Hi, I would like to know if the occupation on his file would mean that he was aboriginal.

[Gladys Labonte]

[Bob Davies]

Hello Gladys,

welcome to the GWF.

The name 'Corneau' sounds/looks very French to my eyes, so that would fit with Canada.

His occupation, listed as 'Bushman' would infer that he works and lives in the bush/wilderness, there is a lot of that in Canada.

He is also a Roman Catholic so that too says not in my mind.

Aboriginals are from Australia, are they not?

Regards,

Bob.

[Keith_history_buff]

Would this man be pursuing a Paul Bunyan-like existence? I see a similar question has been asked before

 

[Bob Davies]

Further to my last, he could be an indigenous person of Canada.

So I think, from memory of other men who served in WW1, the correct term for him might be Inuit or Metis?

That is far as my understanding goes on this.

With luck someone with more knowledge on the subject will be along to educate us more.

Regards,

Bob.

[Keith_history_buff]

We have a man with blue eyes, a French name, raised in the Roman Catholic faith. I think it most likely that he has French ancestry and is caucasian. I think it is less likely that he has First Nations heritage because of his trade or calling being described as "bushman". Do you have a lock of the hair of Monsieur CORNEAU (Ernest junior) that could be sent for DNA testing? If you are in France, the law prevents DNA testing, I am unaware of an equivalent law in Canada.

[Moonraker]

"Aboriginal" is not a term confined to Australia but denotes indigenous people of any nation. Glady's scan is of Ernest Corneau's attestion papers available on Library and Archives Canada together with his service record. Googling "Canadian bushman" will lead to several recruitment posters inviting bushmen and sawmill hands to join the Canadian Forestry Corps. I see no particular reason to suggest that he was indigenous and think that he was perhaps a descendant of a French immigrant. Nor does being a "bushman" suggest that he was indigenous.

My interest in Canadian soldiers concentrates on the First  Canadian Contingent on Salisbury Plain, but those indigenous members whom I've come across had names reminiscent of what were once called "Indians".

[stevenbecker]

Agreed, the term could mean he was part native, as so often is shown in our records

IT would depend on what caste he was, as to how he was percived, many do have differant eyes and even hair color

Many native women married white men, in all countries of the Commonweath.

The French had been in Canada longer then the British, so inter action was possible over the years.

[Gladys Labonte]

Thank you everyone I appreciate the input, I figure he's probably Metis.

Gladys 

[Keith_history_buff]

7 hours ago, Gladys Labonte said:

iThank you everyone I appreciate the input, I figure he's probably Metis.

Gladys 

 

We will not know. unless you can provide acide désoxyribonucléique  regarding this indivuel

Cordialement
Mr Keith

[Chasemuseum]

The word "Bushman" needs to be put in the context of the period. Here in Australia, during the second Boer War (1899-1902) a number of the New South Wales contingents of mounted infantry were named "Bushman Contingents". or "Imperial Bushmen". 

For the period the word was used to signify itinerant rural labourers primarily from grazing districts. Implying men who were used to riding horses, camping out, living fairly rough and hunting/fishing to supplement their food supply. Generally similar to the concept from North America of a "Cowboy". Using the term as opposed to "labourer" or "rural labourer" indicates that the man has experience in the care and management of horses, skills suited to scouting or employment as mounted infantry.

Certainly many indigenous men, could describe their employment as "bushmen" but a great many of the men who would of used this word to describe themselves would not have been "indigenous".  As a descriptor it cannot be used to confirm one way or the other that a soldier had an indigenous heritage.

[Moonraker]

Excellent summary, Chasemuseum, and your last sentence gives my view precisely.

[Gladys Labonte]

Thank you for the info

[Chasemuseum]

Within the British Empire of the late nineteenth and early c.20 there was endemic racism towards indigenous peoples of many countries, but within the army there was a mixed mindset. Three quarters of the troops in India were "native". The British element was maintained as a legacy of the "Mutiny". This being said, the native troops were generally held in high regard, particularly the Gurkhas.    

I cannot comment on Canada, but in the Australian colonies there was aboriginal participation in the all-volunteer local militia. In NSW an aboriginal soldier was known to have had over 20 years service prior to federation. Numerous aboriginal soldiers served in the various contingents sent to the second Boer War. In WW1 aboriginal recruitment was mixed, definitely discouraged in some regions and unquestioned in other areas. Many Aboriginal soldiers served Australia in the Boer, WW1, WW2 and subsequent wars. The recruitment paperwork has never recorded ethnic origins (the 1885 contingent to Sudan included some Afghan camel trainers, they are only obvious by their distinctive Islamic names.)

Our Federal Constitution had specific references to aboriginal citizens, this had the impact of exempting them from compulsory military service during our three phases of conscription (42-45, in the 50s and 68-72). These references were removed by the 1967 referendum but did not apply retrospectively to the last phase of conscription - so every Australian Aboriginal who has served this country in war has done so as a volunteer. Through the c.20 the acknowledged aboriginal community has generally been about 2 to 3% of the total population. Although no definitive data is available, they have consistently made an appropriate and recognisable contribution to our wartime military forces - not just tokenism.   

Edited Tuesday at 00:17 by Chasemuseum
grammar