Conquest and the obligation to assimilate

The idea that Aboriginal peoples were conquered is deeply rooted in the collective imagination of Quebecers and probably came from the textbooks of yesteryear. The history of Canada showed us an illustration of Jacques Cartier erecting a cross at Gaspé in 1534, thus taking possession of the territory on behalf of the King of France. We should ask ourselves, however, if we may have placed too much importance on this illustration. It is not at all certain that planting a few crosses throughout the territory should have been enough to ensure France’s sovereignty over First Nations and Inuit lands and societies.

The French would clearly have liked to make the members of First Nations good French subjects. At first, France’s objective was to subject the Aboriginal peoples to its authority and assimilate them. But this policy was a failure and had to be abandoned. Things were to take place very differently on the ground.

It was, for the most part, commerce – the fur trade – that shaped relations between the French and the First Nations. This activity required the French to cooperate and maintain neighbourly relations with these trappers and traders. The fur trade could not flourish if the French dominated and subjugated these communities. There was only one way to proceed: the French would have to befriend and maintain good relations with the members of these nations. Rather than proceeding by conquest and by force, the French and the First Nations would have to forge trade and military alliances and sign many peace and friendship treaties to solidify their relations. This was a good thing, and an aspect of our history in which we can take pride.

The signing of these alliances and treaties clearly implied that these peoples were recognized, at least politically, as equal partners who were the masters of their territories. Aboriginal peoples did, in fact, exercise sovereignty over lands newly “discovered” by the Europeans. And it went without saying that if the fur industry was to be nurtured, Aboriginal peoples had to remain free to use their own territories.

And so the Europeans had to deal with “allies” rather than “the King’s subjects.” Under the French regime, the Aboriginal populations were not subject to taxation, nor were they subject to French penal or civil legislation. Furthermore, at the time of the capitulation of Montréal in 1760, the French governor, Vaudreuil, demanded that his English counterpart protect these Aboriginal allies. Article 40 of the Capitulation Act of Montreal is eloquent in this regard, stating: “The Indian allies of his most Christian Majesty, shall be maintained in the Lands they inhabit; if they choose to remain there they shall not be molested on any pretence whatsoever, for having carried arms, and served his most Christian Majesty; they shall have, as well as the French, liberty of religion, and shall keep their missionaries.” It is a matter of historical record that there was a conquest in North America in 1760. But we must not forget that this represented the victory of England over France, not over the Aboriginal nations. Moreover, it is interesting to note that during the period preceding the capitulation, several First Nations were anxious to affirm their neutrality in the war between the French and the English. A wampum belt, preciously conserved in an Aboriginal milieu since this period, attests to this. Unfortunately, our history textbooks accorded little importance to First Nations archives.

So it was the French who were conquered in 1760. Were the French and their descendants required to integrate and assimilate with the English as a result? History has shown us that this was not the case at all. The French were able to maintain their customs, their religious tradition and their own institutions, as well as their legal tradition, derived from the French civil code. If this was so, why should Aboriginal peoples, who were not conquered in the war, have been required to assimilate?