This were my ancestors and my great grandfather married a Mi’kmaq woman. Sadly she perished on the ship and he remarried but she’s still kept in our family tree to be honored and respected. We now reside in the Acadiana area in Louisiana. The Gautrot/Gautreaux family. I feel the Souls of my ancestors are able to see that we are successful and thriving today
My test is on Monday and I needed to know the difference between French Creole and French Cajun in Louisiana. Your video is amazing and simple to understand. I also had no idea about this story of Canadian history (I’m just a silly American). If I was from Louisiana, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. This would have been in my grade school history books.
My Acadian great grandparents were both half Mik'mok and listed as Metis. Acadians didn't settle in New Orleans they settled 160 miles west of New Orleans.
In recent years there are many Acadians claiming to be Métis, which is scurrilous at best and perhaps a new form of colonialism. The only "listing as Métis", would be with groups self proclaiming to be Métis, and which have no legal standing as such. They may be an admixture of European and Indigenous but it is wrong to use the term Métis to describe this.
My ancestors Genevieve and Francois Richard were Acadian farmers sometime in the 1700s. They had somewhere between 9 and 12 kids between them. However, the British rounded the whole family up inside a church and burnt it down, only the parents and one child survived. Fast forward to today, everyone before my generation on my mom's side of the family is still living in Quebec, I'm first generation American but studying in Toronto.
The British did not shut any Acadians up in churches or any other buildings and then burn them down. This sort of idea is just Hollywoodesque nonsense reminiscent of movies such as `The Patriot`. For more information about your ancestors take a look at the 17th and 18th century French and British census records for Acadia. Michel Richard is listed initially in the 1671 census. Extensive genealogical information is available in Stephen White`s Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes.
If you are interested take a look at 'The Records of British Government at Annapolis Royal, 1713-1749' novascotia.ca/archives/heartland/results.asp?Search=Richard&Language=English&TABLE1=on&TABLE2=on&TABLE3=on Your ancestors are mentioned numerous times. See pages: NS Archives II - 197,198,200,201,214,230 NS Archives III - 12,100,104,105,159,160,161,164,165,166,177,212,213,214,194,303,304,305,324,334 NS Archives IV - 68
I am a Cajun and I have a question about why the forcing of my people into slavery isn’t talked about. The British also forced us into military service.
When and where did the British force either Acadians or Cajuns into military service? This did not occur in Acadia. In Louisiana that would have been impossible because Louisiana was not British territory.
@Demiclea - Not sure how you have come up with the idea that Cajuns were forced to take up arms or would have faced genocide. So, to begin with, the British never carried out a genocide in the first place against the Acadians. Today we might consider it ethnic cleansing. The whole idea of genocide would not have even occurred to the Acadians/Cajuns. Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing are very much twentieth-century concepts. Furthermore, there was no forcing of Acadians/Cajuns to fight. Those who did fight chose to do so. You also should keep in mind it was not really the British who carried out the deportations of 1755. This was carried out by New England militias with the backing of Massachusetts' Governor Shirley. The British Board of Trade, the body charged with the administration of the British American colonies, had in fact advised the colonial administrators in Nova Scotia not to deport the Acadians. Despite the fact New Englanders carried out the deportations, they expected Britain to bear the costs. It was very expensive. When the British defeated the French at Quebec there was no plan to deport the Quebecois. Why then would the British even care about the Cajuns who lived largely to the west of New Orleans? I am surprised as well by your comment "Britain runs on the blood of innocents". Compared to whom; the Americans and their headlong onslaught westward into the American continent to the detriment of the Indigenous people, France in its colonies around the worlds (read a bit about the abuse and killing of millions in Algeria during France's colonial rule), Spain's subjugation of millions in its New World colonies and elsewhere, and the slave regimes of all these groups, etc. History is fascinating. A broader reading of history allows for a greater understanding of the facts, the context, the outcomes, etc. It allows us to understand history based on the facts versus emotion.
@Demiclea Good to hear from you. If by America you mean the geographical area of the Thirteen Colonies, then yes these were largely but not completely founded by the English. The Netherlands and Sweden also had colonies. Of course, nearby there were also the French (New France, Acadia and Louisiana) and the Spanish (Florida). Even though the colonies were founded by the English, those who settled there were not exclusively English. Early on there was a good measure of Scots, Irish, and Germans. Of course later, in the nineteenth century, the immigrants came from across Europe. I have read history very widely and I cannot see that "the English committed the most atrocities." They were the most successful of the European imperial regimes. Colonialism is always exploitative. I would never say the British Empire was not exploitative, as it was, but I am not sure I would say they were the worst. The one that stands out for me as being particularly cruel is that of Belgium in its African colonies. One thing I have wondered about is if France did not have to compete with the British colonies in North America would it have established the same type of relationship with the Indigenous people. I am not so sure they would have. France certainly did not develop a similar relationship in any other of its other colonies .
If every people that the Brits abused in the past were to claim Justice, the legal system would be crowded for a millenium. Ask the Boers in South Africa, the Native Australians, or the Indians during the Trail of Tears.
Hi @@goofygrandlouis6296 - Good to hear from you. Your comment can be applied to every nation. The British did not have a monopoly on colonial rule and certainly cannot be considered the worse or any better than the other imperial regimes. Yes, we ought to ask the Boers but should we mention to them their own treatment of the Africans? By the way your inclusion of the Trail of Tears is ill placed as this was purely an American event. The British had nothing to do with it.
The Mi'kmaq were the first ROMAN CATHOLIC NATION in North America. This is on record here: www.antigonishdiocese.com/images/2018_04_26_Statement_on_reconciliation_with_Mikmaq.pdf The English wanted Acadians to renounce the Roman Catholic Faith but we could not do that without renouncing our end of the Vatican Concordat that formed our Nationhood. Many of the Acadians were Mi'kma'ki too. They would not swear the oath. that is why we were deported.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 No sure what the position is you are trying to win in the debate but be careful as this video does contain errors about the Expulsion of the Acadians.
It is also Cajun heritage. It wasn’t too long ago did the Cajuns start peaking English. It wasn’t by our own will either. Teachers hired by the U.S. government would punish us for speaking French. We were beaten in classes and disciplined by teachers.
Hey just as a criticism the picture showed at 1 minute 23 seconds is that of Canadian mounties separating Canadian First Nation children from their parents so the Catholic Church could do weird experiments on them look it up it happened.
No, that picture is depicting children being taken to residential schools. Here is a site with the painter talking about his work. Look it up. www.tvo.org/article/challenging-canadas-history-through-art
We were never given the choice to swear allegiance, they deported us whether we did or we did not. My family line rowed our boats back to Acadia and hid in the mountains, hunted by the British up until the creation of modern-day Canada, where the government kicked my great grandmother out of her home so they could turn the area into a park. They let the Acadians enter the park for free as an apology, but only to the third generation. I am the fourth generation and still go to the park to see the old stone home my great-grandmother was raised in, like a peasant's house out of a fantasy book. The Acadians were never given a choice in anything we did, much like our Mi'kmaq allies, we simply survived and hid from powers far larger and stronger than us.
The Acadians were absolutely given the chance to swear allegiance, and did. The oath was not a one-time thing. Acadians had provided the oath for decades and along with the oath had developed an understanding and acceptance of neutrality. I was only in the 1750s that the British started to mistrust the Acadians, after more than a decade of the French (Quebec and France) meddling in the region. In 1755, at the opening on a new conflict between France and Britain - the Seven Years War, the Acadians were asked twice to provide an unqualified oath, one that would strip away any pretext of neutrality. The Acadian Deputies, who represented the Acadian people, refused. Only when they finally understood the British were not bluffing, did the Deputies offer an unqualified oath. It was too late as the trust was lost and the British felt any oath would have been meaningless. The Acadians were certainly not "...hunted by the British up until the creation of modern-day Canada...".
@@iryssiaOof Well not really. Most of the Acadians were tenant farmers on seigneurial lands. The British Government bought these lands from the French Seigneurs, thus becoming the Acadians landlords. So, no stealing. Also, France had ceded Acadia to the British in 1713, and in the process made the Acadians British subjects. The Acadians as French settlers could in the modern misinformed sensibility be considered 'stealers'. They took Mi'kmaq lands without asking. This caused the Mi'kmaq to largely abandon their lands near the areas of primary Acadian settlements.
@@iryssiaOof It was not quite as rosy as some people make out the relationship between the Acadians and the Mi'kmaq to have been. If it was so rosy, why did the Mi'kmaq abandon the areas near the main Acadian settlements? The Mi'kmaq had a stronger relationship with the French colonial governments at Louisbourg and Quebec City, as well as with the Catholic priests sent by the French. The Mi'kmaq had become overly dependant on the French, needing the food supplies, guns, etc. There are records where the Acadians express their fear of the Mi'kmaq due to threats made against them on occasion to help bend them to what the Mi'kmaq's French overlords (priests and Colonial administrators) wanted. When the British were offering better trade deals with the Mi'kmaq, the French became concerned and they in turn had to increase what they offered in trade and gifts. The British, like the French, had their Indigenous allies. It is a fallacy that the British were always the enemy of the Indigenous people.
This is well done. Just one little point: just as it is no longer considered okay (at least for non-First Nations people) to use the term "Indian" for those who are First Nations, we also no longer use the incorrect "micmac" pronunciation for the Mi’kmaq people, it is pronounced "migmaq". Otherwise, good job with most of the pronunciation.
j. D. Some of the Indigenous have no issue with the term 'Indian'. I have worked with various groups from time to time and noted different terms of reference were used. I have asked as well and have been told Indian was OK. Of course I think care should be taken and the appropriate reference used. The preference I suspect would be to use the actual tribal name in many cases. When writing or speaking about the people of a large region or perhaps the country or continent 'Indigenous' is likely a bit more appropriate. As they say 'its complicated'.
Pretty good job overall. There are a few errors. At the 18sec mark the comment about "...the British urged them to leave..." was in fact not the case. Having the Acadians there was a benefit economically to the colony. Some Acadian actually did leave for Cape Breton but soon returned. At about the 42 sec mark the comment " ...the Acadians were allowed to practice Catholicism as long as they signed and oath..." is in error. The oath had nothing to do with the practice of religion. The practice of Catholicism was protected under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. The compromise made around 1730 had to do with neutrality. They would take the oath but there was an understanding that the Acadians would remain neutral in any French-British conflict. At the 1:07 sec mark the comment "... Britain ordered the expulsion of the Acadians..." is in error. The British government under the Board of Trade which administered the colonies in fact counseled against deporting the Acadian. The colonial government, under Lawrence, in league with the Massachusetts colonial government initiated the expulsions. At the 1:20 sec mark ".. families were separated..." is in error. It is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a family. In the sense of father, mother and dependent children there was no plan or execution of separating family. In the sense of extended families - grandparents, parents and grown children and there spouse and children separation occurred but it was not an intentional plan. At the 1:48 mark "...Catholics and Protestants did not get along..." was not an issue leading to the expulsion. A closer look at British society at this time reveals a fair level of tolerance. There were still a number of British nobles who remained Catholic and old laws that were punitive against Catholics were being removed or ignored. The expulsion was a strategic reaction that had to do with the clash of empires and the advent of war. At the 2:30 mark it should also be noted the Mi'kmaq were not just fighting to protect themselves but were allies with the French and were thus employed, in this period of war to attack the British and German settlers. Although the Mi'kmaq did attack and kill settlers they did not "...take a thousand...".
@@jean-philippeblouin2026 - How so my friend? There is a lot of myth built up around the Acadians. A Longfellowish idea about the Acadians still exists but this mostly resides with an older generation now. Most interested younger people seek out the real story, and then of course there's the majority who just do not know the story much at all.
@@EdinburghFive Your comment at the 1: 20 mark show that your in huge denial. You're trying to say that families were not separated, maybe some but it was not the intentionnel plan ! Hope you can understand french ua-cam.com/video/RlX2ghDKEqA/v-deo.html
you missed a lot in this vid. a lot ,new Brunswick, pei the miq makq nation in it's full extent ,the crossbreeding and our open trading policy and it would be nice to mention the present day remnants of the great miq kmaq nation
@@EdinburghFive 1.Yes i misspelled 2. Thats literally what it is you shouldn't sugar coat it the acadians i know dont sugarcoat anything so i dont think they really care, they dont need you to defend them
Hey@@acadiant2756 - So do they need you to defend them? Your initial statement is a bit inane as the video is only four minutes long. There is only so much you can say in four minutes. You speak of the remnants of the Mi'kmaq. How are the Mi'kmaq "remnants"? This seems to be a bit dismissive of a people who today number more than they did hundreds of years ago. Mi'kmaq people and culture are alive well, hardly a remnant. As for open trading policy, what do you actually mean? The Acadians and Mi'kmaq were really no different than the French and English in that they were all trading with each other. Of course there was rivalry between the French and English to capture a greater portion of the trade.
@@EdinburghFive hey your right ill give you that, and seem more knowledgeable than me about the topic, the fact you called it derogatory kind of pissed me off but hey i rather be corrected by someone who seems to know what the hell their talking about than someone who doesnt.
More than 18.000 Acadians (from Acadia, Ile St-Jean / Prince E. Island, and Cap-Breton) were forced to leave. 8.000 died of the poor conditions of the deportation and only 3.000 went back to Acadia, most to New-Brunswick instead of the first Acadia (Nova Scotia). Acadians were allowed to keep their practice of Catholicism but were excluded of public functions.
@@EdinburghFive after scrolling the comments, you seem to have quite the extensive knowledge of the subject. As a descendant of the LeGros family would you happen to have any information on them?
Hi@@kylemotty5951 - I'll take a look at my records. LeGros is not a name that jumps out as an early Acadian last name. The list of last names is fairly small. It is not to say you are not of Acadian heritage though as the LeGros could either be a change of the original Acadian name or someone who married into the Acadian community post Expulsion period. The Acadians often had nicknames as there were too many people with the same names so it was a way to distinguish who was who. Sometimes the nickname became the last name. This of course is a genealogist nightmare. One group of modern-day Acadian last names comes from immigrants in the late eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century from the Channel Islands. These French-speaking British subjects went to Nova Scotia with the assistance of several fishing merchants. They settled in the Acadian areas and then overtime married into the Acadian community
This were my ancestors and my great grandfather married a Mi’kmaq woman. Sadly she perished on the ship and he remarried but she’s still kept in our family tree to be honored and respected. We now reside in the Acadiana area in Louisiana. The Gautrot/Gautreaux family. I feel the Souls of my ancestors are able to see that we are successful and thriving today
Cajuns forever!
My test is on Monday and I needed to know the difference between French Creole and French Cajun in Louisiana. Your video is amazing and simple to understand. I also had no idea about this story of Canadian history (I’m just a silly American). If I was from Louisiana, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. This would have been in my grade school history books.
1:22 is not the Acadian expulsion but the residential school for the First nation
My Acadian great grandparents were both half Mik'mok and listed as Metis. Acadians didn't settle in New Orleans they settled 160 miles west of New Orleans.
Around the laffette region if im correct
In recent years there are many Acadians claiming to be Métis, which is scurrilous at best and perhaps a new form of colonialism. The only "listing as Métis", would be with groups self proclaiming to be Métis, and which have no legal standing as such. They may be an admixture of European and Indigenous but it is wrong to use the term Métis to describe this.
My ancestors Genevieve and Francois Richard were Acadian farmers sometime in the 1700s. They had somewhere between 9 and 12 kids between them. However, the British rounded the whole family up inside a church and burnt it down, only the parents and one child survived. Fast forward to today, everyone before my generation on my mom's side of the family is still living in Quebec, I'm first generation American but studying in Toronto.
The British did not shut any Acadians up in churches or any other buildings and then burn them down. This sort of idea is just Hollywoodesque nonsense reminiscent of movies such as `The Patriot`. For more information about your ancestors take a look at the 17th and 18th century French and British census records for Acadia. Michel Richard is listed initially in the 1671 census. Extensive genealogical information is available in Stephen White`s Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes.
@@EdinburghFive ah, interesting. I'll have to look in on it more, my mom has just always told me this story
If you are interested take a look at 'The Records of British Government at Annapolis Royal, 1713-1749' novascotia.ca/archives/heartland/results.asp?Search=Richard&Language=English&TABLE1=on&TABLE2=on&TABLE3=on
Your ancestors are mentioned numerous times.
See pages:
NS Archives II - 197,198,200,201,214,230
NS Archives III - 12,100,104,105,159,160,161,164,165,166,177,212,213,214,194,303,304,305,324,334
NS Archives IV - 68
This is so good! I'm using his for a project. Thank you
This video is so helpful because I'm getting the main info I need that is simple and short and not bring to watch
Not using this as a school project, just using this because I know a real Acadian.
I am a Cajun and I have a question about why the forcing of my people into slavery isn’t talked about. The British also forced us into military service.
When and where did the British force either Acadians or Cajuns into military service? This did not occur in Acadia. In Louisiana that would have been impossible because Louisiana was not British territory.
@Demiclea - Not sure how you have come up with the idea that Cajuns were forced to take up arms or would have faced genocide. So, to begin with, the British never carried out a genocide in the first place against the Acadians. Today we might consider it ethnic cleansing. The whole idea of genocide would not have even occurred to the Acadians/Cajuns. Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing are very much twentieth-century concepts. Furthermore, there was no forcing of Acadians/Cajuns to fight. Those who did fight chose to do so. You also should keep in mind it was not really the British who carried out the deportations of 1755. This was carried out by New England militias with the backing of Massachusetts' Governor Shirley. The British Board of Trade, the body charged with the administration of the British American colonies, had in fact advised the colonial administrators in Nova Scotia not to deport the Acadians. Despite the fact New Englanders carried out the deportations, they expected Britain to bear the costs. It was very expensive. When the British defeated the French at Quebec there was no plan to deport the Quebecois. Why then would the British even care about the Cajuns who lived largely to the west of New Orleans?
I am surprised as well by your comment "Britain runs on the blood of innocents". Compared to whom; the Americans and their headlong onslaught westward into the American continent to the detriment of the Indigenous people, France in its colonies around the worlds (read a bit about the abuse and killing of millions in Algeria during France's colonial rule), Spain's subjugation of millions in its New World colonies and elsewhere, and the slave regimes of all these groups, etc.
History is fascinating. A broader reading of history allows for a greater understanding of the facts, the context, the outcomes, etc. It allows us to understand history based on the facts versus emotion.
@Demiclea Good to hear from you. If by America you mean the geographical area of the Thirteen Colonies, then yes these were largely but not completely founded by the English. The Netherlands and Sweden also had colonies. Of course, nearby there were also the French (New France, Acadia and Louisiana) and the Spanish (Florida). Even though the colonies were founded by the English, those who settled there were not exclusively English. Early on there was a good measure of Scots, Irish, and Germans. Of course later, in the nineteenth century, the immigrants came from across Europe.
I have read history very widely and I cannot see that "the English committed the most atrocities." They were the most successful of the European imperial regimes. Colonialism is always exploitative. I would never say the British Empire was not exploitative, as it was, but I am not sure I would say they were the worst. The one that stands out for me as being particularly cruel is that of Belgium in its African colonies.
One thing I have wondered about is if France did not have to compete with the British colonies in North America would it have established the same type of relationship with the Indigenous people. I am not so sure they would have. France certainly did not develop a similar relationship in any other of its other colonies
.
If every people that the Brits abused in the past were to claim Justice, the legal system would be crowded for a millenium.
Ask the Boers in South Africa, the Native Australians, or the Indians during the Trail of Tears.
Hi @@goofygrandlouis6296 - Good to hear from you.
Your comment can be applied to every nation. The British did not have a monopoly on colonial rule and certainly cannot be considered the worse or any better than the other imperial regimes.
Yes, we ought to ask the Boers but should we mention to them their own treatment of the Africans?
By the way your inclusion of the Trail of Tears is ill placed as this was purely an American event. The British had nothing to do with it.
The Mi'kmaq were the first ROMAN CATHOLIC NATION in North America. This is on record here: www.antigonishdiocese.com/images/2018_04_26_Statement_on_reconciliation_with_Mikmaq.pdf
The English wanted Acadians to renounce the Roman Catholic Faith but we could not do that without renouncing our end of the Vatican Concordat that formed our Nationhood. Many of the Acadians were Mi'kma'ki too. They would not swear the oath. that is why we were deported.
Nonsense.
Ah a Cajun, I will always appreciate the Mi’kmaq helping my ancestors.
WHY ARE THERE 3 THUMBS DOWNS!!! THIS VID IS THE BEST!
yea but it's wrong
English people I guess...
This was so helpful, i will be able to win a debate with this info. Thanks!!!!!
lol...So, did you win that debate ? ^^
@@goofygrandlouis6296 No sure what the position is you are trying to win in the debate but be careful as this video does contain errors about the Expulsion of the Acadians.
Useful vid it helped me for my history test tomorrow UHHHHHHHH
I'm Southamerican and find Canadian history very interesting and even more "strange" than the first 13 USA colonies. 🤔
It is also Cajun heritage. It wasn’t too long ago did the Cajuns start peaking English. It wasn’t by our own will either. Teachers hired by the U.S. government would punish us for speaking French. We were beaten in classes and disciplined by teachers.
@@weblyspade3772 unfortunately my grandfather tells of the same thing.
Hey just as a criticism the picture showed at 1 minute 23 seconds is that of Canadian mounties separating Canadian First Nation children from their parents so the Catholic Church could do weird experiments on them look it up it happened.
No, that picture is depicting children being taken to residential schools. Here is a site with the painter talking about his work. Look it up. www.tvo.org/article/challenging-canadas-history-through-art
thx for the idea i am now useing powtoon for my progect at school
The first Acadian to come to Canada is my greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandpa
Connor Arsenault My great grandmother is an Arsenault from PEI but I am having a very difficult time accurately tracing my Arsenault ancestry. Ugh!
Oh I have family in P.E.I but they are my moms side. I got Arsenault family all over New Brunswick though
Connor Arsenault Was your ancestor Pierre Arsenault, who first came to "Port Royal" in 1671, and who helped found "Beaubassin"?
Yeah. Isn't Pierre the first Arsenault?
Did you know he wrote a song about the last name? You can't really find it anywhere. My grandpa has it on a record
We were never given the choice to swear allegiance, they deported us whether we did or we did not. My family line rowed our boats back to Acadia and hid in the mountains, hunted by the British up until the creation of modern-day Canada, where the government kicked my great grandmother out of her home so they could turn the area into a park. They let the Acadians enter the park for free as an apology, but only to the third generation. I am the fourth generation and still go to the park to see the old stone home my great-grandmother was raised in, like a peasant's house out of a fantasy book. The Acadians were never given a choice in anything we did, much like our Mi'kmaq allies, we simply survived and hid from powers far larger and stronger than us.
The Acadians were absolutely given the chance to swear allegiance, and did. The oath was not a one-time thing. Acadians had provided the oath for decades and along with the oath had developed an understanding and acceptance of neutrality. I was only in the 1750s that the British started to mistrust the Acadians, after more than a decade of the French (Quebec and France) meddling in the region. In 1755, at the opening on a new conflict between France and Britain - the Seven Years War, the Acadians were asked twice to provide an unqualified oath, one that would strip away any pretext of neutrality. The Acadian Deputies, who represented the Acadian people, refused. Only when they finally understood the British were not bluffing, did the Deputies offer an unqualified oath. It was too late as the trust was lost and the British felt any oath would have been meaningless.
The Acadians were certainly not "...hunted by the British up until the creation of modern-day Canada...".
@@EdinburghFive Say whatever you want, british are the land stealers here.
@@iryssiaOof Well not really. Most of the Acadians were tenant farmers on seigneurial lands. The British Government bought these lands from the French Seigneurs, thus becoming the Acadians landlords. So, no stealing. Also, France had ceded Acadia to the British in 1713, and in the process made the Acadians British subjects.
The Acadians as French settlers could in the modern misinformed sensibility be considered 'stealers'. They took Mi'kmaq lands without asking. This caused the Mi'kmaq to largely abandon their lands near the areas of primary Acadian settlements.
@@EdinburghFive atleast acadians had good relationships with the first nations and british didnt
@@iryssiaOof It was not quite as rosy as some people make out the relationship between the Acadians and the Mi'kmaq to have been. If it was so rosy, why did the Mi'kmaq abandon the areas near the main Acadian settlements?
The Mi'kmaq had a stronger relationship with the French colonial governments at Louisbourg and Quebec City, as well as with the Catholic priests sent by the French. The Mi'kmaq had become overly dependant on the French, needing the food supplies, guns, etc. There are records where the Acadians express their fear of the Mi'kmaq due to threats made against them on occasion to help bend them to what the Mi'kmaq's French overlords (priests and Colonial administrators) wanted.
When the British were offering better trade deals with the Mi'kmaq, the French became concerned and they in turn had to increase what they offered in trade and gifts.
The British, like the French, had their Indigenous allies. It is a fallacy that the British were always the enemy of the Indigenous people.
great very educational
Why do they show Mounties? Did they even exist at that time, in that area?
This is well done.
Just one little point: just as it is no longer considered okay (at least for non-First Nations people) to use the term "Indian" for those who are First Nations, we also no longer use the incorrect "micmac" pronunciation for the Mi’kmaq people, it is pronounced "migmaq".
Otherwise, good job with most of the pronunciation.
j. D. Some of the Indigenous have no issue with the term 'Indian'. I have worked with various groups from time to time and noted different terms of reference were used. I have asked as well and have been told Indian was OK. Of course I think care should be taken and the appropriate reference used. The preference I suspect would be to use the actual tribal name in many cases. When writing or speaking about the people of a large region or perhaps the country or continent 'Indigenous' is likely a bit more appropriate. As they say 'its complicated'.
Pretty good job overall. There are a few errors. At the 18sec mark the comment about "...the British urged them to leave..." was in fact not the case. Having the Acadians there was a benefit economically to the colony. Some Acadian actually did leave for Cape Breton but soon returned. At about the 42 sec mark the comment " ...the Acadians were allowed to practice Catholicism as long as they signed and oath..." is in error. The oath had nothing to do with the practice of religion. The practice of Catholicism was protected under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. The compromise made around 1730 had to do with neutrality. They would take the oath but there was an understanding that the Acadians would remain neutral in any French-British conflict. At the 1:07 sec mark the comment "... Britain ordered the expulsion of the Acadians..." is in error. The British government under the Board of Trade which administered the colonies in fact counseled against deporting the Acadian. The colonial government, under Lawrence, in league with the Massachusetts colonial government initiated the expulsions. At the 1:20 sec mark ".. families were separated..." is in error. It is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a family. In the sense of father, mother and dependent children there was no plan or execution of separating family. In the sense of extended families - grandparents, parents and grown children and there spouse and children separation occurred but it was not an intentional plan. At the 1:48 mark "...Catholics and Protestants did not get along..." was not an issue leading to the expulsion. A closer look at British society at this time reveals a fair level of tolerance. There were still a number of British nobles who remained Catholic and old laws that were punitive against Catholics were being removed or ignored. The expulsion was a strategic reaction that had to do with the clash of empires and the advent of war. At the 2:30 mark it should also be noted the Mi'kmaq were not just fighting to protect themselves but were allies with the French and were thus employed, in this period of war to attack the British and German settlers. Although the Mi'kmaq did attack and kill settlers they did not "...take a thousand...".
Tu vis dans le déni mon Denis
@@jean-philippeblouin2026 - How so my friend? There is a lot of myth built up around the Acadians. A Longfellowish idea about the Acadians still exists but this mostly resides with an older generation now. Most interested younger people seek out the real story, and then of course there's the majority who just do not know the story much at all.
@@EdinburghFive Your comment at the 1: 20 mark show that your in huge denial. You're trying to say that families were not separated, maybe some but it was not the intentionnel plan !
Hope you can understand french
ua-cam.com/video/RlX2ghDKEqA/v-deo.html
@@jean-philippeblouin2026 The fellow in the video is no expert on the Acadian deportations.
@@EdinburghFive Not him personnally, but it's a reading of the Journal of Colonel John Winslow who was there in person. Denial again !
yo can someone help me write a paper on this?
most Acadians settled south of the Lafayette area in Louisiana. not new Orleans
you missed a lot in this vid. a lot ,new Brunswick, pei the miq makq nation in it's full extent ,the crossbreeding and our open trading policy and it would be nice to mention the present day remnants of the great miq kmaq nation
Do you mean Mi'kmaq. I would avoid using words such as "cross breeding". Very derogatory in nature.
stfu
@@EdinburghFive
1.Yes i misspelled
2. Thats literally what it is you shouldn't sugar coat it the acadians i know dont sugarcoat anything so i dont think they really care, they dont need you to defend them
Hey@@acadiant2756 - So do they need you to defend them?
Your initial statement is a bit inane as the video is only four minutes long. There is only so much you can say in four minutes.
You speak of the remnants of the Mi'kmaq. How are the Mi'kmaq "remnants"? This seems to be a bit dismissive of a people who today number more than they did hundreds of years ago. Mi'kmaq people and culture are alive well, hardly a remnant.
As for open trading policy, what do you actually mean? The Acadians and Mi'kmaq were really no different than the French and English in that they were all trading with each other. Of course there was rivalry between the French and English to capture a greater portion of the trade.
@@EdinburghFive hey your right ill give you that, and seem more knowledgeable than me about the topic, the fact you called it derogatory kind of pissed me off but hey i rather be corrected by someone who seems to know what the hell their talking about than someone who doesnt.
RCMP were not formed until much later, you have one photo with RCMP taking children. This is misleading and should be corrected.
More than 18.000 Acadians (from Acadia, Ile St-Jean / Prince E. Island, and Cap-Breton) were forced to leave. 8.000 died of the poor conditions of the deportation and only 3.000 went back to Acadia, most to New-Brunswick instead of the first Acadia (Nova Scotia). Acadians were allowed to keep their practice of Catholicism but were excluded of public functions.
Your numbers are a little high but by any account the deportation was horrendous for the Acadians.
@@EdinburghFive after scrolling the comments, you seem to have quite the extensive knowledge of the subject. As a descendant of the LeGros family would you happen to have any information on them?
Hi@@kylemotty5951 - I'll take a look at my records. LeGros is not a name that jumps out as an early Acadian last name. The list of last names is fairly small. It is not to say you are not of Acadian heritage though as the LeGros could either be a change of the original Acadian name or someone who married into the Acadian community post Expulsion period. The Acadians often had nicknames as there were too many people with the same names so it was a way to distinguish who was who. Sometimes the nickname became the last name. This of course is a genealogist nightmare. One group of modern-day Acadian last names comes from immigrants in the late eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century from the Channel Islands. These French-speaking British subjects went to Nova Scotia with the assistance of several fishing merchants. They settled in the Acadian areas and then overtime married into the Acadian community
@@EdinburghFive Thanks for the time and response!
thanks u save me for my test
None settled in New Orleans,but farther south and west
im a acadien
this is sooo helpful
2:19
who else is watching this because of online learning
interesting
If ur in ecws Im Nganji sup
DeltaRune
Ok?
DeltaRune