Excerpt of Why I Am a Separatist by Marcel Chaput

This is a translated excerpt of Pourquoi je suis séparatiste (Why I Am a Separatist), a book by Marcel Chaput first published in 1961 at Les Éditions du Jour. This is an original and unofficial translation for this site.

---

Preface

The world is made of separatists. The man who is master is his house is separatist. The 100 nations of the Earth which seek to preserve their national identity are separatist. France and England are mutually separatist, even before the Common market. And you who desire the patriation of the Canadian constitution, you are separatist. The only difference that exist between you and me is that you want the independence of Canada vis-a-vis England and the United States whereas I want the independence of Quebec with relations to Canada. In mathematical terms, the independence of Quebec is to Canada what the independence of Canada is to the United States and England. However, Quebec has more reasons than English Canada to assert such particularism since of all four territories, Quebec is distinct by its culture while English Canada, the United States and England are identical by their language.

* * *

In spite of all this, separatism has always received bad press in Quebec. The term "separatism" itself is doubtless partly responsible for it. It is negative. It does not seem to invite us to the construction of something.

And still, for the person who stops and thinks about it, separatism lead to great tasks: to that of Independence and Liberty, to the Blossoming of the nation and French grandeur in America.

It is fashionable in some circles to call separatists dreamers. Thank God if there are still men an women in French Canada who can dream! But to grasp the distinction between the realizable dream and the utopia we must first be able to detach ourselves from a certain subjective dogmatism which has us immediately reject the independence of Quebec before it has even been thought through.

It is true that independence is more a question of character than logic. Because is not independent who wants to be. More than reason, one needs pride.

If you have this pride of which free men are made, if you can rid yourself of all preconceived ideas on the subject and bring to the discussion a sincere mind capable of judgement, then and only then, let us sit and talk.

* * *

[...]

Plan

6 SECTIONS, 21 BOOKS

THE SIX DIMENSIONS: Historical, Political, Economic, Cultural, Social, Psychological

THE FIVE SOLUTIONS: Assimilation, Integration, Autonomy, Confederation, Independence

THE FOUR QUESTIONS: Legitimacy, Viability, Opportunity, Possibility

THE THREE OBJECTIONS: Minorities, Isolation, Immaturity

THE TWO OPTIONS: Minority, Majority

THE ONLY REASON: Dignity

The Six Dimensions

We are not separatist, do not force us to become so. - Maxime Raymond

Historical

A world wide wind of independence

We live, in this middle of the XXth century, historical years. Since the end of World War II, over 30 countries, former colonies, liberated themselves from foreign trusteeship and acceded to national and international sovereignty.

Why independence? We are free

Why independence? you will say. What is this separatism which makes so much noise today? We, French Canadians, are free. We can speak our language, practise our religion. We have the right to vote, even that of being elected. Isn't the current presence of a French Canadian in the position of Governor General the very refutation of separatist assertions? And the two French Canadian prime ministers? And the chief justice of the Supreme Court? And Generals? Do the separatist want to compare the French Canadians to the tribes of Africa which in the past years have conquered their independence? The black peoples, illiterate in many cases, sometimes deprived of the most basic rights, exploited, living in under-developed countries, were right to claim the independence they did not have. But our case, we as French Canadians, is very different.

Resemblance and difference

It is true that our case as French Canadians is not identical to that of Blacks in Africa. It is true that we have, and since a long time, rights that these people did not enjoy until recently. But the possession of certain rights which they were deprived from, the partial command over our national affairs, even if far superior than that of these newly decolonized countries, still does not ensure us total independence. We can be closer to a goal than a neighbour is, but still have not reached our goal yet.

In the rise of peoples toward their independence there are no two identical cases. But the way in which French Canada resembles all these newly sovereign countries is that it was also conquered by arms, occupied, dominated, exploited, and that even today its destiny, for a great part, rests in the hands of a foreign nation.

Individual liberties, collective liberties

Maybe you enjoy a great liberty. Maybe you are financially independent and live in a very French milieu in Quebec sheltered from the everyday hassles of bilingualism. Good for you! But that is not the question. It is not a question of knowing if this French Canadian or that one is free or not; it is about, on the contrary, to establish the degree of liberty of the French-Canadian nation. And on this subject, it is not necessary to be a separatist to observe that the French-Canadian nation is not free.

A few features of our history

Three and a half centuries ago, our ancestors have come to found on the banks of the St. Lawrence a French country. In 1760, the fate of battle had us pass under the British crown. After the struggles they had engaged against aboriginals and nature, our ancestors had to engage the battle of Survival.

Than in 1867 came the British North America Act. What was this act to reserve, in the minds of the Fathers of confederation, to the French-Canadian element. Did MacDonald and Cartier share a common ideal or did they both secretly cherish in their heads different dreams? It is not for me to decide this question. In fact, it is not important. Because what keeps the adherents to the Independence of Quebec busy is not the interpretation of texts, but the observation of facts. And the study of our history reveals us the three following facts:

- firstly, in 1760, the river banks of the St. Lawrence were not waste lands offered to public auction, but an inhabited territory populated by a civilized people which had made a country out of it; - secondly, the history of French Canada shows a continuity which no action of the invader was able to break; - thirdly, The British North America Act does not represent the deliberate and free choice of the majority of French Canadians at the time, but a law of London adopted to govern its colonies in America.

Confederation: a lesser evil

To assert, like some people do, that the Confederation was freely accepted by the French Canadians of the time, it is to play on words, it is to distort the meaning of liberty. First, never was the British North America Act submitted to the votes. It was imposed by a decree of the Parliament of Westminster and by a majority of 26 against 22 given by Canadian parliamentarians.

For the Confederation to have been the result of a true choice by the French-Canadian people, it would have been necessary for the French Canadians to be free to opt either for Confederation, or for complete sovereignty. And the freedom of choice was not recognized to them - neither by the Parliament of London, nor by the other English colonies in America.

En 1867, French Canada, Lower Canada, formerly just Canada, was a British colony and the alternative that it was being offered did not include independence. Colony it was, and colony it was to remain, inside or outside Confederation. If, for the French Canada of the time, there was freedom of choice, it was the freedom of the condemned to whom the judge allows to chose between a fine or prison. Like the condemned, who choses the fine if, he can afford the luxury of it, French Canada chose confederation.

The two deadly poisons of Confederation

[...]

Psychological

In the country of confusion

It must be that the French-Canadian nation has been of an incomparable vitality to have survived not the open attacks, but to the disfavorable psychological conditions in which she lives since such a long time. Because, for the French Canadian, Canadian life is a web of daily contradiction which constitute the greatest method of brainwashing ever invented. Under such conditions, very few peoples would have lasted.

You think I exaggerate, that the Canadian psychological climate offer nothing very bad? Let us see together some of those contradictions to which any national of a normal people is exempted and on the contrary inside which the French Canadians struggle daily:

- He is Canadian, but he is also French Canadian - His country is Canada as a whole, but he is accepted only in Quebec - He is told he belongs to the great French civilization, but he soon hears about the "Maudits Français" (damned French). - He must be bilingual; the others are unilingual. - He is told in school and other places the beauties of the French language; he is pushed to learn English. - He is told that Canada is a bicultural country; he can hardly obtain service in French West of Montreal. - He thinks he speaks an international language; the words "Speak White" are spit in his face. - He enters a French language university; he studies in American manuals. - He is told about national unity, but is ordered: "Stay in your province". - He is told loudly that Canada is an independent country; everyday, he sees the Queen of another country on his currency and his stamps. - He is told that his province is the richest; it is always in his province that there is the most unemployment. - He is told that he can accede to all positions, but he is imposed the additional obligation of bilingualism. - He is called on to feel for Canada; he is played God Save the Queen. - He sees the Fleur-de-Lys flag on June 24 flown at the mast of buildings; a week later he sees the Red Ensign flown at the mast of the City Hall - He is exhorted to rid himself of his inferiority complex; he is told he does not have the maturity to manage himself. - He is incited to feel proud and he is proposed a sheep as emblem.

And it goes on like that until death follows. And one wonders why the local merchant does not have to self-pride to advertise in French, that the young man from around here does not have the audacity for great endeavours, that the young first-of-class suddenly looses his enthusiasm.

One would wish to make a people die that there would be no need to use any other means.

[...]

The Only Reason

A people that wants to live must do something else than not dying. - Lionel Groulx

Dignity

One hundred and fifty pages to demonstrate the advantages of an independent Quebec is very little when each of the aspects being treated could produce an entire book. And still, one hundred and fifty pages is a lot. In fact, it is way too much. Unless one writes the word "dignity" one hundred and fifty times.

Is this patrioticking lyricism - to give a beautiful ending - worthy of crowning a work of this kind? Or is it a mathematical necessity imposed by the pyramidal chapter structure?

It is showing a profound misunderstanding of men and peoples de le donner a entendre. Man does not only live on bread and the French-Canadian nation cannot be asked to live in daily contempt any longer.

These are neither words of anglophobia arising from a two-century old feeling of vengeance. It this was the reason of independence, the success of our cause would soon be compromised, because life teaches us that nothing stable could be built on the burning sands of hatred.

History decided that we be the vanquished in a battle whose stake was a continent. We are not rebelling against history. The English - is it necessary to say it? - are definitely established in America. But so are we, little people of six million, maybe eight or nine, from the Yukon to the Mexican Gulf, we are settled for good on this continent on which our ancestors were the first colonists.

Notes

This is a translated excerpt of Pourquoi je suis séparatiste (Why I Am a Separatist), a book by Marcel Chaput first published in 1961 at Les Éditions du Jour. This is an original and unofficial translation for this site.