Warning: This is a fictitious press release.
Quebec (Quebec), May 7, 2034 — The National Assembly of Quebec would like to remind the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador that the history of the occupation of the territory on the northeastern part of the continent does not can ignore the arrival of French settlers and their considerable impact on the development of Quebec.
The announcement by the Assembly of First Nations of the opening of a First Nations history museum intended solely, declared its president, “to retrace the history of the 11 nations currently present on the territory” is nature to make invisible the presence and contribution of millions of Quebecers who, from New France to today, have had a major impact.
The words of the indigenous historian in charge of the museum project, Ghislain Sioui-Saganash, according to whom “the presence of foreign settlers is only one incident in a much richer story” contribute to the systematic erasure of our past common, declared Catherine Dorion, Minister of Culture in the government of Éric Duhaime. “The comments made are unacceptable,” she said. We are inseparable from the history of this land. We have been here for half a millennium. To suggest that we are an incident is to relegate us to a secondary role, when our contribution to the formation of modern Quebec is fundamental. This narrow indigenous nationalism does not represent the history of Quebec. »
“In order to avoid committing further blunders towards Quebecers and to ensure that they occupy their rightful place in the history of the territory, it is imperative for those responsible for the museum project to actively involve Quebec historians recognized,” concluded M.me Dorion.
End of fiction.
You have just read a faithful copy of the press release issued last week by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), regarding the future National Museum of Quebec History. Ghislain Picard’s position is characteristic of a confusion which continues to pollute the discussion between Indigenous people and Quebecers.
I am one of those who believe that the indigenous nations of Quebec should have exactly as much autonomy as they desire. This is why I am happy with their victory — and the defeat of the Quebec government, which was waging a dubious fight — in determining their autonomy in matters of youth protection. Beyond the debt we owe to these nations – essentially coming from the dispossession of their territory by industrialization since the beginning of the 20th centurye century — our neighborhood on our common territory can only first calm down, then flourish, only in the recognition that we form distinct nations, autonomous from each other, who owe each other respect and, if possible, recognition.
The AFNQL refused to allow the National Assembly of Quebec to legislate on support for indigenous languages, asserting that it is their business. Perfect. Likewise, she refused the appointment of an indigenous commissioner, who would have been associated with the national commissioner, for the welfare and rights of children. It’s his right. But why do some want Quebec to adopt indigenous languages as official languages? It would be like asking the Mohawks to adopt Inuktitut or Cree, not to mention French, as one of their official languages. Everyone has their own nation, everyone has their own official language. That Indigenous people living off-reserve vote in Quebec elections is normal. But why do those who live within their own nation, who have their own governance, also vote in ours? We need an update to our coexistence.
The debate surrounding the National Museum of Quebec History is the perfect time to start clarifying these things. Before the arrival of Champlain, there was no history of “Quebec”. This Algonquin word means “narrow passage”, and no indigenous group would have come up with the absurd idea of naming a town or territory by this term. The national story that the museum wants to tell concerns the Quebec nation. However, since the indigenous nations affirm loud and clear that they are not part of the Quebec nation — which is perfectly correct — the narrative that must be told must be that, in short, of Quebecers.
It is assumed that the first stop on the tour will be the environment Champlain arrives in, an environment dominated by indigenous nations. The entire first part of this history, New France, is that of the interaction between settlers and natives, between alliances and rivalries, until the Great Peace, an exceptional event of conciliation which, if it took place today , would earn all its signatories the Nobel Prize. The second part, I suppose, will mainly focus on the English conquest and its aftermath, while the Aboriginal people are in effect made invisible by the new regime.
I would be extremely happy to one day visit a Museum of the History of Indigenous Nations. That would be fascinating. We would certainly have to go through a large number of stages before reaching the moment when the first European boats appeared in the St. Lawrence. The story of the interaction, oppression, and then modern awakening of Indigenous nations would be told from their perspective. I suspect there will be epic debates among Indigenous historians about how best to talk about the rivalries between their nations.
There will be, I am sure and this is normal, Quebec historians who will criticize the way in which Champlain and others are treated in this museum. How normal it is for indigenous historians to be attentive and critical of the description that the Quebec museum will make of their nations.
But, to use a fashionable expression, let everyone manage their historic fern in their own way. The garden will only be greener.