New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 1, 2005

Amy Sturgis reviews a history of North America's first ethnic cleansing.

Comments

|11.1.05 @ 11:47AM|#

There were ethnic cleansings before that, they just weren't by Europeans.

...British expulsion of the Acadians was an operation planned years in advance and authorized by the highest leadership...

They had learned how to fuck over large populations in their dealings with the Irish and the Scots.

First, it reveals how long the tradition of state-sponsored theft, removal, and cultural obliteration has existed in North America.

If one goes to Alabama and looks up the founding dates for towns in the interior of the state (away from the coast) one sees that most of them were founded in the 1830s and 1840s - right after expulsion of the Indian population. These facts were remember at least into the 1950s, since in Parting the Waters one man is quoted as saying (here I paraphrase) that his ancestors stole the land from Indians, and he sure wasn't going to give it up to "niggers." Not that Indians were mere innocents of course. The Iroquis are a perfect example of a people willing to adopt European technology as a means to destroy their enemies and take their land (and thus the valuable fur bearing critters on it) in the process.

|11.1.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Silly Sturgis, it wasn't an "ethnic cleansing," it was a "freedom cleansing" ...

|11.1.05 @ 12:43PM|#

Hak: Should I put this book on my reading list, or is it a polemic? The reviewer makes it sound like "if only we had treated America like the French", i.e., settled it with one-thousandth as many people and used it almost exclusively as a trading empire, "what a great civilization we would have had".

I heard that a substantial number of Acadians ended up in New England, although I have a hard time fathoming that, given the obvious religious issues at the time.

|11.1.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Hak: Now that I think about it, it makes sense that they ended up in New England and elsewhere along the coast--they undoubtedly had trading connections there.

|11.1.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Ron,

I had always thought most of them ended up in the Southeastern U.S. (Lousiana, Alabama, etc.), with the evolution of "Cajun" culture and such.

|11.1.05 @ 12:54PM|#

SPD: Many did, but by no means all. I don't know the statistics, but there was quite a diaspora.

|11.1.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Ron,

I assume that most of the French speakers in northern New England are Quebecois who came to the U.S. to work in factories, logging, etc. There used to be a sizeable Quebecois population in places like Lowell, Ma. as well.

As to the book, well, it sounds overly romantic for my tastes. I'll likely end up reading it myself though.

As to why few French came, partly that's because of the French government's own regulations and partly because few French people (aside from Huguenots) have ever migrated anywhere during the age of European expansion. Life was pretty good in France (thus the German saying 'Living like a God in France') by the time of the major migrations and there few of the "push" factors seen in other nations of Europe. Thus the French who did settle here in the Americas almost had it in their self-interest to be firendly with the Indians in a way that simply wasn't true of other nations of Europe.

fyodor|11.1.05 @ 12:57PM|#

I heard that a substantial number of Acadians ended up in New England, although I have a hard time fathoming that, given the obvious religious issues at the time.

I'm no expert on the history, but I could easily fathom their ending up almost anywhere considering the manner in which they were forced to move. Ie, beggars can't be choosers.

On the possibility of this book being a pro-French polemic, I didn't get that sense from the review since it made it sound like the Acadians largely cut their ties with (or at least their allegiance to) their homeland. Plus this all takes place pre-French revolution anyway. Rather, I construed what the author liked about the Acadians to be the result of certain seeds in their religious belief combined with what they learned from their ecomomic forte: trade.

I wonder what if anything could have prevented them from being so vulnerable to their destruction at the hands of the British. Was that purely a matter of numbers and thus inevitable? Or was what made them so cool also a factor in making them easy prey?

|11.1.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Ron,

Of course, some of that Quebecois population might have come from Acadia as well. When you take a course on English American colonial history in graduate schools in the U.S. they just don't teach you much about these sorts of topics.

|11.1.05 @ 1:03PM|#

Hak: I specifically remember reading something about Acadians ending up in Massachusetts after the "cleansing". Of course, there were already many Huguenots there, although they would have gotten a considerably warmer welcome, I would think. You are of course correct that there was a huge influx of Franco-Americans into Northern New England in the 1800's--one need only take a look in the Vermont phone book to see the evidence.

|11.1.05 @ 1:03PM|#

fyodor,

Their eradication started with the Seven Years' War and as France gave up all rights to that land following the end of that war in 1763, they were then totally screwed as they had not even a potential protector at that point. Strangely enough, the British did eventually accept the presence of the Quebecois in what would become Canada, so you'd have to compare the experiences of the two to see why one was generally tolerated and the other was not.

|11.1.05 @ 1:06PM|#

Ron,

Well, I'm way outside my field of expertise and know what I know from tangential asides from not on point sources and the like.

|11.1.05 @ 1:08PM|#

Hak: Actually, it was British "tolerance" of the Quebecois that was a major factor in the American Revolution (or at least in the rhetoric)--see Quebec Act.

|11.1.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Hak: It's on the edge of my area of study also. I'm mostly interested in the American Revolution in the north, primarily Vermont and New York, but I'm very curious about the antecedents.

|11.1.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Ron,

Well, it may have been that they didn't have a choice. There were a lot of Francophone people in Canada at the time.

Its somewhat ironic that they would complain about the Quebecois and then turn around and beg for the aid of Louis XVI. :)

|11.1.05 @ 1:13PM|#

If ethnic cleansing is defined as " a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.", then the Acadians weren't the first to get this treatment on the North American continent, where the various native tribes cleansed each other with some regularity.

For instance, the Apache were cleansed from what is now the Dakotas by the Lakota, who were cleansed from the east by yet another tribe.
I found it interesting, when I visited the Acoma pueblo in western New Mexico, that there were more residual hard feelings exhibited towards the Apache, who made things miserable for the Acoma, when they migrated from the Dakotas five or six hundred years ago, than towards the Spanish, who, of course, were pretty cruel bastards as well.

There ain't much purity to be found in what Twain called the "Goddamned Human Race".

|11.1.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Ron,

And in the process of such begging, invite 40,000 French soldiers into the country. :)

|11.1.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Hak: The alliance with France was purely one of expediency, at least in the minds of most. When the French Revolution occurred later, it caused considerable political conflict in the US, as you know.

|11.1.05 @ 1:19PM|#

Hak: Some authors contend that Benedict Arnold defected in part because he thought the US was getting way to cosy with France (those despicable followers of the antichrist, the pope).

|11.1.05 @ 1:24PM|#

Ron,

Sure. Its still very ironic that the traditional enemy of England ends up being the American Revolution's savior.

I've read accounts of how French soldiers and the American public (if we can use such a term to describe the people of English America) interacted, and its interesting to see how the latter didn't view the French as being wholly human until those interactions. They expected three-legged monsters instead. :)

|11.1.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Ron,

I always thought that Arnold just didn't feel appreciated and that he had a "malicious wife."

|11.1.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Hak: I would be very interested in seeing some of those accounts. Any good sources?

|11.1.05 @ 1:26PM|#

Hak: Benedict Arnold could have kept an army of shrinks busy for a long time.

|11.1.05 @ 1:28PM|#

North America's first ethnic cleansing was of the Native American Indians:

Wikiepdia

"Puritan massacres of the Pequot Indian tribe on May 26, 1637, and again on July 14, 1637, were deemed by the Puritans to be directed by God"

|11.1.05 @ 1:31PM|#

Ron,

Yeah, there is a collection of Rev. War letters, etc. put out by a publisher whose name I can't recall right now. I believe that's where I read these reactions. I can't remember whether I own the book or checked it from the library and my own personal library is far, far away from me right now. When I'm back home in a few weeks I could look through my shelves and/or look through my list of bibliographies.

|11.1.05 @ 1:33PM|#

OPUS,

Just read William Bradford's narrative of the events in question. It makes your stomache turn.

|11.1.05 @ 1:36PM|#

OPUS,

Two important things I took away from the narrative were this: Puritans were obssessed with money (because they had to make the colony a going concern) and they liked wreaking "holy wrath" on Indians.

|11.1.05 @ 1:39PM|#

Hak: I bet it's Commager's book. I have a copy. I'll have to look for that. There are lots of tidbits in it, but very ponderous reading to get to the "good parts".

Regarding Bradford's account--certainly sickening, but no worse than what was going on in the Rhine Valley at the time.

|11.1.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Hak: Well, there was a little more to it than that...

|11.1.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Ron,

Sure, but its what I like to throw in the face of "This nation was founded on morality" types.

|11.1.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Ron,

RE: the Thirty Years' War, yes, we probably privilege what happened in the Americas too much.

|11.1.05 @ 1:50PM|#

Hak: Speaking of early American morality, I'm reading the Jonathan Edwards biography. Kind of slow at the beginning, but the discussion of the "Great Awakening" is fascinating. This country has had its periodic evangelical frenzies going way back.

|11.1.05 @ 2:17PM|#

My only question for Ron and Hak is whether those obscenely overweight French speaking men who wear speedos at the beaches in NH (where the water hits a balmy 50 degrees in August if you're lucky) are descendents of Acadians, or Quebecois?

Or am I completely confusing and confounding the distinction.

|11.1.05 @ 2:48PM|#

A good friend of mine is a Ph.D. student in American history, with an emphasis on the history of Catholics in the US. He tells me that some of the complaints about the Quebecois situation included talk of "Popery."

I asked my friend why the colonies then turned and made an alliance with France, and from what I remember of his explanation it was that both things boiled down to political expediency: Railing against the Quebecois was a good way to stir up sentiment against the British Crown, and an alliance with France was a good way to fight the British Crown.

The lesson? Don't be shocked by inconsistency. Our ancestors were every bit as good at it as we are today.

|11.1.05 @ 2:51PM|#

BTW, I think "Popery" is a hilarious phrase. Right up there with "strategery."

|11.1.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Thoreau: Not only were they inconsistent, their politics were a lot nastier than the "softball" we see in Washington today. For one thing, we've outlawed dueling...

|11.1.05 @ 3:14PM|#

Popery's a bad thing in politics, but it does make a room smell nicer. Must be all that incense Catholics use.

|11.1.05 @ 3:15PM|#

thoreau,

I'm never shocked by inconsistency. I am amused by it.

At least some thought that an alliance with France was a pact with the devil, John "I'm A Religious Nut" Adams being one of them. They would have perferred to go it alone, which would have been a decidedly moronic thing to do.

|11.1.05 @ 3:29PM|#

I don't see what the big deal is. Clearly, the British were able to make better use of the land, putting it to a purpose which generated higher tax revenue. What's all the hub-bub about? Good, old fashioned urban planning is how I see it.

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 3:31PM|#

I understand that the original English plan was to distribute the Acadians throughout the East Coast colonies where they could be assimilated and anglified. So it would not be surprising that some of them stayed where they were sent.

However most didn't like living with the English and migrated to French territory in Louisiana. It was an arduous journey for most.

The experiment was not regarded as a success and led to the Quebec policy that England adopted when they conquered Quebec in the Seven Years War. It was believed that allowing the Quebecois to keep their language and Civil Law* and to some extent the seignieurial(sp) system (a form of land tenure resembling feudalism) would be a more effective means of pacifying them. There was not much worry that the Quebecois would bring back french rule since they pretty much regarded the old home government as a remote and somewhat indifferent master.

*I believe this is what TJ was referring to when he alluded to "...abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province...".

|11.1.05 @ 3:41PM|#

And unlike the other, more memorable republicans of 1776, the Acadians did not push for independence per se; they wanted only to be left alone.

Ahh, the first mistake all us Libertarians make. Especially when you're making money and, for lack of a better word, having fun. Someone's gonna take notice, and put the lean on you. While I personally still maintain my own philosophy: Mind your business, keep your hands to yourself-- I know it's doomed in a world where the U.N. is already sniffing around the Internet to provide a 'proper governing body' for this... this... wild, untamed beast.

Paul

|11.1.05 @ 4:53PM|#

Ron et al, Faragher attempted to write a polemic, to protest US actions in the Balkans. (See his introduction: it was US intervention into the Former Yugoslavia that sparked the book, not the ethnic cleansings there. Personal rant: Faragher wants to show Americans as the original ethnic cleansers and thus America should do nothing about ethnic cleansing.) He is, however, far to good a historian to be a good polemicist.

Recommend Alan Taylor's review in TNR (May 30, 2005). Key graf/final paragraph:

"Faragher is certainly right that the Acadians suffered a great tragedy unnecessarily inflicted by stubborn and ambitious colonial officials, who both manifested and exploited religious prejudice and militant patriotism. Exaggerating Acadian innocence and caricaturing New Englanders' beliefs may be essential to persuade American readers to reconsider the horrors of the Acadian expulsion. But I fear that, his high intentions notwithstanding, Faragher sustains our taste for a moral melodrama that inevitably does more harm than good in helping us to understand our dealings with the unfortunate peoples who live beyond the American Eden."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050530&s=taylor053005

|11.1.05 @ 5:16PM|#

"Popery's a bad thing in politics, but it does make a room smell nicer. Must be all that incense Catholics use."

Ouch! Very bad pun. Simply awful. I'll have to remember that one.

|11.1.05 @ 7:31PM|#

Ron:

My family can trace back to the Acadians, we were read Longfellow's Evangeline as a bedtime story. I've been wanting to learn more about this for awhile and I'm looking forward to getting this book. My Grandfather always said that the English "resettled" Acadians in Quebec, Louisiana, and Northern Maine (where my family is from).

|11.1.05 @ 9:22PM|#

If someone ever builds a museum dedicated to Libertarianism, I suggest that the expulsions of the Acadians be the first exhibit in the "Horrors of Eminent Domain" wing.
Gee, I wonder if New London has some vacant land...

|11.1.05 @ 9:51PM|#

Also of interest: the second largest expulsion of people in Canadian history, after the Acadians, was to build this monstrosity.

|11.1.05 @ 11:06PM|#

Popery's a bad thing in politics, but it does make a room smell nicer. Must be all that incense Catholics use.

LOL, Jennifer. And I've been trying to come up with a good Popery/potpourri pun for over a decade.

|11.1.05 @ 11:16PM|#

Deus ex Machina,

The article seems to imply that Montreal is still on the downhill slide. Its been my impression that the city turned a corner in the 1990s and has seen a resurgence (which explains the gentrification of many of its neighborhoods).

|11.2.05 @ 3:39AM|#

Hak,

Montreal is doing fairly well these days thanks, in part, to tax-breaks for favoured companies like Bombardiar and ATI (Though, with the recent resurgence of Quebec nationalism that could change).

However, most airlines no longer use the city as a hub, making two major airports redundant.