Thread by @DarrylLeroux

In other news, Michelle Latimer and her PR firm continue to gaslight us all in that terrible piece in the G&M today. Hiring Malette & Pulla and then calling them "experts" is a bit rich, even for Navigator (PR firm). 1

All we find out is what we already knew - Latimer's "non-status Algonquin" & "Métis" identity relies on two women ancestors born in about 1605 and 1647, respectively. That doesn't make her Indigenous. Period. 2

The story that broke last December by journalists @Kanhehsiio & @JorgeBarrera with research by genealogist Dominique Ritchot was simply confirmed in the G&M story today. Nothing new here. 3

I discuss, in great detail (some say too much!), the use of these specific women ancestors (and a few others) by the self-indigenization movement. About 10 million white folks in Canada have the same ancestry going back to pre-1670 or so. 4

uofmpress.ca/books/detail/d…

Latimer (and Malette & Pulla) employ the usual strategies: weaponizing colonial violence by alluding to processes such as disenfranchisement (i.e. "losing status") that simply don't apply to this situation. 5

The fact of the matter is that Latimer's ancestors were the first European colonizers in the region immediately north of Maniwaki. They pushed the Algonquins out of their territory in 1800s. That doesn't make them Algonquin! 6

Whether Latimer is a "liar" or not is moot. She had two decades to verify family lore in her family. She didn't. Family lore is part and parcel of colonial landscape for white French-descendants (see below). Now she's doubling-down on fictive identity. 7

academia.edu/44336023/Aspir…

There are literally dozens of organizations representing white folks with the same ancestry as Latimer across Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Maine, New Hampshire & Vermont. We've documented them on our website. Latimer isn't unique. 8

raceshifting.com

One of more perverse ways that this movement works is by denying that Algonquin people in the recent past were Algonquin, essentially erasing them from landscape to support the "Métis." I explain this below in book review of Malette's work. 9

academia.edu/47792277/Bois_…

Latimer had a great opportunity to back down from her claim and do the right thing. It bites when family members mislead us (the same thing happened in my family), but seeing her promote these harmful ideas about indigeneity is deeply disappointing. 10

Wow, wow, wow. I missed this blog piece written by Latimer. She's openly lying now: "I am a direct descendant of a dispersed Indigenous people from upriver in Baskatong, Quebec." Nope, your great-granduncle isn't a direct ancestor. 11

medium.com/@Michelle.Lati…

"Two generations of my direct ancestors can be verified back to Lake of Two Mountains from the late 1700’s to early 1800’s, after which their children moved into off-reserve Quebec near Maniwaki in the early 1900’s." Highly misleading ... 12

They were French-Canadians living next to the Indigenous mission, as 1,000s of white people did at the time. They didn't live on reserve at all. I write about these same persons (my direct ancestors as well) in great depth in Chapter 3 of my book. 13.

Saying that they "moved into off-reserve Quebec near Maniwaki in the early 1900’s" is a creative way to say, "they accepted government and forest industry invitations to be frontline of colonial displacement in Algonquin territory." They were among the first colonizers there! 14

"My mixed Algonquin and French Canadian heritage, in particular, was reinforced over 5 generations of residency and intermarriages between Algonquin & French Canadians in unceded Algonquin territory of western Quebec." False. There was no mixed marriage for 12+ generations! 15

"Due to gender discrimination in Indian Act (1876), Algonquin or Métis women in relationship with non-Algonquin men were forced to leave the reserve." Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with our ancestors' history or experience. 16

She even cites newspaper article from 1973 co-written by William Commanda that Malette et al. "discovered" as evidence that Algonquins recognize a "distinct Métis people" in region. This isn't what article says at all! Using a revered Elder's words in this way is disgusting. 17

Overall, this piece by Latimer is openly hostile -- it repeats a range of historical mistruths, weaponizes & appropriates Indigenous trauma & relies uniquely on research that has no academic purchase. 18