt the holiest of actions and placing it under the protection of St. Joseph and Our Lady of Lourdes. As a flag he chose the white flag of ancient France [with a royal blue shield bearing three golden fleurs de lys], saying that he was called to renew its ancient glories. On it he placed a large image of Mary's immaculate heart.

— Father Vital Fourmond, [41]

Riel also flew a personal banner at Batoche, which some sources say was the main flag of the Métis at Batoche and used as a battle standard. The flag consisted of an image of Notre Dame de Lourdes on one side and an inscription at the bottom that lists family members and a poem to Our Lady, and the reverse side contained poetry of a similar theme.[7][41][42][43] The Roman Catholic priests expressed concern during the Battle of Batoche that if they raised a white peace flag to signal to the Canadian forces to stop firing on the church and rectory that the white flag would be confused for Riel's white emblazoned flag and would attract shots and shelling from the troops, but white flag was recognized and respected.[44][45]

During the Battle of Batoche, Gabriel Dumont reported "on Baker's house [on the West side of the river] ... flew a flag of the Blessed Virgin. Another flag of Our Lord was in the midst of [Batoche], on the Council's house."[46][47] It was reported by witnesses that a flag was flying above a small building at the centre of Batoche that was used as the Council's chamber and located next to Xavier Letendre dit Batoche's house that was used as a headquarters, but these reports did not provide a description of this flag other than it was white and emblazoned.[48][49]

There is a claim that there was a Métis Battle Standard used at the Battle of Batoche that is described as being a blue background, with a wolf's head and hand (palm outward) in the middle, and a banner with the Michif words "maisons ... autels ... Surtout Liberté" (literally translated, this means "homes, altars, above all liberty").[7] This flag was said to have been created by the Métis women at Batoche to encourage the men in the battle.[50] However, the earliest known reference to this flag is a hand-drawn picture from 1975.[51]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

The Métis flag features a white infinity symbol superimposed on a solid blue or red field, embodying the perpetual fusion of Indigenous and European heritages that defines Métis identity and signifies the nation's enduring continuity. Introduced during the early 19th century amid tensions in the Red River region, it was first documented in use by Métis leader Cuthbert Grant in 1815 at Qu'Appelle, where a red variant bearing the symbol was observed, and subsequently flown by Métis resistance fighters preceding the 1816 Battle of Seven Oaks against Hudson's Bay Company forces. This emblem predates the modern Canadian flag by over 150 years, establishing it as the oldest patriotic banner originating within Canada and intrinsically tied to Métis assertions of autonomy and cultural distinctiveness. The blue version serves as the official standard of the Métis Nation—Saskatchewan, while the red variant holds historical associations with eastern Métis communities or rival fur trade entities like the Hudson's Bay Company, though both colors underscore shared symbolism without rigid exclusivity.

Design and Symbolism

Core Elements and Layout

![Métis Flag Blue][float-right]
The Métis flag consists of a white , depicted as a horizontal figure-eight, centered on a rectangular field that is either or . The infinity symbol is the primary , rendered in white against the colored background, with no additional motifs or text incorporated in the core design.
Historical accounts from the early describe the flag as approximately square in shape, with trader Peter Fidler noting on June 1, 1816, a blue flag measuring about 4 feet square bearing the horizontal figure-eight. Similarly, James Sutherland's 1815 description references a red version with the figure-eight placed horizontally in the middle, implying a comparable layout without specified dimensions. These eyewitness reports indicate the was prominently centered, occupying a significant portion of the field to ensure visibility from a distance. Modern reproductions often adopt rectangular proportions, such as 3 by 5 feet, diverging from the square format in primary historical descriptions, while retaining the centered white on or backgrounds. This standardization facilitates contemporary use but represents an adaptation rather than a direct replication of 19th-century variants. The flag's materials in historical contexts were likely or cotton fabric, typical for era banners, though specifics remain unverified beyond general period practices.

Infinity Symbol's Geometric and Historical Basis

The on the Métis flag takes the form of a , a geometric figure comprising two symmetrical loops interconnected at a single central node and oriented horizontally to resemble a figure eight lying on its side. This design exhibits uniform line thickness and bilateral , facilitating its reproduction in simple materials like cloth during the early . Historical precedents for this motif appear limited, with one empirical basis traced to employed in networks for inter-tribal and trader communication. The gesture denoting "cart"—formed by interlocking two circles using thumbs and forefingers—visually mirrors the lemniscate shape, aligning with the Red River carts central to economic activities from 1801 onward, when Scottish settlers introduced wheeled transport to the region. Another potential influence derives from the Scottish , an X-shaped white cross (crux decussata) on colored fields dating to at least the and borne by personnel of Scottish origin, many of whom fathered children. Hypotheses suggest the infinity form emerged by rotating and looping the saltire's arms, adapting a heraldic element to local hybrid contexts without direct replication in pre-1815 artifacts. No verified Indigenous heraldic traditions or European flags prior to the fur trade era feature this exact configuration, underscoring its likely origin as an innovation within 18th-19th century trade enclaves blending European geometry and practical signage.

Background Colors and Their Variations

Primary historical accounts document the Métis flag with a background as early as , 1816, when fur trader Peter Fidler observed Métis forces under displaying a flag approximately four and a half feet square, featuring a white horizontal on a field during events near Brandon House. This description aligns with Fidler's journal entry detailing the flag's use in a confrontation involving pistols, swords, and uniforms. In contrast, an earlier observation by , a Hudson's Bay Company employee, described a Métis flag with a red background and a horizontal figure eight symbol at its center, flown by mixed groups of freemen and half-breeds organized into distinct companies. Sutherland's account precedes Fidler's by about a year, indicating red as a contemporaneous variant without evidence of exclusivity. Preserved flags and illustrations from Métis collections, including those dating to the late 19th and early 20th centuries held in institutions like the Canadian Museum of History, exhibit both and backgrounds, confirming these color variations persisted beyond initial sightings. In the fur context, and dyes derived from imported European woolens and pigments—such as madder for and for —were readily available for cloth production, enabling practical fabrication of flags in these hues without specialized symbolism. This availability likely accounts for the observed differences, as traders and communities repurposed for such purposes.

Historical Origins and Accounts

Earliest Documented Descriptions

The earliest documented descriptions of the Métis flag emerge from accounts recorded in 1815 amid intensifying fur trade rivalries in , where Métis freighters, hunters, and freemen navigated conflicts between the (HBC) and (NWC). These references depict a banner with a white —representing eternal unity—on a red or blue field, employed as a marker of distinct from the companies' ensigns, which featured red backgrounds with Union Jacks and initials like "HBC" or "NWC." Such adoption reflected practical needs for signaling allegiance during transport and skirmishes, predating formalized resistance by providing a visual separator in contested territories. By early 1816, additional observations in trader journals along the Qu'Appelle River confirmed the flag's circulation among groups of approximately 48 Métis and allied freemen, who raised it during raids on HBC sites, underscoring its role in asserting autonomy amid pemmican shortages and trade blockades. These pre-Confederation records, drawn from archival narratives in the Provincial Archives of Manitoba and Hudson's Bay Company Archives, establish baseline empirical evidence of the flag's existence without reliance on later oral traditions. The descriptions highlight variations in color—red in spring 1815 sightings and blue by May 1816—indicating regional or situational adaptations rather than a singular design from inception. This early documentation, spanning journals and letters from HBC and NWC personnel, evidences pre-national patriotism through tangible symbols, independent of colonial oversight, in a era when indigenous mixed-ancestry communities formalized group markers for survival and negotiation in the fur trade economy.

James Sutherland's Testimony

, a (HBC) trader stationed in the District during 1814-1815, provided the earliest documented observation of the Métis infinity flag in his narrative recounting events at Qu'Appelle in the winter of 1815-1816. In this account, described Métis freighters, organized into distinct companies of "Freemen and Half Breeds," displaying a red flag bearing a horizontal figure-eight during their operations. This sighting occurred amid intensifying rivalries between the HBC and (NWC), with Métis groups aligning with the latter for transport and provisioning amid scarcities. Sutherland's testimony indicated that the flag was presented to Métis leaders, including , as a gesture from the NWC, purportedly in the spring of 1815 near Fort Espérance. Grant, appointed as a captain of Métis forces by NWC interests, reportedly flew the red infinity flag alongside NWC colors, symbolizing emerging unity among Métis freighters and hunters. This presentation aligned with NWC strategies to bolster Métis loyalty against HBC encroachments, particularly as restrictions threatened supply lines critical to expeditions. As a , Sutherland's account holds evidentiary value for its contemporaneity and specificity, capturing the flag's use in operational contexts that promoted Métis group identity and coordination. His detailed notation of the red background and motif provides a baseline description predating other records, underscoring the flag's role in visually unifying Métis contingents during resource-strained freighting efforts. Though originating from an HBC perspective, the testimony's focus on observable actions rather than interpretation enhances its reliability for establishing early adoption patterns.

Peter Fidler's Journal Entries

Peter Fidler, a Hudson's Bay Company surveyor and postmaster at Brandon House, documented an encounter with Métis forces in his journal on June 1, 1816, providing one of the earliest written descriptions of their flag from an HBC viewpoint. Fidler noted that at half past noon, approximately 48 Half-Breeds, Canadians, Freemen, and Indians arrived on horseback under the leadership of Cuthbert Grant, with "their Flag flying blue about 4 feet square & a figure of 8 horizontally in the middle." This blue banner, featuring a white horizontal infinity symbol, was raised during their demand for access to HBC stores and warehouses, which Fidler refused, leading to the forcible entry and plundering of goods, provisions, and livestock. The journal entry reflects the HBC's adversarial stance toward these mixed-descent traders and their North West Company allies, portraying the incident as an aggressive raid amid resource scarcities enforced by the HBC's Pemmican Proclamation of 1814. Fidler's account emphasizes the flag's prominence as a marker of organized resistance, flown openly to signal collective action rather than individual banditry. As an eyewitness embedded in HBC operations, Fidler's record carries primary evidentiary weight but is inherently partial, framing the Métis group as interlopers violating company authority over Assiniboia district provisions. This June 1 confrontation at Brandon House, occurring just weeks before the , underscores the flag's role in displays of during disputes over hunting rights and trade restrictions. By hoisting the emblem while pressing claims to stored resources, the group under Grant asserted control over contested territories, challenging HBC monopolistic edicts through symbolic and coercive means. Fidler's detailed notation of the flag's design and deployment thus captures a pivotal moment of cohesion in resource-based power struggles, independent of later conflict resolutions.

Evaluation of Source Reliability and Contradictions

Peter Fidler's journal entries, as an employee of the (HBC), provide firsthand observations of usage of a blue flag with a white on June 1, 1816, during tensions preceding the , but their reliability is tempered by Fidler's allegiance to the HBC amid its rivalry with (NWC). Fidler's role in HBC operations positioned him to document events critically of NWC-aligned groups, potentially introducing partisan slant that emphasized threats to HBC interests over neutral description. James Sutherland's testimony, also from an HBC perspective in his 1815-1816 narrative of events at Qu'Appelle and Frog Plain, describes a red used by and freemen under NWC influence, attributing its presentation as a from NWC partner Alexander MacDonnell to rally against HBC settlers. This account's hearsay phrasing—"said to be" a —undermines its verifiability, especially given Sutherland's HBC ties and the absence of confirming NWC records, suggesting possible exaggeration to discredit NWC tactics during the . Contradictions arise in timelines and details between the accounts: Sutherland's 1815 red flag sighting precedes Fidler's 1816 variant by roughly a year, with no explanation for color discrepancies or evidence of a singular "gift" event bridging them, favoring interpretations of organic trade-era emergence over a coordinated NWC presentation. Archival limitations persist, as neither source draws from or NWC firsthand corroboration, prioritizing cross-verified event contexts like armed gatherings over uncorroborated gift claims amid the HBC-NWC merger pressures of 1821.

Debates on Origins and Authenticity

Gift-from-North-West-Company Hypothesis

The Gift-from-North-West-Company Hypothesis proposes that the (NWC) presented the infinity flag to freighters and hunters in the spring of at Qu'Appelle Valley as a reward for their demonstrated loyalty and disruptive actions against the Hudson's Bay Company's (HBC) . This account, recorded in James 's within the Selkirk Papers, describes NWC partners distributing the red variant of the flag alongside swords and pistols to "Half Breeds" for their efforts in harassing settlers and undermining colonial supply lines during the escalating . Sutherland, an HBC-affiliated clerk whose testimony appears in rival company documents, provides the primary contemporary evidence, though it relies on reported events without direct corroboration from NWC records. In the context of the fur trade rivalry, the NWC's strategic incentives centered on leveraging Métis labor for , as Métis boat and cart brigades enabled faster transport of goods and furs compared to HBC methods, controlling an estimated 80% of the trade by 1795. By gifting a distinctive , the NWC aimed to foster allegiance among its employees, who numbered in the hundreds and were pivotal in countering HBC's settlement-driven restrictions on provisioning and territorial expansion. This tactic aligned with broader NWC practices of cultivating alliances through material and symbolic incentives to maintain operational dominance in . Proponents of the hypothesis credit the flag's adoption with aiding the unification of disparate freighter groups under a shared , enhancing coordination in NWC supply chains and resistance efforts that culminated in like the 1816 . However, critics argue that attributing the flag's origin to corporate gifting undermines agency, portraying them as passive recipients dependent on NWC patronage rather than originators of their own national symbols amid trade conflicts. This view highlights how such alliances, while tactically effective for NWC logistics, reinforced economic reliance on the company, limiting autonomy until the 1821 HBC-NWC merger disrupted these dynamics.

Alternative Explanations for Design Emergence

Métis oral traditions maintain that the infinity flag, known in Michif as Li Paviiyoon di Michif, emerged from the community's own cultural synthesis in the fur trade borderlands, symbolizing the eternal fusion of Indigenous and European ancestries without reliance on external conferral. This perspective underscores Métis agency in forging a distinct amid the hybrid environments of , where of mixed descent adapted motifs from daily life, such as arrowhead patterns woven into sashes that evoked continuity and blending of traditions. These elements, blending Eastern finger-weaving techniques with European , prefigure the flag's design as an organic product of localized rather than imported artifact. The symbol's form also draws from heraldic adaptations prevalent in the region, including the —a diagonal cross in Scottish —reinterpreted as a horizontal figure-eight to represent unending cultural intermingling, as documented in early 19th-century contexts. with Scottish paternal lines, common among Red River settlers, likely incorporated such motifs from clan tartans or trade emblems, evolving them into a of self-assertion during periods of economic in the . This process mirrors causal patterns in borderland , where mixed groups iteratively refine symbols from proximate influences to assert independence. Critics of the gift narrative highlight its evidentiary frailty, resting on a solitary, hearsay-laden report without corroboration from company records or multiple witnesses, thereby exaggerating corporate at the expense of endogenous nationalism. Such accounts risk retrojecting dependency onto a people whose flag use by 1816 evidences prior self-organization, as inferred from trader journals noting its established presence. This interpretation aligns with broader historical patterns where hybrid communities, like subgroups, generated emblems from internal dynamics rather than largesse, affirming the design's roots in autonomous cultural emergence.

Linguistic and Regional Color Associations

One hypothesis posits that the blue background of the Métis flag symbolizes francophone communities, tied to the North West Company's predominantly French-influenced operations, while the red background denotes anglophone affiliations with the , which drew from English and Scottish traders. This interpretation, advanced in mid-20th-century historical analyses, reflects the linguistic and cultural bifurcations among groups emerging from rivalries, where NWC employees often intermarried with French-speaking Indigenous women, fostering "French Métis," contrasted with HBC's "" networks. Proponents argue this color dichotomy authentically captures the dual heritage of identity, promoting representational equity in symbolic traditions. Regional associations have also been proposed, suggesting red flags predominate among and , while blue variants align with communities. However, these claims lack robust primary documentation; early 19th-century records, including 1816 eyewitness accounts from the Red River area in present-day , describe predominantly blue flags in use, indicating color preferences were not rigidly geographic. Such regional hypotheses, emerging in later ethnographic interpretations, face criticism as unsubstantiated overlays on fluid historical practices, with no verified evidence tying specific hues to provincial boundaries later formalized in the . Critics of both linguistic and regional color theories emphasize their retrospective nature, noting the absence of explicit linkages in contemporaneous journals or testimonies from figures like Peter Fidler or , which prioritize the infinity symbol over background variances. While these associations may enhance contemporary cultural narratives by highlighting diversity, their verifiability remains constrained by the opportunistic adoption of fur trade colors during conflicts like the , rather than deliberate linguistic or territorial encoding. This tension underscores a broader challenge in symbology: balancing interpretive utility against empirical sparsity from the flag's formative era.

Early Usage in Conflicts and Resistance

Pre-1816 Contexts in

In during the early 1800s, freighters and hunters, often aligned with , navigated intensifying trade restrictions imposed by the , particularly following the Pemmican Proclamation of January 8, 1814, which prohibited pemmican exports from the Red River district to prioritize settler supplies. This measure disrupted economic activities, as they supplied dried meat provisions essential for NWC overland and waterborne transport to western posts, prompting informal differentiation from HBC ensigns through distinctive markers on boats and cart trains to signal allegiance and facilitate group coordination amid smuggling efforts. Economic imperatives drove early adoption of flag-like symbols, as boat crews and overland parties required visible identifiers to rally against enforcement patrols and assert operational independence in contested territories like the and Qu'Appelle valleys, where buffalo hunts yielded cargoes. The blue variant, echoing NWC color preferences over HBC red, emerged in this context to denote affiliations during freighting operations, reflecting pragmatic unity for sustaining trade revenues rather than abstract . By spring 1815, NWC partner Alexander Macdonell presented a bearing a white on a colored field to Métis captain at Qu'Appelle, intended for use in provisioning expeditions that defied export curbs. Contemporary observer noted a Métis captain displaying such a banner that year, likely during riverine transport of loads, underscoring its role in practical group signaling before escalation into open conflict. These instances prioritized causal preservation, with the symbol's endurance tied to repeated utility in hunter-freighter coalitions rather than singular ceremonial origins.

Role in the Pemmican War and Battle of Seven Oaks

During the escalating tensions of the in 1816, , leading a contingent of approximately 50-60 and (NWC) allies, raised the infinity flag—described in (HBC) archival records as a horizontal figure-eight symbol on a field—to signal their presence while escorting supplies up the , directly challenging Lord Selkirk's colony restrictions on trade and provisioning. This deployment served a tactical function by distinguishing Grant's forces from HBC settlers, facilitating coordinated movement amid interdictions imposed by colony governor Robert Semple, who had seized NWC goods and prohibited pemmican exports to assert HBC monopoly claims. On June 19, 1816, at the near , the flag was reportedly flown by Grant's militia during the confrontation with Semple's party of about 25-30 armed colonists and HBC employees, marking a pivotal clash where riflemen, positioned advantageously, fired the opening shots after a disputed , resulting in 21 colonist deaths including Semple, one fatality ( dit Laferte), and the capture of HBC supplies. Symbolically, the flag's display under Grant—previously noted by HBC witness in as a variant at Qu'Appelle—asserted collective identity and , framing the action as defense of traditional and against encroachments that threatened winter provisions for NWC posts and Indigenous allies. HBC accounts, inherently adversarial given the company's stake in portraying NWC-backed as aggressors, provide the primary contemporary descriptions, though oral histories emphasize the flag's role in unifying fighters under a nascent national banner. The flag's use empirically correlated with heightened Métis cohesion, enabling a decisive tactical advantage through superior marksmanship and terrain knowledge, which routed Semple's force without close-quarters melee and secured stores critical to NWC operations. However, this victory escalated the conflict's violence, prompting Selkirk to muster over 100 Swiss and reinforcements by August 1816, leading to the of 10 NWC partners on charges and the temporary dismantling of Grant's , though it affirmed Métis capacity to enforce provisioning claims against HBC overreach. Critics from the HBC perspective, including trial testimonies, decried the flag-led action as unprovoked escalation by NWC proxies, yet the outcome underscored Métis agency in preserving access to bison-derived —essential for 1816-1817 survival amid rivalries—without which NWC posts faced starvation risks.

Application in Métis Governance

Flags of the Legislative Assembly of Assiniboia

The of the , formed on December 8, 1869, under Louis Riel's leadership, hoisted its flag over on December 10, 1869, marking the formal assertion of authority amid resistance to unconsulted Canadian surveys and annexation plans. Contemporary descriptions record this flag as a white field bearing a blue —symbolizing French heritage—and a , with some accounts adding a to emphasize Irish influences from figures like O'Donoghue, an Irish-American advisor pushing Fenian-inspired elements. This design served to legitimize the government's claims by blending European settler symbols prevalent among elites, though it diverged from the traditional infinity flag used by resistance fighters in earlier conflicts. The flag's raising was accompanied by salutes from guards, underscoring the provisional structure's role in organizing local defenses and diplomacy. The of , elected on February 28, 1870, with 21 of 28 members being , convened from March 9 to June 24, 1870, at Upper to ratify negotiated terms with . Operating as the legislative arm of the , it continued employing the and flag—or closely analogous designs—to project institutional continuity and sovereignty over the Red River Settlement, where comprised the numerical majority. This symbolic choice reinforced legitimacy amid debates on , emphasizing protections for local and bilingual governance. The assembly's proceedings, documented in sessional journals, focused on endorsing the List of Rights, which influenced the Act passed by Canadian Parliament on May 12, 1870, securing 1.4 million acres for families and provincial status. Though the infinity variant of the Métis flag—white symbol on blue or red field, denoting eternal cultural fusion—was not the primary banner hoisted for official acts, it flew among resistance contingents supporting the assembly's aims during the Red River events, linking governance to broader defiance. The assembly's short-term diplomatic gains contrasted with ultimate suppression: Canadian reinforcements under Colonel Garnet Wolseley, numbering about 1,200 troops, arrived on August 24, 1870, dispersing holdouts and prompting Riel's exile, after which Union Jacks replaced provisional emblems. This episode highlighted the fragility of institutional assertions, with the flags embodying both aspirational self-rule and its curtailment by federal military power.

Provisional Government of Saskatchewan

The Provisional Government of Saskatchewan was proclaimed by Louis Riel on March 19, 1885, at Batoche along the South Saskatchewan River, as a means to formalize Métis resistance to Canadian federal policies encroaching on their land tenure system. This included opposition to Dominion land surveys that disregarded Métis river-lot holdings—narrow, elongated parcels suited to floodplain agriculture—and delays in issuing scrip certificates for land or cash equivalents, leaving many families vulnerable to displacement by settlers. Banners raised during Exovedate assemblies, the provisional legislature comprising elected Métis delegates, symbolized this assertion of self-governance and petitioned Ottawa for recognition of aboriginal title derived from prior occupation and French-Canadian heritage. Historical records indicate that flags employed by the government and fighters at Batoche featured Catholic religious motifs, such as crosses or sacred hearts, alongside French emblems, aligning with Riel's theocratic visions of a under ; the traditional blue or red infinity-symbol flag from earlier eras was absent from the campaign. Eyewitness testimonies from participants, including assertions by veteran Nault, describe these banners as evoking Canadian symbolism to frame the resistance as a patriotic defense rather than outright , hoisted over provisional headquarters to rally approximately 250 defenders. Variants tied to Riel's leadership incorporated personal , like messianic inscriptions, but lacked standardization, reflecting fabrication amid scarcity. While the government's petitions spotlighted verifiable grievances—such as the unfulfilled Manitoba Act promises extended westward and economic marginalization—their militarization escalated tensions, culminating in the from May 9 to 12, 1885. Here, Métis forces under Gabriel Dumont's tactical command repelled initial Canadian assaults by Major-General Frederick Middleton's 800–900 troops but succumbed to superior artillery, dwindling ammunition (exhausted after four days of intermittent fire), and Riel's insistence on static defense over mobile . This strategic rigidity, rooted in Riel's faith in supernatural intervention, contributed to collapse, dispersal of survivors, and his surrender on May 15, undermining short-term sovereignty claims despite amplifying long-term awareness of Métis dispossession. Critics, including Dumont's advocates, faulted the approach for prioritizing symbolic governance over pragmatic evasion, hastening defeat against a force backed by rail-supplied logistics.

Louis Riel's Personal and Provisional Banners

The , proclaimed by at Batoche on March 19, 1885, utilized a distinct banner selected by Riel himself: a bearing a royal blue shield with three golden fleurs-de-lys, drawing from the ancient arms of to evoke monarchical and Catholic symbolism aligned with his vision of a theocratic province under divine authority. This design diverged from the standard infinity flag, incorporating heraldic elements tied to Bourbon tradition and French Catholic identity rather than the ethnic emblem of endless unity. Riel's choice reflected his evolving ideology during the North-West Resistance, where he positioned Batoche as a "city of God" and the as an instrument of prophetic nationalism, blending with religious governance under papal influence. Contemporary accounts, including those from the Exovedate assembly, describe the banner's in rallies and defenses, projecting Riel's causal intent to legitimize the resistance as a sacred reclamation against federal encroachment. Trial testimonies post-capture further verified its use, distinguishing it from combat standards like the infinity flag flown earlier on at Batoche. No surviving artifacts of Riel's personal banner exist, but descriptions from participants indicate occasional admixtures of religious motifs, such as crosses integrated with infinity symbols during prayers or processions, underscoring his personal messianic claims amid the rebellion's theocratic framing. These variants served to rally followers by merging ethnic symbolism with Riel's professed divine mandate, though their precise configurations remain debated due to reliance on oral and post-event recollections rather than visual records.

Modern Adoption and Contemporary Role

Revival by Métis Nation Organizations Post-1960s

The revival of the Métis infinity flag in the post-1960s era coincided with a cultural renaissance and surge in activism, driven by organizations seeking to reclaim and preserve distinct heritage amid broader movements. The Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF), established on October 1, 1967, as a non-profit to advocate for land claims, political representation, and cultural preservation, integrated the flag into its symbolism to represent Red River Métis identity and continuity. This adoption reflected grassroots efforts during the 1960s and 1970s, often regarded as a peak period for Métis unity and mobilization against socioeconomic marginalization. Pan-Métis organizations further propelled the flag's reintroduction, tying it to emerging national consciousness. The Métis National Council (MNC), representing provincial Métis governments, endorsed the blue variant—evoking historical alliances—as the official emblem of the Métis Nation, emphasizing its sky-blue field to symbolize eternal existence. In 2013, the MNC secured trademark protection for the blue infinity flag, standardizing its use across member nations and preventing unauthorized commercialization. Regional bodies, such as the , similarly prioritized the blue design in cultural protocols, reinforcing its role in fostering unity. Empirical instances of the flag's deployment post-revival include its prominence in commemorative events and advocacy actions, such as the raising on to mark self-government aspirations and anniversaries of resistance. Usage in contemporary celebrations, like annual Day gatherings organized by MMF since the , underscores its function as a rallying emblem, with documented displays at public assemblies exceeding thousands of participants in alone by the 1990s. Standardization efforts have thus embedded the flag in institutional practices, distinguishing it from 19th-century variants while adapting to modern organizational needs.
The flag has been employed by Nation organizations to assert distinct collective identity in negotiations leading to federal self-government recognitions, particularly following the 2003 ruling in R. v. Powley, which confirmed section 35 constitutional protection for harvesting rights tied to historic communities. Self-government agreements, such as the 2019 Government Recognition and Self-Government Agreement with the Nation-Saskatchewan and the 2022 Self-Government Recognition and Implementation Agreement, affirm the inherent right of specified collectives to govern, with the flag serving as an emblem of this emerging nationhood during signing ceremonies and public affirmations. These pacts, limited to prairie-based historic groups like the Red River , leverage the flag to symbolize continuity from 19th-century resistances to modern jurisdictional claims.
In , the flag's display has amplified calls for broader legal accommodations, including in proposed federal legislation like Bill C-53, introduced in 2023 to statutorily recognize Métis self-government but stalled amid concerns over scope. A notable event occurred on , 2016, when the Métis flag was raised on for the first time during Day observances, coinciding with the 200th anniversary of its debut at the and underscoring federal tolerance of Métis symbolic assertions. This usage promotes the narrative of perpetual Métis existence, as encoded in the , yet invites scrutiny for extending claims beyond verifiable ancestries to regions lacking equivalent historic densities, potentially straining resource allocations and authenticity thresholds in rights adjudication. Such expansions, evident in organizations like the Métis Nation of Ontario, contrast with federal emphases on site-specific, empirically grounded communities, highlighting tensions between symbolic unity and evidentiary limits in legal recognition.

Ongoing Debates and Criticisms of Symbolic Claims

Contemporary debates center on the flag's use by self-identified eastern organizations, which western governance bodies like the National Council (MNC) argue misappropriates a symbol tied to historic western communities originating in the Red River Settlement and surrounding regions. In November 2018, MNC President Clément Chartier publicly accused eastern groups, including those in and , of "stealing our identity" by adopting the flag alongside claims to Nation status without verifiable ties to the 19th-century polities that developed the emblem during conflicts like the . These critiques intensified between 2018 and 2023, coinciding with failed court challenges by eastern claimants seeking Aboriginal rights—approximately 20 cases in alone, all rejected for lacking evidence of continuous communities distinct from First Nations or non-status Indians. Métis lawyer Jean Teillet has highlighted how such assertions exacerbate , enabling non-historic groups to leverage the flag for political and economic benefits like government funding or harvesting , despite the symbol's in western resistance movements rather than eastern genealogy. Eastern organizations, such as the Métis , counter that their mixed ancestry and cultural practices justify flag usage as a broader of hybrid Indigenous-European heritage, though this view is contested by MNC affiliates who emphasize genealogical continuity to specific historic Métis collectives defined in the 2003 Daniels decision and MNC protocols. The MNC's 2018 trademark application for the and flag aimed to curb unauthorized adoptions, reflecting concerns over dilution of a marker developed for tactical unity in fragmented 19th-century bands rather than pan-Métis homogeneity. Critics also question the flag's portrayal as an emblem of unbroken antiquity and cohesion, arguing it over-romanticizes a historically diverse and often divided population—encompassing competing family networks, linguistic variants (e.g., Bungi, ), and regional adaptations—whose symbolic adoption surged post-1960s amid pan-Indigenous rather than organic persistence. This narrative, advanced in modern materials, ignores archival evidence of internal schisms, such as post-1885 rebellions where not all mixed-heritage groups aligned under the banner, prioritizing instead a constructed unity for legal self-government claims under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The symbol's endurance thus stems more from its instrumental value in contemporary —facilitating federal recognition and —than from inherent cultural inevitability, as evidenced by its sporadic pre-20th-century documentation and variable regional adherence. Proponents maintain it embodies eternal cultural fusion, yet detractors, including some First Nations leaders, view expansive claims as eroding distinctions among Indigenous polities, potentially straining .

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.