The Québécois are a unique people, for the most part descending from a relatively small founder-population hailing from various parts of France, creating a besieged nation of 8 million French-speakers surviving for centuries in an Anglophone sea.

“Relatively small” is an understatement. How did the fewer than a hundred Frenchmen — no women — recruited to Champlain’s fur-trading proto-colony in 1619 managed to generate today’s 8 million (I think it’s actually a couple of million fewer)?

The Talon census of 1666, Quebec’s first ever, found only 3,215 French people in the “French” colony, two out of three being men. Still all around them at that time was a sea of mostly allied Amerindians, Huron/Iroquois or Algonquian stock. Emigration from France to Quebec practically dried up by the end of the 17th Century. So who were the ur-mothers of all these modern Québécois? The obvious answer is that the early Frenchmen very often bred with the local women.

As a Trois Rivières humorist put it: Les Québécois sont des Métis qui s’ignorent. My guess is that the old-line Quebeckers are about as French as the Mexicans are Spanish. But the Québécois academic dons are having none of that, insisting on their province’s racial purity, namely French. Superior French culture and the Catholic Church became the citadel of minority Québécois defiance to the English conquest, Anglo-colonization and destruction of the Amerindians. And so it is still today.

The Quebecois are mostly métisse (with indigenous), I think. Or if not it’s just endogamy, or the “founder effect”, but they do look different than the French. Perhaps they came from a specific region of France?

Also, Quebecois French doesn’t sound like French at all. So in a way it’s good if more French people come to give more genetic variety and a better French language.

However, he’s right about most French being a bunch of loony leftists. They will probably turn Quebec into modern France, or even like Haiti.

Well there are already quite a lot of Haitians in Montreal, picking up Quebecois and French women, and having mixed children, so perhaps it will happen soon. Lots of Arabs too.

Isn’t Mélenchon anti-globalization and anti-open borders? One of Europe’s authentic leftists like Germany’s Die Linke which was in talks of a coalition with AfD, and also Denmark’s aocialost party which was proposing closing borders and sending refugees back.

The first two comments above are wrong. Genome-wide, Quebecois only have about 1% of Amerindian admixture per the study “Native American Admixture in the Quebec Founder Population” by Claudia Moreau, Jean-François Lefebvre, et al. in PLoS ONE 8:6 (June 12, 2013): e65507.

Most Quebecois’ female lines trace back to the hundreds of “filles du roi” who immigrated from France in the 1660s and 1670s and to other French women.

Language, language, language… That’s all Quebec cuckservatives ever talk about. Thank God the hundreds of thousands of Haitians who sell drugs to our kids and pimp our daughters speak french, or our society would really be in trouble. I suspect this Cormier-Denis person would prefer a french-speaking Nigerian immigrant any day of the week over a anglophilic French ex-pat which says a lot about the state of Quebec identity in the current year, not to mention the strange relationship between Quebecers and the French.
The problem with French ex-pats is not that they send their children to english schools, it’s that they left their country for entirely the wrong reasons. Both French ex-pats and Quebecers believe that ethnic identity hinges on a proposition; for the french, adhering to the three-fold principles of the Revolution and, for Quebecers, speaking and promoting the French language. Race-mixing themselves into single digit IQ territory, they believe, will have no impact on the perennity of their respective cultures if those propositions still hold true in a hundred years time. However, in the current zeitgeist, pressuring immigrants to adopt either enlightenment principles or the language of the host culture is a form of colonialism which, as we all know, is probably what Hitler would do. Abandoning the proposition nation and returning to an exclusionary definition of ethnic idenity is the only way Quebecers can effectively combat anglicisation.

Quebecois are specifically Bretons & generally from the Northwest of France. Jack Kerouac for example, was Norman.

This is similar to Puerto Ricans being from Canary Islands or Spanish in Mexico from Andalusia.

Similarly, most so-called Italian-Americans are either Sicilian or from Southern Italy.

More power to him. Is he not going to be cancelled or what?

The first 2 replies are just completely wrong. Studies have shown that Québécois have about 1% native american blood in them and overwhelmingly French blood, see: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-genomic-heritage-of-french-canadians. The reverse is not true, Indians in Quebec may have as much as 50% French blood (so you get people like Konrad Sioui, a blue-eyed red-head Huron chief).

You will often hear Québécois say that “yeah, I have a great-grandmother that was Indian”, but mostly these are just legends. Now with the premium and perks and cachet that come with being First Nation, you can encounter more and more cases of people claiming their First nation identity based on such family lore… crumbling when critically examined and found to be (charitably) myths or (cynically) made up – see the case of Michelle Latimer: https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/michelle-latimer-kitigan-zibi-indigenous-identity-1.5845310.

The 1660s is when the French government made its first serious attempt to populate New France. In 1665, 1200 men from the Régiment de Carignan-Salières were sent to New France to provide help for the small colony, 450 of which decided not to return and to stay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carignan-Sali%C3%A8res_Regiment

To address the gender imbalance, there was another effort called ‘Filles du Roy’ of sending poor and orphan girls and young women to New France. Between 1663 to 1673, about 800 women reached Quebec City.
https://www.fondationlionelgroulx.org/Les-Filles-du-Roy-1663-1673.html

This influx of people continued until the end of New France. I think I remember reading but have no reference that there were around 6000 to 12000 French people who had offspring in the colony. Couple that with a very vigorous demography that had the population doubling at each generation in spite of high mortality rate, and it’s just math after 8-10 generations you get to 5-6 million French Quebecers.

DNA testing is pretty widespread now, I’d think we have the numbers somewhere that show just how French the Quebecois are. Of course, in France nowadays, a black as coal zuluman is considered as French as Petain, so who knows anything?

@Dumbo
You say: “Quebecois French doesn’t sound like French at all”

Obviously there is a marked quebecois accent. Yet if you go to said Nomos-TV channel, for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBy4Jmsb9Ec,
Video Linkyou’d see that very many donations are in Euros, that a large chunk (if not a majority!) of video comments and live chat comments come from Europe, and they don’t seem to have trouble understanding Mr. Cormier-Denis “not like French at all” French.

@Steeeve Demers
“I suspect this Cormier-Denis person would prefer a french-speaking Nigerian immigrant any day of the week”

You probably mean Nigerien but why don’t you head over to Nomos TV (say watch the latest Cormier-Denis rant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBy4Jmsb9Ec)
Video Linkand judge for yourself whether Nomos TV is enthusiastic about “thousands of Haitians who sell drugs to our kids and pimp our daughters”

As a Canadian who has had to listen to this Quebecois shit all my life-enough! It is not genuine, interesting, or even based on historical claim after the battle of the Plains of Abraham. All it is is a scam for money and special rights using the ruse of language and culture as a cudgel.

Now that real French show up (however fucked up they are) the exclusivity of the sacred language and culture ploy is threatened. This is no different than the Edomites fighting the claims of the Armenian genocide because it infringes on their exclusive bailiwick of being the only people ever to be exterminated in the greatest genocide that ever happened. (Cough, cough).

The only reason that these Quebecois ‘issues’ ever got perpetual traction is because Quebec has a large amount of seats that vote in lockstep and any party or Prime Minister hoping for electoral success has to carry the province . Of course, always at a price and it is never enough.

The only good thing that ever came from Quebec was their strippers. But again there was a catch because with them we got the Hells Angels and poutine.

What Canada really needs is the Czech-Slovak solution.

Cheers-

“Quebecois are specifically Bretons”

They came mostly from Northwest France, Brittany of course and Normandy, Perche, Anjou, Loire, Poitou, Charente. And half of the ‘Filles du Roy’ who really kickstarted the Quebec population came from Ile-de-France (Paris area).

I meant the pronunciation, c’est clair.

Of course it’s basically the same language, except for tabarnac and such.

Mea culpa, i had never watched his videos before commenting. I’m sure he’s thoroughly based and redpilled, but i was making a broader point about Quebec nationalism which still stands.

Your comment is politically correct but only partly true. You and your sources regurgitate the ideological dogma of Quebec’s ingrown scholarly clique, especially University of Montreal and its genealogical data bank, Programme de recherche en démographie historique (PRDH). Nothing gets published in that province unless it faithfully tracks this academic orthodoxy, namely that practically all descendants of the founding families are pure French and the only Red exceptions are those now living on reservations. Intermarriage was therefore insignificant.

English-speaking Canada defers to that authority and even the Mormons’ Ancestry.com have learned to toe the line. But ask yourself why Canada’s Métis are regarded as a First Nation, have a language that is French patois and at least half of the Métis surnames in Canada and the United States are French. Follow-up question: Why then is Quebec, the source of those original métis halfbreeds, the only province that refuses to confer legal recognition on the Métis ethnicity? The reason, of course, is that it would scuttle Quebec’s founding myth of French ethnic purity. Yet this myth was invented to defend the Québéeois identity only after English takeover in 1760.

Quebec’s hierarchical theocracy, the clergy and civil bureaucracy, mobilized the French purity doctrine as a potent defensive weapon to keep the new English rulers off their turf. This ersatz-European identity later grew even stronger with the fear that Quebeckers might be tarred with the neo-Darwinian stigma of racial inferiority that supposedly set the Amerindians and Métis on their path to extinction amid 19th Century Anglo landgrabs on the western plains of North America. But the Catholic archdiocese schools of New York as late as the 1940s still described the French Canadian neighbors an co-religionists as “a hardy race of halfbreeds”.

This influx of people continued until the end of New France. I think I remember reading but have no reference …

Thanks to thin soil and strict neo-feudal land tenure rules, this French influx after 1700 was not to Quebec but to France’s Louisiana and Illinois terrotories. A French influx to Quebec and Acadie is hard to find after 1700. The founding fathers of French Canada were already there in the 1600s. Where did their wives come from? You mention the filles du roi but that’s too few and maybe too late. Try going back in PRDH and Genealogie Quebec to find the origins of the 17th Century wives in the original church records of baptism, marriage and burial. Many dead ends.

Commemter #4 also mentioned the alleged reverse mitrochondrial triangulation testing to discover whether these female ancestors were French or Amerindian. Fact is, we don’t know much about Amerindian DNA although the testing apparently assumes all Amerindians, maybe a thousand bands or tribes, must be of one race. And apparently the few testing laboratories, which are the core of an internet ancestry marketing campaign, also don’t know too much about French DNA. The largest ancestry lab cleverly made a distinction in DNA heritage between metropolitan French and French Canadians, which it classed as descendants of “French settlers along the St. Lawrence”. This tells us that the DNA muct have suddenly mutated simply because someone crossed the Atlantic just a few centuries ago. That’s weak.

If one removes the academic Quebec blinders and goes back to original church vital documents, it becomes a lot easier to notice what we really don’t know about the origins of the Québécois. Consult, for example, the 2019 book, ‘From Orphan to Patriarch: Men without a past who founded dynasties of New France’. Apparently many French Canadians can show you 400-year-old PRDH-perfect family trees that start with aboriginals.

…And the American Outlaw MC came up from the USA to Ontario & they went to war with them.

Canada was caught in the crossfire there. Biker wars are particularly ferocious.

Anyhow all the peeler bars are owned by HA anyhow.

Interesting fact: the only French territory left in North America are the Territorial Collectivity of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Two small islands of the Canadian province of Newfoundland.

Mélenchon comes from a multigenerational Grand Orient masonic family, he is fully onboard with the Kalergism. The old guard French labor left was weeded out under Miterrand in the 80s, French Communist leader Georges Marchais was the last of that breed, he was to the right of alleged center-right presidents Giscard d’Estaing and Chirac in terms of his immigration policies.

@St-Germain

Fact is, we don’t know much about Amerindian DNA although the testing apparently assumes all Amerindians, maybe a thousand bands or tribes, must be of one race. And apparently the few testing laboratories, which are the core of an internet ancestry marketing campaign, also don’t know too much about French DNA.

France had restrictive genetic testing laws that made it difficult to compile population-wide genomic statistics – it probably still does, but I dont know that as fact. I am a close DNA match to a St Clair family out of the Channel Islands, on notable slow-mutator markers, but getting complete stats for French Y/ Mt DNA usually uses Canadians or US Acadians as a stand-in, for common comparisons.

What is known absolutely is that maternal French DNA is going to closely parallel all other Indo-Euro and consists in large part of Mt ”H”, while no Native American Mt line is going to be Mt “H” (or U, J, T etc..) so it is childs play to determine direct descent heritage between Euro and Native.

There were women brought over from France in early Quebec and when the British took over Quebec in 1763 Quebec had a population of about 60,000 whites. Most of the inhabitants of early Quebec had descent from Normandy and adjacent areas, trade was mainly with ports such as Brest. The architecture of the earliest Quebec buildings is surprisingly similar to that of northeast France. Being Catholic, there was little intermarriage between French and English. Since immigration from France was almost nonexistent after 1763, most of the intermarriage came with the Irish and Catholic Scots that settled in Quebec after the British conquest. Most French Canadians today, can claim French, Irish and Scottish in their background. The present Prime Minister of Canada, has a French last name but is of French and Scottish descent.

Bullshit. If they were all half or more Amerindian, you’d be able to tell by looking at them.

If you have more than a passing familiarity with North America, you’ll know the derogatory adjective Hillbilly, as in “Québécois is Hillbilly French.” Of course French transplants teach their children English; it keeps the poutine eating Québécois from corrupting their children’s mother tongue.

Seriously, though, it will help the next generation dominate Canadian politics, even in Quebec.

So when you meant to state the obvious “Québécois don’t speak with the parisian accent”, you wrote “they don’t sound like French at all” and “French immigrants would give a better French”.

Got it. Roger that.

This is an absolutely horrible article. I would not even give it a D- on a grade nine course. I reads like it was written by a lunatic. Any Canadian first year Political Science student would laugh at it. Left or right is irrelevant. It is just a deficient piece of crap saying nothing.

In the area of Paris the language was referred to as ‘Francien’ back in the 17th and 18th century. Like most of Europe, everyone spoke in a local dialect until national standards developed in the 19th century. The local Quebecois dialect is just a version of French (that most find hard to understand).
I find the rhythym is ‘off’ and I can’t ‘get’ it. I would have to hear it a lot more. I have to admit that I do find it pretty unpleasant to hear but then again there are lots of English accents that are absolutely horrid.

My comments are factually correct.

The archives of the Quebec parishes gives extraordinarily detailed information about who from which parish married whom and who their kids were. It so happens that there just was little mixing with First Nations in Quebec within ‘white society’, and proportionally much more outside it. There was no stigma associated with that, not in the 17th century, the 18th, the 19th, the 20th or the 21st. It’s just that it did not happen. The DNA record of several studies just confirms the bloody obvious. No, Québécois are not Algonquins or Micmacs attempting to kid themselves and fool others that they are truly French.

And your theory that these researchers are falsifying their results to conform to the catholic church dogma of the purity of the blood of the the Québécois is wrong on so many counts. First of all, from the very start with Champlain founder of New France, there was no stigma associated with the First Nations. I will refer you to David Fischer’s Champlain’s Dream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champlain%27s_Dream

So you appear to live in the 19th century. We live in the 21st! The default viewpoint of the modern Québécois is to despise the catholic church. If they thought the catholic church wanted them not to find any Indian blood they would revel in publicizing they found nothing but Indian blood just to spite that moribund “theocracy”. And then Québécois finding out that they have a huge proportion of Native American lineage would cause not shame but widespread celebration. We are a saintly BIPOC people after all!

Regarding the Métis. The ‘French in North America’ umbrella covers a bunch of very different people. The valley of the Saint-Lawrence was a very different society from the coureurs des bois who went off for months North and West and South to trade in Indian territory. And yep that occasioned very many occasions for racial mixing. But that happened not in Quebec, but in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, 1500 miles away from Montreal. And the offspring did not become farmers in Quebec. They gave rise to what was to become a Métis society. Not half breed *individuals*, but what was shaping up to be a true hybrid nation, half First Nation, half European (mostly French). How that experinent would turn out we will never know, since the British nipped it in the bud, and, again, brushed the Metis away to make way for British settlers. It was John A. MacDonald who hung Louis Riel the Metis leader while Honoré Mercier, Quebec’s premier famously claimed: “Riel, our brother is dead!” There goes your myth of a Quebec’s founding myth of French ethnic purity.

And no one is as opposed to anyone declaring himself or herself a Metis(TM) just because they have mixed ancestry, as the actual Métis as in Manitoba Métis Federation, who try to patiently explain that Métis is belonging to a specific nation and culture, not just being someone with European-Aboriginal ancestry.

“The founding fathers of French Canada were already there in the 1600s. Where did their wives come from? ”

That’s what you don’t get. THEY DID NOT STAY! THEY DID NOT HAVE WIVES! A good chunk of the residents of New France were hired to work in New France on a contract for a year or two maybe three, after which two thirds of them went back to France. They were on a longish, well paid tour of duty in an Antarctica outpost. Remove that transient male group and the permanent settler population was actually balanced in the 17th century and it was just all robust natural population growth from there.

Tabarnouche!

Maudit Français!

Whats wrong with the article? Its very clearly written. Maybe it is you trying to read it through a “white” lens?

The French are resisting Anglo globalist schemes. Canada has no culture left, it has been mostly colonized by the US save for Quebec. That Quebec culture is the last vestige of authentic Canadian culture left.
And as I speak, Anglos are trying very hard to subvert it and break it by importing Haitians and others unassimilable migrants. (also read The Slaughter of Cities, thats how Anglos dealt with their European immigrants in the US to turn them “white” ).

And if that wasnt enough the French from mainland France are trying to screw over Quebecois.

As a Canadian who has had to listen to this Quebecois shit all my life-enough! It is not genuine, interesting, or even based on historical claim after the battle of the Plains of Abraham. All it is is a scam for money and special rights using the ruse of language and culture as a cudgel.

Yes, Montreal was built by and dominated by the English until relatively recently. The Quebeckers were largely rural, poor, and very Catholic, and a labor source for English run factories. They started taking over Montreal in the 1960s, which is when the English exodus began.

“The Rise and Fall of English Montreal” is a good documentary about this:

Video Link

OK, so, let’s put it this way, I personally tend to prefer the French accent to the Quebecois one. In fact, depending on which region they come from, I find them incomprehensible, while I don’t have difficulty with mainstream French.

However, there is one Quebecois expression that I like: pelleter des nuages.

But, may they talk any way they wish. I doubt French are there in numbers high enough to change the patois there. It’s more likely that it will end up being more influenced by Haitian French or Tunisian French or etc.

They’re not metis.
Actually the women, famously good-looking – but generally riddled with herpes – resolve themselves into quite distinct phenotypes.
There are about half a dozen or so “faces” that you see, presumably descended from the whores that were sent over to breed with the trappers.

Anglos aren’t importing Haitians. The dregs of the FLN who became marxist politicians (instead of being hanged) were desperate to import anyone who could speak French in order to prevent the “Anglos” changing Montreal back to being a world-class city instead of the backwards dump they were changing it into.
Unfortunately, the only non-metropolitan french speakers available are Haitians, North African Muslims and assorted black Africans. All of whom, to put it mildly, bring their own challenges.

The dark Metis high-cheekboned Jack Kerouac look is actually Spanish border because many of Quebecois came from South of Bordeaux on the Atlantic border of Spain & France & were deported during the Basque border uprisings of the 18th century.

The blonde big-boned Quebecois common in Montreal are from Normandy & come from medieval Viking stock. They’re more common around Montreal because they were not exiled or poor Bretons but lower nobility who were sent by France to the New World as Admins. Most upper class Quebecois families trace their roots to Norman lower echelon aristocracy.

The third bunch who resemble Celine Dion or Sugar Jones with that characteristic slim prominent jaw, arched eyebrows & long nose are of Brittany Celtic stock.

Atlantic Canadian Francophone are not from the Atlantic Northwest & came from France’s rural interior so they have a different look in New Brunswick etc.

Also factor in the influx of Irish Catholics who gravitated to Quebec due to religion.

Reading comprehension, please! Here, you have carefully constructed and then trashed your own strawman formulation — not what I wrote. But you must have noticed what I did say about the de rigueur, politically correct-theory of racial purity that now prevails in academic Quebec, namely that it was a beleaguered minority’s political and cultural myth of a strong common identity that “was invented to defend the Québécois identity only after English takeover in 1760.” Is that date clear enough for a non-historian?

Naturally, the racially mixed founding population of the 17th and most of the 18th century could scarcely stigmatize their own aboriginal forebears. It was the Protestant English conquest that forced the Québécois to pick their poison. Catholicism and French Eurocentrism then offered the sole political anchor to remain a distinct group in their own province. Had they stood and fought the new rulers, they would have ended like Louis Riel and the tribes. Nevertheless, there was a revolt in 1838/39. And conquered Quebec became such a dismal place that nearly a million Québécois packed up and crossed the border to the northern United States in the last half of the 19th Century.

And your theory that these researchers are falsifying their results to conform to the catholic church dogma of the purity of the blood of the the Québécois is wrong on so many counts. First of all, from the very start with Champlain founder of New France, there was no stigma associated with the First Nations.

Again, you are demolishing your own strawman, not my theory. Racial purity is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Church, no matter how anti-Catholic you may be. What the multiethnic archdiocese of New York proudly taught about the “hardy race of halfbreeds” who were their cherished co-religionists to the North was a Christian expression of mutual admiration. Also, the Church’s vital acts — baptism, marriage, burial — written by mostly local parish priests remain the primary source of demographic information about early Quebec. PRDH trades on them. But it also interprets them and offers them selectively. Nevertheless, you can find all sorts of métis and aboriginals in that data bank if you just look.

And why not? It was none other than Champlain who envisaged a mixed-race future of intermarriage for his tiny French colony. In the 17th Century his vision was heartily endorsed by both the Church and the French crown. Mgr. Francois de Montmorency-Laval, Quebes’s apostolic vicar starting 1659, vigorously sponsored the conversion of Amerindian majority. “Sun King” Louis XIV urged his colonial authorities to accelerate their assimilation. Aboriginal bands were even given their own seigneuries (e.g. Sillery), shared with whites. Champlain, a baptized Calvinist who converted to Catholicism, conspicuously adopted three aboriginal daughters. The first wife of Pierre Boucher, governor of Trois Rivières and knight of France, was aboriginal, probably Iroquet (ethnic Iroquois but cultural Algonquins). These are not exceptions. The French and Indians War of the mid-18th Century was at least as much a catastrophe for the Amerindians than for the French with whom they were almost exclusively allied.

To what extent do your “factually correct” comments smply recycle today’s reliably poliically correct Wikipedia and CBC?

I stand by what I wrote.

German King George III sent 30,000 German mercenaries to fight in the American War of Independence. A number of these German troops were stationed in Quebec. Many of these soldiers chose not to return to Germany at the end of their tour of duty and settled in Quebec (and many in New England). The soldiers who remained in Quebec anglicized their names. German mercenaries also fought on the side of the English against the French in Quebec in what was called the French and Indian War which was part of the global Seven Years War between England and France. German soldiers from this war also remained behind and settled in Quebec. I have read estimates of as many as 10,000 German mercenary soldiers in total who remained behind in Quebec though I think this includes relatives who subsequently emigrated from Germany to join their relatives in Quebec.

French speakers from Europe have remarked that the French spoken in Quebec sounds “old”, and not always easy to understand. What they mean by old, is that it sounds like the French spoken in 17th and 18th century France.

This would make sense because they were cut off from the language spoken in France at about that time. Perhaps it’s analogous to North American and Australian native English speakers sounding different than people from modern England.

“Relatively small” is an understatement. How did the fewer than a hundred Frenchmen — no women — recruited to Champlain’s fur-trading proto-colony in 1619 managed to generate today’s 8 million

Studies have shown that Québécois have about 1% native american blood in them and overwhelmingly French blood,

OK, so who’s right?

The present Prime Minister of Canada, has a French last name but is of French and Scottish descent.

Alors, vous et demi juste, Vieil Sporte!

The PQ and Quebec separatists drove all the “bad”, English speaking Irish, Italians and English out of Montreal and replaced them with “good”, French speaking Haitians, Algerians and Congolese with predictable results. Similarly, Toronto is now plagued by Jamaicans because Jamaica is part of the British Commonwealth.

If there are only White people involved, we can afford to have our inter European squabbles. When there are other races involved, race has to come before language.

Paris, once the world’s most beautiful city, is now lost to diversity.

Video Link

If this replies to me, I’ll point out again that my comments targeted only the ethnicity of the founding stock of Quebec, not modern Canadian virtue-signalling politics. Today’s globalist ultraprogressive Canada, which disengenuously bills itself as the moral beacon for the world, has now invested the French term métis (of mixed race, formerly a/k/q halfbreed) with a spiffy new legal status meritting a capital letter “M” in Metis. The message is, Forget what British Canada spent two centuries doing to Amerindians and their métis allies because political correctness has now forced us to confer on you scattered survivors an essentially meaningless First Nations moniker, even as we invite in the whole Third World to further marginalize you. Don’t worry; be happy! Wear some feathers at your quaint club meetings (But don’t get uppity or we might Louis Riel you again.)

In Quebec, where by decree there are no Metis, there are plenty of métis/métisse and Amerindians. There’s even a 300-year-old Huron/Wendat enclave right in the provincial capital city. As another commenter asserted, even Quebec’s reservation Redskins may now be half-white by DNA, therefore métis. If so, it underscores the significance of interbreeding within Quebec. The other half would then be those “pure” local French, who I believe went métis from the very start of the French colony. That doesn’t exactly support your argument that interbreeding was confined to far-away places like Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

You hung your hat on the notion of a basically segregated society in the original French farming communities along the St. Lawrence. The problem with that is that good land was scarce, families were huge and primogeniture in neo-feudal land tenure forced the landless younger children to fend for themselves. The only option was the fur trade with the Amerindians and that could only function with kinship, i.e. consanguinity. Trois Rivières was the hub of the westward moving fur trade before Montreal took it for the Brits. Even the key landlords like Sir Pierre Boucher had to ply the fur trade to make ends meet in the 17th Century. The main historian of the St. Lawrence village of Rivière du Loup (now Louiseville) reported e.g. that every family had sons in the fur trade. The unparalleled personal freedom of the aboriginal way 0f life worked like catnip for 17th Century Frenchmen. And those wayward sons were not celibate.

So what are you suggesting? You are not really métis unless the government proclaims you Metis? Québécois heredity pays tribute only to métis. The rest of Canada can make a fuss over Metis.

There was no button to reply to Comment #29 from Jean-Baptist Moquelin. But this deserves a reply:

That’s what you don’t get. THEY DID NOT STAY! THEY DID NOT HAVE WIVES! A good chunk of the residents of New France were hired to work in New France on a contract for a year or two maybe three, after which two thirds of them went back to France.

Well then, I guess I’ll have to scrap my family tree and pretend I’m just stray ectoplasm. I’ve got at least a dozen 17th Century indentures who stayed, plus four of Louis XIV’s Carignan soldiers and several filles du Roi. All of them check out fine with U. of Montréal’s PRDH published listings. Where did your infallible Quebec academics go wrong?

Maybe you would profit from lots more historical research.

correction: the soldiers who remained behind didn’t “anglicize their names”, they either adopted french names or changed their german names to french sounding names.

… to adopt either enlightenment principles or the language of the host culture is a form of colonialism which, as we all know, is probably what Hitler would do.

Hitler is everywhere, even in Kebek.

As all cuckservatives know, he wanted to colonialize Danzig, the corridor, Sudeten and Austria.
Because he knew that

returning to an exclusionary definition of ethnic idenity is the only way

Apart from the obligatory Hitler bashing, a good comment.

I will return the favour.

I never claimed that the Québécois are racial pure, so don’t YOU use that strawman. Of course there was some indian blood. But both the historical record and the recent genetic analysis show that it was small, in fact less than what Québécois themselves believe. Again, not that there was none. You say “you can find all sorts of métis and aboriginals in that data bank if you just look”. Well, yes! I said as much from the get-go. We’re just arguing about its importance. And that database is part of he evidence that in fact there was not that much.

I do not share the contempt most of my contemporaries have for the catholic church, and am perfectly aware that it is CATHOLIC (universal) so not given to racism. And yes I know about the views of Champlain, I SENT YOU ONE REFERENCE TO IT. But Champlain’s dreams of a mixed-race future did NOT pan out nay more than his dream of any sort of a New France. Yes, early New France settlers, I will call them Canadiens, were close to their Indian allies. Every Québécois schoolboy is taught about this. New France settlements in the valley of the St-Lawrence at the invitation of the Algonquins, Micmacs, Outaouais etc friends relied on Indian muscle for security against war parties of their Iroquois ennemies.

A not insignificant fraction of New France society, the coureurs des bois, preferred roaming the wild continent far from any authorities to the toil of tilling the land. The remarks of some famous contemporary visitor whose name I alas don’t remember, possibly Benjamin Franklin, come to mind about how, unlike in the British colonies, the Canadiens had adopted Indian customs and were slow to shake off any of their influences. They were moccasins over there for chrissakes! Moccasins, Mortimer! So yes, it leads to a paradox. In the past, Brits and Americans thought the French in North America were an inferior breed because they did not hate and despise the Indians enough. In the 21st century, the English Canadians, having done a 180 turn, now despise the Québécois as a racist inferior breed for not feeling sufficent guilt over the past racism and ethnic cleansing their ancestors did not make. One thing remains constant: the French, not being in lockstep with contemporary ideologies in vogue in the enlightened English-speaking world, are an alien, inferior lot, as many commentators stinking up this comment section show.

Yet from all these considerations it just does not follow that therefore, the descendants of the farmers of the St-Lawrence valley are 50% indians. Does not compute. Yes the coureurs des bois would mingle with the Natives, but the offspring would drift to the Native/Métis society much more than to the New France side back in Quebec. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a sizeable part of French blood in northern North American natives; Indian blood among the Québécois, not so much. It’s not a value judgement. It’s just how it happened.

You concede that there was no stigma among the Canadiens in the days of New France. But apparently that all changed under British rule and they came to adopt a dogma of shameful rejection of all things Indian and Métis. Allow me to quote at length from Honoré Mercier’s 1885 speech, one of the most famous in the history of Canada, in front of a roaring crowd of 50 000 in Montreal:

Riel, notre frère, est mort, victime de son dévouement à la cause des Métis dont il était le chef, victime du fanatisme et de la trahison. [] Chapleau a préféré les hurlements de quelques fanatiques aux bénédictions de toute la nation canadienne-française

En tuant Riel, Sir John n’a pas seulement frappé notre race au cœur, mais il a surtout frappé la cause de la justice et de l’humanité qui, représentée dans toutes les langues et sanctifiée par toutes le croyances religieuses, demandait grâce pour le prisonnier de Regina, notre pauvre frère du Nord-Ouest…

[BTW how is that for ununderstandable French from a nation of poutine-eaters and whores]

Riel and the Métis, our brother, our entire nation, our race… Clearly the “founding myth” of “French racial purity” disowning the Métis at play here.

So far we have established that your “founding myth” of a shame for a Métis past that supposedly drove everyone to erase all traces of a racial mixing in Quebec did not exist in the 17th century, not in the 18th, now not in the late 19th-early 20th, not in the as you correctly insist non-racist catholic church writing those genealogical records whose accuracy you deny. Where is it then? The entire western world academia is in a woke trance but according to you, the one exception is the genetic researchers of the 21st century Quebec universities. Now those guys are totally unlike the entirety of modern academia in being fraudulent, French white supremacist ideologues. Yes I can totally buy that. Not!

So on one hand there is the historical record and genetic research that indicate there would be maybe about 1-2% Indian blood among the descendants of the farmers of the St-Lawrence valley. On the other hand, there is a nameless quote from 1940’s NYC parishes that refers to some people as being halbreeds. I will need to ponder all this conflicting evidence carefully.

Finally, I have no idea why you insist I must be a CBC-worshipper, since I heartily despise them and their intersectional wokeness as pretty much all my political opinions would be denounced as heretical at the CBC.

“A French influx to Quebec and Acadie is hard to find after 1700”
a) considering that Acadia conquered Acadia in 1710 (confirmed by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713) I don’t know to whom this would be breaking news. Of course following that conquest, from a population of 18 000 Acadians, 12 000 were deported, 8 000 of which died in the ordeal. A genocidal ethnic cleansing.

b) actually there were about 15 000 people from France who came to New France in the 18th century – same amount that came in the 17th century. But most came hired on a 1 to 3 year contract, and two thirds returned to France afterwards. So yes, their influx was small compared to the natural population growth that had by then gotten rolling.

Kerouac sounds like a Breton name to me.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_William_(ship)

You concede that there was no stigma among the Canadiens in the days of New France.

I don’t concede anything. I never said such a thing about the French period. Read the comments.

You are now doing a world-class waffle with shifting dates and rulers. Are you perchance a Canadian politician?

And moving on to your Comment #48, the infamous Acadien expulsion took place during the Seven Years War (French and Indians War) of the mid-18th Century. Lots of Acadien refugees eventually pitched up in rural Quebec, even though it also fell. Yes, parts of Acadie had changed hands several times before that. So what? What point are you trying to make here?

Nevertheless, I like your more accommodating Comment #47 more than the previous ones. I suspect you may be coming ever so gingerly around to my view. Good for you.

Informative video comparison between Quebec French and Metropolitan (Paris) French.

Video Link

Paris, once the world’s most beautiful city, is now lost to diversity.

Terrific video. In a terrifying way.

If An American in Paris were remade today, it would be indistinguishable from An American in Nairobi, An American in Jakarta, An American in Port-Au-Prince.

Diversity demands globalism then globalism destroys diversity. The current regimes don’t seem to care that they are only making a world full of Detroits.

Except that the natives from that part of the world likely came from the Northeast across the ice sheets rather than from the Northwest across the Bering land bridge, therefore being much less Asiatic-looking than most Amerindians. At least according to the Clovis theory.

>Apart from the obligatory Hitler bashing, a good comment.

I was being sarcastic. The idea that requiring the other to assimilate to the host culture, even when the bar as to what constitutes “assimilation” is set so pathetically low (i.e. remember the “charte des valeurs quebecoises”) is likened to white supremacy is the very reason why interculturalism is doomed to fail.

When “les valeurs quebecoises” are just a restating of enlightenment principles (equality between men and women, separation of church and state, the rule of law, etc.) devoid of any national specificity, even immigrants know the emperor has no clothes.

Remember your initial comment:

The census of 1666, found only 3,215 French people in the “French” colony, two out of three being men.
So who were the ur-mothers of all these modern Québécois?
The obvious answer is that the early Frenchmen very often bred with the local women.

That answer is wrong. There is another answer, not so obvious, but you need to be more knowledgeable about New France society of the day.

A good fraction of the residents of New France (especially in the early days) were indentured craftmen. They were all male. They counted as male in that census. And, as I wrote in #48, two thirds of them scampered back to France when their contract was up. They did not marry local women. They returned to their wives or found one *back in France*. They were not ur-fathers of the modern Québécois, and the local wives you imagined for them were not their ur-mothers, either.

Note again that I most certainly did not write that all indentured men left. I repeatedly wrote that though a large majority did, a third did not. Repeat after me: one third is not zero. And the whole thing has nothing to do with the filles du Roy. So your heavy sarcasm about ectoplasmic indentured or filles du roy ancestors is completely misplaced.

There is a definite resemblance and a possibility as his mother was said to be extremely promiscuous probably due to her mental illnesses. If Castro is his Justin’s genetic father, he’s of Spanish and Scottish background as Margaret Trudeau was born a Sinclair.

The only reason that these Quebecois ‘issues’ ever got perpetual traction is because Quebec has a large amount of seats that vote in lockstep and any party or Prime Minister hoping for electoral success has to carry the province . Of course, always at a price and it is never enough.

So, they learnt how to play the game of democratic representative politics.

Learn from them!

Fascinating article. Thank you.

Not having had much exposure to contemporary French thought, I’m enjoying the articles that you and Laurent Gúyenot are writing for us.

You are entering a war of words over the meaning of Métis vs métis.

Yes the french word métis basically means mixed-blood. So you go around lecturing others that anyone or any group should be able to call themselves métis even in English if they like, and anyone who objects must be some kind of racist or in denial about the reality of race mixing occuring.

I will repeat what I already wrote. In this you are not arguing with me, or with the nefarious Quebec government. You are arguing with the actual Métis nation. Their organizations have been arguing since forever that Métis is the name for a specific nation and culture as recognized by the Canadian govrernment, and if you are not part of this nation and culture, call yourself whatever you like but not Métis.

You are curiously arguing that it is the globalist ultraprogressive Canadian government that has “invested the French term métis with a spiffy new legal status meritting a capital letter “M” in Metis”. I disagree. As soon as the actual Métis of the Rivière Rouge created an organization to fight for their rights on october 16, 1869, they called it ‘Comité National Métis’. You may believe that Métis is just a moniker imposed on ‘scattered survivors’ by the Canadian Government, in fact they had always given themselves this very name and believe they actually had forged a new nation from a mixture of Native, French and English elements on a specific territory. Argue with THEM if you think they are deluded fools, not with me.

There’s even a 300-year-old Huron/Wendat enclave right in the provincial capital city.

Do you, perchance, fancy that you are teaching me anything?

As another commenter asserted, even Quebec’s reservation Redskins may now be half-white by DNA, therefore métis.

That exceptionally astute and well-informed commenter was none other than me. I mentioned Konrad Sioui who is a chief of Wendake. That enclave dates back from the 17th century, when a few hundred unfortunate Hurons. survivors of their genocide by the Iroquois confederacy, made their way from the Georgian Bay in Ontario to Quebec City as refugees. And yes, I was using him (blue-eyed red-head) to illustrate that status Indian may have a quite a lot of European blood.

I wrote #28 specifically in the context of capital-M Métis who are in Manitoba-Saskatchewan. I never meant to say no mixing occured anywhere else. It has been my contention all along that a fair amount of mixing occured. But I did write that the offspring of such coupling ended up most often in the Native society not in ‘white’ society. If I may quote you, ‘The unparalleled personal freedom of the aboriginal way of life worked like catnip‘. That resulted in a lot more european blood on the Native side (for those that have been in closer contact with Europeans for long) than native blood on the European side.

The problem with that is that good land was scarce, families were huge and primogeniture in neo-feudal land tenure forced the landless younger children to fend for themselves

The Saint-Lawrence valley is prime farmland, and they were not anywhere near running out of land to farm. New France was always short of the prime resource: manpower! It had one tenth to one twentieth the population of the British colonies. Security was always a problem (endless wars with English or Iroquois). Authorities had all sorts of plans to go wide of the Saint-Lawrence, up the Ottawa or Richelieu or Chaudière valleys. No population to people all those villages they wanted.

French traders in what became the Midwest US were often married to Indian women and/or the sons of Indian mothers or otherwise racially mixed. The same goes for British traders. Examples are Antoine Ouillmette, Billy Caldwell/Chief Sauganash, and John Baptiste Pont Du Sable, of Chicago, and Antoine Le Claire of Davenport IA. Du Sable was Haitian and married to an Indian woman.

It could be, but the first Kerouac in the USA came from Normandy according to his biography. Kerouac always identified himself as a Celt.

The trademark Quebecois we associate with Celine Dion-long nose, narrow prominent jawline, arched brows-is Celtic & Brittany belongs to the Celtic league of Nations.

But I dated a Northern Quebecois & here is the mistake most people make-they assume the darker hair & high cheekbones & often brown eyes of the Northern Quebecois are a result of Metis blood.

This is untrue. They are actually Atlantic Basque country deportees from Labourd & the Pyrenees who exiled to Quebec during the late 18th century Basque revolt who were all deported to New France & received less desirable territory North of Montreal in mining areas in particular.

That is why the Northern Quebecois are often thought to be part Indian. They’re not. They’re essentially Spaniards.

Also worth mentioning is that the Maritime French Canadians are not Bretons or Basque or Normans. They came from France’s rural interior. The French-Canadians of say, New Brunswick, do not originate primarily in Northwest France but from the interior.

I have read all your comments which I found interesting, informative and well written. I like Quebec and I am glad it maintains its French culture. Going there is an nice respite form the Anglo dominance in the N. America. Quebec is an ersatz Europe for me. Great restaurants, eg,. Au Petit Extra in Montreal.

My questions are, though perhaps you have explained them but I must have missed them:

What is a primary reason that Quebec remained white despite of original intent of some founders and Catholic Church philosophy which unlike the Protestants did not see anything in wrong in race mixing?

What happened to the mixed bloods who certainly must have lived in Quebec at some point? Were they absorbed and diluted among whites or among Indians?

When and why did the hostility to the Catholic Church develop in Quebec? Do Quebecois remain Catholic but somewhat outside the Church? How do they rationalize the fact that it was the Church that helped them to maintain a separate identity?

What you say is not true at all.

The French Canadians always voted for the Liberals, who are the party of open immigration to Canada. Now they are getting it all back on them. Karma.

They are all from Normandy. The French they speak is very different from metropolitan France.

“Montreal was built by and dominated by the English until relatively recently.”

Apparently the English or anglophones were the alien elite in Montreal, where the French were like Hispanics in Beverly Hills: domestics, gardeners, etc. Edgar Bronfman, the Seagram’s heir (Unz readers will know his dad’s role in Jewish bootlegging etc.) was born and raised in Montreal and attended McGill University but never learned French. When he tried to merge Seagram’s with Vivendi he was outfoxed by the French company, since he couldn’t follow any other the negotiations.

All this talk about bloodlines is already sorted out in actual living culture. In Canada, we have the quebecois and we have the metis. They are two distinct groups. The quebecois are the French speaking ones with mostly European bloodlines. The metis are the French speaking ones with mixed European and indigenous bloodlines. DNA analysis of the two groups has shown that the popular distinction is in fact true. The quebecois are just as French as the Yankees are English.

Both the quebecois and the metis have shared not only the French language but also Catholicism. The French had better relations with the natives, that is simply undeniable, and a proof of that is that the French did succeed converting the natives to their church (and then accepting them in the same church!).

Both groups, the quebecois and the metis, have fallen away from the Church quite a bit.

This is even more dangerous to their prospects of continuing as a distinct culture than the fights they face regarding the language.

Religion is very, very, very, very important.

It’s Satan’s greatest trick to have convinced modern men to abandon it.

Our own Kamala Harris is one of these ‘colonialists’ of Montreal, amazingly!

Her formative years were spent there, in Westmount, one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Canada. It’s always been Anglo. Kamala, exactly like those Montreal Anglos of old, grew up smack in the middle of Quebec and never bothered to learn French. Never dabbled with natives.

IOW, what hasn’t she carpetbagged? It is astounding; yet here we are.

Regarding the composition of Montreal, did you know it was largely an Irish town back in the days of the Irish Potato Famine? During those times it was easier for an Irishman to escape to Canada than to the USA, because going to Canada was a lateral move within the British Empire. Going to the USA was going to a foreign power. The Irish descended in droves upon Montreal. All around Montreal you find tons and tons of Irish people buried in cemeteries of that period. And then after about ten years the great majority of Irish vanished. They left Montreal in droves exactly as they came.

I wonder why; what happened exactly? We know why they came — it took an Irish Potato Famine. Very dramatic. What made them all leave with the same urgency?

“The only thing missed on this great article Gomez is the fact Quebecers are not French. On their way over from Germany they were intercepted and had to spend time in Africa and then came to North America and their children are actually Nigerian” and JimBob Smith is an expert and a direct descendant of –the real Joe Smith—-upperstate New York –expert in Reformed Egyptian which sounds like Pakistani in reverse,,,,,,

People who produced no offspring in Quebec and then went home are by definition irrelevant because they are not part of the founding stock of the colony. They might as well have been tourists from China. The founding stock of French Quebec was already in place before 1700. Those people had parents who to come from somewhere. This discussion is about the mixed ethnicity of this founding stock.

Actually the women, famously good-looking – but generally riddled with herpes –

What??

resolve themselves into quite distinct phenotypes.

To me the Quebecois seem pretty similar in phenotype, even the women. Celine Dion is a fake blonde, of course.

“Riddled with Herpes”.

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Trapper’s Hat’.

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

Looking back at the censuses, and baptisms, you see that the French immigrants to Quebec had many, many children. 13, 15, 17, 20 and more!

I am very appreciative on your perspective and insight on the matter.

I can confirm the phenotype is true, the broad faced Norman look is quite common in western Quebec. My father’s side is from a Norman family in Montreal and they have this look, whereas further east you see that more angular Mediterranean look. Though the amount of Celtic ancestry overall is much higher than a lot of people would believe, in fact despite being “French” as far as patronyms go in my father’s genealogy, genetically he clusters much closer to Bretons and even Scots than the French. There’s not all that much genetic distinction between Normans and Bretons due to centuries of admixture both before and after migrating to Quebec.

Madonna’s mother, a French-Canadian immigrant to Michigan named Fortin, was descended from Marie Thurialt who was descended from Ferdinand & Magellan whose kingdom included lands in the Pyrenees that were annexed by France prior to the mass emigration to the USA.

Madonna looks Italian, of course, but her mother was among the Quebecois who immigrated from the extreme South of France on the Spanish border & looked Mediterranean.

Madonna looks pure Mediterranean.

The Quebecois were three distinct racial groups-big blonde Normans around Montreal who were officers or aristocracy in the New France admin. Breton yeoman farmers & merchants who formed the ethnographic majority of Quebecois. And then the poorer exiled Basque Mediterranean Southern French deported from the border off Spain to the mining towns & lumber camps of the North & East.

Metis have a different look that is distinctive. They have black hair & dark skin with bushy black brows & blue eyes.

Historically most immigrants tended to initially arrive in Montreal or Quebec city. But they or their children would then move to the USA (about 50% of people who came to Canada eventually settled in America) or to southern Ontario and in later times, some went out west. The “Anglophone” population in Montreal had a very high turnover rate.

People who produced no offspring in Quebec and then went home are by definition irrelevant

Absolutely! Again, I am refering to your comment showing that large gender imbalance in 1666 census. You say: all these extra men took wives which must have been Native wives, therefore tons of Indian blood among the Québécois.

My reply has been: no, those extra men include all the indentured men who went back to France. Now, had there been plenty of French women in the colony, more of them might have been enticed to marry and stay, but there wasn’t, so they went back. Those extra men, in your words, might as well have been tourists from China.

PRDH trades on [Church’s vital acts] But it also interprets them and offers them selectively. Nevertheless, you can find all sorts of métis and aboriginals in that data bank if you just look

Marcel Fournier, historian of New France and author of several books about it wrote to me that, *unselectively*, in its entirety of 1620 to 1760, there were a grand total of (drum roll) *75* marriages celebrated between Europeans and Indians (personal communication). That is, one every other year. Yes, they happened, but, as I have been saying all along, just not that often. Nowhere near what would support the assertion of Québécois being halfbreeds. No one would have batted an eyelash if they were, but that’s just not what happened.

Hi utu,

If you are ever in Montreal let me know!

Essays could be written about your questions.

Regarding your first 2 questions, I’d say New France and British colonies grew completely differently. Familiar with New France history, I was astounded to learn more about the British North American colonies. Between 1629 and 1641, 20 000 Puritans arrived in the Boston area. That is much more than the 10 000 that settled in New France in its entire history! Then between 1640 and 1675, 40 000 or 50 000 Cavaliers settled around the Chesapeake bay. As a result, British settlers were quickly self-sufficent, had overwhelming military superiority and very limited contact with Native Americans.

In comparison, the settlers of New France were few and far between, their numbers dwarfed by those of their Native neighbors. They had made friendly first contact with the nations of the Laurentian coalition who were in fact glad to have Europeans to trade them fancy widgets with and invited them to settle in the St-Lawrence valley as a buffer and allies against the other big alliance, the powerful Iroquois Confederacy. They needed each other, went to war together and protected each other. Which explains the comparative popularity of moccasins in New France and New England.

In addition, the economy of New France remained underdeveloped: farming and a few towns. One of the few cash-generating possibilities was the fur trade. Some young men would go off in canoes in Indian territories to come back their canoes full of furs. They had to go there without any army to protect them, they had to know the territory, the languages, have trust and friends over there, i.e. go Native. It was not comfortable office work, but it was appealing to many, no petty master breathing down your neck, no back-breaking labor at the farm. The, hem, occasions that would lead to the appearance of mixed-race offspring were more likely to occur in this section of ‘French in North America’ society than on the farms or cities of the St-Lawrence, and the métis would be more likely to grow up in the Indian society than in white society. As I responded in a previous message, there were some marriages in New France, the children would be part of Quebec society.
Hence: a fair amount of French blood among First Nations, not so much the other way. The fact that there is no philosophical or religious objection to race mixing is sufficient neither to ensure it will occur nor where.

To the city-dwelling Québécois of today, all of this is ancient history, but people generally still know this more or less. So, in Quebec the decolonial woke militants, not given to nuance at the best of times, often not from Quebec and ignorant of the history of the place, regurgitate their dogma about Québécois = White = Oppressor = Native Genocider, they are regarded with even less consideration than in the rest of the world.

When and why did the hostility to the Catholic Church develop in Quebec?

We’re getting very far from the original article but, why not? My take.

The collapse of the Catholic Church is something extremely curious. My parents were born in the early 1930s and grew up in the traditional French Canadian society which is very different from what I have known. In that society, the state was underdeveloped and catholic institutions were taking much of the slack: very many schools, hospitals, social assistance, universities. Then starting around 1960, it seemed like the entire society almost at once decided that the Church is what kept french canadian society backwards and we needed to get on with the times and get bureaucrats and technocrats and dirigisme. Religion was OUT, socialism and national liberation and free love and yéyé music were IN!

You could compare it to the almost incomprehensible collapse of traditional views and authorities when challenged by the woke dogma. 2016 still seemed sane. By 2021 all institutions had unconditionally surrendered.

There are all sorts of individual attitudes to the Church. The ageing militant socialists are the most hostile, the sort that claims that religion is the opium of the people, that the Church preached servility to English domination so they’d get fat and powerful and they kept THE PEOPLE in ignorance so they would accept their exploitation by capitalists (those militants would probably all have gone to classical colleges run by Jesuits). To many others, the catholic episode is more of an awkward, embarassing moment in Quebec history before joining, at long last, the rest of the advanced world in embracing science and reason and personal growth, and really, we only need good will, don’t we, the rest is empty pomp, isn’t it?

Looks like Quebec society decided to ditch tradition and embrace modernity just about when modernity started to take a turn for the worse.

Do Quebecois remain Catholic but somewhat outside the Church?

Many say there is a lot of a catholic worldview and values that remain. So Québécois have turned into atheists, but CATHOLIC atheists.

How do they rationalize the fact that it was the Church that helped them to maintain a separate identity?

I would say they’d rather not think too much about it lest they start having to acknowledge it.

Metis have a completely different look from Quebecois.

They have black hair, bushy black eyebrows, dark skin & blue eyes. They have protruding foreheads & usually a shelf-like brow ridge.

The original fur trappers might have Metis descendants but from the very beginning New France was getting loads of women.

The Norman administrators 0f Montreal had arranged marriages with Norman women from families of means & this formed the middle & upper class of Montreal & Western Canada who have a somewhat Nordic appearance.

More often Breton emigres arrived as families to farm or fish & this is the common Celtic look of the Quebecois: narrow jaw, long nose, arched eyebrows.

Similarly, the Southern Spanish border country Quebecois from the Pyrenees who have Mediterranean looks were deported as whole towns & sent to New France’s less desirable parts of Quebec & this why the Northern mining towns & logging regions have people with that Spanish look.

Ontario was mostly settled by British beginning with Loyalists.

What happened to the mixed bloods who certainly must have lived in Quebec at some point? Were they absorbed and diluted among whites or among Indians?

I think what he is saying (and this matches the little that I have read on this) is that most mixed bloods were Metis, descendants of Indians and French traders who lived over a much greater area than Quebec itself. They were/are a lot of them in the west of Canada. You might google Louis Riel.

When and why did the hostility to the Catholic Church develop in Quebec? Do Quebecois remain Catholic but somewhat outside the Church? How do they rationalize the fact that it was the Church that helped them to maintain a separate identity?

The hostility to the church developed in the 60s as Quebec modernized. The party that supported tradition and the church was the Union National, headed by Maurice Duplessis, who has the sort of reputation that Huey Long does in the US. The more progressive liberals and later Parti Quebecois defined themselves by opposition to this.

Between 1629 and 1641, 20 000 Puritans arrived in the Boston area. That is much more than the 10 000 that settled in New France in its entire history! Then between 1640 and 1675, 40 000 or 50 000 Cavaliers settled around the Chesapeake bay.

I wonder why France with larger population than England and Scotland could not motivate more people for settlements in Canada. Was life in France much better? Or was it the “revolutionary spirit” of Protestant sects that spawned in Protestant England?

Montreal is a postmodernist town now – controlled by an uneasy alliance between anglophone Jewish families based in Westmount and Cote St. Luc, and anglo-hating Quebecois nationalist technocrats.

A typical middle class Quebecois family in Montreal has two daughters – one is shacked up with some Haitian guy while she’s finishing her Masters in some postmodernist gibberish studies at U of M, while the other is an overweight dyke with a government job.

As for the Jewish family, one son is doing a medical degree at McGill while the other son has moved to Toronto to do high finance.

Those extra men, in your words, might as well have been tourists from China.

Almost my words, sir. But I’ll just point out again that those men and women who left no offspring in the French colony are not part of the foundiung stock of Quebec. Therefore: irrelevant, as were also most of the celibate priests.

Moreover, there were also plenty of female indentures, such as, among others in my line, the notorious Judith Rigaud, whose “French” Calvinist background is less than proven and who produced her share of children in the colony. Or, Marie Duteau, Nicolas Millet dit Marandais, Michelle Sédilliot/Lesdillier Anguille, Jeanne Savonnet, Barbe Nepvue …

Rarely mentioned by today’s “pure French” ideologues is the outsized role of adoptions, which were as a rule never mentioned in the church’s vital acts. In the formative 17th Century, aboriginals died like flies from imported European scourges and their offspring were frequently informally adopted and raised by the godparents, French Christians. The Sillery reduction record, e.g., shows how these young natives simply became assimillated Québécois with proper French names.

You quoted Fournier’s statistic of only 75 mixed marriages before 1760. Good, but it would be interesting to learn how he determined the ethnic background of the marriage partners. If only church marriage acts are consulted, does he suppose that the race of an assimilated person with a French name would even be mentioned there. Has he taken account of the ecclesiastic code talk that sometimes delivers an ethnic clue through the vicar’s waiver of one or more of the three required marriage banns, a big Red flag? Has he taken the trouble to find, if any, the baptismal certificates of the couples? Did they even have them? I mistrust Fournier’s number sans methodology on how it was found.

And BTW, the church record-keeping started arouud 1621 but a suppoosed fire mostly destroyed them and the record had to be “reconstructed” starting around 1650. How many aboriginal names went up in smoke in that crucial formative era?

Moreover, who were the “squatters” who were systematically purged from the census records of St. Lawrence communities in the mid-19th Century when a new loi Indiens created reservations and suddenly made undocumented persons wards of the state, causing a frantic rush to “edit” the parish records of vital acts in order to gain proper ethnic legitimacy and avoid official segregation?

Castro looks like Trudeau because their both of European descent pretty obvious.
we share characteristics and genes so some of us are exact look a likes for each other like Castro Liam Neesom Jeffrey D Morgan Javier Bardem Gig Buffon William Fichtner the list is endless.

You are 100% correct.

This is getting tedious.
YOU: see the gender imbalance in the 1666 census? All these extra men must have taken indian wives, therefore: huge amount of Indian blood among the Québécois
ME: actually, a good chunk of these men would just go back to France, NOT take Indian wives, and therefore NOT be part of the founding stock
YOU: actually, these would NOT be part of the founding stock
ME: that’s what I said, they would NOT be part of the founding stock!
YOU: I’ll just point out again they would NOT be part of the founding stock

Who are those “pure French” ideologues? No one claims there is no Indian blood among Québécois. People argue about how much. There are people who have evidence for their claims (who think: somewhat counterintuitively, not that much), and there are others who argue based on purported ideological fanaticism by researchers who contradict them and what they *imagine* must be missing from historical records (who think: a lot).

What you are saying about the réductions contradicts everything I have read about them in that they were a complete failure in accomplishing their goal, which was to create good aboriginal christian sedentary farmers integrated into New France society. All accounts tell of jesuits despairing about Indians hating farming and the sedentary lifestyle, about them always leaving to go off hunting or trapping, serious problems with drunkenness etc, and the whole idea being abandoned for being a pipedream, and the remaining few Indians scattering back to the woods and the nomadic lifestyle they knew and loved. Now we’re supposed to believe that, unbeknownst to their own administrators, the enterprise was a smashing success churning out assimilated Indians seamlessly and invisibly blending into New France society?

France is unlike many other european countries in not having sent huge waves of immigration to North America in the 19th or 20th century. Not like Ireland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Greece, Poland, Ukraine… France was relatively prosperous, and I guess more of its inhabitants preferred to stay put, or move within France. “Happy like God in France”, Germans used to say.

(Anecdote: I was visiting the church of Nasbinals in the Aubrac area; the priest told me that some people had left for Canada in the 19th and 20th century. I did not know that there was French emigration to Canada at the time. Then again, the area is one of the poorest in France.)

There is one huge exception, and it’s the huguenots, protestant French, a couple of hundred thousands of whom left France in the late 17th century, to England, Netherlands, Switzerland, Prussia, South Africa…conspicuously NOT New France, where everyone was officially supposed to be catholic even though there were a good number of officious protestants. Allowing emigration to New France would have been a total game changer, an enormous policy blunder by the crown.

Speaking of the Métis, we could mention some mixed languages like the Michif who’s a mix of Cree and Métis French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michif and Bungi, a creole language once spoken in Manitoba. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungi_Creole

France was different. I read a book about French colonialism once. Basically to the French kings and elites it was basically a sideshow. They didn’t really care about New France – “a couple of acres of snow” is how Canada was referred to as – . It just wasn’t on their agenda. It was different in England (Britain after 1707). There it was serious business with the royals much interested in affairs abroad. Royal charters were often established in Ireland and in the colonies. Also being a more seafaring people, (they do live on an island) then the French it was more characteristic for them to look abroad. In any case the French have always been the least migratory of Europe’s peoples. Fewer then half of the pied-noirs of Algeria were of French origin. Had the French been a bit more imaginative they might have sent the Huguenots to Quebec instead of letting them settle in the protestant’s parts of Europe.

Yes, the French looked at New France as a place to extract resources, furs and whatnot, rather than as a place to expand their population, unload dissidents, etc. Never much interested in setting up agriculture in New France, and building a sustainable civilization, unlike the English.

I think life in Britain was generally a nastier experience which lead a lot more people to take their chances in the new world.

The Conservative Party policies of crushing the Métis, shooting on Quebecers, opposing the use of French in the federal government etc did have the effect of sending French Canadians into the arms of the only other party in town, the Liberal Party of Canada, insuring it would become the canadian version of Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

But that was then. The stronghold of the PLC in Quebec is now in immigrant Montreal. Non-immigrant Quebec is rather voting for the Bloc Québécois or even, gasp, conservative.

Also, Quebecois French doesn’t sound like French at all. So in a way it’s good if more French people come to give more genetic variety and a better French language.

Fuck you. Quebec girls are the sexiest in North America, and Quebecois is a baroque form of old French. Sending modern French to Quebec to “update” them would be like sending Jamaicans to Elizabethan English to “improve” their stock and language.

Reply to Comment #90 from Jean-Baptziste Moquelin (reply button was missing)

The Québécois are a unique people, for the most part descending from a relatively small founder-population hailing from various parts of France, creating a besieged nation of 8 million French-speakers surviving for centuries in an Anglophone sea.

This is the carefully worded opening of Guillaume Durocher’s article to which I filed the first comment. I addressed the “unique” ethnic composition of that “relatively small founder population” in the 17th Century by citing acknowledged historic facts about that founding era of New France.

This was promptly followed by your opening salvo, Comment #8, targeting my comment:

The first 2 replies are just completely wrong. Studies have shown that Québécois have about 1% native american blood in them and overwhelmingly French blood …

Your dogmatic outburst launched our back-and-forth series of pros and cons which you now suddenly find “tedious”. Perhaps you have run out of relevant facts to defend your “We’re pure French” revisionist remake of Quebec’s founding history.

You followed by rehearsing the standard liturgy of the modern ivory-tower consensus ideology rigorously enforced by academic Quebec for essentially political reasons. I find all this more entertaining than tedious because so many of the arguments don’t stand up to serious scrutiny, as I’ve pointed out. Time after time, factual demographic history conflicts with or flatly debunks elements of your academic French-purity doctrine.

To wit your backfilling Comment #90 states:”No one claims there is no Indian blood among Québécois. People argue about how much.” But in your Comment #8 you hung your hat on “studies” that pegged it at 1%. Where are you now?

To wit: You just stated, “What you are saying about the réductions contradicts everything I have read about them …” Oh, and what have you read? Whether or not the Jesuits were disappointed that they could not make dirt farmers of the Amerindians fails to speak to what occurred on the native seigneuries between 1638 and 1690, namely 52 of Quebec’s truly formative years. The people of the reductions, both French/French métis and Algonquian/Huron natives living cheek by jowl during that crucial period, birthed at least a thousand new Quebecois, baptized them with Christian names and often founded families that still flourish today in Quebec and the rest of North America.

You wrote about indentures returning to France. That was a wise move in the 1680s when a slew of French St- Lawrence seigneuries were abandoned because Iroquois raids made European-style farming impossible and suicidal. Newly arrived French fled the thin strip of what you described as good valley farmland. But those rugged veterans who made living in the outback among friendly bands held on. And those people were likely métis, the founding stock. The whole colony might have collapsed, had not the Iroquois contracted small pox in thje 1690s, leading to the 1701 Montreal peace pow-wow of the French and 40 tribes. There was no help from France, where Duke Colbert, Louis XIV’s prime minister, had already categorically rejected further recruiting for the embattled colony, saying it was not in his monarch’s interest to depopulate his own realm.

You might want to refresh with some independent reading your orthodox reference library on the history and demography of 17th Century New France. Among others I would recommend Marcel Trudel on the hundreds of aboriginal and Negro domestiques (slaves) in colonial Quebec. Or, confer among others Algonquins de Trois-Rivières: l’oral au secours de l’ecrit (Hubert et Savard, 2006) on the mixed ethnic composition of the founding 17th Century “French” population; Le Registre de Sillery (1638-1690) (compilation and notes by Léo-Paul Hébert, 1994) on what actually happened at the Algonquin-French seigneurie where many a mixed founding family began; The People Who Own Themselves: Aboriginal Ethnogenesis in a Canadian Family, 1660-1900 (Heather Devine, 2004) on the British divide & conquer strategy for the native and métis tribes on the Canadian plains and where the Métis came from; From Orphan to Patriarch: Men without a past who founded dynasties of New France (Edward Roby, 2019) on opaque and mixed 17th Century origins; and Histoire de Louiseville 1665-1960 (Germain Lesage, 1961) partly on where the Métis came from..

Quebec is largely responsible for Canada’s immigration disaster. The Liberals used Quebec to maintain their vile hold on Canada. Now it is Quebec’s turn to pay the piper. Probably people in Quebec who can trace their ancestry to New France (pre-1757) will be a minority by 2040 or 2050 at the latest. Immigrant Montreal ensures Quebec can not vote to separate. They prevented it in 1995 as the premier said at the time. Above all Quebec supported P.E.T. the champion of ethnic immigration and diversity. Now it is all coming back on Quebec. Did they really think all those Asians and blacks would just go to Toronto and Vancouver and leave Montreal unscathed? What goes around comes around.

Btw, the Conservative atrocities you cite were enormously exaggerated by the Liberals to hoodwink the Quebecois into giving them their votes. Probably they would have voted for them anyways since the Tories were not the political expression of Quebec. The Libs would usually only run into trouble when they faced wholly francophone opposition like the Union Nationale, Parti Quebecois, or the Bloc.

“Bordel de chiasse” has nothing blasphemous about it. Your post reeks of leftist atheism!
On the other hand, if you want to bring in damnation, “sale gauchiste” is much closer to “damned leftist” than “filthy leftist”, which would be “gauchiste crasseux”.

the Southern Spanish border country Quebecois from the Pyrenees who have Mediterranean looks were deported as whole towns & sent to New France

I’ve never heard of whole Basque towns being deported to New France. There were some persecutions of Protestants there but that was in earlier times and they were definitely not deported to New France, where only Catholic settlers were admitted.

Did this happen in some other part of the Pyrenees? Is there any link to any source? Or is it just made up? Basque presence in Canada is only significant on the Atlantic coast and in some parts of southern Quebec, as far as I know.

Not Basque, per se, but French Catalonia & Gascony & the border of Spain around the Pyrenees.

My point was that very few Quebecois married indigenous women. New France wanted families, simply to avoid the excesses of Latin America.

Families bring stability to a colony. Single males do not.

And anyhow, the class system continued in Quebec. The upper-class tended to be Norman & Norman administrators & minor aristocracy has arranged marriages with girls from minor nobility.

To this day, the Upper class of Montreal traces its roots to Normandy. The rural & poor of Quebec have roots in French Catalonia & Gascony in the South.

But the vast majority of Quebec are Bretons.

They have a very identifiable Celtic look similar to the Irish, because these folks are descended from Celts who fled the British isles during the Saxon invasions & founded Brittany: narrow prominent jaw, long nose, arched eyebrows. The average French Canadian actually has a very Celtic look.

The Metis narrative is one of the biggest scams going. I have spoken with dozens of Indians/Aboriginals/First Nations or whatever other moniker they are using today, and none of them think the Metis should have the “rights” awarded them from the courts.
As for “sweeping away” the Metis, The Hudson Bay Company was formed in 1670, with the help of two Frenchmen who were prohibited from traveling to Western Canada. By 1690, one of the Company had already traveled the prairies, met many tribes, and reported no “Metis”. The move to the prairies came after the fall of Quebec, when the Northwest Company was formed and hired Quebecios to illegally trade and remain in Hudson Bay Company territory. Many stayed and took Indian wives. There was already several established HBC trading posts on the prairies by the early 1800s. Many of the HBC men took Indian “country wives”. The big push of Quebecios to the West started in the 1830s, when the RC church was sponsoring Quebecois to take land, illegally, on HBC territory. Many of the men farmed and took Indian wives. The land claims of the Metis that arose are out of land they weren’t supposed to occupy in the first place.
The HBC, unlike the East India Company, didn’t have its own private army to drive out the invaders. The wars between HBC and the Northwest Company ended with a merger, and some recognition of land claims, but like most things relating to Quebec, its never enough.

Agree. The Metis thing is largely a scam.

Perhaps there are academic genetic studies which would be more appropriate but based off what I have seen on DNA/Ancestry boards (for instance the subreddit forum of 23andme) where people post their ancestry results, a large number of quebecois have submitted their results and not a single one I’ve seen had Amerindian input, even trace amounts.

And these are ‘old-stock’ not recent french arrivals. No doubt the metis do exist as a dinstinct group but those identifying as quebecois I don’t think it’s reasonable to state they have significant native input. The only surprise I saw was that a lot of quebecois had very large British genetic input, sometimes majority. Not a huge surprise I guess.

Some of that British identity may still encompass French heritage. Some testing companies display a category of Northwestern European which includes northwestern French, Belgian, and Dutch with English.

I have nothing but respect for no-nonsense DNA laboratory analysis, especially the recent kind that yields a quality of scientific evidence now accepted by courts of law in multi-million-dollar paternity suits. If, say, a male child’s y-DNA is an exact match for that of the wealthy defendant, then he’s the daddy. And Basta!

But the kind of analyses now heavily advertised on popular internet ancestry sites strikes me as a lucrative commercial marketing gimmick. Test vendors often suggest they can tell you just where on the planet your direct ancestors were living half a millennium ago or just how statistically likely it is that the packet purchaser is a proud descendant of Charlemagne or some other glamorous celebrity.

These mail-in test packets are deliberately aimed at sizeable ethnic groups in America, people of British or other common European extraction, or even U.S. blacks, so that the result can feature a big vague elipse drawn around the map of West Africa. And the test marketers always require the gullible customers to supply the telltale address & surname, plus given name and enough other revealing data (credit card, etc.) to make a customer’s likely background an open book.

Some literature even talks up a Jewish gene, by which I guess they mean European Askenazi, since religions are unlikely to leave traces in DNA. But why not, since the biggest commercial laboratory offering reverse DNA triangulation to peg heredity seems to be staffed with Israeli scientists who cut their teeth in search of the elusive proof the Askenazi are somehow Semitic. Maybe coming soon could be the discovery a Democrat, GOP or Scientology gene. That could sell some tests.

I already noted obvious problems the reverse triangulation tests have in linking their invented ancestry category “French settlers along the St. Lawrence” to contemporary French ancestors in France four centuries ago. That looks like a politically correct way of conceding that one of these “French” groups may not quite French at all. And we know much more about France than about Amerindian DNA.

Reverse DNA triagulation to find a most recent common ancestor of two unaffiliated test subjects with the same surname hinges on the customers’ ability to produce accurate, detailled family trees of descent. That can be done hardly anywhere, Iceland and early Quebec being the exceptions. But the Quebeckers who are trumpeting their test results have already self selected. There is a campaign based on certain safe surnames to recruit test subjects to support their determination of a most recent common ancestor, naturally French. Métis people in the province and especially Amerindians are much less likely to submit to such commercial testing, even if they have heard about it. Tests showing what the clubs of test takers want to see are useful but not representative.

But the kind of analyses now heavily advertised on popular internet ancestry sites strikes me as a lucrative commercial marketing gimmick.

And the test marketers always require the gullible customers to supply the telltale address & surname, plus given name and enough other revealing data (credit card, etc.) to make a customer’s likely background an open book.

the biggest commercial laboratory offering reverse DNA triangulation to peg heredity seems to be staffed with Israeli scientists who cut their teeth in search of the elusive proof the Askenazi are somehow Semitic.

Bennett Greenspan, founder of Family Tree DNA said something very revealing about his motives and priorities which are strictly political:

http://www.avotaynuonline.com/2015/06/genetic-census-of-the-jewish-people/

The urgency of our work is magnified by the fact that the legitimacy of the Jewish people and its claim to our ancestral home is currently under constant pseudo-historical attack. The media, particularly on the web, carries regular features from enemies of Israel describing theories to the effect that Ashkenazi Jews have no connection to the land of Israel and are, in fact, European and Central Asian interlopers.

The vast majority of Quebecois are Bretons who trace their roots to Brittany which was settled by Celtic Britons fleeing the Saxon invasions of the British Isles.

Another words, they are Celts. This is evident in the trademark Celine Dion look-narrow prominent jaw, long nose, arched eyebrows.

The darker-complexioned Quebecois are from Gascony & French Catalonia on the Spanish border.

A number of Quebecois actually trace their roots to Spain as there was drift back & forth across the border.

The Western blonde Quebecois of the upper-class were Normans of minor aristocracy who served as admin.

Metis are generally found in Northern Quebec.

Very interesting, high quality discussion. I have some relatives in Montreal. Fortunately, they consider themselves Greeks first.

Most importantly, when is Quebec going to declare independence and further weaken the Anglos?

This Anglo would be delighted if Quebec left Canada. It would be a win-win for both sides. But it would be a disaster for the ruling Liberal party.

Yeah, while this “23 and me” stuff has some validity, they cannot be taken as a real proof or portrait of your full ancestry, since like most things today it is more based in an algorithm and big data analysis than in the full genetic information (which they don’t even have, as they don’t do a full analysis). I did it and the results were very generic, and what they got more exactly right was probably because I had to add information about my grandparents and grand-grandparents origins.

The only surprise I saw was that a lot of quebecois had very large British genetic input, sometimes majority. Not a huge surprise I guess.

There were some Anglos who assimilated into Quebec society. The head of the PQ at one time was Pierre Marc Johnson.

Yeah but the Quebecois plan to multiculture the rest of Canada to destroy the Anglais has largely worked, er, woked.

In a 2017 interview, Jean-Marc Fournier, the Quebec Minister for International Relations and Francophonie at the time, in the course of answering a question about what “Canada needs to do” to improve its relations with Quebec gave the example of French-speaking immigration targets, so that more of Canada (outside Quebec) would be Francophone. He went on to say that there are some 200 million French speakers in the world today, and there would be some 700 million by 2050, and went on to present this as some tremendous opportunity for Canada and Quebec (ie the usual libtard gibberish).

It came as no surprise to hear a member of the Canadian establishment speaking this way, but I always find it jarring to hear it stated out loud. Hearing it spoken somehow brings home to me how utterly, utterly, utterly fucked in the head western elites are more than reading about it does. That 500 million increase is of course going to be almost solely concentrated in Africans, but rather than view this is a spur to shut down all immigration and seal the border tight, the fruitloops in charge consider it a mouth-watering resource for future immigration.

Oh please, as if the Anglo elites weren’t fully on board with multiculting white Canada into extinction anyway.

They assume French and merely French-speaking are synonymous and effectively interchangeable.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Basically, French “Newfies”.

“Quebecers have butchered the French language”

-A Frenchman living in Montreal

I don’t care about the language issue, and frankly every Quebecois that I’ve met has been unusually unpleasant. But this guy is definitely entertaining, and I wish his cause the bonnest of chances.

Wrong. The Quebecois are descended from a few thousand “filles du roi” recruited by Colbert, who prevailed upon Louis xiv to populate New France with French folk. Metis Francophone Canadians form some of the old families of Chicago and also account for a good number of French Canadians (who underwent somewhat coercive assimilation by the Anglo-Protestants in Ontario in the 1800s) in the prairie provinces. A good number also moved into various parts of the American great lakes region.

Interesting. Thanks.

The Quebecois are descended from a few thousand “filles du roi” recruited by Colbert, who prevailed upon Louis xiv to populate New France with French folk.

Nonsense. There were only a few hundred filles du roi, many if not most of unknown origin and plucked out of Catholic orphanages. Catherine Pillard, one of those girls, was embarrassingly proven by mitochondrial DNA testing of her direct female living descendants to have been an Amerindian. And she was unlikely to have been the only native fille du roi.

The dispatch of some marriagable girls along with the disreputable Carignan Regiment was the king’s weak token gesture to Pierre Boucher, whom the dying colony urgently sent to Paris to plead for more colonists and military help against the rampaging Iroquois. And it was Duke Colbert who famously proclaimed it was not in the interest of Louis XIV to depopulate his realm just in order to save Quebec.

The king had bigger fish to fry in Europe. Canada was just an afterthought. French women wanted no part of it. Quebec’s mixed founding stock was already in place by 1700. It was Amerindian and French. The “pure French” political narrative is revisionist history invented many decades later — after Quebec fell to the British.

Soxa tokenpartly than a

Most French-Canadian families are descended either from Norman male administrators to whom women were arranged in marriage or from entire Breton families sent to Quebec to farm.

The third source of women were the French-Spanish Catalonia border country Basque who were more or less deported as an afterthought by King Louis to thin out uprisers.

There were cases of intermarriage with Amerindians but this was on the frontier.

French females arrived relatively early into the Canadian colonies with the intention by Louis to thin out an entire underclass of Northwestern or Spanish-French border country upstarts & the Normans who predominate Montreal/Western Quebec were admins dispatched to rule over them.

In point of depopulation King Louis was in a big hurry to depopulate Brittany & the Southern Provinces in order to prevent cessation as these folks were a different racial component-the Bretons were Celts & the Catalonians were Spanish.

Many industries in Quebec. Built by English. No energy, no gas no oil. Only Hydro bought from New Brunswick. Good people no racist only dislike if somebody speaks English.

ACD is brilliant. In the text you translated into English, was any of it untrue ? Are the majority of French in Québec not des sales gauchistes ?

60 000 colons, read a history book.

A large study came out about the genetic origins of the Québécois, the latest to repeat what every other has shown: that the Quebec French are overwhelmingly from French origin (who could have guessed?), with about 1% of Indian blood:

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/mapping-genetic-history-french-canadians-through-space-and-time-348442
https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/archeo-paleo/archeologie/les-origines-genetiques-francaises-du-quebec-elucidees-par-des-chercheurs_171594

No, it’s not coming from Université de Montréal, the dreaded last hold-out of weirdo catholic neo-nazis in thrall to theories of purity of blood. It’s from McGill, UQAM, Nantes and the Sorbonne, published in Science.

Catherine Pillard was embarrassingly proven by mitochondrial DNA testing to have been an Amerindian

I looked it up and the same siberian mitochondrial DNA has been found in Italian and German people.
http://miroise.org/GparADN/cpillardqamerindienne/
so that siberian mitochondrial DNA must have travelled east through the Bering Strait to North America, and in a few individuals, west to western Europe.

Gail Moreau-DesHarnais, a genealogist, investigated the claim about the origins of Catherine Pillard, looked for any trace of historical Indian connections for CatherinePillard and could not find any.

So there are two different theories.

On one hand, we have historical documentation about a Catherine Pillard born and baptized in La Rochelle, France. And evidence that this amerindian mDNA is found in European people.

On the other, we have the notion that no Catherine Pillard crossed the Atlantic, and that for some reason, some people just happened to use an Amerindian woman, give her a false valid identity attested in the archives of La Rochelle and pretend she was French.

Ockham’s razor says..