The story of the Acadians had been interpreted and reinterpreted, by Griffiths’ estimate, in more than 200 publications by
the middle of the twentieth
century. Every position, from British apologist to Acadian defender, has already been taken, yet Griffiths manages to find a fresh approach in this work. She painstakingly examines both the initial years of settlement as well as the period of British rule, ending on July 28, 1755, the day that Lawrence. The scope is immense. This book is the culmination of seventeen years of work for Griffiths, who was, even before its publication, an acknowledged expert in Acadian history.
In her retelling of the history, Griffiths examines the emerging of the Acadian
people as a distinct society. She tells of events in Europe as well as in New England and New France, describing the shaping and clashing of empires, yet the centre of her story remains a population of country farmers. Because her focus is so narrow and so unique, some fascinating ideas come to light.
The Acadians were and, to some extent, remain a misunderstood people. During the tense years when Britain and France were either at war or poised on the edge of war, both nations believed that the Acadians would return to their French loyalties in the event of open conflict. What they failed to realize was that, after a century separated from France, the Acadians were not French, despite their ancestry; nor were they British, despite the treaties: they were Acadians.
They had developed an identity separate from their European counterparts. On the one hand, they were independent, being governed mostly by a system of deputies that reported to the governor. This fostered in them the idea that they were not subjects but citizens, with inherent rights, such as the right to negotiate with the powers over them. On the other hand, the need for communal labour to build and maintain the dykes that were central to their farming led to an interdependence within the community. This removed to a remarkable degree the rigid class distinctions so common in eighteenth century France.
The result was something so close to a modern democracy that, in the end, when confrontations with Colonel Lawrence were growing more intense, the Acadian deputies still believed that they could petition for their rights, and they still refused to sign an oath without first consulting with their communities to find a general consensus.
Colonel Lawrence himself, who often comes across as a villain in other books, receives remarkably impartial treatment here. His character is one of the most contentious elements of this story, but Griffiths is determined in her final chapter to focus on the series of events without reading into his motives. The result is both refreshing and thought-provoking, as it suggests the question, “How much of history is presentation, and how much is interpretation?”
Write your abstract here.