Indigenous leaders are demanding greater respect and accuracy in how their histories are told following a contentious article that they say distorts key facts

SooToday received the following letter in response to a recent column from Bill Steer.

Dear editor,

Re: “From tour to truth: a visit to Shingwauk Hall changes everything,” by contributor Bill Steer

Bill Steer’s recent column offers a thoughtful description of the Shingwauk Residential School (SRS) site and its role in telling the difficult and painful history of residential schools in Canada. As he notes, sharing this history in a respectful, accurate, and healing way is a profound responsibility. For far too long, however, Indigenous histories, particularly Anishinaabe histories, have been interpreted and taught primarily through a Western, colonial worldview. A more accurate understanding of SRS requires engagement with multiple perspectives, including Anishinaabe worldviews.

From the content presented in the column, the dominant worldview expressed is a Canadian one. The inclusion of commentary from Harry Huskins, identified as a qualified expert, appears to be the article’s attempt to represent a Métis perspective. What is most concerning, however, is Mr. Huskins’ assertion that both Chiefs Shingwaukonse and Nebenaigoching would be considered Métis today. We categorically refute Huskins’ claim. Both Chiefs were Anishinaabe leaders who signed the Robinson-Huron treaties on behalf of their people. Suggesting they were “Métis” disrespects their legacies – how does one justify discussing the residential school named after Shingwaukonse while at the same time denying his place in our history.

This brings us to a critical question: Who is Métis?

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin (RHW) has repeatedly stated that mixed blood alone does not make a person Métis. Neither Shingwaukonse nor Nebenaigoching, both of whom had white fathers, ever identified as Métis. Under Anishinaabe kinship law they were raised, embraced, and recognized fully as Anishinaabe within their respective communities of Garden River and Batchewana. Both later became Chiefs of their communities, an affirmation of their identity, belonging, and leadership. Unfortunately, the Métis Nation of Ontario uses Nebenaigoching as a forebearer in one of their so-called Métis family lines, distorting history and Anishinaabe laws in the process.

As scholar Janet Chute documents in The Legacy of Shingwaukonse, Anishinaabe kinship law welcomed mixed-blood relatives who lived according to Anishinaabe customs, values, and responsibilities. Steer describes Shingwaukonse as both a Chief and a “devout Midewin” two roles deeply rooted in Anishinaabe identity, law, and spiritual responsibility. These descriptors directly contradict any claim that he would be considered Métis.

Furthermore, neither Steer nor Huskins provides evidence demonstrating that either Chief was part of, or accepted by, a Métis community, historic or contemporary. Huskins suggests that Nebenaigoching lived on a “Métis River Lot,” yet Chute’s research shows he purchased his land in 1834 and lived among French and mixed-blood neighbours, many of whom were kin. As such, these were not “Métis River Lots,” but Anishinaabe land that had long been governed by the Crane Clan, for whom Nebenaigoching was a hereditary chief.

Chute goes on to say that, since only persons like Nebenaigoching who were legally vested as Anishinaabe could justify their continued residence at the rapids, mixed blooded descendants of one-time trading personnel and their Anishinaabe wives aligned with the Anishinaabe over and above their French or British kin. Does this illustrate a Metis community with a distinct language, culture, social and political structures?

It is noteworthy and troubling that a tour of the Shingwauk Residential School would be used as a platform to advance arguments about Métis identity that are not grounded in historical fact or Anishinaaabe law. This follows a pattern: last year, Steer published a column about the 1849 Mica Bay Incident, again framing it as a Métis event despite significant evidence to the contrary.

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin encourages respectful, well-researched public dialogue on these topics. But such dialogue must be rooted in historical accuracy, Anishinaabe law, and the perspectives of the rights-holding First Nations whose ancestors lived these histories.

Meegwetch for the opportunity to provide this clarification.

Scott McLeod

Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin (RHW) Political Working Group