Distinction between First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples, and the reason for it [closed]

Solution 1:

First Nation, Inuit and Métis are all ethnic designations and ethnic designations are always political. Which individuals are allowed to claim membership in a group is usually not obvious, not consistent, and not logical.

The very short answer is that there are some important distinctions between First Nations, Inuits and Métis and in some contexts, it's important to highlight this distinction. These distinctions aren't really relevant to a discussion of the English language, but, briefly:

The Inuit are descended from people who migrated from Siberia significantly later, they speak languages that are very distinct, inhabit areas in the extreme north of the continent and are by far the majority in those areas (the population of Nunavut is 83% Inuit, 0.4% First Nations, 0.5% Métis and 15% non-aboriginal)

Métis has two meanings: either people with mixed indigenous and non-indigenous parentage or a distinct group of such bi-racial people who traditionally lived in central Canada and who married within their own group, creating a distinct culture. This group has a distinct history and legal position in Canada.

First Nations are all the other indigenous peoples of Canada (and some tribes living in the present-day United States use this term as well). Yes, they are ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse, but they are arguably more similar to each other than they are to the Métis or Inuit people.

These groups could, in some contexts, all be considered aboriginal, indigenous, Indian, first people, native, etc. Because of the troubled history of colonialism, all of these terms have political significance and can be used to slightly different effect.