The Acadian Question

Année
1900
Mois
9
Jour
8
Titre de l'article
The Acadian Question
Auteur
----
Page(s)
4
Type d'article
Langue
Contenu de l'article
THE ACADIAN QUESTION. Our editorial on the “Reviviscence of Acadia” in our issue of August 25 has excited criticism on the part of two of our respected Acadian contemporaries. In either case, we take it, the criticism does not come from the editorial pen, but is contributed doubtless by some one of the clever man who are managing this Acadian business. Perhaps it is because of an absent minded habit of ours, which makes us look at things in the abstract, that we were struck on reading the articles more by the difference of standpoint from which the writers regarded our editorial than by any personal issue that it might be to ourselves. The writer in the Moniteur Acadien has evidently the most comprehensive grasp of the subject. He does not question our good will, nor does he misrepresent our attitude towards the Acadians, nor dispute with us when we claim that the new race of Acadians is more militant and aggressive in character than their forbears of the last century. He does indeed, misunderstand us when he says that we are endeavoring to do for Irish Catholics what we condemn in the Acadian leaders. We are not advocating for the Irish Catholics what we condemn in the Acadian leaders. We are not advocating for the Irish Catholics a return to their Celtic language and modes of thought. We know that such a thing would be impossible, and that, moreover it would be reactionary and calamitous. We recognize the fact that, in all that makes for a stable, virile and progressive people, the Anglo-Saxon civilisation is immeasurably superior to the Celtic, whether it be the Celtic of Ireland, France, or Spain. It is because we consider that our Acadian friends are making a great national mistake (national is hardly the word, but let it pass) in advocating a renaissance of French speech and modes of thought, in leading their people aside and keeping them a people apart, in introducing the spirit of a foreign nationality when there should be but one spirit of Canadian nationality, that we raise our voice in protest. The sooner the various races that compose the population of Canada are amalgamated and assimilated into one united people the better for the true progress of our common country. The initiation of a French propaganda with its central bureau in France and its emissaries coming to this country or writing perfervent appeals to the inhabitants of this country to keep alive a spirit distinctly hostile to the genius of the country is therefore decidedly a crime from the standpoint of the true Canadian. We take hope, however, from the thought that much of this agitation is political, and that the Acadian leaders would be more than human if they did not make us of the mine of political opportunity which a little adroitly managed agitation can open to them. We reiterate that we find no fault with them in their determination henceforth to be a power to be reckoned within the maritime provinces. We believe that eventually they will stand side by side with the English-speaking Catholics on all questions affecting the welfare of Catholics. We need never, it is true, expect of them the same militant spirit where religion is concerned as they would show on a question of nationality; but their presence in the country will always be an argument, if not a help, and perhaps as time progresses they may realize that, despite their leaders, their own best interests are identical with the interests of the English world around them. Our other critic who uses the columns of the Bathurst Courier to express his opinion of our editorial or rhetorical than convincing in his methods. He evidently lacks the element of personal acquaintance which counts for much in an argument of this kind. And so he misinterprets our motives and mistakes our attitude. We have no thought of belittling our Acadian neighbors. We are proud of the fact that they are bestirring themselves, asserting themselves and claiming a proper place in the country which is theirs by the right of prior occupation. We only fear that the leaders are not doing the best for their people in advocating such a radical reparation of interests as is implied in their advocacy of a national retirement to the cover of French institutions. We believe that this policy is reactionary, and we do not hesitate to say so. The eloquent words of Archbishop Ireland at Baltimore, where he publicly scored one of our Canadian prelates for advocating the manifestation of any other national spirit on this continent than the American, voice our sentiments on this vexed subject. With a change in the proper adjective they apply fully to our position. "We want no English, we want no Irish, we want no German, we want no French, as distinct and separate bodies, held together by the spirit of clan or race, and opposing their spirit of nationality to the unification of our people. We want all to be Canadians possessed with the spirit of the country which is neither English, nor Irish nor German nor French, but the spirit of a free and self-respecting people which you may search the countries of Europe to find and not find it. An Irishman is all right on the banks of the Shannon or Liffey; a Frenchman is in his own country on the Seine. If either wishes to retain his nationality let him in his own country. This country has no place for him.”