Historian, sociologist, writer, teacher at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in the history, sociology, anthropology, political science and international cooperation programs and holder of the Canada Research Chair on collective imaginations.
In its edition of January 22 and 23, The duty published some comments from readers who kindly reacted to my two texts of January 8-9 and 15-16. Several other unpublished reactions have reached me. I was able to observe that the subject discussed aroused immense interest. I have also benefited greatly from the comments addressed to me and I thank their authors. I would like in this text to provide some important clarifications and to point out certain misunderstandings on the subject, thus hoping to better frame and relaunch the reflection.
In my second text, I presented the myth as a bearer of values and ideals and I referred to those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence of 1838 (freedom, democracy, equality and others). Some readers, however, relied on another definition of myth, conceived as a false and manipulative statement. On this basis, it was obviously impossible for them to share the thesis that I proposed. According to my conception, therefore, the founding myths are ideals to which a nation adheres, which it disseminates among its citizens and from which it draws inspiration in the conduct of its affairs.
These myths are said to be founding in the sense that they define the ethical and normative basis of a nation. Ordinarily, they also contain a reference to a near or distant past, namely a transcendent event, a determining experience (a revolution, a trauma, etc.) which determined the rise of values and ideals now celebrated. I would add that this event or this experience sometimes coincides with the very birth of the nation (the founding myths then merge with the myths of origin), but this is not always the case.
The French and the Natives
Back to New France. It has been pointed out to me that the Aboriginal presence provides the material for a founding myth. I easily agree, it is precisely one of the four “bridges” that I mentioned in my first text, which make it possible to establish a continuity between the beginnings of the colony and our society – they therefore exclude the expressions of the metropolitan apparatus in the colony. Some readers have, however, extended this material to the representatives of France, because they would have created a glorious precedent by instituting very peaceful relations with the Aboriginal peoples.
Two examples in particular would support this idea: the agreement of Tadoussac in 1603 (the “Great Alliance”) and the “Great Peace” of Montreal in 1701. I do not share this interpretation. My disagreement comes from the fact that, in these two cases, the motivations of the French representatives were commercial and military. It was above all a question of establishing the fur trade on solid (and unequal) bases and thus of strengthening the Empire by placing it at the heart of military and commercial geopolitics.
Champlain is no exception to this spirit. He is credited with the very virtuous project of merging the French and the Aboriginals into a single people, but this was little more than rhetoric. He specified that the blood resulting from this union would indeed be French. Moreover, he never returned to this subject and never really took any initiatives in this direction. Similarly, during his long stay, he did not learn any indigenous language, always proceeding with the help of interpreters, which upset his vis-à-vis. Finally, it is also the man who wrote that it was necessary to “reduce” these “peoples without law and without God”.
I spoke of footbridges, namely objects, characters, sites or others which would qualify as material for mythification. I recognized four of them. The Aboriginal presence is one of them, as is the territory and the French language (we can say that, in these last two cases, the work of mythification is very advanced, if not already done). The people constitute the fourth element and, in my mind, the pivot perhaps, because they are closely linked to the other three. The “inhabitants” have indeed highlighted, traveled and “named” the territory. They established true friendships with the Aboriginal peoples, without fanfare. And they bequeathed to us not the language of the aristocracy, but that, muscular and rebellious, of the “country”.
We would like to know better these working classes where our true ancestors are found. Significant progress has been made. Some episodes are better known (the case of Les Filles du roi, for example). But there is still much to discover.
The singular and the universal
I take the liberty of returning, in closing, to a central question raised too quickly in my second text. The idea of drawing from our history powerful founding myths, closely associated with our journey and integrated into our identity, easily gathers agreement (I adopt from here the point of view of the French-speaking majority of which I am a part) . But the plan to extend the scope of these myths to ethnocultural minorities arouses in many people either skepticism (“it’s impossible”, “the differences are insurmountable”), or concern (“we would have to distort them” or ” empty them of their substance”, and therefore “renounce what we are”).
I maintain that neither of these two attitudes is justified. It is undeniable that these myths bear the mark of our history, which gives them a profound singularity. But it is no less true that they have a strong coefficient of universality. Who is not normally seduced by the ideals of freedom, equal rights and social justice? There is therefore an intercultural transfer to operate, the methods and pedagogy of which remain to be programmed. It would be all the easier since (studies have established it) these values are already well established among Quebec minorities. In this case, it would be a question of showing that they can be welded to our course, that they bathe in our singularity.