I have been thinking high and low of the answers as to why this was so, and I am now looking at a clearer picture of how this was arrived at IN their present state of mind.

In reaching back into the history of New France, I was able to arrive at the causes that created this present-day situation for these people who were born of forced MISCEGENATION, on orders of the king of France, the French Roman Catholic Church and the Chief Ministers of France, who were in the main Roman Catholic CARDINALS. But this was also carried out by Samuel de Champlain who was born a Protestant and converted to Catholicism. Of course Champlain converted to Catholicism for reasons of political advantage.

Thus a clearer picture emerges for the reasons why miscegenation was promoted in New France. If the governors supported King Louis XIV and his First Minister in this experiment in eugenics, whose main purpose was miscegenation between Frenchman and Native Amerind women, it would most likely have advanced their careers.

It was thus an attempt by King Louis XIV of France who wanted to New France outpace Britain's New England colonies by leaps and bounds, and miscegenation was the only way to achieve this goal. But there was a fly in the ointment, which had not been considered at the time of the original plan. That being of miscegenation, and the question of discrimination against the offspring, and what would be the results as time went on?

It was that these offspring of miscegenation, called the Metis (moitie/moitie) would never be accepted as equals by the French, and were now given a menial status, thus there now appeared a racial gap that lingered on, even during the last days of the ancien regime in the dying colony of New France. This ever widening gap between the French and the Metis never healed, and thus created a sense of inferiority complex among the Metis of New France. The Metis in turn, started to think inwardly and adopted many of the Aboriginal cultural traditions, which were unlike the European traditions of the French. If one considers the present day traditions of the Kebecois, one immediately finds that many of them come directly from their Aboriginal forebears.

Note that the Aboriginals of North America had traditions that were very different to the French (Europeans), that one is stymied as one confronts them head on. Even the in the cultural dimension, it was like comparing day and night. The Aboriginal thought of the family as being only the parents and the siblings, which did not include the offspring. The French on the other hand, thought of the family as the parents, the siblings and their offspring.

Now to return to the Kebecois as a people and their present day approach to society in general. The inferiority complex which came down from the period of ancien regime of New France is still present even to this day among the Kebecois. In that Kebecois still suffer from an inferiority complex that overrides everything else, and makes them tribal in thought and practice, to the point that they cling to each other for security and survival as the tribes did in the past. In such a society there is no room for individuals, as it was considered taboo to think outside the box. The conditions are such that improvement and advancement are both frowned upon to the point of insanity. Under such conditions now can the Kebecois ever advance to form a free and modern society?

But the British conquest in 1760 changed all that. For the first time in their history the Kebecois a Habitant people were permitted to run their own institutions and take part in the governance of their own society, that they did not possess even in the days of New France. Now their new masters were not as strict as their former French rulers and permitted them to think, act and govern themselves by laws enacted by a council of their own elected representatives, and also guaranteed them the right to practice their own religion without hindrance. But the Roman Church felt demeaned by having a Protestant king rule over them. The British brought a form of democracy whereby the Habitant could live in harmony with their neighbours of whatever religious denominations that were in the colony.

But these poor Habitant misfits never knew what a good thing was in order to accept these privileges, that they were given. Perhaps time, had hardened them and they could not change with it, and become a truly modern society.

Kenneth T. Tellis