Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[MolsonExport]

nah, it is more about the extremely tedious manner that New Brisavoine lectures people living in Canada/Quebec, with his extremely selective historical accounts and distorted "What if" scenarios, deliberately construed so as to make English people beyond the pale (never mind France's rather sordid colonialism). He has an AXA to grind, for sure.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't see how the debate over the Université de Moncton is revisionist history though.

It is revisionist in the sense of how you analyze historical events. Do you view these events solely through a modern lens, or do you take historical context into consideration when you look at events from 250 years ago.

- Was the deportation a form of ethnic cleansing? Yes, unquestionably, but, it was one of many such events that occurred in the pre modern era, many of which were more brutal than the actual Grand Derangement.

- The deportation also occurred during a time of war, and, following a period of guerilla activity upon the English in Nova Scotia by the Acadians (and their Mi'kmaw allies) that lasted for 40 years since the Crown won the colony in Queen Anne's War. The Acadians never swore allegiance to the Crown, and, under Le Loutre, were in active resistance even as late as 1755 (the time of the deportation)

- Was Robert Monckton a monster? No, arguably not. He captured Fort Beausejour in 1755 (at the onset of the Seven Years War), and, his first act after the victory was to pardon the Acadian rmilitia from within the fort on the promise they would not participate in future actions against the Crown. He sent the French regulars to Louisbourg, similarly freed. It was only because he was in charge of a large expeditionary force in Nova Scotia (not otherwise occupied after the fall of Fort Beausejour) that Governor Charles Lawrence seized the advantage and decided to order the deportation and placed Monckton in charge of seeing it through. There is good evidence that Monckton did not agree with his orders, but, he was duty bound to carry out the instructions. To do otherwise would have been an act of mutiny and he could have been shot.

- There is no indication anywhere else in his long and distinguished military and administrative career that Monckton was a cruel, vindictive or vicious character.

I doubt however that context and nuance is being used in the francophone schools when discussion the "heinous character" of Robert Monckton. The events of the deportation were tragic, no question, but Monckton was not an evil villain.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

It is revisionist in the sense of how you analyze historical events. Do you view these events solely through a modern lens, or do you take historical context into consideration when you look at events from 250 years ago.

- Was the deportation a form of ethnic cleansing? Yes, unquestionably, but, it was one of many such events that occurred in the pre modern era, many of which were more brutal than the actual Grand Derangement.

- The deportation also occurred during a time of war, and, following a period of guerilla activity upon the English in Nova Scotia by the Acadians (and their Mi'kmaw allies) that lasted for 40 years since the Crown won the colony in Queen Anne's War. The Acadians never swore allegiance to the Crown, and, under Le Loutre, were in active resistance even as late as 1755 (the time of the deportation)

- Was Robert Monckton a monster? No, arguably not. He captured Fort Beausejour in 1755 (at the onset of the Seven Years War), and, his first act after the victory was to pardon the Acadian rmilitia from within the fort on the promise they would not participate in future actions against the Crown. He sent the French regulars to Louisbourg, similarly freed. It was only because he was in charge of a large expeditionary force in Nova Scotia (not otherwise occupied after the fall of Fort Beausejour) that Governor Charles Lawrence seized the advantage and decided to order the deportation and placed Monckton in charge of seeing it through. There is good evidence that Monckton did not agree with his orders, but, he was duty bound to carry out the instructions. To do otherwise would have been an act of mutiny and he could have been shot.

- There is no indication anywhere else in his long and distinguished military and administrative career that Monckton was a cruel, vindictive or vicious character.

I doubt however that context and nuance is being used in the francophone schools when discussion the "heinous character" of Robert Monckton. The events of the deportation were tragic, no question, but Monckton was not an evil villain.

As you may know I am not that fond of historical revisionism and statue toppling myself, but that said is Monckton really a fitting choice for the name of the Acadian university? (Not suggesting the name of the city be changed, BTW.)

In the same way, even if we don't want to cancel John A. Macdonald's name all over the place, would his name be appropriate for a major Indigenous institution of some kind?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As you may know I am not that fond of historical revisionism and statue toppling myself, but that said is Monckton really a fitting choice for the name of the Acadian university? (Not suggesting the name of the city be changed, BTW.)

I agree with you. The name of UdeM is an odd choice for a couple of reasons.

1) - it is indirectly named after the person responsible for carrying out the deportation.
2) - it is named for the City of Moncton, which is majority anglophone, and, UdeM is more of a provincial institution rather than a city university.

If the Acadians want to rename the university, I have no problem with this whatsoever. The choice is theirs. I happily recuse myself from the discussion.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As you may know I am not that fond of historical revisionism and statue toppling myself, but that said is Monckton really a fitting choice for the name of the Acadian university? (Not suggesting the name of the city be changed, BTW.)

In the same way, even if we don't want to cancel John A. Macdonald's name all over the place, would his name be appropriate for a major Indigenous institution of some kind?

This is a good point but the school is named after the city which became the more francophone of the three NB cities. I think renaming the University makes sense as University of X is always kind of a lazy placeholder. Launch a fundraising drive and name it after a donor.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And, why is it New Brisavoine anyway? Shouldn't it be Nouveau-Brisavoine????

Yet another clue he is really a Putinesque agitator called Yuri from Smolensk. He should know better.

Oh, and there is already a lot of revisionism sprouting from UdeM anyway. They need no help from New Brisavoine............

How old are you?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

How old are you?

I have a pretty good idea of his age but I won't tell!

Why are you interested in that?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This is a good point but the school is named after the city which became the more francophone of the three NB cities. I think renaming the University makes sense as University of X is always kind of a lazy placeholder. Launch a fundraising drive and name it after a donor.

Or just Université d'Acadie. Doesn't seem so complicated really. Nobody knows what "Moncton" is in the rest of the world. "Acadie" is more well known (although most people couldn't precisely place it on a map, but they know it's somewhere in North America).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Why are you interested in that?

Because he sounds either like a petulant teenager, or a slightly deranged grandpa. I hesitate between both possibilities.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Or just Université d'Acadie. Doesn't seem so complicated really. Nobody knows what "Moncton" is in the rest of the world. "Acadie" is more well known (although most people couldn't precisely place it on a map, but they know it's somewhere in North America).

There already is an Acadia University. It's located in Wolfville Nova Scotia and is <horrors> an anglophone institution.

Where else than in Canada would you have one university that is anglophone named after a linguistically minority francophone population, and a second university which is francophone which is named after an anglophone who is accused of ethnic cleaning on the francophone population.

This would never happen in France, would it Nouveau-Brisavoine..........

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There already is Acadia University. It's located in Wolfville Nova Scotia and is <horrors> an anglophone institution.

[Acajack]

Yeah they stole our name for their university. Talk about cultural appropriation!

It's almost like the Washington Redskins or the Edmonton Eskimos.

[MolsonExport]

not at all like "Kanata", or "Quebec", eh?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

not at all like "Kanata", or "Quebec", eh?

Indeed. The Iroquois should be marching in the streets!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

not at all like "Kanata", or "Quebec", eh?

I was joking.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Indeed. The Iroquois should be marching in the streets!

They're not marching in the streets at this point but no doubt some of them are not pleased that their words* were usurped.

I didn't say "names" because no Indigenous groups ever called themselves the Kanatas or the Quebecs, or any derivative of those.

These are Indigenous words for geographic phenomena, not nations of people.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

There already is an Acadia University. It's located in Wolfville Nova Scotia and is <horrors> an anglophone institution.

Acadia University ≠ Université d'Acadie

For the same reason, Université catholique de Louvain ≠ Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

I know, it's a bit complicated, but you should get used to it. The Belgians do.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Acadia University ≠ Université d'Acadie

For the same reason, Université catholique de Louvain ≠ Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

I know, it's a bit complicated, but you should get used to it. The Belgians do.

It would cause too much confusion. We North Americans are a simple folk, unused to such complexities as you Europeans are.

[MolsonExport]

The Belgians? The two language groups Hate each other.

Maybe that is just what the agent provocateur, New Brisavoine, wants to incite here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't see how the debate over the Université de Moncton is revisionist history though.

If you look at Cornwallis well in the past they thought he was a great guy so he got a statue (and a town) in his honour, and on second glance we find out he wasn't, according to today's standards.

It's the same thing with Ryerson. They thought he was a great pioneer in education and now they've changed their minds about what he did.

There is no such debate about Monc(k)ton. There weren't any Acadians in 1963 who thought Moncton was a great guy. The university was named for the city, and while sure some may have thought it ironic back then to name a university for a guy involved in the ethnic cleansing of Acadians, most didn't bat an eye while others thought it was an appropriate snub towards Monckton to say "screw you buddy, we're still here!".

I agree on some points and disagree on others.

While I understand that we often re-judge actions of the past upon whatever standards society has adopted at the time of 'judgement', I also recognize that some context has to be understood as well.

So, while yes, it is a good thing that we treat people better than we have in the past, especially marginalized groups (and I believe that we do), it is a little disturbing when history is changed, or interpreted, in order to advance a particular narrative.

So, for the example that I am more familiar with, Cornwallis, I think it is generally understood that things have changed quite a bit in our part of the world over the past 250 years or so. Perhaps it was wrong for England, France (plus Norway, Spain, etc etc) to send ships around the world to conquer new lands and establish settlements there, but it was done, and it has shaped the world that we live in today.

The most common thing I hear about Cornwallis is that he put a bounty on the heads of indigenous people in Halifax. Of course yes, that is horrible, and should never be done to anybody. However, the context that I have read is that this was done because despite attempts to have a longstanding treaty with the indigenous, they continued to raid English settlements (and kill settlers), acting as agents for the French essentially. There were many English settlers murdered by the indigenous, but only one (1) indigenous killed by the English as a result of that bounty. It's much more complicated and involved than this, but I've tried to condense it for the sake of this discussion.

So, was it the genocide of innocent indigenous peoples (well, one of them anyhow), or was it an act of war to fight against a group of people who were acting on behalf of their enemy? We only hear one side of that story for obvious reasons.

I don't really feel qualified to comment on the Monckton situation, but it strikes me as yet another act of war vs some 'hate crime' (modern speak) involving "the ethnic cleansing of Acadians".

But then, even common written history taken with the understanding that it was created from the perspective of who wrote it. 200 years ago, the people writing history were the educated 'privileged' class who had the power to write in such a way that it benefited their side, and the illiterate people, or those not in a position of power didn't have an opportunity to write their version of events or narratives. So one must be careful drawing any lines in the sand as even the 'facts' can be soft and open to interpretation. However, luckily those of us who have developed critical thinking skills can tackle history with a healthy dose of context and open-mindedness to try to understand the gist of what really happened.

However, we will always have our own take and prejudices that we will bring to the table, which is (I think) the reason that we can have discussions such as this one in this thread. Both 'sides' have their own take, and there may not be one solid truth to arrive at, but through discussion we can hope to dig down and get a little closer to it.

As a final point, to add personal context, I've always thought that naming places in honour of 'great' people, and creating statues of dead 'good guys' was always kind of bullshit. So it never bothers me when somebody wants to change a name or rip down a statue. What bothers me is when untruths are pushed as the reasons for it, as those untruths have collateral damage attached to the accomplishment of any one particular goal.