![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eldritchhobbitJohn Mack Faragher's new book A Great and Noble Scheme: The Tragic Story of the Expulsion of the French Acadians From Their American Homeland is definitely worth reading. I have a long review/response to it (entitled "Exile Without an End: The first ethnic cleansing in American history") due out in the next hard copy issue of Reason Magazine, but I wanted to say a few quick words here, as well.
In A Great and Noble Scheme, Faragher takes the definition of ethnic cleansing generated by the United Nations Security Council Commission of Experts in the early 1990s and applies it retroactively to American history, finding its first example in the 1755 expulsion of the French Acadians by the British government (an action that not only transferred all of the French Acadians' lands to British hands, but also managed to kill over half of the Acadians in the process). The Acadians before this point had flourished, Faragher argues, because a) they declared themselves neutral in the nationalistic struggles between France and England, and refused to fight for or against either side; 2) they traded with everyone, regardless of nationality; and c) they treated the native Míkmaq as friends and allies, intermarrying with them, adopting words from their language, and living in peaceful coexistence.
Most significantly, Faragher draws two big conclusions from his study.
1) The history of the Americas is not exceptional, at least in terms of the global pattern of ethnic cleansing; in fact, North American history includes ethnic cleansing from its earliest colonial times, and the British expulsion of the Acadians as a planned military operation anticipates later, similar actions by the U.S. government, such as the removal of Native Americans in campaigns like the Trail of Tears.
2) The Acadian experiment, which showed tremendous success for nearly 150 years before the British ended it by force, suggests that the North American story, at least, did not have to unfold as it did in conquest and killing. In the Acadians, and their friendly and prosperous relationships with the Míkmaq, other Native American nations, and other European travelers, we can see an alternative model for how peoples might have lived, loved, and traded together successfully in peaceful coexistence to everyone's advantage.
Whether or not you accept all of Faragher's arguments, this is an important text with implications that spill beyond the 18th century.
Incidentally, I should give a big thanks to Reason Magazine for supporting my work so consistently. Several of the other pieces I have written for the magazine are now in its online archive.
Two of these are also long book reviews/responses:
From May 2004, my review of The Passions of Andrew Jackson by Andrew Burstein: "Not the Same Old Hickory: The contested legacy of Andrew Jackson."
From October 2001, my review of The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War From Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee by William M. Osborn: "Brutal History: Conflict between whites and Native Americans didn't end at Wounded Knee."
Reason also published my investigative piece on the illegal Bureau of Indian Affairs occupation of the Cherokee Nation in the 1990s:
From March 1999: "Tale of Tears: When the Bureau of Indian Affairs occupied the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, it was an old story with a modern twist."
And now, an appropriate quote for the day:
“Where is the thatch-roofed village, the home of Acadian farmers—
Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodlands
Darkened by shadows of earth, but reflecting an image of heaven?
Waste are those pleasant farms, and the farmers forever departed!
Scattered like dust and leaves…”
from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Evangeline, a Tale of Acadie
In A Great and Noble Scheme, Faragher takes the definition of ethnic cleansing generated by the United Nations Security Council Commission of Experts in the early 1990s and applies it retroactively to American history, finding its first example in the 1755 expulsion of the French Acadians by the British government (an action that not only transferred all of the French Acadians' lands to British hands, but also managed to kill over half of the Acadians in the process). The Acadians before this point had flourished, Faragher argues, because a) they declared themselves neutral in the nationalistic struggles between France and England, and refused to fight for or against either side; 2) they traded with everyone, regardless of nationality; and c) they treated the native Míkmaq as friends and allies, intermarrying with them, adopting words from their language, and living in peaceful coexistence.
Most significantly, Faragher draws two big conclusions from his study.
1) The history of the Americas is not exceptional, at least in terms of the global pattern of ethnic cleansing; in fact, North American history includes ethnic cleansing from its earliest colonial times, and the British expulsion of the Acadians as a planned military operation anticipates later, similar actions by the U.S. government, such as the removal of Native Americans in campaigns like the Trail of Tears.
2) The Acadian experiment, which showed tremendous success for nearly 150 years before the British ended it by force, suggests that the North American story, at least, did not have to unfold as it did in conquest and killing. In the Acadians, and their friendly and prosperous relationships with the Míkmaq, other Native American nations, and other European travelers, we can see an alternative model for how peoples might have lived, loved, and traded together successfully in peaceful coexistence to everyone's advantage.
Whether or not you accept all of Faragher's arguments, this is an important text with implications that spill beyond the 18th century.
Incidentally, I should give a big thanks to Reason Magazine for supporting my work so consistently. Several of the other pieces I have written for the magazine are now in its online archive.
Two of these are also long book reviews/responses:
From May 2004, my review of The Passions of Andrew Jackson by Andrew Burstein: "Not the Same Old Hickory: The contested legacy of Andrew Jackson."
From October 2001, my review of The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War From Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee by William M. Osborn: "Brutal History: Conflict between whites and Native Americans didn't end at Wounded Knee."
Reason also published my investigative piece on the illegal Bureau of Indian Affairs occupation of the Cherokee Nation in the 1990s:
From March 1999: "Tale of Tears: When the Bureau of Indian Affairs occupied the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, it was an old story with a modern twist."
And now, an appropriate quote for the day:
“Where is the thatch-roofed village, the home of Acadian farmers—
Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodlands
Darkened by shadows of earth, but reflecting an image of heaven?
Waste are those pleasant farms, and the farmers forever departed!
Scattered like dust and leaves…”
from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Evangeline, a Tale of Acadie
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
your scholarship is amazing
Date: 2005-07-26 04:17 pm (UTC)love,
gmonk
Re: your scholarship is amazing
Date: 2005-07-26 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 06:11 pm (UTC)I agree, I learn a lot from the stuff that you post, although rarely do I have time to go into it in any depth. It's just great to know that there's all this information out there, should I ever have time to really research it!
no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-26 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 01:39 am (UTC)re a peaceful scenario of prosperous co-existence - what do you think of that possibility? the cynic in me envisages other issues that would have beset these groups that would have prevented a utopian alternative. most likely, however, it would still preferable to what ended up happening. the overriding imperatives of the colonial project have little patience with understanding other cultures, except perhaps in terms of accumulating/wielding social capital.
argh. sorry. didn't mean to essay at you. thanks for the brainfood. :)
Hello
Date: 2005-07-27 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-27 03:24 pm (UTC)From a perspective of classical political thought, it seems less likely that people will want to kill or drive away good trading partners and sources of income than Others who impede their idea of manifest destiny. And the sort of grassroots, illiterate, instinctive natural rights rhetoric that the Acadians threw back at the British (and, before that, the French) reminds me a great deal of the whole failed Franklin experiment, which also declared independence in North America prior to 1776.
At any rate, you're quite right in your cynicism. Heaven knows history supports it. I do appreciate Faragher's willingness to challenge the "inevitability" argument, however, because its corresponding mainstream manifestation here seems to be either "they had it coming" or "what can you do?" -- a pet peeve of mine, since I think it mercilessly twists the debate today about current Native American policy. Plus, I guess I like Faragher's approach at the retroactive application of the 20th-century concept of ethnic cleansing. It puts a little more "umph" (the technical term! LOL) in his methodology.
And now who's long-winded? And all that is to say I agree with you about the imperatives of the colonial project and why wariness is best employed against utopianism. Thanks for the excellent points.
Re: Hello
Date: 2005-07-27 03:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-28 03:23 am (UTC)this community's history is really fascinating. what you say about lacking the state apparatus is v true, and the acadians' overt rejection of the brits/french would place them in a very different dynamic with Native American groups. just curious - were there no tensions between the acadians and the mikmaq? just thinking of other instances where settler-invader groups have tried to claim 'indigeneity' with problematic results.
I see what you mean about Faragher positing a fresh framework for examining and acting on these issues. being stuck in unconstructive models is frustrating. wish I were sitting across a table from you right now as have buzzy qs re state of Native American policy and whether there is a separate set of sovereignty issues that inflect concepts of Native American 'citizenry' in the US (I should go read your work on this area!). I know there probably isn't a single school of thought on this. Some Indigenous activists in Oz argue for specific sovereignty rights, others lobby for equity in civic infrastructural areas and attention to working for 'whole citizenship'. The specific govt unit that focused on Indigenous issues was abolished earlier this year (thanks to our wonderful current govt).
thanks for the great info and your perspective. lots of good stuff to think about.