I was impressed to hear that the Mi'kmaq and the French (and Acadians) got along quite well, and the author even goes so far as to suggest that had France been the sole colonial power that the Mi'kmaq would have never experienced such genocide and degradation.

American historians refer to those times as The French and Indian Wars.

One night in my wild youth I walked into the French Club, a bar I had frequented, in Sydney, in my native Cape Breton, with an Ojibway friend I had made at school, and was refused service.

I started to protest, but my friend, with quiet dignity, suggested we go elsewhere.

Were the French better than the English? I don't know.

I can't recommend any sites that would answer your question.

But if you ever are in Cape Breton, the restoration of

quote:

---

April, it's Daniel Paul.

---

Ooops! My mistake!

[ 05 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

Given the word savage and the French connection, perhaps our resident linguist can weigh on on whether this is accurate: it's often said that the French word sauvage lacked the negative connotations of the English savage. That it was better translated as "wild" and even with a sense of nobiolity than as "savage," and that this even says something about French colonists' more positive attitude towards the natural environment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
I am not a linguist but I believe you are correct that "le sauvage" is not as negative a term as "savage" would be.

---

Absolutely correct.

The negative connotation of "savage" is a later subset of its broader meaning of "wild" in the sense of "native, indigenous". Look at literature of the period, and you'll find references to "savage rocks", "savage trees", and "savage plants" in the natural history section.

The French in la Nouvelle-France actually intermarried with Amerindians. I come from a long line of French and Huron ancestors. So, I think this is one area where there is a marked difference between the French and the British. The British did not intermarry with Amerindians.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

So, I think this is one area where there is a marked difference between the French and the British. The British did not intermarry with Amerindians.

---

That is an interesting point, if true. However, the sources of racism existed both in France and in England, so it seems odd to me that, upon crossing the sea, the French did one thing, and the English the opposite.

The only important difference I know of between the two was that France would not allow Huguenots to come to New France; it had to be a Catholic country; almost all of the English were Protestants.

Jennifer Brown's Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country, is about Metis gender issues and families.

Also this link right here discusses historical writing about Red River including about the different groups. I can't find who wrote it, but it has some good references. There are Metis genealogy websites that link to it.

Edited to change term to mixed-bloods and add information from J.R. Miller book Skyscrapers hide the Heavens and references to Brown's book and link.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

Both colonial attitudes were horrible to the native people, which resulted in one of the largest genocides in the entire history of the world. But, in the Anglo-Germanic portions of the Americas, native people are nowhere more to be seen. In the rest of the two continents, the situation is decidedly different.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Catholics saw the the native population as poor, unsaved souls who just needed to be civilised, and saw inter-marriage as a "step up." Anglo-Germanic Protestants saw intermarriage as a racial "step down" and sought to isolate native people.

---

That makes sense. It doesn't make any of it right, but it does make sense.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

It is probably correct that the French were more willing to mix with the Aboriginal people; but at some times in some places anglos did intermarry with aboriginal peoples, especially in the west.

Edited to quote:

quote:

---

...in the Anglo-Germanic portions of the Americas, native people are nowhere more to be seen. In the rest of the two continents, the situation is decidedly different...

---

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Well Hinterland, I think you are simplifying it too much, especially the term "Anglo-Germanic" which sounds invented. So what are the Scots, who might have been Catholic or Protestant?

---

I know I'm simplifying things; this isn't exactly the orals for my graduate degree, is it? As far as Anglo-Germanic is concerned, I didn't invent this term. A plurality of Americans trace their heritage to Germany rather than England, despite the Usian attachment to England and its culture. Besides, on a world scale of things, the difference between Anglos and Germans is about as significant as the difference between the Portuguese and Spaniards. You all look alike...

quote:

---

You may be thinking more of Eastern Canada and US; but western Canada was not a French colony, and there are plenty of native people to be seen. The whole history if native peoples in North America is complicated, and what applies in one region does not always apply to another, partly because the European spread across the continent took several centuries

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Of course I'm thinking of Eastern Canada. I'm thinking of the areas that were settled by Europeans before notions such as human equality and rights of man and Constitutions and Bills of Rights and any other such thing were common ideas among regular people. I most certainly was not thinking about provinces that entered the Canadian federation after 1900.

---

quote:

---

...in the Anglo-Germanic portions of the Americas...

---

Oh yes and Saskatchewan and Alberta were Territories in Canada from 1870. They became provinces in 1905.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

The British did not intermarry with Amerindians.

---

Are you suggesting I didn't know Manitoba and BC had entered confederation before 1900? Or are you still ticked off that I didn't absolve Scottish people of being the lackeys of British colonialism?

...let me know.

[ 06 May 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Are you suggesting I didn't know Manitoba and BC had entered confederation before 1900? Or are you still ticked off that I didn't absolve Scottish people of being the lackeys of British colonialism?

---

quote:

---

The Scots are definitely not Anglo-Germanic, but the French are hardly free from Germanic bloodlines (Franks, Normans, etc.)

---

Especially the Normand-French part of my heritage (Most French-Canadians are Normand). Ethymologically, I'm a Viking!

quote:

---

Let's go find a skull to quaff ale out of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

Especially the Normand-French part of my heritage (Most French-Canadians are Normand). Ethymologically, I'm a Viking!

...grrr

---

quote:

---

Daniel Francis does exist, though -- he's written some good BC hisotry as well as a rather wonderful book called The Imaginary Indian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:
The British did not intermarry with Amerindians.

---

In which case, I shouldn't be here typing a response to you on Babble. If my ancestors hadn't copulated, it would have been very hard for me to have been born.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumble:
My mother also considers "sauvage" a racial slur.

---

You are using the present tense.

Was your mother around in the 17th century? The word had different connotative meanings back then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I dunno, but I'm not aware of an anglo counterpart to the Métis.

---

1) Go to Labrador or Northern Ontario.

2) Say that statement out loud in the non-existent anglo-Métis communities in those regions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Anglos did not intermmarry with aboriginal people, not in any significant way.

---

Define "significant".

Thank you.

quote:

---

Catholicism is not as racist as Anglo-Germanic Protestantism.

---

Tell that to the Oblate missionary who wrote of my ancestors, "they speak English, they are counted in the census as "British", but they are descended from, well, God only knows."

quote:

---

Catholics saw the the native population as poor, unsaved souls who just needed to be civilised, and saw inter-marriage as a "step up." Anglo-Germanic Protestants saw intermarriage as a racial "step down" and sought to isolate native people.

---

I'm having a hard time squaring that with the legacy of Catholic (among other denomination) residential schools.

quote:

---

But, in the Anglo-Germanic portions of the Americas, native people are nowhere more to be seen.

---

No, I guess that there are no native people anywhere in the former Rupert's Land, British Columbia, Labrador, the United States, etc., etc., etc.

quote:

---

In the rest of the two continents, the situation is decidedly different.

---

Compare the Aboriginal populations of Argentina and the US or Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AppleSeed:
General James Wolfe was present at Culloden.

---

I still am.

In particular, I am glad for Hinterland that his answer won't be needed for his orals; 100% will still be in range!

Broad generalizations like: Nation A is more racist than Nation B might be true; but I know of no empirical evidence for the proposition in this case.

Protestants more racist than Catholics? Possible, but again, no evidence. If one looks at South Africa, though, we find an entire population called the Cape Coloured which issued either from English-native or Dutch-native unions. Not too many Catholics among them, I think.

I was thinking about it over the weekend, and it occurred to me that my image of the French is that they were more likely to be involved in hunting and trapping than were the English, more likely to be out of doors than ensconced in a city. If so, the opportunity to meet and greet handsome or lovely natives would occur more frequently.

So it would be nice to know if this is true! But one would need actual information, rather than reference to movie 'n' textbook images rather than statistics.

quote:

---

I was thinking about it over the weekend, and it occurred to me that my image of the French is that they were more likely to be involved in hunting and trapping than were the English, more likely to be out of doors than ensconced in a city. If so, the opportunity to meet and greet handsome or lovely natives would occur more frequently.

So it would be nice to know if this is true! But one would need actual information, rather than reference to movie 'n' textbook images rather than statistics.

---

Something similar happened in the late C19, with the Scottish (as well as American) whalers in the Arctic.

I don't consider this a glorious aspect of our history -- essence of colonial exploitation much rather, and then, of course, what else are women for? -- but Contrarian is right to note that the history of anglo exploration of the west, coming in from the north, starts in the late C17, and ... what can I tell ya? Boys will be boys, eh?

I see, to my horror, that I seem to be referring above to the British and the French as two "races."

quote:

---

You are using the present tense.

Was your mother around in the 17th century? The word had different connotative meanings back then.

Ask her.

---

Pebbles, does a black man consider "nigger" a neutral term? Yet, it actually means a colour (nègre=black, from the Spanish and Portugese "negro"). Now why would anyone object to being called a "colour"? When the French referred to my Aboriginal ancestors as "savages", they weren't complimenting them. Even if you try to put an idealist positive spin on it, from an Amerindian point of view, "savages" still comes out as an insult. Of course, "savage" has other acceptable meanings in a different context. I use the word "savage" myself, but never in relation to a race. I used it to describe anti-social behaviour for instance. I also use "chat sauvage" (wild cat) when I'm referring to a raccoon. "Savage", in the 16 and 17th centuries was condescending. "savages" were child-like. They needed to be civilized, evangilized, sanitized, reined in etc.

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by April:
Does anyone have any sources comparing British & French imperialism?

---

From Le Dictionnaire de la langue française Lexis de Larousse, there is one entry referring specifically to people. Adj. and noun. Derived from the meanings of sauvage as listed in my preceding para - (speaking of man and and human groups) he/she who lives outside civilized societies: a savage people (synomym: primitive). To return to a savage state. Thory of the good savage (whereby man is good when he lives in a "natural" state, but civilization corrupts him) my note: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's old pet theory.
sauvagesse (1632) feminine form.

quote:

---

Who were they? And who painted the picture?

---

[ 09 May 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

I find the idea of grading colonialism fairly reprehensible. What are good grades based on? The most genocide committed?

---

There is a long discourse in England, going back to the 1580's, which compares British to Spanish colonialism, and finds the latter reprehensible.

Interestingly, one of the premier scholars in the native rights legal field, Williams, believes that the critique of the Spanish meant that the British had to indicate what practices went over the line. So, they created a line. He thinks native rights (as understood in the common law legal tradition) come from that moment.

quote:

---

Robert A. Williams, Jr.

Professor Williams is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of U..S. federal Indian law and indigenous peoples' human rights. His works on these subjects include The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest (1990); Linking Arms Together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600-1800 (1997); and Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials (4th ed., 1998, with D. Getches and C. Wilkinson).

---

http://www.uwcle.org/triballeaders2003.htm

[ 10 May 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by April:
I was impressed to hear that the Mi'kmaq and the French (and Acadians) got along quite well,

---

I think it's interesting (and correct) that you differentiated between the Acadians and French. After a century living away from France, the Acadians had come to see themselves as a nation unto themselves.

quote:

---

I was wondering, does anyone have any information sources on French colonialism? Were they kinder than the British in this case, or all cases? Did their colonial strategy and agenda differ in many ways? Etc. Thanks!

---

The way the French and Acadians interacted with the Mi'kmaq is unique, as far as I know, in the history of the European occupation of North America. For instance, the grand chief Membertou willing accepted Catholicism, and forged an agreement to allow aspects of Mi'kmaq spirituality into the mass, which persists to this day. For this reason, the genocide of the residential school system was seen as such a great betrayal, because the Mi'kmaq were, and remain, such staunch RCs.

There was a mini-series on Vision TV called "Spirit World: The Story of the Mi'kmaq," and there are definitely copies floating around the libraries and universities of the Maritimes. I've even seen it for rent in a Charlottetown videa store (That's Entertainment, if you're looking). It gives a recount of the Acadian-Mi'kmaq ties through the French period of colonialism, through to the expulsion (when the Mi'kmaq helped ensure the survival of Acadian culture), through the British and Canadian periods, up to the modern day (e.g. Burnt Church, and the Mi'kmaq cultural renaissance). It also shows Mi'kmaq emmissaries going to France to celebrate their version of the mass with French parishioners.

I'd also recommend the book "Our Land: The Maritimes" which, although quite old, gives an account of the French regime in the Maritimes, and the status of Crown land up to about 1980. The authors describe the way the Acadians occupied the marshes, while the Mi'kmaq controlled the wild interior, and so did not come into much conflict over land.