Since Gilles Duceppe has kept on speaking of Quebec as a nation, perhaps we need to look further into that issue. Otherwise there will continue to be a misconception in the minds of many Quebecois/Quebecoise that this is really so.
To begin with one of the founding fathers of the Parti Quebecois was Rene Levesque. But where exactly was Rene Levesque born? Why, of course in Campbellton, New Brunswick, so that in fact rules him out as a Quebecois, does it not?
If we are to accept the claims of many Quebecois politicians, we will reach a stumbling block. Because those whose background is not Canadien/Canadienne cannot claim to truly be Quebecois. So we reached an impasse.
Since Jacques Parizeau's wife Alycia Poznanska was Polish, are his offspring truly Quebecois? But this question also applies to Jean Garon, and Lucien Bouchard. Jean Garon's wife Mary is of Italian-American stock, just as Audrey Best of California is of American-French background. So, where exactly do their children fit in present day Quebecois society? This of course applies just as much to Claude Ryan and his brother Yves whose father was Irish. And what about the famous poet Emile Nelligan of Quebec, whose father was Irish. To extend that even further Daniel Johnson's father, Frank Johnson hailed from County Meath in Ireland, but to Pierre-Elliott Trudeau himself whose mother was half Scots. There are of course Pierre-Elliott Trudeau's two sons whose mother Margaret Sinclair is of Scottish descent. And then of course the Quebec politician John (Jean) Charest whose mother was supposedly of Welsh descent. Do his children have a right to call themselves Quebecois? So what is their claim to Quebec's so-called French heritage? There is also applies to Gilles Duceppe himself, whose maternal grandfather was from England. There are thousands of cases of this happening in families from Quebec. So does that leave them in a sort of limbo?
Now let's head back into time and see the results. During the early days of New France, people lower down the ladder, were encouraged to inter-marry with Huron, Abenaki, Cree, Montagnais and other American Indians, to raise the population of New France. This is what complicates the Quebec issue even further. The children of these inter-racial marriages were certainly not French. They were in fact what are called breeds, or a kind of Metis/Metisse. So what gives them the right to be called French at all? This issue came up in the latter days of New France's final struggle with Great Britain. In fact it has been recorded by American historians, that Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm, in speaking about the Canadiens, called them CREOLES. That was in a conversation with Governor Vaudreuil. General Montcalm, chastised the Canadiens for behaving more like savages, when they raided British-American settlements in Maine and New York, by their rape, murder and pillaging, plus the taking of hostages for ransom. According to Montcalm the French had a code of honour. While the Canadien behaved like savages in their forays into British America. We must also understand that even at that time the Canadiens were much like the Metis/Metisse; their thinking was Indian in its essence. Thus Montclam was right on every point. Even today, these actions of the Canadiens show that they are not very far removed, from their American Indian heritage and ancestry, and do not think like the French.
To now add further to the issue of a Nation, as people in Quebec allude to, let us raise the question of the intermarriage of British soldiers with Canadiennes. Add to this the Irish immigrants who came in large numbers during the Potato famine in Ireland in the 1840s. Yes! A lot of the Irish people did die on the way over, but many of them survived. Quite a few of these survivors were children who parents had perished, and Canadien families in turn supposedly adopted many of these. This goes to add to the original mix of population in Quebec. So at what point does this mixture in Quebec constitute a NATION? There are people of all diverse races that over time came to Quebec and intermingled with the original Habitant, Metis colony of New France, which cannot now or ever constitute a NATION. Again, it must be remembered that New France was a colony of France and never a Nation. It went from being a colony of France, to becoming a colony of Great Britain in February 1763. Except, that they were now no longer French colonials, but British subjects, like the Americans of that time period. Thus any claim to ever being a NATION is null and void. It might not do well for Quebecois politicians to make so many outrageous claims, because none of this holds water.
Furthermore, Quebec, within Canada, receives funds from the Canadian federal government in the form of equalization and transfer payment which make it a "have not province," even though, geographically speaking, it is the largest province in Canada, while being arguably, the best endowed with natural resources in the Dominion. Qualification as a "NATION" requires greater self-reliance than this dependence on another NATION!
Also, it is of interest to consider the subtle differences between the words "NATION," in the English language, and the word "NATION," in the French language. The word does not necessarily intend exactly the same sense in both languages.
"NATION," in English, suggests economic independence within clearly defined geographical boundaries.
"NATION," in French, suggests a looser social and linguistic identity, not necessarily bounded by clearly defined geographical boundaries.
I have raised all the important questions, so that people can think out the issue. But, there is one final question that has to be asked. At what point does a MULE or HINNY become a HORSE?
Kenneth T. Tellis
