We cannot blame François Legault for lacking persistence in culture. Despite the few setbacks he has suffered in these symbolically strong matters, his commitment exalts an indestructible attachment. Some will say a teflon attachment as he does as he pleases. We had new proof of this with the announcement with great fanfare of the creation of a new national museum – a rarity which should normally have earned him cheers.
The idea of having a National Museum of the History of Quebec is not bad, on the contrary. The Quebec nation – irreducible but fragile French-speaking flower placed in the hollow of a massif of invasive English-speaking perennials – is well worth this tribute that many societies have offered themselves before us. Our national pride could even gain a lot from spreading its buds on such a structuring stake.
Having a national museum is indeed an excellent way to honor a complicated legacy, both dark and bright, that we unfortunately tend to neglect in Quebec. For this, the view we take on our common history must be capable of reception as well as self-criticism, in addition to being scientifically irreproachable, warned a contingent of specialists disconcerted by this rabbit pulled out of the hat without consultation by Mr. Legault.
This is where the problem lies first. The government may have enlisted the advice of the historian Éric Bédard, but that did not prevent it from making a number of blunders by improvising itself as a control expert where it was expected rather as an inspiring pollinator. Asked to clarify his vision, the Prime Minister began by showing the extent of his blinders. Our national history, he explained, began, dreamed and flourished by and for French Canadians. And the others ? All relegated to the thankless role of extras.
His particularly cavalier way of minimizing the contribution of indigenous nations to Quebec society is unworthy of a nation that claims to speak as equals with these peoples. Anyone who plunges back into the epic of Champlain – ground zero of the CAQ national story, we recall – knows, however, that they will not be able to do so without becoming engrossed in everything that these nations were able to bring to the first settlers, then more widely to Quebec society over time. And not just in adversity, but both in emulation and in imagination.
His radio silence on the contribution of other communities – we think of the migratory waves, but also of the Anglos – did the rest, fueling a wave of unease both among specialists and among many Quebecers who did not recognize themselves in his vision shrinking of the nation. It is true that, until now, the political discourse has not lived up to the promises that come with the erection of a modern, uninhibited and unifying national museum.
Of course, history is never neutral. But a museum worthy of its name, even a national one, cannot be reduced to a political showcase, even less to the showcase of a single political vision. Quebecers do not need a museum of ideological purity. Which does not prevent the fact that there is good in the Legault government’s project. The Blue Spaces had no future: too expensive and without a common vision. The National Museum of the History of Quebec, erected from their unfortunate ashes, does not leave burdened in this way.
First, it will plant its roots in a magnificent setting, the Camille-Roy pavilion of the Séminaire de Québec, renovated at a cost of 92 million. Then, he arrives on still fertile ground, that of state museums. If done well, its addition to the core formed by the Museum of Contemporary Art of Montreal, the National Museum of Fine Arts of Quebec and the Museum of Civilization (MCQ) will make it possible to rethink what links our national museums together. in order to make it an exemplary network whose solidity, if it proves true, will percolate to regional museums.
The dream outlined by François Legault will soon come up against a reality that he has, in truth, better marked out than his poorly crafted announcement. The MCQ, which will have the task of designing the content and arranging the exhibition spaces of this new national museum, indeed has the resources and knowledge necessary to achieve this. It will also be able to count on the guidance of a scientific committee, as well as that of a duo of scouts made up of Éric Bédard and Jenny Thibault, who will watch over the historical and digital destiny of the new museum.
Let us only hope that the Legault government will have the humility to rely on their common vision for the rest of the project. Because the good national story, the one which has the power to elevate and unite a people behind it, can, yes, become a formidable legacy, as long as it is not only conjugated to the “I”. Also combined with “we”, its commitment to our national pride could even constitute a vigorous – and formidable! — cultivars. If planted in suitable soil, of course.