Let me explain myself in my native English.
As a people of varied backgrounds, we USians many times identify
ourselves by various ethnicities. Those of us descended from the French
speaking people of Acadia, Lower Canada, and later the P.Q., consider
ourselves descended from French-Canadians, NOT French from France.
(Remember 1763, then the French Revolution?) We are most uniformly Roman
Catholic and understand a form of French now called Joual. We don't
cringe when pop culture turns against France's lack of commitment in the
war on terrorism becomes front stage. After all, we are NOT French, but
FRENCH-CANADIAN. We were abandoned by France in favor of Martinique and
Guadeloupe. So history goes. In Quebec, and parts of New Brunswick, the
LOCAL French language has persisted. The religion has waned. But the
ties to France are - ???.
We do not look at the DuPonts of Delaware as compatriots - they came
directly from France and were Protestants. They don't share the same
past historical experiences, and they certainly don't share the same
North American culture or local French language. They aren't us. Maybe
very distant cousins. But the cousins of Manchester and Sherbrooke are
very close in language, religion, and culture.
We, in the USA, have assimilated. You, in Canada, can have your own
separate nation. But would you really want to be part of FRANCE?
So, was Pierre Beauregard a compatriot, descended from the hard-working
Catholic, Acadian or Canadian stock, or was he a protestant descended
from a French family landed in colonial Louisiana?
|
