The Québécois and the Amérindiens in the Debate on Canadian Identity

REGNA DARNELL University of Western Ontario

Before beginning my comparison between the nationalist aspirations of the First Nations1 and those of Québec, I would like to explain why I have chosen this subject. For a number of years now, I have been thinking about the question of Canadian identity. I have proposed that social cohe­ sion constitutes itself as an equilibrium within a complex social and cul­ tural field. The nation-state of Canada results from an intersection of perspectives (ethnie, class, regional, etc.) of great richness. A fundamen­ tal ambiguity is inherent in this arrangement. Canada itself may be seen as a point of view, in which Canadian society is characterized by its built-in "institutional ambivalence" (Tuohy 1992). In Canada, it is always possi­ ble to change one's position. As the children's riddle puts it: "Why was the Canadian chicken crossing the road?" "Because he wanted to reach the middle." The centre of the road is the position from which one can observe all other positions. One suspects, however, that the chicken in question was anglophone - Québec holds a different position, one less open to compromise. Accord­ ing to Margaret Atwood (1972), Canada displays a fortress mentality, an attitude in which survival is perennially in question. This anglophone paranoïa attaches itself to the state of nature (l'état sauvage) as weil as to Americans. The national nightmare of powerlessness, nonetheless, is as weil known to the Québécois as to the Amérindiens. Dameli (2000) argues that the elusive character of Canadian identity is situated in the recurrent structures of changing binaries. To be Canadian is to embrace an ideal of social cohesion based in the diverse but overlap­ ping forms of identity of restricted groups, local and intersecting. I have also proposed that the First Nations hold a unique role within this vision of Canada. With John Ralston Saul (1997), I defend the idea of a third founding nation. There are the British and the French, to be sure, but there

1. 1 take it that the First Nations of Québec wh ose position 1 emphasize here are largely Algonquian and therefore the more general debate is of relevance to an Algonquianist audience. There is nothing comparable in the American discourse because "nation" does not function in the United States as an alternative to nation-state.

Papers ofthe 33rd Algonquian Conference, ed. H.C. Wo1fart (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2002), pp. 181-194. 182 REGNA DARNELL are also the firstinhabitant s of the land, who were in possession of it when Europeans arrived. The aboriginal status of the First Nations estab­ lishes uncontestable claims precisely because they are different in kind from those of any immigrant group. What is the anthropologist to make of such a situation? The majority of my Canadian colleagues appear to have concluded that research in col­ laboration with or on behalf of communities is the social function of anthropology that justifies its continued existence (Labreque 2000:152). Research outside the universities is perceived as producing most of our knowledge of the autochthonous population (Gelinas 2000:189). The issue is ethical as well as substantive. For me, it is crucial to realize that citizens in diverse Canadian com­ munities are aware of the diversity of their circumstances. The traditional methods of anthropology (for example, participant-observation fieldwork and oral history) apply well to the study of conscious constructions of national identity from a variety of standpoints. The anthropologist, simul­ taneously intimate and stranger, can shift her/his point of view and express both strengths and discontents across communities. Anthropolo­ gists are not afraid of unfamiliar customs or modes of thought. One can learn to reject a definition of community as an overarching homogeneity. Prior to enjoining a critique of Canadian society, it is necessary to estab­ lish bridges among the nations and communities that constitute Canada and the intellectuals (on multiple sides of the road) who most often for­ mulate the critique. I feel some confidence in speaking about the role of the First Nations, in practice mainly Algonquians, within this discourse on the basis of more than three decades of research and personal experience, par­ tially among them. I also have some first-hand and personal contacts with various ethnic communities in Western Canada. But my experience on the subject of Quebec has been limited to professional encounters with urban intellectuals in the relatively neutral space of conference hall or university lecture theatre. Before the summer of 2001, I had never visited (as opposed to passed through on the way to somewhere else) rural Quebec, the centre of traditional Quebecois culture. Like First Nations communi­ ties, Quebec is a hard place to visit unless one has a reason to be there.2 Almost all theorists of such matters pose the problem of Canadian identity in terms of multiple alliances and lines of identity but acknowl­ edge Quebec as an exception to models of potential social cohesion. For THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 183 example, Will Kymlicka (1998) thinks that the federalist position can be stretched to incorporate the discontents of the First Nations and of immi­ grants. But for the Quebecois, it is the very existence of the Canadian state that fires their discontent. Charles Taylor (1993) tries to explain to Canadians outside of Quebec the urgency of seeking energetic and cre­ ative solutions. He worries that English Canadians are unwilling to accept different rules for Quebec and the rest of Canada. Their idea of equality is too narrow and rigid. It is here that a new public discourse must be forged. One must learn to imagine community in new forms (Anderson 1983). Whether or not Quebec remains within Canadian confederation, that confederation requires reconstruction. Theoretically, the similarities between the First Nations and the Quebecois could lead to a rapprochement, a reworking of collective conscience in relation to the anglophone majority. In practice, however, there is a profound failure of communication. We must now make a detour to trace the role of the First Nations peoples of Quebec in the history of the province before juxtaposing their contemporary aspirations to those of the Quebecois.

THE FIRST NATIONS IN QUEBEC Aboriginal peoples are virtually ignored by most Canadian histories, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada. There are 11 autochthonous nations in 54 communities in Quebec (Lambert 1993), each with its own culture, language and history. Hamelin and Provencher discuss the First Nations question briefly in relation to the fur trade; they assert without evidence that "la colonisation se solderapar I'effacement de la civilisa­ tion amerindienne" (1981:10). The original peoples are presented solely as an obstacle to the autonomy of Quebec. Because they are subsumed under federal jurisdiction, they affirm their right to separate from Quebec on the same grounds that Quebec asserts its right to separate from Can­ ada. The official history of Trois-Pistoles mentions the Basques and the First Nations in passing, without linking either group to the genealogy of

2. This paper was written during a summer of fieldwork and language study in Trois Pistoles, Quebec. I would like to thank Raymond Beaudry for the wonderful debates of his course in Quebec civilization and Rino Belanger for the opportunity to work at the Societe Historique et Genealogique de Trois Pistoles. 184 REGNA DARNELL

the contemporary community. "Les amerindiens sont toujours desperson- nages dissocies... On attribuait encore une valeur plutot negative a ce type de parente symbolique" (Rioux et al. 1997:42). Sedentary civilization cannot be reconciled with nomadism. Even the French heritage is deemed to have begun with settled farming rather than with the voyageurs. According to Bernard Arcand and Serge Bouchard, "les vrais chas­ seurs" become unintelligible at the moment when their way of life becomes sedentary. These are people who do not transport their trash, and when a site becomes too cluttered (nialpropre) it suffices them to move, whereas sedentary peoples establish themselves in a place expecting to live permanently within a well-defined space (1995:201). Civilization was defined by the colonizers - the French and the English - as was the accumulation of property, a state of affairs impossible for nomads; the seemingly inevitable correlates of settlement were subsistence based on agriculture and the Catholic religion. These stereotypes remain powerful today. The ideas of self-determination and sovereignty seem incompatible with the history as told by the sedentary winners. There is room for optimism, however, even if cynicism more often seems appropriate. Politicians are aware of the perception that Quebec is chauvinistic. In Quebec, First Nations support, both moral and electoral, seems essential to obtaining a mandate for sovereignty. Nonetheless, there are rapprochements: Eric Ouellet (2000:40) recognizes a weakness (faiblesse) in the the­ sis of only two founding peoples. Such a perspective totally excludes the First Nations. To refer to the two founding peoples, the English and the French, is "deplorable." According to the permanent exhibit of the Quebec Museum of Civilization (Hydro-Quebec 2001): "Les Quebecois, qui revendiquons la notre, sommes bien mal places pour la refuser a d'autres I'autonomic politique." Because of the idealism of Quebecois nationalism, consistency in extending the same vision of autonomy to others remains a nagging worry about the legitimacy of Quebec excep- tionalism. It is almost impossible not to recognize a unique status for the aboriginal peoples within Quebec, especially because the First Nations are not limited to the regional structures implicit in the division of govern­ mental powers between Canada and the provinces. Bourque and Duchas- tel (2001) argue that Quebec aspirations require creating an adequate THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 185 form of representation among the three constituent nations of the Cana­ dian union. Official documents also recognize the extraordinary status of the First Nations, however difficult this may be to reconcile with separatist agendas. In 1985, the Quebec National Assembly recognized the rights of the First Nations to an autonomy within Quebec, to their culture, language and traditions, to possession and control of their territories, and to hunt, fish and gather for resources to be used within their families, and to par­ ticipate in and benefit from the economic development of Quebec (Lam­ bert 1991:1). In practice, the statement reiterates platitudes but in principle the same rights accrue to the First Nations as to the Quebecois. The report of the Constitutional Committee of the Quebec Liberal Party devoted only a single paragraph to the First Nations (quoted in Belanger & Campeau 1991:36). This statement recognized "les nations distinctes" and congratulated itself on the success of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975. The report of the Belanger-Cam- peau Commission on the political and constitutional future of Quebec contains a somewhat longer paragraph (1991:75). The question of the First Nations is "tout autre," with different rights than those Quebec claims for itself. Nonetheless, the report conceded that changes in the direction of governmental autonomy were overdue and that these changes must take place in consultation with the appropriate First Nations. In 1994, a coalition of popular organizations produced a manifesto "pour un Quebec democratique et solidaire" (D'Amours 1994:8-9). The changes which occurred between the original text and the amendments take a position more strongly in favour of First Nations rights. The rules should not depend on demographic numbers but on recognition of aborig­ inal status as such, whether within Quebec or Canada. Quebec culture "doit etre basee sur les rapports justes et equitables avec les nations autochtones et avec les autres peuples de la terre" (1994:4). The plan of the Parti Quebecois tabled in the National Assembly of Quebec (Parizeau 1994), in contrast, fails to mention the First Nations. The party's Declaration of Sovereignty, however, recognizes aboriginal rights, albeit in a rather paternalistic tone. A basic ambivalence pervades these documents. It seems to me that there are numerous difficulties with these posi­ tions. Let us turn now to similarities between the First Nations and Quebec as aspiring nations. I hope that this exercise can improve the rela- 186 REGNA DARNELL tions between these two cultural communities by exposing commonalities that are usually ignored.

THE COMMON DISCOURSE I propose to examine in the same manner the logic and rhetoric of identity and sovereignty employed by these two communities. My primary text for the Quebec position is "un recueil epistolaire" from 30 Quebec writers (Loiselle 1995, hereafter referred to simply by page), following the exam­ ple of Gilles Vigneault in La Presse, exhorting readers to vote "oui" for Quebec independence in the 1995 referendum. A similar hortatory func­ tion manifests itself in the logic and rhetoric of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Erasmus et al. 1996). I have described the Royal Commission as a peculiarly Canadian form of reflexive politics (Darnell 2000). Interestingly, the rhetoric and logic of the anglophone community appropriates the standard of objectivity, whereas the Quebecois and the First Nations both foreground sensibilities, emotions and personal experi­ ences as the primary vehicles of political persuasion. The inevitable result is a failure of communication between Anglo and each of these others, between nation-state and constituent nations within it. There is, however, a common cause between these two communities which are majorities in their own nation but minorities within a larger political entity. At stake in this reading of the shared discourse is the viability of the idea that Canada has three founding nations; by extension, therefore, Quebec has more in common with the First Nations than with anglophone Canada. Most of the 30 Quebec writers addressed themselves to a personal­ ized audience. Twenty-one chose to use the familiar form of address, three more addressed themselves to an intimate but plural audience. Nine wrote to family members, six to close friends, and one to herself (Fran- cine Allard (p. 16): "lettre a moi-meme, bourgeoise et ramollie"), five to "heroes of the resistance," and fivet o Quebec citizens of "ethnic" descent (other than French). First Nations rhetoric also employs a strategy of addressing oneself to a particular person and allowing others to apply the dialogue to their own circumstances and experiences. Because these letters have a persuasive goal, expression of resent­ ments is minimal. Paul Chamberland (p. 79) urges "les anglais" not to vote against French Canada and recognizes their unique anglophone THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 187 rights within Quebec. Sylvie Chaput emphasizes that the resistance to sovereignty centres in Montreal where, ironically, there is already sub­ stantial experience of coexistence. She worries about the risk of new and unnecessary fragmentation (pp. 86-87). Louise Desjardins (p. 93) finds herself unable to discuss questions of Quebec separation with a friend from Montreal because the referendum issue placed her friend in an unsurmountable position of "other." The rest of Canada has become the enemy, because the English refuse to comprehend Quebec aspirations. She laments the use of such inflammatory terms as "distinct" which have become so important to Quebec. There are also difficulties with ethnic Canadians. Multiculturalism is perceived as a threat to Quebecois identity as a founding nation. Elaine Audet identifies a convergence around the shared spirit of resistance to tyranny with an Iranian friend,wh o should therefore embrace the separat­ ist cause. She argues (p. 27) that multiculturalism isolates each group within "un ghetto nostalgique." Ethnic Canadians must join "avec nous" in "un projet de societe" created around common resistance to oppression and isolation. Contradictory passions produce an insupportable tension between democratic respect for the federalist position and an irrepressible senti­ ment of feeling one's identity denied (Helene Pelletier-Baillargeon, p. 149). She invited ethnic Canadians "a devenir quebecoise" as though the Quebecois state of mind could be acquired by someone born else­ where and nurtured within an independent Quebec. An underlying emphasis on blood ties to a nation is glossed over here, as it often is in First Nations discourses. Claire De feels it is almost inconceivable that people she meets every day in the supermarket could stand in the way of letting her dream come true. For her, there is only one possible dream, that of a sovereign Quebec. The rhetoric of Pierre Falardeau is stronger; its heroes are the Quebecois (p. 103): Nous n 'avons que nos reves, notre volonte, notre determination. lis out la television, la radio, les journaux. Nous n 'avons que nos bras, nosjambes et nos cerveaux. lis ont la loi, le nombre, lepoids de ce qui a ete et de ce qui est. Nous n 'avons que Vimagination, le courage, I 'espoir. The sides are thoroughly polarized. For the First Nations, there is no possibility of avoiding a common cause with the others, the French and/or English. But they share the same 188 REGNA DARNELL stake, which is to not identity themselves with the different ethnic groups of Canada. They are the firstinhabitant s of the continent. The Quebec writers believe that they have a unique and collective intellectual responsibility, not only as individuals but on philosophical grounds because of their training (Marc Chabot, p. 74). Madeleine Gag- non insists that all writers must take a stand because they understand the (performative) power of the word "oui" (p. 113). Quebecois intellectuals are conscious of their clear responsibility to invent and sustain liberty (Charles Beausoleil, p. 48). The individual and society cannot be sepa­ rated in this argument. Indeed, a status of dependency is no more enviable for society than for an individual (Marie-Andree Beaudet, p. 38). Louise Desjardins (p. 94) goes so far as to suggest that Quebecois society exists as an individual, just as we ourselves, "toi et moi," are individuals. Pierre Farlardeau (p. 103) insists that the death of peoples is equivalent to the death of a person. And Louis Hamelin (p. 131) situates "la question cana- dienne " as "une affaire personelle bien plus qu 'un cas de conscience col- lectif" Quebec society has finally come of age; the use of the life cycle analogy encourages identification of the nation as the citizen writ larger. The First Nations also have their intellectuals who speak about soci­ ety as engaging a collective consciousness. But ordinary people do not often question the social collectivity. The nation exists and the individual exists in relation to it. Both for the Quebecois and for the First Nations, laws applying to individuals are insufficient to ensure collective identity. Social laws are also necessary. For both the First Nations and the Quebe­ cois, each individual is personally responsible for the whole (Pierre Falardeau, p. 104). Each person has a responsibility to do her or his part "dans devolution du destin de son peuple" (Andree Ferretti, p. 107). For the First Nations also, the community has a stake in individual actions. The Quebecois insist that the nationalist cause has universalist dimensions. Quebecois literature has its own place within local history but also its own claim to universality (Bruno Roy, p. 9). In the history of Quebec, the quest for individual liberty has been persistent (Charles Beausoleil, p. 44); Paul Chamberland says that the domain of law consti­ tutes a heritage of western values which are also universal (p. 82); and Andree Ferretti celebrates the rise of the universal incarnated in the spe­ cific (p. 109). The First Nations, of course, have good reasons to distrust this west­ ern heritage extolled since the French Enlightenment. They do not share THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 189 in this obsession with things French. They certainly value the specific at the root of the general, however. For the Amerindiens and the Quebecois alike, sovereignty poses a crisis of conscience. A history of domination has made them doubt them­ selves; history employs "tous les mensonges pour nous faire doubter de nous-mimes" (Gilles Vigneault, p. 14). Francine Allard acknowledges her temerity in being jealous of a woman of action because she herself is par­ alyzed by inaction and uncertainty (p. 17). Marie-Andree Beaudet (p. 37) identifies her own chronic hesitations. Pierre Falardeau laments that the worst enemy of the Quebecois is "nous-memes.... Notre sens congenital de la culpabilite. Notre manque de confiance" (p. 104). And Yolanda Villemaire identifies a manic depressive atavistic streak within the Quebecois character. To decouple such complexes of doubt and uncer­ tainty is also a First Nations problem. A history of oppression weighs heavily on both of these communities. But there is a more optimistic side. In voting "oui" in the referen­ dum, one finally can bring about the dream of sovereignty (Francine Allard, p. 17). For Francois Barcelo, the dream has already lasted a long time; for forty years he has longed to see Quebec separate from Canada (p. 32). The dream is an idea. But dreams of sovereignty, like all dreams, are "difficiles, volatiles etfragiles" (Pierre Gravelin, p. 127). The importance of dreams for the First Nations is well known. They constitute the spiritual centre of the individual and collective dreams must be based in the sum of those of the individual dreamer. Both of these communities, nations within the larger nation, place a profound value on the wisdom of the heart. For the Quebec writers, "le refus de te laisser toucher au coeur" must change (Francine Allard, p. 1). For Raoul Duguay (p.97), one must think with one's heart and feel with one's head." Louise Arbique ignores the economic consequences of sov­ ereignty in order to interrogate her own heart rather than her pocket-book (p. 20). One must accept that independence, like solitude and liberty, can not be achieved by reason alone; these things simply exist (Madeleine Gagnon, p. 113). For the First Nations, it is impossible to think without involving the heart. The Quebecois debate makes perfect sense. The debate in 1995 includes culture, language and territorial bound­ aries (Bruno Roy, p. 11). There is a project of the nation or country, "le pays" (Gilles Vigneault, p. 13). There has been much injustice. Rejean 190 REGNA DARNELL

Bonenfant and Madeleine Gagnon wish to establish a genuine "rapport" with the rest of the world (p. 16,115). Sylvie Chaput misses the feeling that she can live her life entirely "en francais" (p. 85). Louise Arbique wants to reclaim the great department stores so that they will offer their services in French (p. 19). Louise Desjardins particularly regrets having to show a Canadian passport because she considers herself Quebecoise (p. 95). Raoul Duguay notes that the marriage between Canada and Quebec has been forced (p. 98), producing a state of resistance that has been going on for a long time, at least since 1760 (Andree Ferretti, p. 109). Only "humiliation" (Rejean Bonenfant, p. 60) can result from a country (pays) founded on the exclusion of one nation {nation) by the other (Paul Chamberlain, p. 82). Much of the sense of accumulated injus­ tice applies also to the First Nations. It is impossible for either group to escape from this history. Sovereignty is not only a system of government; it is also a value, a will, "un etat d'esprit" (Pierre Vadeboncoeur, p. 156). This idea rests on two principles, the cultural and the linguistic. Paul Chamberland (p. 78) believes that the French nation has implanted in North America "une autochtonie francaise." That is, the French believe that they have become the original peoples of Quebec, a claim hardly consistent with that of aboriginality. "Le Quebec de notre desir est une affaire de culture" tinged with a tragic consciousness, according to Marcel Garneau (p. 117). The relationship of a community to its territory produces a cultural attachment which serves to defend its values (cultural patrimony) and transmit these valued traditions, "les biens," as the heritage of the ancestors (Raoul Dug­ uay, p. 99). The greatest similarity between the First Nations and the Quebecois may well be their shared confidence in oral tradition. Louise Arbique (p.21) uses the refrain "vous m 'avez raconte..." five times to characterize her relationship to the generation of her parents. Personalized oral history provides a port of entry to the history of Quebec. A positive vote in the referendum seems to her to guarantee that this history will continue so that she can pass it on to her children and grandchildren (p.23). Society must find ways to link the generations. Rejean Bonenfant continues his struggle for the sake of his two children (p. 61); Denise Boucher is dis­ turbed that her younger sister might not have the heritage which has been hers (p. 65); Pierre Falardeau writes for the sake of his three-month old son (p. 103). For the new generation, the choice is simple. For the eigh- THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 191 teen-year-old sister of Marie-Andree Beaudet (p. 36), the collective ago­ nies of the struggle for separation will remain a mystery, never to be experienced first-hand. For the First Nations, oral tradition is also indissolubly linked to the well-being of society. Again, there is an idea, expressed well by Rejean Bonenfant (p. 55): "Nous habitons un lieu ... qui n'existe que par tradi­ tion." The tradition that creates place is an oral tradition, for both First Nations and Quebecois. On such placement is the idea of nation created. All of this preservation of tradition depends on language. Francine Allard employs a rhetoric of reconquest. To reconquer the French lan­ guage will then facilitate recovering pride, confidence, memory and voice - in short, un pays (pp. 17-19). Each stage of this reclamation mobilizes the next. Raoul Duguay articulates a space between language and thought (p. 100): C "est pour defendre ma langue maternelle, celle quej'aime et qui me fait vibrer, que je suis souverainiste. Cette langue cherie et entre toutes si subtile, qui me permet d'exprimer I'essence de mon exist­ ence, I'intensite de mes emotions, la logique de mapensee et I'ineffa­ ble de mes reves. La langue frangaise est la patrie de mon art, de ma science et de ma conscience. The First Nations well know the price of losing their maternal lan­ guages. To learn a language again is difficult, perhaps impossible. The Quebecois have reason to defend the French language with such passion, to create a country so that they might continue to speak it. There are many additional questions that could be discussed to com­ pare the First Nations and the Quebecois, for example, the need of a peo­ ple, a nation, to maintain a demographic strength which is precarious in the minority position for each community. Many of these uncertainties result from similar historical circumstances and contemporary struggles, even though the scale and relations of power are different. Repeatedly, the First Nations are to Quebec as Quebec is to Canada. Just days before the 1995 referendum, the resource-rich First Nations communities of Northern Quebec voted 96% to separate from Quebec if Quebec separated from Canada. The surface argument was federal responsibility for "Indian" affairs under the Canadian Constitution, giving Quebec no right to claim sovereignty over First Nations who happened to live within its provincial boundaries. More deeply, the First Nations claimed for themselves the same righta s the Quebecois to riseu p and end 192 REGNA DARNELL

their oppression by constituting themselves a nation outside Quebec. First Nations can be a majority only on their own reserves, making local sover­ eignty the locus of nationalist aspirations. The two communities could not be satisfied by the same nation-ness because First Nations leaders fear a Quebec separatist nation would squelch their own aspirations as incom­ patible with its own. (Anglophone Canada is much more likely to nurture a degree of First Nations self-determination, cultural if not political, based on the noblesse oblige of the majority.) Although both communities define their nation-ness in terms of cul­ tural and linguistic distinctiveness, there is a deep asymmetry in mutual awareness of cultural integrity. Quebecois nationalists are wont to speak of "Quebec civilization" but not to attribute civilization to aboriginal citi­ zens of Quebec (or indeed to the anglophone majority in Canada outside Quebec). Civilization, in Quebec, is the exclusive property of the nation. Co-option of Quebec's "distinct society" rhetoric by the First Nations was unsuccessful in increasing sympathy for aspirations to self-determination, within Quebec or otherwise. Common causes do not seem to enter into the lack of mutual recog­ nition, although many can be enumerated: Language is a fraught issue for both communities. Aboriginal peo­ ples in Quebec, like their counterparts elsewhere in Canada, were sub­ jected to intense assimilative pressure over several generations of residential school experience. Language loss has been a key rhetorical strategy for healing from residential school abuse. Quebecois have shared the need to escape church domination (with its legacy of orphanages and residential schools). Changing demographics threaten the cultural distinctiveness of both communities. Quebec rural depopulation in favour of urban educational and employment opportunities parallels the movement of aboriginal peo­ ple off-reserve (over half for Canada as a whole). For emigres from the home place, Native or Quebecois, culture becomes nostalgia; folkloriza- tion and tourism portray the "real" Quebecois or Native person as "tradi­ tional." A nation based on contemporary identity remains problematic because differences from the mainstream are less visible.

3. Quebecois, moreover, reject the term "traditional" as associated with the static church-dominated society prior to the revolution tranquille in the 1960s. "Modernization" is the route to Quebecois nationalist aspirations. THE QUEBECOIS AND THE AMERINDIENS 193

Both nations define themselves in terms of "blood" as well as cul­ ture. Despite the insistence of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peo­ ples that aboriginal identity be defined on cultural and community rather than biological grounds, distrust of non-Native persons persists among First Nations. This distrust sits uneasily alongside membership based on custom-adoption, usually through marriage. Exceptions are negotiated through known persons. Quebec nationalism has emphasized bloodline descent with different consequences. Separatist elder statesman Marcel Rioux, for example, restricts his discussion of "Quebecois" identity to francophones in Quebec. It is impossible to become Quebecois, a profound failure of inclusiveness in full citizenship given the 15% anglophone, ethnic and aboriginal population of Quebec. Unhappily, however, common causes have not produced a rap­ prochement between the First Nations and Quebec. Quebecois stakes are higher because they hold power to destabilize the Canadian state through realizing their goals. The First Nations, from time to time, have emulated the Quebecois political example. But, at least in the short term, they have lacked the political power to attain their nationalist objectives. The Amerindien and Quebecois nation-within-a-nation rhetoric and logic provide enormous obstacles to the possibility of social cohesion based on consensus within the Canadian nation-state. Yet I do not think it is necessary to retreat to an inevitable conflict model. For Canada to work, the majority must voluntarily take on the standpoint of those "nations" within the national polity that deny the authority of a nation- state identified with the majority. Complex pluralism must be based on a relativism that values the integrity of its diversity. There are some fundamental values shared by all small and relatively isolated communities. Reliance on face-to-face interaction of mostly known persons, on kinship, genealogy and local connectedness, and on oral tradition (regardless of the degree of literacy and the uses to which it is directed) are certainly characteristic of the Algonquian communities where I have done most of my work. This is what has enabled me to rec­ ognize how Quebecois claims to founding status are based in similar tra­ ditionalism resulting in the formation of a nation.

REFERENCES Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined communities. New York: Verso. 194 REGNA DARNELL

Arcand, Bernard, and Serge Bouchard. 1995. Du pate chinois, du baseball et autres lieux communs. Quebec: Boreal. Atwood, Margaret. 1972. Survival: A thematic guide to Canadian literature. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart. Belanger, Michel, and Jean Campeau. 1991. Rapport de la Commission sur I"avenir poli­ tique et constitutionnel du Quebec. Quebec. Bourque, Gilles, and Jules Duchastel. 2001. L'union confederal n'est pas une reforme du federalisme. Le Devoir, 29 May 2001. D'Amours, Martine, ed. 1984. Pour un Quebec democratique et solidaire. Project de Charte d'un Quebec populaire. Quebec: Solidarites Populaires Quebec. Darnell, Regna. 2000. Canadian anthropologists, the First Nations and Canada's self- image at the millennium. Anthropologica 42:165-174. Erasmus, Georges, et al. 1996. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Canadian Communication Group. Gelinas, Claude. 2000. Anthropologic quebecoise, etudes amerindiennes, et la revue 'Recherches Amerindiens au Quebec' Anthropologica 42:199-203. Hamelin, Jean, and Jean Provencher. 1981/1997. Breve histoire de Quebec. Quebec: Boreal. Hydro-Quebec. 2001 Nous, les Premieres Nations. Exposition permanente. Quebec: Musee de la civilisation. Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Labrecque, Marie France. 2000. D'une certaine anthropologic et de quelques anthropo- logues. Anthropologica 42:147-156. Lambert, Christian. 1993. Nos ancetres les amerindiens. Le Devoir, 26 March 1993. Loiselle, Louise, ed. 1995. Trente lettres pour un 'Oui.' Quebec: Les editions intemation- ales Alain Stanke. Ouellet, Eric. 2000. Reflexions personnelle sur le Quebec politique d'aujourdhui. Cacouma, Quebec: La petite maison bleue. Parizeau, Jacques. 1994. Avant-Projet de loi sur la souverainete du Quebec. Quebec: Edi- teur officiel du Quebec. —. 1995. Declaration de souverainete du Quebec. Le Devoir, 7 September 1995. Rioux, Emmanuel, ed. 1997. Histoire de Trois Pistoles, 1697-1997. Trois Pistoles: Centre d'edition des Basques. Saul, John Ralston. 1997. Reflections of a Siamese twin: Canada at the end of the twenti­ eth century. Toronto: Viking. Taylor, Charles. 1993. Reconciling the solitudes: Essays on Canadian federalism and nationalism. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Tuohy, Caroline. 1992. Policy and politics in Canada: Institutionalized ambivalence. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.