Talk:Acadians/Archives/2015

Paul Bunyan

"The American folklore hero, Paul Bunyan, is believed by some to have been influenced if not inspired by Acadian stories about lumberjacks." Would that be Professor of Folklore Dr. Antoine Some, or his cousin the ournalist Louis-Philippe Some? Any pre-1910 Acadian lumberjack tale in the Paul Bunyan mode would make an excellent addition at the entry Paul Bunyan. 22:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)Wetman

Not much chance of help from the contributor: it was in the original article by User:Brant Boucher, all of whose contributions to the Wikipedia were made on a single day in March 2002. -- Jmabel 01:14, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have heard some people claim that Paul Bunyan was based on "Ti-Jean" a trickster character from french canadian folklore (Different Ti-Jean stories are told by Acadians, Quebecois, and Franco-Ontarians). The Claim is that 'Bunyan' comes from 'Bon-Jean' or 'Jean Bonhomme', alternate names for Ti-Jean. Since Ti-Jean was usually not a giant though, I don't know what basis for this claim is. IMHO, a much more likely source is the Mikmaq legends of the giant Glooscap.Adjusting 07:59, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Ti-Jean derives from Petit Jean, which would translate as Little John. In some tales it carries the same irony, while in others it doesn't. Say it quickly, with little emphasis on the "p" and remembering that the "t" is silent (p'tit), and you will hear it. Bonhomme translates as "good man", but is also synonymous with snowman.

In some tales Ti-Jean comes across as a big oaf but with a willingness to work, which is often used in stories that require physical strength and stamina (Paul Bunyan?), while in others he displays a tricksterish cleverness -- but not Raven [etc] trickster style, more similar to that of the classic third brother stories from all over the world. Whatever else, this suggests two distinct roots for the Ti-Jean stories. However, the only way I could see a direct linguistic link between Bunyan and Bonhomme is by way of Spanish: which effectively means New Orleans. I don't know of any papers confirming a New Orleans link between Bonhomme/Bunyan, which does not mean that they don't exist.

For the likelihood of Native influences, remember that to this day, it is the Indian who is said to bring the baby in French Canadian communities, rather than the stork. However, I even ran across distinctly Caribbean Ti-Jean tales in Haitian and Martinique lore: what do we make of that?

Cajun: ok, so what happened was that during the great expulsion of the acadians many were forced to leave and many settled in Louisiana and there they were called cajuns!!! To learn the whole story you shall look it up yourself!

Conflict with census

• Only 71,590 claimed Acadian origins in the 2001 Census[1]
• The current article reports the entire French speaking population of the maritimes, which isn't exactly the same thing. I suggest an Acadian is somebody who may or may not speak French, but identifies their ancestors as being Acadian (descended from original French settlers in maritimes), which is what the census provides. --rob 21:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I put in the above change. Somebody else (properly) put back the old number as a footnote. I do agree with doing this, but I edited it to use the latest census information. So people can now read both the "French maritime" and "ethnic origin" numbers, both at a provincial level of detail. --rob 07:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Better. I was just restoring the citation that was there before, but yours is almost certainly more authoritative. (For some countries I'd trust Ethnologue's count of a linguistic minority more than the government's, but I don't think Canada is under-counting French speakers.) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Using those who "identif[y] their ancestors" as criteria for counting members of an ethnic group or nationality is dubious at best. In parts of the world where racism, discrimination or violence against, or criminalization of minorities has existed for centuries, members of minority or ethnic groups may be reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to anything but the majority group. In other cases, older generations have hidden their ancestry from their offspring so that younger generations have a fairer chance in violent, racist, unjust societies. I am not saying that these things have happened in the case of the Acadians. However, if a standard for identifying ethnic groups around the world and across wikipedia is to be found, perhaps identification of such on an official government document is not the best standard. Furthermore, if one goes by the 2001 Canadian Census to count members of a group, there were only 11, 682, 680 Canadians [2]. Of which, almost 45% (4, 934, 545) believed they were only half Canadian and half other. Shall we put on the Canada wiki that there were only 11,682,680 Canadians as 2001? DDD DDD 03:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• More on those numbers from Stats Can. Let's look at them, shall we. While Acadians are listed as +26,000, the number of French in N.B. is listed as +193,000 out of a 700,000 population. [3] Are they recent French immigrants? Of course not. They are Acadians. One of the many problems with the Canadian census form is that labels/ethnic origins are not clear nor black and white, but grey and fuzzy, which render many of the ethnicity statistics meaningless. And when names for nationalities and languages overlap, confusion reigns. Chinese is one category that doesn't differentiate between speakers of Putonghua, Cantonese or any other of China's many different ethnic groups and languages. Nor does it allow for Taiwanese to be counted outside of the China brand. East Indian covers anything between Bangladesh in the east, Pakistan in the west, Sri Lanka in the south and Nepal in the north. Another "ethnic" category on the Canadian census is Canadian. And another of my favourites, the 250,005 strong "ethnic" Americans (USA). I wish I were making this up? What do we make of the category British (not included elsewhere or African (Black), not included elsewhere [4]. Finally, what about only 94,000 Quebecois?[5]

Someone, please tell me why we are sticking with those inane figures for the Acadians?DDD DDD 13:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A few things. Being an Acadian is not easy to define, and depends on self definition for a great deal. I consider myself Acadian, though I speak no French, because my mother, who also speaks no French, has two parents from French New Brunswick. my Grandmother can trace her family name (Le Blanc) to one of the first Acadian families to arrive in Canada, while my Grandfather, who considers himself Acadian, has a Quebecois last name, spoke French with a Quebecois accent, and was born and raised near the Quebec border. Where Quebecois stops and Acadian begins is not as clear as would be liked, there are some Acadians listed as living in Quebec, while some so-called Acadians within NB share far more in common with Quebecois (especially true in the northeast of the province) then with Acadians in the rest of the area. There are also many people in places like PEI with the last name Arsenault or Gaudet, who don’t consider themselves Acadian when, ethnically, they are. Lastly, on the Census, StatsCan allows people to list themselves as "Canadian". Show me what an ethnic Canadian is and I can find someone who filled in Canadian on the census who does not fit that description. We'll never know how many Acadians answer the census as Canadian, or as Anglo-Saxon, etc, when they are in fact Acadian, or how many other French people from the Maritimes list themselves as Acadians, when they really have no relationship to Acadia. An afterthought, what of the "Acadians" who returned to France? or the small number who settled in England? In short - what are we to use to define an Acadian? Someone who lived in Acadia? that would be a genealogical nightmare trying to track them down, especially when you consider where they moved to and who they might have had children with, and if you do count it this way, what percentage does a person need to be of this ‘Acadian’ to be called an Acadian? Does any French person from the Maritimes automatically become an Acadian? Bernard Lord is an excellent example of what I mean, and his kids are the best example yet. Are they Acadian? Part Acadian? Quebecois? Most likely the child of an Acadian and a Quebecois-moved-to-NB would be considered 100% Acadian and fill that out on the Census. Hence back to my original point, how are we ever to truly know what the number of Acadians is without a clear definition of just what an Acadian is. Nickjbor 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

>Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A note that apparently isn't

This thing on the exhibit Le Grand Derangement done by the Massachusetts State Archives was recently added to the notes section, but there is no indication of any reference to the note. I'm not objecting to the link, it should probably be here but either I'm missing something (in which case, please explain) or this belongs under Exteral links, not Notes. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

acadians and cajuns

from what i can tell, it appears that the acadians of canada and the cajuns of louisiana are somewhat distinct, though also somewhat related, ethnic groups. i'm going to have to do some research on this...

Gringo300 11:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Acadians (modern ones, as in the people in eastern Canada/New England) and Cajuns are both the descendents of the French settlers (the original Acadians) who were expelled by the English. Their being distinct comes from having been split up for so long, and the social evolution that comes with that. Acadians and Cajuns are largely members of the same families, if you trace the heritage back to the 1700s. My family in Nova Scotia is Comeau. There are people in Louisiana named Comeau, but also some named Comeaux. We would trace our ancestry back to the same original Acadian family. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 15:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ad an AH infront of CAJUN and you see how the name evolved from Acadian to Cajun. 74.13.125.185 07:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Table

It would be helpful to have a more descriptive heading on the table. I assume that the population figures are the numbers of people who settled in the various regions after the Expulsion. However, a title like "Destinations of Deportees 1755-1764" or something more concise or descriptive would make it more clear. --Mego2005 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I also thought the table was a bit strange. First, it seems malplaced. If the table is to be kept, it should probably come after the next paragraph. And yes, a title is VERY necessary. Neither is there enough description of it. Perhaps it would read better if it was simply information in a paragraph.DDD DDD 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit hasty (well, I waited 5 days). And if I was, please tell. But that table listing the destination of the deportees was driving me mad. What's more, it didn't reflect the more accurate table found on the Great Upheaval wiki. So, I re-wrote the table as a paragraph. If someone can come up with a better table (with a proper title!), please do. But don't just put the table in the middle of the page please. It needs some description.DDD DDD 07:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

present population figures

The present populaton figures are completely absurd. The population for N.B. should represent the number of French speakers in the 2001 Canada census which is almost 10 times the amount that is self-identified. The note at the bottom of the page should reference the self-identified number. No one in their right mind believes there are only 26,000 Acadians in N.B.DDD DDD 12:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would guess (tell me if I'm wrong) that most French-speakers in N.B. today are transplanted Quebequers, not descendants of the Acadians. - Jmabel | Talk 17:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. DDD DDD 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• That one-word amswer "wrong" is a bit harsh. A late-night, 3-beer, 2-glasses of red response. Apologies Jmabel. No, most of the couple hundred thousand Francophones in N.B. are indeed Acadiens and not Quebecois. The 2001 Canada Census figures are misleading. Imagine, statistics that lie? Hmm... The same Canadian census that identified less than 100,000 Acadiens throughout Canada also identified less than 12,000,000 Canadians. DDD DDD 04:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

-Actually between 1840 and 1940 (roughly), nearly 1 million Quebecois left Quebec because of impoverishment and ill support by a government not designed for them. It is completely false that Francophones in NB are, "indeed Acadiens and not Quebecois". In fact many are Quebecois descendents mixed with Acadians. Many Acadians try to create a mythological creation story that they are "pure" or something, this is entirely nastolgic based. Many Ffrancophones in the Maritimes, New England (Maine), even parts of Quebec are a mix of both Acadians and Quebecois. This is true for NB when you consider the entire St. John River Valley and northern Maine (many are, indeed transplanted, Quebecois, yes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I want to add: Acadia is a multi-ethnic society, which while pre-dominantly composed of those of Acadian ethnicity, it's not uniquely Acadian. Most Acadians are actually a mix of French, Mi'kmaq and some ethnicity from the British Isle, usually Irish or Scottish, so to restrict the number of Acadians on the basis of what they identified as their ethnicity is wrong. Plus, many who call themselves Acadians proudly, would put down "Canadian" or "French Canadian" on their census, not realizing that the first obscured their Acadian identity and the second referred to the early settlers of New-France, not of their identity as a French-speaking citizen of Canada. TheJF 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

-I completely agree, and a lot of Basques made up early Acadian populations. That is why it is mythological that they are a pure people, especially that they came from one specific place in france when they came from all areas, just like the people of Quebec. Especially today, the lines between Quebecois and Acadian is not so well defined, this is certainly the case in the peripheral zones along the Quebec-NB border, Maine, and the St. John River Valley. That is just the socio-historical reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

history

I've begun working on the early history of the Acadian settlers. If anyone can help. I've done up to first year on St. Croix and then moving across the bay to Port Royale. including the pre-settlement explorations. I hope to get more details of early families, life, and so on in the coming weeks. Be patient. Again, if anyone can help. (forgot to sign, I often do.) DDD DDD 07:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Still working on the history. It's slow. I wonder... is this even necessary? Hmmm... Well, I'll put in the details as I can. If later someone thinks it is not important or not related, well, then, we can take the scissors to it.DDD DDD 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was on the train tonight and I started thinking, maybe the Acadia page - which I had yet to look at - has much of the history. Sure enough. Well, I'll get around to fixing this up, still. And or please help.

• I had this really bright idea. Make a new page for the "History of the Acadians". And then, (are you breathless yet?) make a "History of Acadia", which I would re-direct to the History of the Acadians. So I made the "History of the Acadians" wiki, well, just, and just a one-line blurb. Then, as I began the "history of acadia" wiki, I noticed it was already redirected back to the "Acadia" (just) page. Doh. Hmm. So, what to do? What to do?...

• OK. I thinned out completely the history section in the Acadians article. I moved all the history that was there almost completely verbatim to History of the Acadians. On that newer history page there is MUCH to do. A lot of the early settlement history has been written, but I suppose it's not finished. Then there are large gaps up til the deportation. And then again until 2003. So, it needs work. Also, there are several links to many of the early settlers and so on that go nowhere, so those links need to be upgraded.

While doing all this, the whole time I've been wondering if it is worthwhile or not. Hmmm. DDD DDD 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The map showing distribution of Acadians shows PRESENT DAY acadian (french speaking) areas. It shoudl be lableed as such and SUPPLEMENTED by a map showing the pre-expulsion (1752) areas alaong the Fundy Basin. {iain T. 17 Nov.06]

different parts of France?

I've never heard this before. Can someone verify this or provide other details?

>Furthermore, Acadians to a great extent hail from different parts of France than do Quebeckers. DDD DDD 07:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

>>Are we sure about this? In all of my research and from what I understand the vast majority of Acadians came from the Poitu-Charantes region, so much so that there are commemorative plaques to the Acadians over there. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to that, but I think it's more accurate to say that they primarily came from Poitu-Charantes 09:51, 25 April 2007 User: LeNordique

> I shall use you as a reference. According to you, you have done research on this; the key then is when you stated a "vast majority", this alludes that there is a minority that did not come the Poitu-Charantes region. I agree they primarily came from Poitu-Charantes; however I would have to see if other scholars agree with you, but the point is they did not all. If you want a source that backs up my argument it is stated in plain view in the wikipedia article itself, and backed up by author Emily Griffith (2005), From Migrant to Acadian McGill-Queen's University Press, p. 47. A strong argument is expounded by Acadians that they have always been one people, however that was after they arrived in Atlantic Canada. There are parts of France that were also more prominent places of origin for the Quebecois also, but no-one would ever suggest they were always one people, that is the point of a colony. Before leaving France, although some commonalities existed (and not all french peasents wanted to be part of the empire of "France") they were understood to be French peasents. The strength of their community solidified after they came to Acadia and saw the reality of their common situation as indentured servants. But to claim purity as a group, is false since their existence as a group only came to be after arrival on NA shores. For people who are learning about Acadians such a claim is misleading and alludes to an ancient ethnicity originating in France, when this is obviously not the case. Such mythology of an 'elsewhere, far-away' origin strengthens the claim and provides a nostalgia but is not based in historical fact. I agree Acadians are "a people" but let us not claim a mythology is truth. Such myths are ok for and between Acadians, but not to relay them to the rest of the world as fact. Also, I just wanted to say that when I wrote, "France than do Quebeckers", this is a typo, what I meant was they came from different parts of France 'just like' Quebecois.

I question claim that "The Acadian Explusion" amounted to "ethnic cleansing".

It is probably controversial, but I have trouble "back-dating" phrases which clearly are "modern" creations. In this case, post-1991 when the term "ethnic cleansing" came into use after a number of horrendous war-crimes during bungled UN Peacekeeping Missions (and in which Canada's political and military was heavily involved) including Rwanda and Bosnia. To me it is demeaning to those events and its survivours to use this term and smacks of "historical revisionism".

That said I have no trouble "parenthetically" applying the term to the Jewish Holocaust of WW2.

What is relevant to me is the growing awareness that throughout history, many such "forced migrations" took place.

Thank-you for your efforts.

Sincerely,

199.126.211.43 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Chris Jones

This is a very naive understanding of Genocide. Genocide is firstly, relative to the situation. genocide does not just constitute the killing of every member of the group. The Genocide convention states "with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part...". Likewise, there are 5 stipulations that constitute genocide (that is ANY of the 5 constitute genocide). To view genocide as just killing people in whole and that every person must be killed is an extrmeley premature and naive understanding of genocide. If 10 individuals were killed in 10 different places in the world; would we say that one of those person's deaths are not as significant because 9 other people were killed? It is relative to itself and we cannot compare. We have to judge genocide based on the programs and acts of those committing it and considering all 5 conditions that constitute a genocide; not comapring genocides - because they all look different. Was Rwanda any less significant because more Jews were killed during WW2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rwanda was attempted genocide, and no one claiming that 1755 was anywhere near the level of *savagery* of that event. However, there has been numerous "lesser" events of ethnic cleansing in history. The British were a bit more "gentle" in their efforts, but it was clearly ethnic cleansing - they just didn't go about it by killing, although a substantial number of Acadians died as a result of this. I would say that all those "forced migrations" were ethnic cleansing. Observer31 01:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

-Rwanda was not attempted genocide - it was genocide. genocide is not about killing ALL members of the group; how could we hold anybody accountable for their actions if this is the definition we would entertain? Estimated 6 million Jews were killed in WW2, because not all Jews were killed, does that mean the deaths of 6 million people should not be held accountable? The one stipulaion (out of 5) in the Genocide convention note "killing members" with the intent to destroy "in whole or in part). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the last poster. There's nothing demeaning about using a term to describe a historical event as long as what happened is consistent with the term that is being used. Granted, the Acadian Expulsion was not the only forced migration that took place in history and certainly not the only one in the New World, but the way in which it was handled by the British make it consistent with our understanding of ethnic cleansing. LeNordique 09:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The original poster has it right. The term "ethnic cleansing" is far too loaded and does not accurately convey what happened. What is worse is that this article did not expand upon the fact that only those who refused to swear allegiance to the British crown were forced to leave. Those who did "turn coat", if you will, remained and the Acadians became an important part of the founding of the later Dominion of Canada. Population exchanges/expulsions are typical of whenever one country conquers the territory of another. The expulsion had nothing to do with ethnicity. Furthermore, that so many people died during the forced migrations is not extraordinary in considering the sort of perils such travels entailed during that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.239.139 (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

-because colonialism is common, and programs stemming from it is common, does not make it correct. Today we have the United Nations and conventions/declarations that hold governments accountable for these acts because they were not correct then and we wanted to eliminate it from happening in the future. It does not need to refer to ethnicity or "race" (as Americans call it), it just has to refer to human populations to be adequate and that is good enough in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Expulsion

The lead indicates 4,000 to 5,000 were expelled, but further down the article you have a 14,000 figure. One of them is clearly incorrect, so that should be fixed. Falcomadol 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is widely cited that one of the destinations of Acadians was the Falkland Islands (first settlement). This does not appear in the article on the Falklands (would greatly improve the historical background). Here it would be useful to have a complete list of the major destinations including the Falklands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.188.199 (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Figures

Two figures are cited in the article, 'between 4000 and 5000" and "14000". Which is correct?

Today (15 May 2009) the two figures are "around 13,000" and "over 14,000". Which is correct? Perhaps a range could be given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.21.201 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, primarily due to the lack of inline citations, and of mid importance, as I do feel that this topic plays a strong role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Maine.

I find this discussion significantly lacking in regards to the heritage of the few thousand people who live within northern Maine who are of direct Acadian descent. There are acadian archives at the University of Maine at Fort Kent which show the direct link between families one both sides of the border. The same families who fled the british past grand falls settled on BOTH sides of the St. John. I believe it is an error to focus completely on the Maritime provinces without giving thought to the Acadians of Maine, whom feel very strongly about their heritage and should be included in this discussion. The population of the town of fort kent is roughly 4,500 people, which is directly on the border, and is one of many small communities whose populations are mostly french. Of those french speaking or french named citizens a vast majority are of Acadian descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.231.226 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. However, let us remember that many Quebecois went there between 1840's and 1940's and its proximity to Quebec. But yes, there are Acadians there. For example my family who later settled in Fort Kent during the 1860's, originally came from the Bas St. Laurent of Quebec. I have a good portion of family still there today who are not Acadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.55 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

National anthem in infobox

I've put in a request for national_anthem (it returns as "Anthem:") to be put in the 'Ethnic group' infobox used here. I notice, however, that Acadia is in the Former countries Wikiproject (though I can't find it in a list there). I've found out that there is actually a 'Former country' infobox, which includes an anthem option. Also, many 'nations' (or non-ISO countries) use the Country infobox - another alternative, if its not seen as unfit.

Acadia is listed in the new List of national anthems article, so it would be apt if its national anthem was in the box.

Incidentally, how do people feel with Acadia's inclusion in List of national anthems? (bearing in mind too there is a separate 'List of anthems by country' list. When including it, I pipe-linked Acadia to this article, rather than to Acadia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclear

The citation/note system used for this article is a mess, sorry. I've done a small amount of tidying up as a consequence of it throwing an error on the maintenance lists (fixed), but it needs a lot of input from editors who know their stuff. The use of notes, references, further reading, voluminous external links -and sometimes more than one of these combined simultaneously - makes for extremely awkward reading. Can anyone possibly bring some sort of logic to this, please? - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Acadian Creoles

Should we include Cajun population in the infobox? They are the descendants of Acadian exiles....what do others think here? -- Moxy (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they should be included.. i am also changing the information regarding their language: Cajun French is on shaky ground, but it is not extinct and still used in portions of Louisiana. There are a lot of youngsters now who are active in learning French from Grandma and Grandpa, tens of thousands of them are now in immersion schools, and if you go in a bar and listen to the music, the lyrics are not always in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkittie5460 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)