Published on Thursday 1er August, the post signed by Patrick Moreau (“Let’s change all controversial place names as soon as possible”) must have left several readers speechless or questioning. Was he serious, sarcastic or ironic? I am the first to ask myself the question.
To call Louis XIV “a despot well known for having abolished the Edict of Nantes, persecuted the Protestants” would require extending this description to all the European sovereigns of his time. At the time of Louis XIV, Catholics were no better treated in England and in the Protestant territories of the Holy Roman Empire than were Protestants in France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
Since 1555 and the Peace of Augsburg, almost all of Europe has lived under the principle of ” regional cujus, religious ejus “, according to which the religion of a people should be that of its sovereign. Under the Edict of Nantes, France was the exception and not the rule.
Let us note that even today, in our “beautiful” Canada and in Great Britain, a Catholic cannot accede to the throne, and therefore to the post of head of state!
To call Jean Talon a “sabber” (henchman committing criminal acts on behalf of another) of Louis XIV because he allegedly encouraged “explorers to take illegitimate possession of unceded territories” is outrageous to say the least, Jean Talon having never been a soldier, exploring having never been a crime and taking possession of a territory with the agreement of the nations that inhabit or frequent it does not require that this territory be ceded when the new authority in no way aims to dispossess these nations to confine them to reserves or ” discounts “.
However, the French, unlike the English and the Spanish, never thought of dispossessing the Aboriginal people of Canada. That is why they never asked the Aboriginal people, who were primarily nomadic or semi-nomadic, to sign land transfer treaties and they never thought of confining them to reserves.
On this point, the Aboriginals and the French shared the same point of view: the territory was so vast that there was room for everyone, and cohabitation had to be the rule. The Great Peace of Montreal of 1701 reflected this philosophy, which was the basis of the great understanding that reigned between the French authorities and so many Aboriginal nations, which allowed New France to survive, until the Treaty of Paris of 1763, in a context where the English population was, in the middle of the 18th centurye century, 20 times greater than the French population in North America.
Finally, call Champlain a “killer of Haudenosaunee” (i.e. Iroquois, called Agniers). If Champlain waged war on the Iroquois, it was at the request of the Montagnais-Innu, Hurons and Algonquins. And, to wage this war, he had to go to Ticonderoga, at the southern end of Lake Champlain, at the northern limit of the Agnier-Mohawk country, a territory whose heart is in the valley of the Mohawk River, this tributary of the Hudson River, 200 km from Montreal.
Let us note in this regard that, if Mr. Moreau is one of those who, like Pierre Poilievre, believe that our city is built on the traditional “unceded” lands of the Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) nation, he could find a dose of wisdom in the position adopted by UQAM last June. The latter states: “The Université du Québec à Montréal recognizes that it is located on an ancestral territory that has long served as a place of life, meetings and exchanges between several indigenous nations. UQAM pays tribute to these nations and commits to collaborating with them in a spirit of respect and friendship.”
Dear colleague, if your text was only sarcastic and ironic, I apologize for having dared to think that some could have taken you seriously.
Author’s response
My text was indeed ironic. The outrageous nature that you noted in it as well as its conclusion seemed to me to be revealing in this regard.
Patrick Moreau