Canadian Today, Cajun Tomorrow

Our education system carves out a bit of time in the curriculum to discuss the Acadian people. As a result, many Canadians know that the Acadians were francophones who lived in what is now Atlantic Canada. They were expelled from the Maritimes and New England during the French and Indian War, as England attempted to secure against Acadian unrest in its newly won holdings.

These expelled Acadians would be moved around between various British colonies, but ultimately a sizeable number would end up in Louisiana. Here, their name gradually deformed, transforming the “Acadians” into “Cajuns.” Following the territory’s acquisition by the United States, Louisiana’s francophones became a widely recognized but controversial cultural hallmark.

As time went on, aspects of Cajun culture spread out and became popular across the rest of the United States. Things like Mardi Gras, gumbo, grattons, Cajun seasoning, and words like “bayou” became emblematic not just of Louisiana, but of the broader American South.

However, with this rising popularity also came dilution.

As Shane Bernard puts it in The Cajuns: Americanization of a People: “Once derided as backward, [Cajun culture] suddenly became associated with words such as hot, chic, and trendy. Mainstream society not only discovered Cajun culture but embraced it, usurped it, and reshaped it almost beyond recognition into a highly marketable commodity.”

In the 1830s francophones had lost institutional power – first in New Orleans, and later across Louisiana. By the 1860s, the schools no longer taught French, and after the Second World War speaking French in class was not only prohibited, but punished. 

Today, estimates suggest that in Louisiana just 120,000 people speak French. Of that 120,000, only 20,000 speak the Cajun dialect. This is down from 1,000,000 speakers of the language in the 1960s.

When we engage in excited debate about the consequences of annexation with the United States, the eradication of culture is one aspect which goes almost entirely unaddressed. Canada has a distinct identity and mode of being from that of the United States. This is true even in regions that appear superficially American, such as Western Canada.

Yet even as separate countries, Canada has already become subject to inordinate amounts of American influence as a result of Hollywood media and immigration from the south. This is not limited to Canada, but pervades the whole anglophone world.

This is why the suppression and subsequent decline of French in Louisiana is so important to consider.

A nation is typically defined as a people who share territory, language, and culture. The first two are the guarantors of the latter. Culture relies on shared experience, and interaction with people with whom you have a connection. This necessitates a shared territory, in order to facilitate this shared experience and interaction. Likewise, thought is defined by language, thought interprets experience, and language is necessary for communicating that experience. 

Therefore, to have a distinct culture, you must share territory and language, for they are the vehicle by which culture emerges. 

By the above definition, Canada contains two primary nations: Anglo Canadians and French Canadians. Other old stock Canadian groups also possess characteristics that could elevate them to nation status.

French Canadians currently have the most distinct and secure culture in Canada, with strong institutional support for its continued maintenance. Quebec has a high degree of provincial autonomy, which it uses to impose legislation, including language laws, which allow it to retain both territory and language, despite existing in a primarily English speaking country.

In contrast, by sharing a language with the United States, the Anglo Canadians are already at a disadvantage in terms of maintaining our culture.

Prior to its annexation, Louisiana had a distinct territory and language from the United States, allowing the culture to flourish. Once annexed, it lost its first guarantor – territory – but language allowed it to persist. Obviously, this was not permanent – and once it lost its language, the culture vanished with it.

The key to preventing cultural assimilation is maximizing barriers for avenues of influence – be it media, mobility, or finance. The reason why the Cajuns lost their political power was due to the rising prominence of the port of New Orleans for cotton export, which attracted people.

New Orleans created economic opportunity, and trains and boats provided easy access. Because they were part of the United States with no method of preventing movement to their state, they were quickly overrun by Creoles and anglophone Americans. This shows how easy the balance can shift if only one guarantor of culture is missing from a nation.

Creoles – both Franco-Spanish and Franco-Caribbean – were an even more insidious force. Despite being francophones, they bore no loyalty to the Cajun culture. In the eyes of the Creoles it made no difference if they were surrounded by Cajuns or Americans, as long as they were benefitting from the prosperity that Louisiana brought.

This creates one final comparison to Canada which can demonstrate a potential path to salvation. Right now, Canada is facing an unprecedented mass immigration crisis, where we are bringing in people from all corners of the globe. The vast majority of these people speak English or French as a second language.

English is the language of international commerce, and learning English provides people from less prominent countries access to greater opportunity than their relatively small linguistic population would otherwise. Likewise, immigrants come to Canada for economic purposes, as the Creoles did to New Orleans.

It makes no difference to most immigrants whether Canada is Canadian or American, so long as they are able to benefit from the economic opportunities that living in a first world country provides. Economic immigrants have no desire to assimilate or integrate with either culture – they often see no need to do so.

So, what can Canada do? A lot. Whether it will is a whole different question, but there is a lot that can be done in Canada to maximize barriers to American influence on Canadian culture. The list is too extensive to cover here; they span both economic and cultural policy. That said, I can make one small relevant point.

Our biggest strength right now is our independence, which allows us to control almost all of the factors which are currently being used to undermine our cultural integrity. The final cause of death for the Cajuns was when they lost power over the government of New Orleans, facilitated by the mobility of those who bore no loyalty to Cajun identity.

This directly led to them losing influence over what their children were being taught, and that lack of French and cultural education led to the cessation of cultural transmission. 

Presently, we do not even need outside forces to alter our education system, for the government is already utilizing the schools to demonize our own cultural heritage.

If the Canadian government can cease their obsession with a false narrative of Canada, and embolden – rather than diminish – the Anglo Canadian identity, then we can not only preserve, but even enhance this identity.

Canada is facing a watershed moment in its history, and we cannot afford to fail to utilize the tools at our disposal for the sake of defending our nationhood. We may still be Canadians today, but we may become Cajuns tomorrow: a cargo cult of strangers mimicking our festivals, playing our music, and eating our food.

“Let us be English, or let us be French, but let us always be loyal, and above all, let us be Canadians.” – Sir John A. Macdonald