THE COLONIAL DENIZEN: A PROPOSAL TO MOVE BEYOND THE POLITICS OF RECOGNITION TOWARD A POLITICS OF RESPONSIBILITIES by DEANNE ALINE MARIE LEBLANC B.A., University of Toronto, 2011 M.A., University of Victoria, 2014 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Political Science) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) March 2020 © Deanne Aline Marie Leblanc, 2020 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: The Colonial Denizen: A Proposal to Move Beyond a Politics of Recognition toward a Politics of Responsibilities Submitted by Deanne Leblanc in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Examining Committee: Barbara Arneil, Political Science Supervisor Jim Tully, Political Science Supervisory Committee Member Glen Coulthard, Political Science Supervisory Committee Member Dalie Giroux, Political Studies External Examiner Bruce Baum, Political Science University Examiner Coll Thrush, History University Examiner iii Abstract: Since the twentieth century Canadian political scientists, government and society have become increasingly aware of the need to address the various effects and realities of colonialism. This has been a positive step forward for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples alike and has led to various steps toward ‘reconciliation’ if not decolonization. And yet, the predominant, mainstream approaches taken or proffered by (largely non-Indigenous) scholars and government officials, in response to Indigenous peoples’ calls for change, can only go so far in the move toward decolonization. This is because they are stuck within the logics of liberal democracy and recognition, based within the prevailing arguments that moving beyond contemporary colonial situations can only be achieved through either a more comprehensive extension of liberal democratic (settler) citizenship to Indigenous peoples, or through proper ‘recognition’ of Indigenous peoples from within a predominantly non-Indigenous (settler) perspective and societal structure. Not only are these arguments inappropriate responses to collective colonial realities, they also lead to the further entrenchment of colonial structures, relations and policies because they do not attempt the necessary self-reflexivity and openness to change that decolonization requires. My proposal is that non-Indigenous peoples, in order that they can properly hear and respond to Indigenous peoples’ calls for decolonization, move beyond these aforementioned approaches and consider themselves ‘foreigners’ in need of invitation onto Indigenous lands – both past and present. I suggest that as colonial denizens non-Indigenous Canadians take up an ethos that encourages them to re-evaluate their lives and relations with Indigenous peoples, lands and the settler state. The following provides a thought experiment centered around the colonial denizen through which non-Indigenous peoples are encouraged to question the sovereignty of the state, the impacts of the Canadian citizenship regime, their daily lives, and their relations to land at the same time that it encourages them to place responsibilities to others above inwardly-focused rights. I contend that such a thought experiment can open a path toward the instantiation of this denizen ethos (both discursively and materially), an ethos which acts as a potential and active way through which non-Indigenous peoples could appropriately and seriously meet Indigenous peoples’ calls for change. iv Lay Summary: Reconciliation and decolonization have become a prominent focus within Canadian society in recent years. While this has led to some positive initiatives and outcomes toward reconciliation within the country, changes that have been invoked ultimately uphold the colonial structures and relations that they are meant to dismantle. And so, there is more that needs to be done if non-Indigenous state and society are truly interested in meaningful decolonization that properly responds to Indigenous peoples’ calls for change. I argue that if non-Indigenous state and society are truly interested in responding to Indigenous peoples’ calls for decolonization they need to shift how they understand their relationships to Indigenous peoples, Indigenous lands and the settler state. The following proposes one path through which non-Indigenous peoples might alter their understandings of decolonization, suggesting that they begin to consider themselves ‘foreigners’ who require invitation onto Indigenous lands fulfilling responsibilities to Indigenous peoples and lands in order for their presence to be justified. v Preface This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Deanne Aline Marie Leblanc vi Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Lay Summary ..................................................................................................................... iv Preface................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction – Setting the Foundations for a Paradigm Shift ........................... 1 Chapter 2: The Colonial Denizen – A Paradigm Shift ....................................................... 3 An argument for the Denizen within Jodi Byrd’s Cacophony ...................................... 16 On Framing the Issue in terms of (Liberal-Democratic) Citizenship and Recognition. 24 Situating the Colonial Denizen Against its Political Origins and Contemporary Use .. 28 Articulating the Colonial Denizen: Re-Aligning Responsibilities, Lands and People .. 32 As an Historic-Analytic Tool ..................................................................................... 32 As a Contemporary Discursive Exercise .................................................................... 34 Applying the Historical-Analytical Colonial Denizen: Seventeenth-Century Encounters ..................................................................................................................... 43 Chapter 3: Searching for the Colonial Denizen in the Early Trade Colony of ‘New France’ (1600-29)........................................................................................................................... 47 A Quick Note on the European Context of Colonial Relations and its Implications for the Denizen .............................................................................................................. 48 Questioning Invitation onto Innu Territories at Uepishtikuiau (Québec)...................... 50 Fragile Alliances: Charting the Maintenance of Early French-Innu Trade-Based Relations ........................................................................................................................ 53 Tending to the Living Relationship as Mutual Responsibility: Wyandot-French Exchange ....................................................................................................................... 58 Settlement Attempts: The Increasing Tendency Toward Agrarian Practice and Permanence .................................................................................................................... 60 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 67 Chapter 4: Religious Colonialism in the Laurentian Valley (1623-63): Denizen Contradictions ................................................................................................................... 71 The Récollets: Early Religious Actors and their Vulnerable Missions ......................... 73 La Folle Enterprise: Religious and Agrarian Colonists in the ‘Founding’ Ville-Marie .................................................................................................................... 79 Settling Montréal: Invasion of the Divide .................................................................. 81 Mission Efforts ........................................................................................................... 85 Devoted Women: The Role of Religious Women in Establishing a New French Society ........................................................................................................................... 89 Marie de l’Incarnation: Educator and Diplomat of Québec ....................................... 91 Jeanne Mance and Ville-Marie’s Survival ................................................................. 93 Marguerite Bourgeoys and Religious Schooling at Ville-Marie ................................ 95 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 98 vii Chapter 5: Settler and Sojourner Colonists from the French Return to the Valley to the Late-Seventeenth Century: Stepping Away from Denizen-like Behaviour (1630-1700).................................................................................................................... .101 Contract Worker and Sojourner Colonists: Mid-Century Immigration Policy ........... 103 The Archambault Family: Agrarian Colonist Workers, Water Wells and the Cultivation of Land at Ville-Marie .............................................................................. 105 Habitants: Rural Agrarian Settler-Colonists, the Seigneurial System and Land Cultivation ................................................................................................................... 108 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 115 Chapter 6: Involuntary Denizens and Colonists amongst the filles du roi, Slaves and Slave Trading Participants of 17th Century New France (1650-1709) ........................... 118 Les Filles du Roi – Unwitting Mothers of an Empire?................................................ 120 The French and the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: Black Slaves in New France .......... 130 The French and the Intra-Continental Slave Trade: Indigenous Slaves in New France .......................................................................................................................... 136 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 141 Chapter 7: Colonial Actors from the Purview of the Fur Trade – Denizens, Sojourners and Guests ....................................................................................................................... 144 Evolution of the Fur Trade and its Early Actors ......................................................... 146 The 1650 Dispersal of Huronia: An Opportunity for Expansion and Accumulation in a Free-Trade Economy ............................................................................................ 148 The Shift to Colonial Regulation and Late Century Fur-Traders of the Colonial Frontier ........................................................................................................................ 154 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 164 Chapter 8: The Development Away from Denizen: Citizenship, Colonialism and the Crown (1763-1982) ......................................................................................................... 167 The Relationship between Citizenship and Settler Colonialism ................................. 171 The Gradual Civilization Act, the Pre-Confederate Imperial Subject, and the Targeted ‘Indian’ ......................................................................................................... 175 The Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the Settler Colonial Proto-Citizen, and the Enfranchised ‘Indian’ .................................................................................................. 185 The White Paper, the Liberal Individual Settler Citizen, and the Non-‘Indian’.......... 192 Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Settler Canadian Citizen and the ‘Aboriginal’ ................................................................................................................. 198 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 205 Conclusion: Key Insights Regarding the Instantiation of a Contemporary Colonial Denizen Ethos ................................................................................................................. 209 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 217 viii Acknowledgements It is not a single, isolated, individual who takes on and completes a PhD but an entire community and network of support comprised of mentors, peers, family, friends and institutions both within and beyond the academy. As such there are many acknowledgements to be made. First of all, I would not have been able to take up or complete this PhD if it were not for the financial support of the Department of Political Science at the University of British Columbia and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council in Ottawa. This dissertation would literally not have come to fruition without this support. Thank you. I am forever appreciative for the guidance and support of my supervisory committee – their insights and knowledge alongside their trust in me and my ideas. Thank you to Jim Tully for having, as early as my Master’s degree at the University of Victoria, seen the potential in the colonial denizen - encouraging me to develop and run with the concept and for always reading my drafts with such care and consideration. Thank you also to Glen Coulthard for your own thoughtful readings of my drafts and, specifically, for challenging me to dig deeper into the concept of a regime – encouraging me to recognize its inherent limitations alongside its potential for growth and change. I am beyond grateful to my supervisor Barbara Arneil for her abundant wealth of knowledge and wisdom as not only a supervisor but a mentor. This dissertation would not be what it is today without her and I would not have grown as much as an academic without her guidance. From our many meetings hashing out analytical threads to her diligent and insight comments and responses to various drafts, she helped me articulate, polish and improve the arguments and reasoning that formulate this dissertation. Even with her extensive commitments to the academic community, Barbara always found time to meet with me and to be the supervisor and mentor that I hope every PhD student/Candidate finds. Thank you to my peers within the graduate program at UBC for your mutual support throughout this journey. Whether it was through conferences, the Political Theory Workshop, or Barbara’s Critical Political Theory Working Group I am appreciative of your insights and support: Spencer, Corey, Nojang, Wagd, and Rose. I am also fortunate to have been able to complete this degree within a ridiculously supportive community of strong female peers at UBC and beyond. Thank you Elena, Hannah, Mandy, Kathy and Sarah. With a special shout-out to Elena and Hannah for being there for me through it all these past couple years. You two are absolute gems and exceedingly brilliant scholars with bright futures ahead. Thank you to Josephine, Richard and Rhea for helping me navigate the ins and outs of departmental and university-wide administration as a student, an instructor and a researcher. Special thanks to Josephine for always being up for a chat and for checking in throughout the semesters. Always a bright note of my day at the department. Thank you also to the professors who, earlier in my pursuit of post-secondary education, inspired me to continue on with my studies: Linda White, Ran Hirschl, Rauana Kuokkanen, Heidi Stark. I am also grateful to Aaron Mills for supporting me in my journey from undergrad through to the Master’s – for always believing in me (even when I didn’t believe in myself). Thank you also to the professors at UBC ix who have pushed me to be a better and more conscientious scholar: Cash Ahenakew, Gerald Baier, Bruce Baum, Anna Jurkevics, Mark Warren. I was fortunate enough to work with and learn about my family history on this project and so very grateful to my cousin Ferd Mireault for his dedication in recording our grandparent’s genealogy all the way back to sixteenth century France. Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my parents, Roger and Kathie Leblanc, for all of your support and love throughout my life and these last few years of graduate school. And to my brother, Justin Leblanc, for always being the supportive big brother. I would not be here without you. Chapter 1: Introduction - Setting the Foundations for a Paradigm Shift Indigenous peoples have long been resisting the colonial policies and actions of non-Indigenous Canadian state and society (Smith, 2014; Harring, 1998; Cardinal, 1999). This is a fact, as are the repeated calls by various Indigenous representatives, activists, and scholars for decolonization and the re-centering of Indigenous peoples, lands and nation-hoods within political, legal and social spheres (Cardinal, 1969; Smith, 2012; Simpson, 2011; Kino-nda-niimi Collective, 2014). While non-Indigenous state and society have been responding to these calls in recent years, and making some important progress (Canada, 2016; Canada, 2019), such responses have ultimately maintained the colonial power structures that have long sought to dispossess and subordinate Indigenous peoples while they have established and maintained non-Indigenous privileges and securities that are themselves premised on the continued colonization of Indigenous life and land (Mackey, 2016). There is a need, therefore, to work beyond such contemporary approaches and to challenge the paradigms and implicit assumptions within which such responses have been put forward and, ultimately, curtailed. This is the general impetus behind my dissertation: identifying why there is a need to push past these recent approaches, how such a process might be accomplished, as well as what shape this process might take. My work focuses not on the state, its role and actions within colonialism and decolonization, but on the roles and actions of non-state, non-Indigenous actors. Contemporary responses to Indigenous calls for decolonization tend to focus on the state, its colonial implications and actions. Yet the lack of meaningful engagement with and consideration of non-Indigenous actors within both colonialism and decolonization is part of the failure of past ‘decolonization’-focused initiatives – although the recent report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has meaningfully begun to address the roles and actions of non-Indigenous society in the specific move to reconciliation.1 The animating question of this dissertation is, therefore: what roles might non-Indigenous peoples, currently understood as 1 Reconciliation and decolonization are not one and the same concept. Reconciliation, which tends to be the focus of Canadian state-led initiatives is focused on the restoration of friendly relations between parties – a goal which can be claimed to be accomplished from within colonially-animated liberal-democratic, western paradigms. Alternatively, decolonization requires substantive moves and changes that actively move beyond the structures and paradigms of colonialism and toward the re-centering of Indigenous life and land. It is decolonization, therefore, that serves as the focus of my work rather than reconciliation. This distinction is elaborated and further contextualized within chapter one. 2 Canadian citizens, play within the move to decolonization? My proposal is that non-Indigenous Canadians require a paradigm shift away from the contemporary western paradigms that uphold colonial power relations toward a new paradigm that I identify as the colonial denizen through which non-Indigenous peoples come to understand themselves as foreigners in need of invitation from Indigenous peoples in order to legitimately co-habit Indigenous lands. As I will explain further below, such a paradigm shift can relocate the territorial and local within non-Indigenous understandings and approaches to decolonization at the same time it can help introduce a specifically dialogical approach to decolonization. I have approached this work as a non-Indigenous Canadian citizen who is focused on and interested in improving Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations so that non-Indigenous peoples can appropriately meet Indigenous peoples’ calls for decolonial change. As a thirteenth-generation French-Canadian on my father’s side and third-generation Irish-Canadian on my mother’s side of the family I seek to situate myself as a settler scholar whose ancestors have a long history of colonial implication within the country. Situating myself in this way is not only one method through which to demonstrate respect toward the protocols of Indigenous scholars, leaders, and activists (Chilisa, 2012; Cajete, 2014; Wilson, 2009), who begin their own works and addresses by identifying themselves in relation to their ancestors and territories, but is also a way through which to align my work with the situation of oneself in relation to the post-colonial relations of the ‘orient’ as identified in Edward Said’s work (1979). Such self-situation, therefore, demonstrates deference to Indigenous diplomacy and governance at the same time that it demonstrates a necessary challenge to western academic paradigms that claim the scholar is an objective researcher of power relations. It is also a way for the researcher to act as denizen through their work, to be accountable through approaching history and its analysis through this self-situated and so necessarily reflexive method. I have traced my ancestry through patriarchal lines, focusing mainly on male figures who are largely public figures of widespread ancestry throughout present-day Québec and the broader French-Canadian population. Their stories and relationships have been grounded predominately through state, imperial, and elite sources and official archives although I do place these sources into dialogue with local Indigenous and non-mainstream sources where possible. Why have I chosen such a mainstream approach given the disruptive intention behind mobilizing the colonial denizen? Beyond the very real constraints of time, resources and linguistic barriers, this approach 3 actually aligns with my critical focus on state and citizenship, even when I am looking to uncover the roles and relations of non-state actors (these roles are to be uncovered vis à vis their relationships to state and citizenship – as well as Indigenous life and land). As a political theorist, therefore, the exploration of these non-state actors, these civic ancestors (for they are common to so many), through a critical engagement with official archival and mainstream sources, supplemented where possible with critical and non-mainstream sources, demonstrates an appropriate beginning to the historical mobilization of the colonial denizen. It is an internally-focused beginning, a first step that starts from within the very structures, patterns and narratives that are problematic – that have led to the contemporary realities that define today’s colonial relationships and structures. It is a step, although imperfect, towards Georges Sioui’s americity as the demythologization of Canadian socio-political discourse and the recognition of the “spirit, order, and thought” of local Indigenous societies and histories (1992, xxiii). A step through which one can begin to identify potential moments and lessons of historic relationships that might inform a contemporary instantiation of the colonial denizen. Of course there are inherent limitations to this method, for it maintains focus on non-Indigenous actors wherein the intention behind the paradigm shift, the colonial denizen, and towards decolonization is about re-centering Indigenous lives and lands. It is, likewise, not properly understood as Sioui’s americity. Rather it is demonstrative of some of the self-reflexive work that needs to be done to aid non-Indigenous actors in their approach to decolonization, and likewise to their support of the re-centering of Indigenous lives and lands. Maintaining this critical, self-reflexive method, this work is approached through the discursive lens of settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is premised on the belief that there is a specific structural instantiation of colonialism wherein the colonizer looks to erase and replace original Indigenous populations with their own (Veracini, 2010; Wolfe, 1999). Within Canada, it is generally agreed upon that this form of colonialism began during the 1860s (Greer, 2018) when British North America gained a great level of autonomy from Britain and began actively pursuing physical colonization and resource-based extractions across the continent – actions with which state and society are still occupied today. I argue throughout the dissertation, therefore, that contemporary responses to Indigenous calls to decolonize are stuck within this structure when they adhere to the western paradigms that supported settler colonialism’s development and which continue to bolster its sustenance. While settler colonialism and its relationship to 4 contemporary, guiding paradigms forms the crux of the problem here, I also consider the roles and functions of alternative forms of colonialism that pre-dated the settler colonial turn in Canada. This is because a considerable portion of my thesis analyzes the roles of non-Indigenous peoples and their relationships with Indigenous peoples and lands within the country’s historic past - research I completed in the hopes that it would help inform a contemporary paradigm shift of the colonial denizen. As such, I also explore trade-based colonialism, agrarian-colonialism, and religious colonialism within the follow chapters – identifying how their alternative goals and structures animated Indigenous-non-Indigenous relationship within the past – relationships from which contemporary non-Indigenous Canadians might learn from in their search for a colonial denizen ethos. Importantly, these chapters collectively identify how economy has always underpinned the colonial. The economic reasoning for exploration, trade and settlement always, on the political side of things, drove and continues to drive colonial interest. And it was the economy, its actors’ fluctuating and changing interests, that, as will be seen within the historical chapters, led the evolution from and through trade-based colonialism well into present day settler colonialism. As the historical chapters demonstrate, capitalism (as it likewise developed from ‘merchant’ capital to today’s modern instantiation) has – just as liberalism has – deep-seated and symbiotic ties with the establishment and continuance of colonialism. For An Antan Kapesh, an Innu activist and author from Matimekosh (Schefferville, Quebec), as well as for many other Indigenous peoples across the land, capitalism (and the structural impositions that accompany it: private property, resource extraction, etc.) have been continually used to destroy Indigenous peoples’ attachment to the land (1979) so that non-Indigenous state and society can use the land to increase their own sense of security, privilege and power from within the bounds of liberalism, capitalism and settler colonialism. This relationship, between capital and the colonial, needs to be – alongside the consideration of land and property – an important focal point of the discussion in the move toward decolonization. Importantly, this work is not situated within the approach or methodology of any one specific theorist or scholar. I do not take a strictly Foucaultian or Gadamerian approach to the study of the colonial denizen, ‘Canadian’ citizenship (belonging), and seventeenth century New France. Rather, this work is more broadly situated within critical colonial theory wherein it is more specifically guided by the works of those like Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Jim Tully, Barbara Arneil, Glen Coulthard, Audra Simpson, and Georges Sioui as I look to critically analyze and 5 uncover the colonial assumptions, leanings and structures of society with a view toward helping create the discursive space needed in the move toward decolonization. My mobilization and analysis of the denizen within this critical colonial space means that I am actually engaged in a critical review of citizenship throughout this dissertation. In fact, citizenship (whether it is citizenship as it is currently understood in Canada today or subject-hood/belonging as it may be understood within the historical analysis) is an important analytical thread throughout the dissertation. It is the work of the colonial denizen after all to re-evaluate what it means to belong, whether there is a right to belonging, on Indigenous lands. And so while the jump from the study of seventeenth century New France to the study of the evolution of anglophone-based, Canadian citizenship from 1763 to present may seem like a strange turn, it is in fact a natural analytic turn within the confines of this dissertation and a necessary turn for the continuance of the critical analysis of belonging that the colonial denizen entails. I have chosen to begin my study, the empirical contextualization of the colonial denizen, within seventeenth century New France for various reasons. First of all, the imperial project of seventeenth century New France represents the begins of the broader project and creation of Canada as it exists today – this is true even where New France was always a specifically-French project and more clearly and directly led to the creation of Québec and a French-Canadian society than the broader, anglicized nation-state Canada has become. New France, through various material and social mechanisms represents a starting point or prelude to Canada as it is understood today. Given that my project is, in large part, focused on uncovering Canadian subject-hood/citizenship it is appropriate, and helps provide context to contemporary understandings and functions of citizenship and its relation to colonialism, to begin uncovering relationships as they existed (or may have existed) during this earliest of colonial projects that led, or preluded, the development of Canada. Another reason I have chosen to begin my analysis in seventeenth century New France is because it represents my own ancestral beginnings, and so my own familial narrative, of being on these lands. It is a personal part of my story at the same time that it is a civic part of the broader Canadian story. Completing this work, attempting this analysis, identifying and discussing the roles of my ancestral figures within seventeenth century New France is, therefore, part of my own self-contextualization as a scholar and an attempt to abide by a colonial denizen ethos within my work. Finally, beginning in seventeenth century New France also provides me with an opportunity to help shed light on a founding myth – the 6 myth that the French were friendlier colonizers, were maybe not even colonizers, when compared to other European powers. This myth is tied up with troubling moves amongst French-Canadian populations to ‘Indigenize’ themselves, to claim colonizing ‘metis’ identities (Gaudry and Leroux, 2017), at the same time it is tied up in the very historiography of French-Canada and its mobilization towards claims for Quebecois self-determination and sovereignty (Mailhot, 2017; Michaud-Ouellet, 2019; Gaudry and Leroux, 2017; Sioui, 1992). Situated against the context of this myth, analysis of the colonial denizen begins, therefore, as not only a way to empirically trace and ground the denizen within the historical archive but also as a way to re-visit and re-story narratives around Indigenous and non-Indigenous relationships that helps critically re-examine some of the very earliest founding myths upon which contemporary state and society have been built and continue to grow. *** The first chapter of my dissertation sets out a preliminary iteration of the colonial denizen as a normative-analytical tool for studying the past as well as a discursive exercise that has the potential to inform a paradigm shift toward a colonial denizen ethos. It is within this chapter that I address why the colonial denizen is a useful and necessary addition to contemporary rhetoric and the lexicon of colonist-focused terms (e.g. arrivant, settler, sojourner). It is also here that I begin articulating how a paradigm shift focused on the colonial denizen could look. Here I argue that through a denizen-lens, non-Indigenous peoples (past and present) should consider themselves ‘foreigners’ in need of invitation onto Indigenous lands. I suggest that as colonial denizens non-Indigenous Canadians take up an ethos that encourages them to re-evaluate their lives and relations with Indigenous peoples, Indigenous lands and the settler state. Re-evaluations which encourage non-Indigenous peoples to question the sovereignty of the state, the impacts of the Canadian citizenship regime and their daily relations at the same time that they encourage non-Indigenous peoples to place responsibilities to others above inwardly-focused rights. I contend that identifying and acting upon such an ethos can provide a way through which non-Indigenous peoples can appropriately and seriously meet Indigenous peoples’ calls for change – de-centering themselves from the discourse at the same time that they help re-center Indigenous lives and lands. While the application of this term may, at first glance, appear universal and so a-territorial, as will become clear, it is actually meant to be rooted within the territorial and local. 7 Yes, it is a term that can be applied to various contexts and locales, but it’s instantiation in any given context is, through dialogue with local Indigenous peoples, to be specific to the relations, histories and lands within which it looks to be articulated. To identify as a colonial denizen, or to take up a colonial denizen ethos is, therefore, to recognize the need for invitation and the need to re-center Indigenous lives and lands, and to enter into dialogue with local Indigenous peoples to ask, and to also dialogically determine, what it means to be a ‘denizen’ within the discursive and material orientation of local Indigenous worldviews, ontologies and interests. In this way the colonial denizen, as I present it throughout the dissertation, is in an important way a universally-applicable term (in that it can be applied across various spaces and even times) but is also an application that is always specific, local and territorially-bound. In this way it is an appropriate avenue through which to encourage non-Indigenous peoples to re-evaluate and re-frame contemporary paradigms as it carries with it the potential to re-align and prioritize territory, responsibility and the local within the discursive and material conceptions of decolonization, and contemporary paradigms, as these are all necessary considerations and re-centerings in the move toward substantive, decolonial change. There are, therefore, two levels at which one can discuss the colonial denizen. It is meant to be employed as a ‘universal’ concept in the sense that it can be theorized at an abstract level as well as applied within various contexts. It is also intended to be specifically, materially, employed at the local and territorial level and so transformed, potentially, into something else – perhaps a ‘de’colonial denizen ethos. In its specific and local application the colonial denizen is, therefore, a starting point in the establishment of dialogical and decolonizing relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples who find themselves living within the same locales and mutually responsible for bringing about substantive decolonial change. Following this first substantive chapter, I move on to the first of five, roughly chronological, historical chapters based on seventeenth-century relations between the various Indigenous peoples and the French both along the St. Lawrence River and within the interior. These chapters serve two key purposes within my broader study. First of all, they enable me to explore an empirically-based iteration, rooted in historical archives, of the colonial denizen through investigating where initial colonists may fit in relation to the colonial denizen and broader colonial lexicon when their behaviours and relations toward Indigenous peoples, the land and the broader processes and policies of imperialism and colonization are considered. In 8 identifying actors in this way such chapters seek to measure how well their actions and thought correlated to a denizen ethos, I concede that many (if not all) colonists would not have considered themselves denizens. While this application is demonstrative of a specific, historically and territorially-rooted conception of the colonial denizen – what a denizen ethos may have looked like in seventeenth century encounters between the French, Innu, Wyandot, Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and other Indigenous peoples, such an analysis has the potential to provide contemporary interlocuters with examples, lessons and contradictions that are useful to consider when establishing a contemporary denizen ethos. And so, even if this empirical iteration of the denizen is context-bounded, the specific applications and interpretations of a colonial denizen found within these locales and relations can still help to inform contemporary understandings and applications of a colonial denizen ethos today. Secondly, this historical analysis enables me to investigate and tell an alternative narrative of citizenship, and so belonging, through a re-storying of settlement history focused on membership, invitation, colonial thought and action and the re-centering of Indigenous lives and lands. These chapters, therefore, set the stage for the last chapter of the dissertation through which I track how the (liberal democratic) Canadian citizenship regime has been built upon the subordination and dispossession of Indigenous peoples (thereby establishing a symbioses), while arguing for key changes that can be made through adopting a contemporary denizen ethos. In addition to these two core purposes, these historical chapters also allow me to situate myself within this study by exploring vignettes of my ancestors at various places throughout analysis. Being a colonial denizen myself requires such self-situating as a scholar with responsibility toward Indigenous peoples and the goal of decolonization; as well as in relation to my ancestors and the colonial project writ large. The second chapter, therefore, considers the roles of some of the earliest French colonists along the river within Champlain’s habitation during a time in which trade-based colonialism was the dominant structure of relations. In referencing often overlooked Innu oral tradition, this chapter challenges the well-versed narrative that the French were invited onto the shore by the Innu in 1604 to construct a habitation. In this way the chapter explores the politics and functions of invitation as it actually occurred (or did not occur) and its role within a contemporary denizen ethos. I study the roles of sojourners and early agrarian colonists considering what their actual roles and relations were at this time as well as what their roles and relations would have looked 9 like under a strict observance of a colonial denizen role. Analysis here is grounded within the hypothesis that since these early French colonists were in vulnerable positions relative to the Indigenous peoples they encountered, made alliances and enemies with, they would have naturally been more deferent toward their allies laws and customs and, therefore, would have exhibited more denizen-like behaviours. Here I use the vignette of Louis Hébert, traditionally considered the first French colonial farmer of New France and one of my first ancestors within the colony, to explore the roles of early agrarian colonists within the trade-based colony. The results of my analysis within this chapter, however, leave me to conclude that deference is not the immediate avenue through which these actors guided their behaviours. Rather deference really only comes to be present during periods of forced dependence on Indigenous peoples (which is sometimes mutual) or the realization of colonists’ vulnerability amongst Indigenous peoples and within their lands. The third chapter considers the roles of religious actors and religious colonialism during the early to mid-seventeenth century within New France. As such it considers the evolution in religious presence and action within the colony, the influence of religious colonial endeavours and actors on Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations during this period, and the connection between religion and imperialism so crucial to the ‘Age of Discovery’. I explore the role of the Récollets as the first missionaries in the colony; the invasion of the island that became Montréal, and its establishment as a religious mission; and the role of three prominent religious women within the colony whose actions were integral for future French settlement in the region: Jeanne Mance, Marie de l’Incarnation and Marguerite Bourgeoys. A core argument animating this chapter is that while these religious actors were overwhelmingly colonial in their actions and intentions there are various points at which one can see (specifically in regard to the religious women of the colony) potential glimmers of responsibility-driven, denizen-like thoughts or actions. An additional and important point of analysis within this chapter is the role that religious colonialism played in the shift from trade to agrarian-based colonialism within the colony. In other words, a shift from the less permanent trade form of colonialism (naturally more inclined toward denizen-like relations due to its ephemeral colonial goals) toward the more permanent agrarian form of colonialism (naturally more inclined toward colonialists relations due to its focus on settlement). The church and its actors were critical for establishing the foundations for agrarian colonialism due to their ability to establish the conditions necessary for more permanent 10 settlement – a reality that further cements the relationship of religion and its actors to imperialism and colonization at this time. The fourth chapter considers the roles of both voluntary contract labourers and habitants who came (in many cases on the Church’s dime) to the Laurentian Valley during the early to mid-seventeenth century to settle and help cultivate the land. This chapter focuses on immigration policy (1630-1663) and agricultural policy (1632-1670) within an increasingly agrarian colony. Here I use the vignettes of my ancestors Jacques Archambault, labourer turned habitant of the earlier immigration policies; and Jacques Leblanc, labourer turned habitant of the later immigration policies to explore this period of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations and agrarian colonialism looking to identify moments of denizen and colonialist behaviour. This chapter once against highlights contradictions in colonist behaviour – identifying conflicting moments of denizen and colonialist leanings and actions. A central argument within this chapter is that as the institutions of ‘New France’ developed, as the internal stability of the colony grew, its voluntary agrarian colonists were increasingly less likely to act as denizens in relation to Indigenous life and land. While the first four historical chapters considered the roles of voluntary colonists, the fifth chapter considers the position of arrivants as the variously-situated involuntary members of a growing colony in the mid to late-seventeenth century. I explore these roles in order to enrich one’s understanding of the colonial cacophony as well as to challenge the mainstream narrative of Canada as a peaceful and tolerant country devoid of slavery and forced migrations. In this capacity I explore the roles of the filles du roi who were sent, under varying levels of duress to help populate the colony; as well as the clearly colonized and subjected Black and Indigenous slaves who were forced into slavery within the colony. To explore the roles of filles du roi within the colony I use the vignette of my ancestor, Suzanne Rousselin. My exploration of these women leads me to conclude that while they were sent to the colony as sexualized dependents who in many cases had little other choice but to come (given the hierarchical and patriarchal nature of ancient regime France), the relative privileges they and their progeny experienced at the sake of Indigenous life and land (but also France’s impoverished populations and even, for some filles, at the sake of other filles) positions these women more as agrarian colonists than arrivants within the broader colonial picture. Alternatively, I find it inappropriate to situate Black and Indigenous slaves from within a denizen lens. These were men and women who were themselves colonized 11 by French society. While their contemporary progeny might experience relative privileges of settler society, they still face significant systemic racism and discrimination. I am left to conclude that there might be avenues through which these contemporary men and women may have some common, though certainly differentiated, grounds of and responsibilities with Indigenous peoples in resistance against white privilege, and the continuing colonialism, oppression and subordination that both groups face. The sixth chapter, the final one to explore roles and relations in 17th century New France, focuses on the roles and evolution of trade actors both along the St. Lawrence River and within the interior. As such it explores the evolution of fur trade policy and structure and this evolution’s impact on actors as well as Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations. My research shows that shifting contexts had a tremendous influence on the ways through which trade-based colonialism functioned. While this form of colonialism has been identified as naturally geared toward more denizen-like relations, I found that in the presence of a growing agrarian-base along the river during mid-century, the structure of agrarian colonialism took precedence in relations and the behaviour of colonists. While the coureurs de bois and the voyaguers of the later century found themselves in more vulnerable, trade-based context within the pays d’en haut and interior – suggesting they should have been more inclined toward denizen behaviour – even these actors struggled (as did their early agrarian counterparts at Champlain’s habitation) to act in denizen-like manners though these actors might be the closest to demonstrating a denizen role during the period under review. The final chapter jumps forward to re-visit the development of the Canadian citizenship regime and its dependence on the incremental subordination of Indigenous peoples through analyzing key junctures in colonial policy from 1763 to 1982. Here I identify the close relationship between citizenship and settler colonialism, using the evolutions of Canadian citizenship regimes to track shifts in colonial policy and implementation considering four major junctures: the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act, the 1869 Gradual Enfranchisement Act, the 1969 White Paper, and finally the 1982 inclusion of section 35 within the Constitution Act. Using a critical colonial lens, I identify the overarching relationship of these junctures to settler colonial theory as well as their specific characteristics in relation to the given citizenship regime of the time. This chapter serves three purposes within the broader dissertation. First of all, it enables me to identify how far non-Indigenous Canadians have moved from denizen-like relations to 12 Indigenous peoples and lands, an historic possibility for Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations but one that has been set aside in favour of an imposed settler colonial citizenship. Secondly, it allows me to highlight the specific relationship between Canadian citizenship and settler colonialism, how this relationship has shaped Indigenous-non-Indigenous relationships, and how non-Indigenous Canadians are implicated in colonialism through their status as Canadian citizens. Finally, analysis within this last chapter bolsters the major argument of my dissertation that a paradigm shift is necessary and can be accomplished through the establishment of a contemporary colonial denizen ethos. An ethos that requires non-Indigenous peoples step away from contemporary western paradigms and the citizenship regime, begin to understand themselves as foreigners who need invitation from local Indigenous peoples to co-habit lands, as well as seek the renewal of relations with Indigenous peoples that eliminates the Crown as arbiter and obstacle to better relations. 13 Chapter 2: The Colonial Denizen - A Paradigm Shift The publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report in 2015 appears to have fostered an environment of nascent reflexivity throughout non-Indigenous Canadian society focused on identifying and addressing the collective colonial issues of today. While many non-Indigenous Canadians are now searching in good faith for ways of re-orienting themselves toward truth and reconciliation, many find themselves stuck, alienated and uncertain of how to move forward. This uncertainty and alienation is due in part to the nature of contemporary state-led reconciliation efforts and the inability of current paradigms2 to substantively challenge settler colonialism and offer its participants a method of moving beyond the logics and structures of its realities. What I am offering here, through the colonial denizen, is one way through which interested non-Indigenous peoples might begin discursively re-orienting themselves beyond contemporary western paradigms so that they may better situate themselves to actively, dialogically and appropriately respond to society’s colonial past and present and meet Indigenous peoples’ calls for decolonization.3 An important issue facing contemporary non-Indigenous peoples in the move forward is that the reconciliation efforts readily provided, which are largely confined to the liberal-democratic state and paradigm, look for reconciliation, as the restoration of ‘friendly’ relations (OED, n.d.), before and beyond decolonization, as the re-centering of Indigenous life and land (Tuck and Yang, 2012), and so are set up to fail because they are not properly focused on responding to Indigenous calls for decolonization and the substantive social and political change necessary to move beyond settler colonialism. As responses from within a liberal-democratic paradigm these efforts are caught within the paradigm’s own structures and logics and so are unable to properly identify and respond to calls for decolonization. What these efforts actually 2 Here and throughout this dissertation I use the term ‘paradigm’ to denote a set of authoritative theories and rules that have come to define a group or a society’s orientation to a subject – theories and rules which impose artificial limits on what those who operate within the paradigm are able and/or willing to see. As the work of Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, has demonstrated paradigm shifts naturally occur within both fields of study and societies more broadly. I am arguing here, as will become clearer throughout, that the contemporary paradigms that guide non-Indigenous responses to Indigenous calls for decolonization (namely the liberal-democratic paradigm that serves to uphold settler colonial processes and structures) have prevented non-Indigenous peoples from being able and willing to understand Indigenous calls for decolonization and to see the real substantive change that needs to occur. 3 Here I am distinguishing between a discursive as opposed to more material approach or intention within my work, wherein a shift through the discursive will eventually influence a shift in the material. Barbara Arneil. Domestic Colonies: The Turn Inward to Colony. Oxford University Press, 2017. pp. 1-3. 14 end up accomplishing according to Dene Scholar, Glen Coulthard, is the extension of settler colonialism’s structured dispossession and the reproduction of “the very configurations of colonist, racist, patriarch state power that Indigenous peoples’ demands for recognition have historically sought to transcend” (2014, 3). This is because the very theories and components that ground the liberal-democratic paradigm (the primacy of the sovereign individual, the privileging of rights over responsibilities, etc.) support and sustain the processes and structures of settler-colonialism (capitalism, dispossession, resource extraction, etc.). And so these seemingly ‘reconciliatory’ moves, while they may have had positive and transformative effects for many of those who have been directly involved, do not achieve their stated ends because they are trapped within the logical reproduction of not only the liberal-democratic paradigm but also settler colonial structures and relations, which continue to threaten Indigenous and treaty rights as well as Indigenous nation-hoods and sovereignties. Yet it is these initiatives that are the state-provided guideposts with which interested non-Indigenous peoples are provided – guideposts which (if accepted) ultimately lead participants to further entrench settler colonial structures and relations as they fail to be able to recognize the realities and demands of decolonization as they actually stand from outside the mutually re-enforcing liberal-democratic and settler-colonial processes and structures. When colonialism is defined, by scholars like Coulthard and Leanne Simpson, as a continuing form of domination over and dispossession of Indigenous peoples, specific to the logics of erasure evidenced in settler colonial states (Coulthard, 2014; Simpson, 2011), decolonization requires the resurgence and re-centering of Indigenous life and land (Simpson, 2011; Tuck and Yang, 2012) at the same time that it requires a step away from the liberal state (Coulthard, 2014) and the willingness of non-Indigenous peoples to step aside, and to be open to transformative change. The failure of the current liberal-democratic paradigm in being able to identify this, to acknowledge this, is part of what leads to settler uncertainty and alienation for those interested in acting otherwise - toward a politics of decolonization. Just as the state has become stuck within the paradigm so too have its citizens. If decolonization requires non-Indigenous peoples to respond to Indigenous peoples’ calls for change, and it should, non-Indigenous society will need to challenge the long-held assumptions, privileges and worldviews (that continue to support colonial structures and processes) at a much deeper level than the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm allows. This requires moving beyond awareness and 15 early-learning-stage initiatives (Environics Institute, 2016; Davis et al., 2016) and toward meaningful challenge, change and engagement. The following, therefore, proposes the concept of the denizen as a new analytical tool corresponding to the historic, contemporary and future roles of non-Indigenous peoples. A status and ethos that provides greater normative direction (than for instance the term ‘settler’) for non-Indigenous peoples who are looking, in good faith, for ways through which they can respond to Indigenous calls for change. A status and ethos that might be able to spark a paradigm shift away from the liberal-democratic one that Canadian state and society find themselves beholden to today. Beginning from the twinned understanding of (settler) colonialism and decolonization identified with Coulthard and Simpson, wherein colonialism is further complicated by “a cacophony of contradictorily hegemonic and horizontal struggles” (Byrd, 2011, 53) between variously situated actors, I seek to articulate the colonial denizen. It is my contention that the normative-analytical power of the colonial denizen can simultaneously allow non-Indigenous peoples to identify themselves appropriately in relation to historical realities of colonial thought and action, while creating a discursive basis upon which to more appropriately engage in dialogues with local Indigenous peoples thereby identifying further suitable actions and roles within the process of decolonization with respect to Indigenous peoples. As such, I argue that through a denizen-lens non-Indigenous peoples consider themselves ‘foreigners’ in need of invitation onto Indigenous lands (both past and present). I suggest that as colonial denizens non-Indigenous Canadians take up an ethos that encourages them to re-evaluate their lives and relations with Indigenous peoples, Indigenous lands and the settler state. Re-evaluations which encourage non-Indigenous peoples to question the sovereignty of the state, the impacts of the Canadian citizenship regime and their daily relations at the same time that they encourage settlers to place responsibilities to others above inwardly-focused rights. I contend that identifying and acting upon such an ethos provides a way through which non-Indigenous peoples can move past their uncertainty, alienation and fear and begin the discursive, re-orientating work needed to actually hear and meet Indigenous peoples’ calls for material change – where non-Indigenous peoples de-center themselves from the discourse at the same time that they help re-center Indigenous lives and lands. The following chapter will develop the rationale for using this term as well as establish the foundational articulation of the colonial denizen upon which the rest of the dissertation is 16 premised. As such, I will begin by situating the colonial denizen amongst the traditional terms and roles of colonists within the colonial literature (specifically arrivants, sojourners, colons and guests) arguing that the denizen offers a fresh and necessary addition to traditional roles and conceptions of non-Indigenous actors within colonialism. From here I will offer a short synopsis of the problems inherent within the inclusion/citizenship and recognition-based approaches that have dominated non-Indigenous responses to Indigenous calls for decolonization within Canada, focusing on how the turn to a denizen ethos can offer a way of stepping beyond these confined approaches. Following from this I will begin articulating the colonial denizen as against its use within Ancient Rome, Medieval England and contemporary citizenship studies literature. This will lead me into a fuller articulation of the colonial denizen – its potential as an historical-analytical tool for re-configuring narratives of settlement and belonging and as a contemporary ethos that might help encourage a contemporary paradigm shift for non-Indigenous peoples. An Argument for the Denizen within Jodi Byrd’s Cacophony There is already a large lexicon of terms used throughout colonial-focused literature to describe the various positions of differently situated ‘colonists’. It is important to contextualize the denizen amongst some of the more prominent of these terms as a way of highlighting not only the utility of the colonial denizen but to also present a fuller understanding of its application. As I present it here, the colonial denizen is not meant to replace already existing terminology (e.g. settler, sojourner, colon, arrivant, guest) but to add a useful and necessary term that serves both descriptive and normative functions and which works amongst and as part of these already-established roles. As such, the following presents a short summation of the colonial cacophony-as-lexicon and the way in which the colonial denizen fits into and adds to the literature and understandings of colonial roles and relations. First of all, I will be using the term ‘colonist’ throughout to refer to anyone who comes to a given colony from away. (Almost) everyone who participates (historically and today) at some level in the practice of leaving for a colony or settler colonial state is a part of this cacophony and is implicated in some way within the colonial project as ‘colonist’. Both voluntary and involuntary as well as permanent and temporary members of the colony (or settler colonial state), therefore, become implicated within the structure and processes of the colonial project – in some cases simultaneously occupying the position of dominator and dominated (Arneil, 2017). Such a broad application of the term ‘colonist’ is supported today in the works of Indigenous and 17 racialized scholars like Bonita Lawrence and Enakshi Dua who, in challenging anti-racial studies to decolonize, recognize that the application of the term ‘colonist’ is not just confined to Caucasian (and one might add cis-gendered and heteronormative) men and women but is applied to nearly all those who ‘come from away’ who (while they might experience domination themselves) benefit in some way from the colonial project (2005). Noteworthy here is implied voluntary nature of ‘coming from away’. As will be seen within the following parsing of the lexicon, not all colonists are equally implicated within the colonial project and so not all equally benefit from it. Importantly, some individuals who have been forced to migrate to a given colony, slaves for instance, as explored within chapter 6, may not be appropriately identifiable as denizens at all because they too are colonized and so beyond the bounds of the identity of ‘colonist’ - even where their contemporary progeny may now enjoy some level of colonial privilege and so be identifiable as ‘colonist’ and so also as denizens somewhere along a broad and interwoven spectrum. This is to say that while the application of the ‘denizen’ term is meant to be fluid and its given instantiation context-specific, it too has limits. Alongside this, the application of the denizen to any given context or ‘colonist’-identified individual, society or group fluctuates alongside this scale of complicity and privilege as do the potential discursive constraints, leanings and material instantiations of a denizen ethos within present realities – even where such constraints, leanings and material instantiations must ultimately be determined through dialogue with local Indigenous peoples. It is through the various alternative terms (settler, sojourner, etc.) that one identifies and analyzes the diversity along this spectrum within the colonist body. These differences speak predominately, though not exclusively, to differences between one’s position as voluntary or involuntary, permanent or temporary colonist within the broader colonial project. For instance, the ‘settler’ term is suggestive of a voluntary and permanent colonist actor. Within the literature of settler colonial studies (Wolfe, 1999; Veracini, 2010) through which the term has been brought to the forefront of recent discussion “settlers are founders of political orders [who]…carry their sovereignty with them” (Veracini, 2010, 3). Settlers are men and women who ultimately seek to establish themselves as Indigenous to foreign lands - a process that is never complete and which is dependent on the continued erasure of Indigenous lives. As such it is a term applicable to the specific settler colonial turn, rather than the precursory economic forms of colonization and empire. While there is an implicit voluntary dimension to the ‘settler’ term, 18 suggesting that settlers are those who willingly come to the colony to conscientiously participate within the settler colonial project such a term might apply more broadly to alternatively-situated actors who come to take on such a role – like in the case of indentured servants who decide to remain in the colony as free men following their servitude. In juxtaposition to the ‘settler’ is the ‘arrivant’ – a term initially identified in the work of Carribean poet Kamau Brathwaite and borrowed by Jodi Byrd for her analysis of the colonial cacophony. This term refers to “those people forced into the Americas through the violence of European and Anglo-American colonialism and imperialism around the globe” (Byrd, 2011, xix). While the term is principally used to identify the role of slaves and indentured servants as ‘colonists’ within the literature, it could also be extended to apply to women like the filles du roi, who in many cases, it can be argued, were forced to come to New France to settle and help populate the French-Canadian colonies. This term is used to identify involuntary colonists who experience(d) subordinate roles of domination within the colonial project and yet who are still implicated as colonists, and may be seen to benefit in some ways from the colonization, dispossession and erasure of Indigenous peoples. Such ‘colonists’ can be either permanent or temporary actors within a given colony. While slaves were indentured for life, thereby suggesting that theirs’ is a place of permanence, indentured servants were ‘enslaved’ for short periods of time and in some cases returned to their homeland upon completion of their contracts. As chapter 6 will demonstrate, some forced migrants like the fille du roi ended up experiencing such relative colonial privileges that they are clearly identifiable as colonists and so potential denizen-like figures. Whereas others are clearly colonized from the outset and so, like Black and Indigenous slaves forced into servitude by the French along the banks of the St. Lawrence, not colonist actors. This is true even where, for instance, the progeny of Black slaves within contemporary Canada may now experience relative privilege, while simultaneously being subjected to various forms of racism and subordination, and so may have a potential role or line of responsibilities as denizen today that would look different from the progeny of voluntary migrants who do not share these contemporary realities and histories. The denizen serves as an analytic tool through which to identify and analyze the ways that the positions of differently situated colonists, their various relations to Indigenous peoples and the lands, affect(ed) not only their actions but also their willingness and ability to act as denizens - as those who recognize(d) their foreignness to Indigenous lands and act(ed), 19 respectfully to Indigenous peoples, nations and societies, in kind. As such, it also demonstrates the importance of context both in the past and the present and how this can inform the employment of the denizen term as an ethos today – in other words, the fact that looking to act as a colonial denizen will mean something different to a given individual based on various factors (e.g. how they came to reside on Indigenous lands, their own relation to the colonial state and its structures, and the specific interests and governance structures of local Indigenous peoples with which a given individual looks to dialogically present themselves as ‘denizen’). In this way, the denizen is applicable across the already existing lexicon as a further guide to surveying the actual actions and roles of colonists as well as the potential roles of denizens. In addition, it provides a normative lens through which to examine potential moments and models of denizen-like behaviour that can help inform the contemporary paradigm shift, as denizen ethos, needed to re-new relations and to substantively and appropriately meet Indigenous calls for de-colonial change. Importantly, there are other terms within the colonial lexicon that are of further use in filling out the colonial denizen: namely the terms, sojourner, colon, guest, and treaty partner. The terms sojourner and colon mark yet another important internal difference within the colonist body, highlighting differences specific to socio-economic status. Sojourners were colonists who stayed within the colony for a brief period of time and in many cases occupied roles of considerable power and socio-economic standing (Veracini, 2010, 6). These would be the European explorers, the colonial officials and even certain echelons of the military who would take (seemingly voluntary) temporary residence within the colonies to progress their careers and aspirations as willing colonists of foreign lands. While some of these men eventually took permanent residence within the colonies as ‘settlers’, this term is generally applied to men of considerable wealth and political standing who voluntarily embarked for temporary sojourns within the colonies. These were men who were interested in directly contributing to the colonial project in whatever form (economic, agrarian, settler) colonization embodied at the time. Today one might identify diplomats, visiting Heads of State, and even foreign property owners as sojourners within settler colonial states like Canada. My application of the term here will not be confined to those of a certain socio-economic bracket but will also include temporary contract workers (in both the fur trade and labour along the river) who returned back to France following their contracts with trade companies and seigneurs respectively. 20 As an alternative to the more traditional use of sojourner, the French term, colon was specifically used to identify ‘average’ (seemingly voluntary) colonists who were neither at the top echelons of colonial society nor those who were colonized but who (similarly to the ‘settler’ within settler colonialism) would “slaughter, expel from their own lands, or exploit as a labour force” the Indigenous peoples of the lands they sought to make their own (Young, 2016, 19). In this way the term colon offers a helpful directive within the broader ‘settler’ application in that it forces a distinction between ‘average’ colonists of lower socioeconomic standing and power and the official and wealthy men who were establishing and activating the major policies of colonialism and imperialism. These terms, therefore, offer further articulation and specification within the study of the colonial cacophony and the colonial denizen. The ‘denizen’ is most closely related to the concept of ‘guest’. Contemporary land acknowledgements that draw to light the colonial privilege of living and working on territories that are not one’s own typically lead Indigenous peoples (who are not on their own land) and non-Indigenous peoples to identify themselves as ‘uninvited guests’ on Indigenous lands. Identifying oneself in this way suggests that the person in question recognizes they have not been invited onto the Indigenous lands they find themselves on and yet who, unlike an ‘invader’, want to establish positive and anti-colonial relationships with the peoples on whose lands they find themselves. Identifying oneself as a ‘guest’ in this way, while it could be seen as an imposition in and of itself (through forcing the role of the host), is generally identified as establishing the grounds for positive engagement between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. One of the first colonial applications of this term was made by the Secwepemec (Shushwap), Sylix (Okanagan), and Nlaka;pamux (Couteau) peoples of the pacific west coast in reference to non-Indigenous peoples. As recent work by Jim Tully highlights, these nations (as evidenced through their oration at the 1910 Sir Wilfrid Laurier Memorial) identified the French-Canadian fur traders who came, visited, and lived within their territories prior to 1858 as ‘good guests’. Guests who respectfully interacted with these nations and demonstrated deference to their laws and customs. Alternatively, within the same memorial, these nations identified those colonists who came into their territories after 1858 (largely Gold Rush opportunists) as ‘bad guests’ or settlers who sought to impose their own laws and customs on the Indigenous nations (Tully, 2018, 639-42). Tully’s analysis of these nations’ historic and continuing application of the ‘good guest’ term (2018), brings to light important ways through which non-Indigenous 21 peoples might act in better, anti-colonial relations with the Indigenous peoples on whose lands they find themselves. In this way, similarly to my intention with the colonial denizen, the ‘guest’ becomes not only part of the descriptive colonial lexicon but also introduces a normative element – a way through which non-Indigenous peoples might come to think and act otherwise. Taking direction from the Memorial, Tully argues that acting as a ‘good guest’ means that those who find themselves as foreigners on Indigenous lands respect their hosts’ laws and customs, and do not interfere with nor seek to dismantle tribal organizations; do not force their conceptions and worldviews on their hosts; do not try to steal or appropriate; do not go ‘completely native’, but instead share useful knowledge and technologies with their hosts through entering gift-reciprocity relationships (2018). The ‘denizen’ takes on a similar role as both descriptor, normative ideal and ethos within the colonial lexicon – encouraging those interested, non-Indigenous peoples, to take up respectful, meaningful dialogical relationships with the Indigenous peoples on whose lands they find themselves. Yet where the ‘guest’ by very nature of its definition suggests ephemeral status, further supported by the transient roles of original ‘good guests’ of the fur trade (circa. 1910 Memorial), the denizen has the capacity to refer to indefinite presence on Indigenous lands. Given the reality of contemporary global situations and the reasoning that (due to their roles in colonization) non-Indigenous peoples will likely have important roles to play in decolonization, one need to approach decolonization from the understanding that non-Indigenous peoples are indefinite ‘colonists’ who, where invitations are deemed appropriate and are extended by Indigenous peoples, might be ‘here to stay’ and yet are people who (regardless of their indefinite status) should begin to act otherwise toward realizing a de-colonial society. As such, there is a need to substantively engage with the (potential) permanence of the non-Indigenous body within the colonial cacophony. The ‘denizen’, therefore, offers a way to re-conceptualize not only descriptive but also normative analysis of non-Indigenous roles in colonialism and decolonization around this more indefinite and possibly permanent prospect. The ‘denizen’, as I am presenting it here, also helps avoid the troubling dichotomy that the application of the ‘guest’ risks – wherein colonists tend to be identified as being either good or bad. By specifically placing the denizen as one possible role and ethos within the colonial cacophony (as amongst and part of the various roles explored: arrivant, sojourner, settler) its application strives to avoid essentialization. As will become clearer within the historical 22 chapters, the colonial denizen is not to be found in near-perfect form within a specific actor, but is used as a tool to delineate the different and often conflictual leanings of early colonists who acted in both respectful and disrespectful ways to their Indigenous allies. As such, the denizen is both a normative ideal to strive toward – an ethos to be articulated for the modern world – at the same time that it is an analytical tool through which to identify and analyze the various thoughts and actions of all colonists within the historic and contemporary world who find themselves benefiting from the (settler)colonial project though they may experience domination and subordination themselves. The denizen does not apply to all who find themselves as foreigners on Indigenous lands. For instance, the Black and Indigenous slaves found throughout the French colony along the banks of the St. Lawrence are not identifiable as slaves since they were colonized by the colonizers themselves. How exactly the denizen does or does not apply to a host of other involuntary actors (refugees, undocumented migrants and labourers) warrants further exploration and consideration. Its application here is merely meant to get the ball rolling, to get those who find themselves somewhere along the contemporary colonist spectrum thinking through their colonial ties and engaging with local Indigenous peoples, establishing dialogues and being open to the discursive and material changes they can contribute to that accurately situate them within the colonial and decolonial and through which they might help invoke a decolonized future. While this analysis has provided a clearer picture of both the colonial denizen itself, and where it fits within the broader colonial lexicon, analysis here would be incomplete without a brief discussion of the term’s relationship to the ‘treaty partner’. The treaty partner is a role that gained prominence following the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ 1996 report – having since been taken up by various scholars (for instance, see: Asch, 2014; Borrows, 2010; Mills, 2016). It is a role that is deeply tied to concepts of mutual recognition, co-existence and Indigenous self-governance as presented within the same report (RCAP, 1996) – concepts which I will re-visit within the latter part of this chapter. Certainly, there are similarities that can also be drawn between the colonial denizen and treaty partner in terms of their descriptive and normative orientations for non-Indigenous peoples and their relations to Indigenous peoples and lands. For instance, just as with the treaty partner mutual recognition between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples composes an substantial component of a denizen ethos. And for the colonial denizen, treaties themselves (as I will also explore at greater length below) constitute significant 23 sites of potential invitation for non-Indigenous peoples onto Indigenous lands. Yet, unlike with the treaty partner, the denizen cannot assume they are here to stay. Instead they must be open to the possibility of refusal – that an invitation will not be extended. This means that while the treaty partner is encouraged to take invitation for granted (through invoking the concept of treaty as already established and central to the role, the invitation has already been assumed) the denizen cannot do so and is, in fact, focused on establishing dialogical relationships with local Indigenous peoples not already premised on such potentially colonizing assumptions. There is a liminality and vulnerability, that I will explore at greater length below, that is necessary in the move toward decolonization that is not immediately fostered within the role of ‘treaty partner’. This needs to be taken up in a serious and conscientious way through a denizen ethos. Furthermore, given the co-optation of treaty by government through the modern treaty agreements (with their imbalanced power), as well as mainstream understandings of treaty throughout Canadian society, there is perhaps a broader practical element to moving away from the treaty partner role and toward the less weighted colonial denizen. Overall, it is my contention that the colonial denizen provides a fresh avenue through which to step back from long-held, colonizing paradigms. Importantly, it offers an avenue through which to escape what has been identified as the self-reproducing logic of settler colonialism as it is upheld through contemporary western paradigms. Within the settler colonial literature, colonial thought and action are identified as a meta-structure from which it is difficult if not impossible to escape (Veracini, 2010) as it will always exist and re-enforce its foundations. Herein non-Indigenous peoples are only ever complicit within the structure because there is no foreseeable escape and Indigenous peoples are forced into one of two roles: those who are co-opted or those who resist (Snelgrove et al., 2014). Employing the concept of the colonial denizen, approaching it as an ethos, enables interlocuters to see that while there may be structural aspects to contemporary colonial thought and action it is more than a structure and it is something that can be transcended. Given the colonial denizen’s ability to challenge the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm, it might just be able to foster a new responsibility-focused paradigm that can help interested parties in transcending the structural limitations of the settler colonial turn and encouraging non-Indigenous peoples to enter into respectful and appropriate dialogical relationships with local Indigenous peoples. 24 On Framing the Issue in Terms of (Liberal-Democratic) Citizenship and Recognition From the 1857 Gradual Civilization Act to the 1969 White Paper and beyond, Canada’s colonial documents have always been focused on recognizing the ‘Indigenous other’ in such a way that they can eventually be subsumed into a superimposed yet vulnerable settler citizenship regime (Tobias, 1983). Even prior to Confederation, and the search for Canadian-specific citizenship, the government was establishing ‘Indian’ status as a means of identifying and controlling Indigenous populations so that they could eventually be ‘civilized’ and effectively erased through their incorporation into settler society (Gradual Civilization Act, 1857). As Audra Simpson argues, citizenship is a central technique (power) of statecraft. It is through the granting (or withholding) of citizenship that the “state’s power is made real and personal…[it is the tool through which the state develops] the structural and legal preconditions for intimacy, forms of sociability, belonging and affection” (2014, 18). Time and again, the Canadian settler state has tried to use this power to silence the threat Indigenous populations pose, through their very existence, to the legitimacy of the state and Canadian society. And continually Indigenous populations have refused to be silenced, erased and subsumed through incorporation into the broader settler project. One of the more prominent examples of this citizenship-based imposition within recent history centers around the 1969 federal White Paper which attempted to force the Canadian liberal-democratic citizenship regime upon Indigenous peoples through eliminating ‘Indian’ status. While the goal of ‘Indian’ status, since it was first created in the Gradual Civilization Act (1857), has always been the eventual incorporation and erasure of Indigenous peoples, this 1969 policy was an attempt to expedite a process Indigenous peoples have on mass continually refused (Kainai Board of Education, 2005; Molloy, 1983). The wholesale rejection of the 1969 White Paper by Indigenous representatives (Indian Association of Alberta, 1970; Union of BC Indian Chiefs, 1970; Cardinal, 1999), as well as the continuing suspicion and critique of contemporary recognition-based approaches (Coulthard, 2014; Simpson, 2014; Corntassel, 2012), should clearly demonstrate to non-Indigenous peoples that the way forward is not one based on state techniques of western citizenship, status and liberal-based recognition politics. This is not what Indigenous peoples have been advocating and demanding. Decolonization requires a step away from such techniques and state logics toward something else, something that has not necessarily thus far been imagined. And yet, so many contemporary non-Indigenous responses to Indigenous 25 calls to decolonize are tethered to citizenship and recognition-based approaches of the liberal-democratic paradigm. These are the two popular approaches (citizenship and recognition) taken by non-Indigenous scholars in response to calls for decolonization. Both are ultimately based within a liberal worldview. The first focuses on making the citizenship regime more inclusive of Indigenous peoples and is based on the assumption that the state is a legitimate sovereign power wherein Indigenous peoples want to and will benefit from further inclusion within state structures and processes. The second focuses on equalizing the discursive field of the public sphere through a politics of recognition that ultimately upholds the relations of power it attempts to disband. While these approaches differ in important ways they both end up circumscribing the discussion as well as possible solutions to colonization within the structures and logics of the colonial thought and action they are meant to address. They are, therefore, problematic approaches to decolonization as they serve to uphold and reinforce settler privilege and security at the continued expense of Indigenous life and land. Take for instance Alan Cairns’ Citizens Plus, a well-received scholarly work by one of the leading scholars on Canadian politics at the time it was published at the turn of the twenty-first century.4 Taking a citizenship-based approach, Cairns argues that Indigenous peoples within Canada should be considered ‘citizens plus’ – individuals who hold the usual rights and duties of a liberal-democratic Canadian citizenship but whom hold additional rights in recognition of their special status within the Canadian community. A special status they hold by way of their position as self-governing nations prior to European contact. In arguing that the Canadian reality is one of interdependence, between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, Cairns contends that Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians will be best served by an approach that enables them to share a common link. Identifying other possible solutions like nation-to-nation relationships as inappropriate, Cairns states that a common link – to be found within a common, though differentiated citizenship – is a “necessary support for the empathy that would make us feel responsible for each other” (2011, 182-3), and that it is the denial of full citizenship inclusion that is largely to blame for Status Indians’ “immiseration” (2011, 182-3). 4 Cairns’ book was shortlisted for the 2011 Donner Prize as well as the Harold Adams Innis Prize. This speaks to how seriously this work was taken within Canadian policy debates and scholarship. 26 Such citizenship-centered approaches (such as Kymlicka, 1996; Macklem, 2001; Russell, 2004) assume the liberal-democratic Canadian state is politically and ethically neutral and legitimate, and provide little to no space to identify, explore or question that state’s legitimacy as a sovereignty entity. Here colonial thought and action are seen as realities of the past for which Canadians may see a residue of today but from which non-Indigenous peoples can distance themselves if they move to fully incorporate Indigenous peoples into the public sphere through citizenship extension. Such approaches fail to recognize not only that (in many cases) Indigenous peoples have continually refused these extensions, but that it is the citizenship regime itself that continues to be used as a tool of assimilation (Alfred and Corntassel, 2005), a regime that assumes and bolsters the presumed legitimacy of the settler state and which is, therefore, inconsistent as a starting point toward the goal of decolonization. While liberal-based recognition approaches tend to focus broadly on civil society, with a critical eye toward state institutions, they too fall into similar traps. For instance, Charles Taylor’s highly-acclaimed essay “The Politics of Recognition” responds to liberal democracy’s push for difference-blind equal rights recognition by arguing that recognition cannot be blindly implemented as such an approach not only misunderstands the (Hegelian-based) dialogical nature of identity formation. It will also result in the misrecognition of others, leading them to suffer ‘real damage [and] real distortion” (Taylor, 1994, 25). For Taylor due recognition (the ability to positively self-identify and have this self-identity recognized by broader society) is not just a courtesy owed to people but a vital human need (1994). In calling on interlocutors to embrace a Gadamerian fusion of horizons, to come into dialogue as open and self-reflexive individuals, Taylor suggests that recognition of the other is an inherent rather than instrumental good that requires mutual respect from all participants. Where such recognition-based approaches might appear more amenable to de-colonial goals, works like Taylor’s still uphold the colonial hegemony of the settler state. For instance, Taylor maintains an ‘us’ and ‘them’ within his theory wherein it becomes clear that the “text is speaking of an Anglo-American, so-called Canadian ‘us’, who are being attributed the power of recognizing or not recognizing ‘them’” (Bannerji, 2000, 135). Through implicitly upholding power relations, thereby forcing the other to translate their voice and identity within the reasonable bounds of dominant society, this approach ultimately upholds the colonial relations and assumptions that need to be critically evaluated and changed. One sees this recognition- 27 based approach within Canadian politics and society today, through politics of accommodation, recognition, and reconciliation that have been implemented with the colonial aims of continuing to dispossess and subordinate Indigenous peoples (Coulthard, 2014). Where moves to recognition are really just attempts to “materialize the fantasy of certainty and stability for settlers, always encompassing Indigenous nations into the ‘jurisdictional imaginary’ of the settler nation” (Mackey, 2016, 60). Just as with citizenship-based approaches, therefore, recognition-based methods also uphold the colonial even when they claim to move beyond it toward a de-colonial politics and society. There is a need to move beyond both citizenship and recognition-based methods which ultimately re-assert and solidify colonial control while claiming to move beyond the colonialism they are supposed to surmount. There needs to be a place where Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples can enter into dialogue wherein the colonial hegemony is not upheld and the boundaries of the discourse are not pre-inscribed – wherein interlocuters will actually be able to hear and respond to one another through mutual respect and acknowledgment. Instead of beginning with either a politics of citizenship or a politics of recognition, therefore, discussions should begin instead with the principle of non-Indigenous peoples as denizens (foreigners who need to be invited) within Indigenous peoples’ territory, both past and present. To re-conceive of non-Indigenous peoples as denizen and to act within a denizen ethos, will aid not only in recognizing the roles non-Indigenous people have played within colonial thought and action (past and present) but also in allowing for much greater possibilities to imagine the move toward decolonization. And so, what I am calling for, as a non-Indigenous scholar, is a move away from the politics of recognition and rights as citizens toward a politics of responsibility as denizens. Within such a politics, non-Indigenous peoples are encouraged to re-evaluate their local relationships to Indigenous lives and lands, their relationships to the state and broader state systems, at the same time they are encouraged to look to establish local, discursive relationships with Indigenous peoples premised on dialogically determining what such a ‘denizen’ role and/or ethos looks like within the logics of local Indigenous governance, law and ethics. The colonial denizen as I present it here is, after all, a jumping-off-point, through which interested non-Indigenous peoples can more appropriately, discursively, situate themselves in order determine, through dialogue with local Indigenous peoples, what material, as well as further discursive work, can be accomplished to help bring about decolonization. 28 Situating the Colonial Denizen Against its Political Origins and Contemporary Use There are multiple definitions of the ‘denizen’, ranging from an inhabitant of a specified space to a person admitted residence in a foreign country (OED, n.d.). While the former tends to be used within the natural sciences as a non-politicized term, the latter is derived from historical practices of inclusion within politically specified areas. A colonial articulation of the denizen finds its grounding within the term’s political application. This is partially to do with the term’s ‘natural’ science application being hindered by its implicit naturalization (as de-politicization) of subjects, which troublingly aligns such an application with settler colonial moves to erase Indigenous populations as political peoples and Indigenize colonists in their place. Alignment with its political use is also due to the overwhelmingly political nature of re-orienting non-Indigenous peoples toward substantive decolonization with Indigenous peoples, and the ability of a political articulation to help illuminate vital aspects of such a paradigm shift that helps re-center Indigenous sovereignties and nationhoods. The term itself is derived from the Latin root words: de intus, meaning ‘from within’, and aneus, meaning ‘foreign’, therefore, meaning “foreigner from within” (Berry, 1944, 491). Broadly, this term has been used as a political identity marker – a status bestowed upon an individual who is a foreigner within a political territory, who has been allowed to inhabit this area given that they pledge allegiance as well as fulfill certain obligations to the preeminent political power of the territory. Traditionally, this was a status that conferred upon the foreigner a curtailed membership based upon the fulfilment of a set of responsibilities under the political power to which they sought standing. The historic and contemporary use of the denizen, however, is tied up in the practice and study of colonization, empire and citizenship – the very things that state and society need to address and move past when the goal is decolonization. In Ancient Rome, for instance, the process of civitas sine suffragio, which is closely associated with the medieval practice of denization (Berry, 1944), was an imperial tool through which the Romans commodified their civil law to incorporate and colonize conquered peoples. They would extend partial citizenship to conquered colonies on the condition that certain conditions (namely conscription to the Roman military) were met each year (Yeo, 1959). In the early days of the Empire this helped strengthen Roman power throughout conquered lands (MacKendrick, 1952). So why am I interested in 29 using this term for decolonial ends? And perhaps more importantly, how can it be salvaged for such ends? First and foremost, the core of the definition, beyond its specific application within the Ancient and later Medieval worlds, holds considerable potential in encouraging a decolonial paradigm shift. The core of the definition identifies an important relationship of belonging, dependence and responsibility that appears to be wanting within the contemporary western political lexicon. It situates those who are foreign to a given area as requiring not only recognition of their foreignness but also invitation, by those who are of the area, to co-exist with those who are sovereign/responsible to the lands upon which the foreigners seek to rest/live. It places such ‘invited foreigners’ within a vulnerable position as those who are not ‘native’ to the area and who do not, necessarily, get to experience full access to membership (through whichever system of relations and belonging exist within a given locale). In other words, if non-Indigenous peoples within settler-colonial states began to understand themselves and their civic ancestors as potential ‘denizens’ (as based on the core definition) they would understand that they need to be invited to co-habit Indigenous territories; that their position on such territories would require a recognition of Indigenous law and governance structures as legitimate and primary; that they would be the populations requiring invitation and by extension recognition; and that such invitation and recognition would require the continual fulfilment of responsibilities under local Indigenous and governance structures. Taking the concept from its bare-bones definition, therefore, and re-formatting it from within a (de)colonial lens, demonstrates the denizen’s potential to re-situate Indigenous life and land through recognizing Indigenous populations’ sovereignties and settler peoples’ vulnerabilities as non-Indigenous peoples. Taking up the denizen concept in this way could be a huge leap toward a paradigm shift, a way through which to properly acknowledge Indigenous peoples’ pre-existing and continuing governance structures and legal systems. One could make the argument that the original European colonists should have recognized themselves as foreigners requiring invitation onto Indigenous lands through Indigenous governance and legal structures wherein, upon invitation, the European presence was as denizens and not imperial powers. As I explore within chapter two, the Euro-Canadian narrative of original encounters between the French and Innu, for instance, appears to demonstrate such invitation-through-treaty (Pollack, 2012) even though Indigenous records as well as the progression of history have shown that high-level European 30 intentions (even so early on) were ultimately imperially-driven and problematic (Dickason, 2001; Vincent, 2002). This does not discount the potential of the denizen concept and its use as a guide to re-evaluate the vast history of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations. If anything it only amplifies the term’s potential to act as a tool to re-visit and re-story histories of contact and relations given the term’s ability to highlight both descriptive and normative realities as well as tensions throughout the history of Indigenous-colonist relations. Despite the term’s colonial entanglement, there may still be key aspects of the term’s historic use in the ancient and medieval worlds, as well as within its contemporary analysis in citizenship studies, that can offer some potential insights as to how one might further conceive of the colonial denizen (even where its application has been under paradigms that need to be escaped). As an example, the Roman process of civitas sine suffragio demonstrates belonging is not just a trajectory from foreigner to member. It was not just individuals of conquered colonies that could become partial ‘citizens’ of Rome. As a means of population control the Roman government increasingly encouraged Roman citizens to take up residence (and so to give up their full citizenship rights) within the colonies (MacKendrick, 1955). This helps challenge conceptions around teleology and membership practices. In turn, this helps in acknowledging and complicating the various intersectional identities individuals may have in relation to things like race, gender, and land within Byrd’s colonial cacophony, therefore, enabling academics, activists and interlocuters to grapple with the complexity of life, relations and belongings as they actually exist. The denizen’s early use within the Ancient and Medieval worlds also demonstrates that the term’s origins are not confined to state-centric logics. Neither Ancient Rome nor Medieval England were composed as nation-states. This supports the introduction of the term into contemporary use as a fresh concept, unburdened by the baggage of the nation-state and its associated terms of belonging. Consciously turning away from state-centric terms can enable greater paradigm shifting amongst non-Indigenous populations. Such non-state-centric application of the denizen is even available within the contemporary citizenship literature. Focusing on the effects of neoliberalism and privatization, the work of Clifford Shearing and Jennifer Wood, for instance, applies the term to identify and explain the multiplicity of obligations people share across various governance sites (beyond the state) that are difficult to categorize by the public/private divide (2003). Not only do Shearing and Wood apply the 31 denizen in a contemporary non-state-centric manner, but their application of the denizen also opens up space for the term to carry a desirable and even exclusive status within society – for instance being a denizen of a gated community which holds exclusivity and distinction for the individual. Such a positive connotation is noteworthy given traditional connotations of the status as being ‘less-than’ and undesirable. This positive connotation can serve to inspire ways to balance unsettling, hope and belonging when taking up a denizen ethos. Finally, Mick Smith’s application of the denizen within his 2005 article “Citizens, Denizens and the Res Publica”(2005) demonstrates the productive and creative capacities inherent within the term itself. Quite apart from the more traditional citizenship-based applications (Hammar, 1990; Standing, 2011; Turner, 2016), Smith looks to articulate a re-formulated citizenship ethos that is more in line with environmental ethics. According to Smith, modern citizenship (and the res publica it helps sustain) establishes an ethos that excludes non-human life. This exclusion prohibits the inclusion of appropriate, and for Smith, necessary, environmental ethics within contemporary western governance practices and citizenship regimes. This in turn threatens both the human and non-human worlds. For Smith, the denizen offers a positive way through which to establish a different res publica – one that incorporates both the human and non-human world in mutually sustainable ways. According to Smith, if humans are to re-situate themselves as denizens to the natural world they need to recognize themselves as occupying a more ambiguous place (in relation to the non-human world) than they currently do when they consider themselves citizens from within a western paradigm. As denizens they would be in relations not of “rule-bound equality imposed by an external authority…but on an understanding and recognition of the importance of context and difference” (Smith, 2005, 19). For Smith, therefore, a denizen ethos enables societies to restructure themselves in ways that force them to question anthropocentric concepts of life, politics and the world and to re-image political orders more inclusive of the non-human world, their dependence on this world and environmental ethics. Smith’s application of the denizen appears particularly compelling when applying the term to a colonial context. He takes stock of the term’s productive capacities, its ability to help people to think otherwise and to re-evaluate their relations to people and land - such re-evaluations that are needed within a decolonial application of the denizen. While the historic uses and contemporary applications of the term are troublingly colonial and citizenship-oriented, such applications still offer valuable guiding points in the move to 32 articulating a colonial denizen. Such applications demonstrate the utility of the term not being beholden to state-centric origins and applications, it’s capacity to engage with belonging as a non-teleological, as well as its productive capacity to encourage people to re-imagine their relations to life and land beyond confining state-centric paradigms of liberal citizenship and recognition. Articulating the Colonial Denizen: Re-Aligning Responsibilities, Lands and People Deciphering exactly what non-Indigenous roles within decolonization could materially look like requires that non-Indigenous state and society first undergo a paradigm shift – away from the current liberal-democratic paradigm that continues to uphold settler colonial processes and structures. This paradigm shift is a guide for non-Indigenous state and society to be able to engage Indigenous calls for decolonization on their own merits, outside of the confining approaches of the current paradigm. What I am proposing within this dissertation is a theory that could animate such a shift: the theory of the colonial denizen. What I am specifically presenting here, however, are only the first two components of this shift: the theory and the discursive exercise that leads to the more substantive discursive, material, and specifically local, instantiation of an ethos and its resultant broader, societal, paradigm shift. While I have already begun fleshing out the theory of the colonial denizen above, within this final section I will elaborate upon my intentions with its use as both an historic-analytical tool and a contemporary discursive exercise. It is important to note here that what is being presented is not a full articulation of the colonial denizen, of exactly how it’s application would alter the real material politics of the heavily entrenched western nation-state, its colonial logics and the international realm. What I am providing here are the theoretical foundations of the concept of a colonial denizen, its use as a discursive tool for non-Indigenous peoples interested in decolonization, upon which contemporary local action as well as necessary (materially-focused) future research and action could be based. As such, the following begins to set the stage for the colonial denizen’s use as both a tool of historic analysis of the colonial past as well as a contemporary discursive ethos focused on un-settling and re-visioning shared presents and futures in the goal toward decolonization. As an Historic-Analytic Tool While there is no evidence to suggest original settlers considered themselves as denizens, application of this colonial role within the analysis of historic encounters and relations has the 33 potential to not only deepen historical analysis but to also inform contemporary understandings of how non-Indigenous peoples might take up a denizen ethos. As a method for deepening historical analysis the application of the colonial denizen is more in line with a status or role – though one could simultaneously employ the term historically as an ethos – as a way of measuring how colonists’ actions aligned or misaligned with an understanding of themselves as foreigners who required invitation onto Indigenous lands. When placed as a potential role within the colonial lexicon identified earlier, the colonial denizen can enrich identification and understandings around differentially situated actors within the colonial project and their actions - therein identifying newer avenues of analysis that are both descriptive and normative in nature. Further research is required here to identify and analyze the early contact period, the multifaceted roles of early settlers and the ways in which they may have acted as either more precarious, dependent denizens or else as land and power-driven colonists. Such an analysis has the potential to not only deepen contemporary understandings of how a denizen ethos could be taken up today but also helps in charting how colonist positions vis à vis Indigenous life and land have evolved over time. The following five chapters seek to do just this, thereby deepening contemporary articulations and understandings around a colonial-denizen ethos. Such an historical application of the term presents avenues through which to challenge foundational colonial paradigms that were used to justify the colonization of Indigenous life and land – like the colonial paradigm animated by the theory of terra nullius. These are paradigms that might not hold the same traction today as they once did, but which still influence understandings of broader settlement narratives and which continue to inform contemporary thought and action in less obvious and direct ways. Along this same line of thought, an historical application of the term also provides openings through which to re-orient the Canadian settlement narrative of discovery. A re-orientation through which Indigenous peoples’ historically-grounded and continuing sovereignty and governance are acknowledged and supported at the same time that original and contemporary colonists are re-situated as foreigners in need of invitation. Under such an application of the term, non-Indigenous peoples become foreigners in need of denizenation rather than colonists of an empty land who were (possibly) granted the rights of co-habitation through Indigenous customs of invitation or else who were to permanently remain foreigners who would likely return home. Such re-orientation of the settlement narrative not only has implications for understandings of history, but also has 34 repercussions for current settler understandings of belonging and place. Such contemporary repercussions will require a re-evaluation of concepts like settlement, treaty, property, citizenship and the state. While this historic application is important for re-evaluating contact narratives, belonging and relations of shared pasts, such an historical application can in turn lead to clearer articulations for a substantive application of a contemporary denizen ethos both discursively and ultimately materially. As a Contemporary Discursive Exercise As a discursive exercise, the theory of the colonial denizen animates a thought experiment focused on confronting and challenging the various assumptions present within contemporary (and, as identified above, even historic) paradigms that work to support the establishment and continuing vitality of colonial processes and structures. For instance, it can be used to explore and challenge the Lockean-liberal theory that not only supported the concept of terra nullius, and which helped justify early European colonization, but that has also grounded modern understandings of the sovereign individual endowed with reason and the isolating theory of individual rights that animate the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm. Through the exploration and challenge of such theories and their broader paradigms, the colonial denizen can help in providing the language and discursive expansion necessary for non-Indigenous peoples to recognize the limits of current paradigms, to hear and begin to more accurately understand the calls and demands of people who are situated outside of these very paradigms, and to be open to the more substantive discursive and material shifts necessary to meet with local Indigenous peoples so that together they can imagine and bring into being realities that are otherwise. In this way, the contemporary discursive exercise of the colonial denizen is meant to be a guide, a jumping-off-point, for interested non-Indigenous peoples to more humbly and appropriately meet in dialogue with local Indigenous peoples to begin discussing what specific, localized instantiations of what decolonizing non-Indigenous roles might look like. As such, the contemporary discursive exercise is both a broad-based, abstracted, principle that can help bring about a larger societal paradigm shift as well as an available practice that can help mobilize localized, dialogical engagement toward necessary material, as well as further discursive, change. As such, it is important to provide a brief an overview of the colonial denizen theory before delving into the broader discursive exercise. The theory of the colonial denizen suggests 35 that if non-Indigenous peoples can understand themselves (both historically and today) as foreigners in need of invitation by Indigenous peoples, for their presence on Indigenous lands to be legitimate, than Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples might be able to collectively move toward a properly grounded material decolonization that exists beyond the confines of the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm and its bolstering of settler colonialism. This theory is not based directly in Indigenous thought or critical political theory but on the understanding that if the Europeans that originally colonized the Indigenous peoples of North America had properly understood themselves as foreigners to Indigenous lands and societies, their place (and the place of their civic progeny) – upon invitation - would have been as denizens of a foreign land. And if this were the case then non-Indigenous peoples would have been living in better relation with Indigenous peoples and would have not instantiated colonizing relationships. In this way the theory of the colonial denizen is structured on a discursive re-visiting of settlement history that asks what the past, present and future would look like if non-Indigenous peoples recognized that they had to be invited onto Indigenous lands. Here recognition of oneself as foreigner to Indigenous lands requires the recognition of and the acceptance that an invitation might not be extended and that further discussion might need to occur as to what this means. While the recognition of oneself as colonial denizen, where such invitation has been extended, requires the privileging of responsibilities over rights, acknowledgement of and deference toward Indigenous legal systems, as well as the sustenance of mutual co-existence and respect in relations with Indigenous peoples and lands. The following will engage the concepts of Indigenous life and land, treaty and invitation through the use of the colonial denizen theory in order to demonstrate how one might begin exploring the proposed contemporary discursive exercise that can lead to a new ethos and paradigm shift. Since decolonization requires the re-centering of Indigenous life and land, the ethos and paradigm shift that non-Indigenous society needs has to encourage this re-centering. This re-centering can begin through discursive practice, through encouraging the provincialization (i.e. recognition of the non-universal character) of western thought and institutions and the re-evaluation of origin and settlement stories in ways that not only open space for Indigenous voice and vision but open such spaces in ways that encourage non-Indigenous peoples to actively step back from the center of their colonially-derived narratives and institutions. 36 While there are a number of decolonizing education initiatives in place within Canada today, they tend not to push participants far enough. A recent article by Lynne Davis et al. identified and assessed more than 200 initiatives taken to change non-Indigenous Canadians’ understandings of Indigenous peoples, colonialism and settler colonialism as they have informed and continue to exist within contemporary Canadian society (2016). The authors found that while many of these initiatives are positive (early learning stage) developments in the move toward decolonization, there is a huge gap between such early stage initiatives and the later stages that are needed to “actually confront settler positionalities and privilege” (Davis et al., 2016, 14). They argued that while these programs demonstrated positive development, by not forcing their participants to confront positionalities and privileges they risked becoming a move to settler innocence for non-Indigenous peoples who achieve “redemption through the act of listening” (Davis et al., 11). I would contend that a large part of this gap has to do with the pervasive nature of contemporary western paradigms that foreclose certain lines of inquiry and privilege the centering of ‘settler certainty’ above and beyond Indigenous interests. Not only can the colonial denizen theory challenge non-Indigenous peoples to de-center themselves from the (de)colonial discourse it can also encourage them to broaden their horizons – to challenge their personal and societal assumptions and to be open to dialogue and change. These are all necessary aspects of a substantive move toward decolonization – they are all necessary moves in bridging the gap between initial, early learning initiatives and more tangible de-colonial change. Taking up a denizen ethos also needs to privilege the identification of land and treaties as important aspects in the discourse around decolonization. For instance, state-centered citizenship approaches take the land largely for granted, similarly to how they take the nation-state’s legitimacy for granted. As a number of Indigenous scholars and activists argue Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples cannot move forward toward any type of reconciliation or decolonization without talking about land. As an Anishnaabekwe from Mississauga territory, Leanne Simpson argues: Land is an important conversation for Indigenous peoples and Canada to have because land is at the root of our conflicts. Far from asking settler Canadians to pack up and leave, it is critical that we think about how we can better share land. That’s a conversation we’re not having (2016). Just as one sees with settler positionality and privilege, land remains largely absent from any substantive reception. And yet with Mick Smith’s employment of term, one can see how using a 37 denizen ethos can be instrumental in encouraging non-Indigenous peoples to re-evaluate their relationships with land. Smith’s work offers people a way through which they might not only re-center discourses of decolonization around land but also in such a way that they can re-evaluate their direct relationships to the land. Given that Indigenous worldviews, governance structures and legal systems are based on vulnerable, formative and responsibility-driven relationships to both the human and non-human world, wherein which ‘land’ is included (Chilisa, 2012; Wilson, 2009; Little Bear, 2000), the denizen provides two important avenues to encourage paradigm shifts in the move to decolonize: re-centering of land within the discourse surrounding decolonization as well as a foundation from which to re-evaluate more direct relationships to the land in such a way that non-Indigenous peoples are encouraged to recognize and practice more holistically-based relations to land and the non-human world that align with local Indigenous governance structures and processes. These two avenues are intrinsically pursued when the intended territorial nature of the denizen, its invocation at the local level, is employed through the establishment of meaningful dialogue between local Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples as premised on the position of non-Indigenous peoples as potential colonial denizens. The paradigm shift the colonial denizen seeks to encourage is, therefore, not merely focused on relations between people but also, and importantly, on relationship to land. As Joëlle Alice Michaud-Ouellet argues in her work on vulnerability, sovereignty and treaty amongst the Québécois settler population, moving forward in right, decolonizing relationships with Indigenous peoples is not just about improving direct relations with Indigenous peoples but also about shifting non-Indigenous relationships to land – “relating to the land with respect and humility” (2019, 2). Non-Indigenous state and society have a tendency to conceive of land, and relationship to land in terms of the legal, material, and capital – it is an entity that provides privilege and power, or status, to the beholder(s). Indigenous conceptualizations of land, however, are far different and tend to identify land as an interconnected part of a much broader system of life within which peoples are situated as stewards (Michaud-Ouellet, 2019, 20). A colonial denizen ethos, therefore, requires not only the re-situation of land within the discourse on decolonization but a shift, and openness, to reconsidering the ways through which relationship to land is currently circumscribed within contemporary structures (capitalism, state, property, etc.) and to, as Michaud-Ouellet suggests, reflect on how non-Indigenous peoples might transform their own relationship to land, belonging and self-determination. 38 Treaty also becomes an important part of this discursive process. This is because treaty, whether formally or informally established, is easily identifiable as a possible form of invitation. Yet, treaty must be approached cautiously from within a colonial denizen ethos due to the settler states’ continuing ability to: discursively transform…treaties from relationships to land cession contracts…[as a way to] disguise the illegitimacy of their [settler states’] settlement, which ha[s] been rendered unlawful [since] the moment they violated the treaty relationships and commitments that authorized their presence across Indigenous lands (Stark, 2016). As recent work by Heidi Stark highlights, the treaty process in Canada has transformed over the years to better follow the “eliminatory logic of settler colonialism…reconstruct[ing] treaties away from Indigenous visions of living relationships toward a contractual event” (2016). Grappling with treaty from a colonial denizen ethos, therefore, necessitates the acknowledgement of this colonization of treaty with a view toward successfully understanding, engaging and acting from Indigenous-based understandings of treaties as living relationships and potential sites of invitation. Treaties as living relationships have been an important aspect of many Indigenous governance systems, worldviews and legal structures since time immemorial. As living relationships they are premised on the concepts of respect, responsibility and renewal amongst participants (Stark, 2010; Williams Jr., 1997). And so to understand treaty from such a lens requires that interlocuters enter into treaty on the sustained basis of mutual respect, mutual responsibility toward each other as well as on the understanding that their living relationship will need to be consistently tended to and maintained throughout its course. It is treaties that establish living relationships and so set the ground for recognition between peoples and therefore exist as potential sites of Indigenous invitation to non-Indigenous foreigners to visit/exist/co-habit Indigenous territories. For instance, it has been argued that early ceremony-based treaties between the Innu and the French during the early seventeenth century established such a relationship wherein the French were permitted to co-exist (to what extent is disputed) on Innu territory in exchange for their military and economic aid (Pollack, 2012). As Heidi Stark points out, a well-rounded understanding of treaties is deeper than even this, it requires the recognition that (if such treaties act as sites of invitation) they also act as a site of (some sort of) induction into the already existing webs of treaties-as-relations that a given Indigenous peoples have with other Indigenous peoples as well as the non-human world (Stark, 39 2012). This in turn places upon the invited foreigners-turned-denizens responsibilities not only to uphold the conditions of the given treaty-as-invitation but the broader web of treaties-as-relationships that their treaty partners already hold. In grappling with treaty, the fostering of a colonial denizen ethos today, therefore, requires understanding treaty as a living relationship that could act as a site of (partial) invitation onto Indigenous lands as well as into Indigenous legal and political orders. An invitation that is only available through the continual fulfilment of obligations as outlined and re-visited between treaty members, wherein treaties are more than documents between Indigenous peoples and the Crown but necessarily include non-Indigenous inhabitants of a given treaty area as members. As such, a re-visiting of treaties as living relationships not only identifies and re-centers Indigenous nationhood and governance but acts as a natural site (give the role of responsibilities, relations and potential invitation) to situate non-Indigenous peoples as foreigners and potential colonial denizens. It is important that treaties, or treaty-like relationships, to the extent they are deemed desirable, be approached from outside the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm. When treaties and the associated contemporary concepts like mutual recognition are approached from within this colonially-supportive paradigm, they are transmuted into alternative creatures that do not uphold the primacy of Indigenous worldviews, life and land but settler security and certainty – the colonial privileges of those who benefit from the current paradigms. From here Indigenous interests are only conceded to so far as they do not fundamentally disrupt the security and certainty of settler colonial state and society. Approaching treaty from a colonial denizen ethos, however, encourages the re-politicization of treaty as a potential site of invitation and mutual recognition that, according to David Scott, have long been de-politicized through the imperializing lens of culture where treaty and its interpretation are reduced to a difference in culture rather than politics (2013). The colonial denizen is meant to encourage non-Indigenous society from this comfort zone, from the place where it de-politicizes Indigenous life, land and treaties so that it can maintain its privilege and security. Where treaty through liberal-democracy seeks to make room for Indigenous difference through a sort of devolution of some governance powers to recognized bands, where it frames the discourse of co-existence as an issue of living together across cultural differences, treaty through the colonial denizen seeks to shift power relations and re-politicize issues of treaty and mutual recognition. Where the ‘treaty partner’ of the liberal-democratic paradigm takes 40 invitation for granted, the colonial denizen does not. Where the ‘treaty partner’ makes room for Indigenous difference within liberal-democracy, the colonial denizen asks what would it look like if (s)he had to accommodate to Indigenous legal systems and political paradigms. Where the ‘treaty partner’ maintains their colonial certainty and security, the colonial denizen risks losing them. In embracing vulnerability, in looking to re-center Indigenous life and land, this discursive work looks to re-politicize issues around colonialism, co-existence and mutual recognition within non-Indigenous society away from the confining liberal-democratic paradigm so that real structural and material change has a chance to develop through a renewed discourse between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples wherein non-Indigenous peoples are better able to identify and understand Indigenous paradigms and calls for change. Having said all of this, however, it is important to provide room for invitation and relations beyond such specific treaty-focused conceptualizations. As will become clear in the re-orientation of the contact narrative not all places throughout Canada where non-Indigenous peoples currently reside are marked by treaty. And many if not all of those areas that are marked by treaty have been identified as thinly-veiled land grabs – some of these without any substantive invitation or discussion. Discursive exercises focused on the colonial denizen, therefore, need to be cognizant of how vastly different contact histories across the continent have occurred and been upheld and to be flexible in application to such differences. Even in areas of treaty – as vast and multifaceted as treaties and treaty relations are – space and relation have eclipsed these important, living relations and (potential) invitations. One of the strengths of the colonial denizen is that it is adaptable to these various contexts and to re-imaginings of treaty-like relationships in areas where treaties do not currently exist. In connection to treaties, treaty-like relations, and invitation one of the concept’s most intriguing contributions might be its potential to challenge western notions around rights and responsibilities. Within a liberal democratic state, there is a tendency to place greater emphasis on the rights of membership (as citizenship) rather than the duties. This is in part due to modern understandings of citizenship and politics wherein the sovereign individual is vested with inalienable rights and freedoms prior to political association (Insin et al, 1999). Under such an understanding of citizenship, the sovereign individual has the right to decide whether or not they wish to actively participate within the public sphere – they have the right to relinquish or ignore some, if not all, of their political duties. In fact, it has been argued that under neo-liberal 41 influences citizens have increasingly become focused on consuming their rights as isolated, passive members of society, therefore, increasingly ignoring the active duties liberal-democratic citizenship entails (Turner, 2016). This modern privileging of rights clearly pre-dates the neo-liberal turn as it is also present within earlier citizenship literature. For instance, T.H. Marshall’s exploration of the evolution of modern citizenship, a formative text for the field, bolsters this tendency in charting the development of citizenship as an evolution in the granting of civil, political and social rights (Marshall, 1950). If one approaches their position relative to others and the land as denizen, however, responsibilities take centre stage and rights become precarious privileges dependent on the fulfilling of responsibilities. Not only does such a re-orientation hold enormous decolonizing potential in and of itself, it also better aligns with many Indigenous ontologies and understandings around relationships to the human and non-human world (Chilisa, 2012; Wilson, 2009; Little Bear, 2000; Stark, 2012). Such alignment with Indigenous ontologies helps to re-center Indigenous peoples, understandings and lands within the discourse. At the same time that it offers interested non-Indigenous peoples the language and knowledge to begin transforming their own discursive understandings around settler colonialism, decolonization and their place(s) therein. While this is a potentially radical re-orientation, I am not suggesting here that the Canadian state necessarily be abolished. Rather, what I am suggesting is that taking up a denizen ethos today entails re-visiting our conceptions around belonging and membership and the relationships we have to the public sphere, rights and duties at the local, national and even global levels. It is through such a re-focusing that non-Indigenous peoples can be encouraged to challenge their privilege and positionality, the legitimacy of the state, the logic of function of capitalism, their notions around property and their colonial implications as well as to re-center the discourse of decolonization around Indigenous peoples and lands. Hopefully, this leads to an avoidance of moves to innocence and the reification of colonial thought and action that occurs when non-Indigenous peoples do not open themselves up to substantive change. As decolonization requires a taking up of responsibility in an effort to move forward (Irlbacher-Fox, 2014; Simpson, 2011; Wallace, 2013; Regan, 2010), such a re-assessment of rights, responsibilities and privileges would be appropriate. Ultimately, this discursive work will need to develop differently in different contexts. Not only were these lands colonized at different times and in different ways; but the Indigenous 42 peoples whose lands these are, the Indigenous peoples who have continually fought against colonization, are vastly different peoples, even though, within certain geographical concentrations, they may share a common language or culture. This is why, although the colonial denizen may help in bringing about a larger ‘nation’-wide (perhaps even global) paradigm shift, it is focused around mobilizing local interaction wherein localized dialogues between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are discovered, or re-visited in light of a new approach on behalf of non-Indigenous peoples – an approach meant to lend greater room for substantive, discursive change premised on the re-centering of local Indigenous land and life. Informed by Tully’s public philosophy (2008), thinking through a colonial denizen ethos is to realize all of these things and to, in dialogue with local Indigenous peoples, ultimately act, locally, in kind. Act locally and yet see local connections to national and international structures, institutions, thought and action. Acting on a denizen ethos in this way will mean something different for me living where I grew up, on the traditional lands of the Anishinabek Mississauga (Toronto), an area ‘granted’ through a controversial land surrender agreement (Indian Claims Commission, 2003; Smith, 1981; Freeman, 2010). then it will for me living on the unceeded territory of the Musquem peoples (Vancouver) as a graduate student. And yet the combination of these two realities will for me mean something altogether different in terms of my thoughts and actions in relation to the state, the province(s), Indigenous peoples, the land, and the non-human world. What I am offering here is a potential first step for non-Indigenous peoples, who are themselves interested in decolonization, to discursively re-orient themselves to better understand and actively take up more appropriate roles, as co-determined with local Indigenous peoples, in the move toward decolonization with Indigenous peoples. The colonial denizen, as presented here, has the ability to provide such colonists with the tools to accomplish this by establishing a new descriptive and normatively focused concept for the colonial cacophony that helps contemporary colonists to situate themselves (and their civic ancestors) as foreigners in need of invitation onto Indigenous lands (past and present). While this is a discursive exercise that, at least initially, helps symbolically re-center Indigenous life and land, such a discursive re-orientation has the potential to lead to substantive material changes that appropriately re-center Indigenous life and land in ways that are unavailable under the contemporary liberal-democratic paradigm and its traditional approaches of citizenship and recognition. 43 In applying the denizen concept to both the colonial and de-colonial, I am arguing that there is no extinguishment clause on the need for invitation. There is a need to consider what invitation should have looked like at the various points of initial contact across the land as well as ask what it looks like to either re-visit and take-up initial invitations and agreements or else to ask for an invitation (if that is appropriate) and negotiate an agreement to share the land in areas where non-Indigenous peoples were never invited. Taking up a denizen ethos requires that non-Indigenous peoples do not assume their privileges to live on Indigenous lands because there are colonial property regimes that have been founded through violence and dispossession, which have enabled contemporary and past generations of non-Indigenous peoples to live here for centuries. Rather a denizen ethos requires that non-Indigenous peoples challenge such regimes, recognize them as colonial mechanisms and re-visit the need for invitation, responsibilities and mutual co-existence. It is only when non-Indigenous peoples can actively engage with such a paradigm shift (as presented with the colonial denizen), that they will be in a position to meet with Indigenous peoples to more accurately hear their calls for decolonization and so be open to the substantive material change that decolonization demands. Applying the Historical-Analytical Colonial Denizen: Seventeenth Century Encounters Within the following five chapters I critically re-visit narratives of encounter between French colonists and Indigenous peoples in the St. Lawrence Valley and interior during the seventeenth century as a way of applying the colonial denizen as historical-analytical tool. It is my contention that such analysis will not only enable a re-visiting and re-orientation of mainstream ‘settlement’ narratives but also provide insights as to how to further develop a contemporary colonial denizen ethos. I have chosen to focus on encounters along the St. Lawrence and interior because these are the areas first inhabited by Europeans within what would become Canada. As such, early encounters of these areas are constitutive of the beginnings of mainstream Canadian settlement and citizenship narratives. Initial French settlement, within areas currently constituting parts of Québec, established the grounds upon which British settlement would flourish and through which the Canadian state would eventually be established. Early settlements along the river (Tadoussac, Québec City, Montréal, Trois-Rivières), therefore, represent key spots from which to explore the roles of early settlers in establishing and maintaining a colonial project that would contribute to the creation of Canada as a Dominion of the British Commonwealth. 44 I focus on the seventeenth century because this period roughly corresponds to the first tumultuous century during which France actively sought to establish a prosperous position in the fur trade, as well as a colonist presence in North America, through their early alliances with the Wyandot (Huron), Algonquin and Innu (Montagnais) nations of the continent. This period, therefore, encompasses the introduction of a variety of differently situated individuals and groups, changing – although always economically-grounded - colonial objectives, and a plethora of unique initial encounters between Indigenous and colonist people. It is my intention that this analysis of the early encounter period serves two key purposes within my broader study. First of all, it enables me to explore an empirically-based iteration, rooted in historical archives, of the denizen through investigating the cacophony of colonist roles in tandem with how well such actors fit into a denizen role or ethos. As such, I will explore various colonists roles (such as arrivant, settler and guest) through a denizen-focused lens wherein I attempt to tease out various ways through which such differently situated colonists (who could simultaneously occupy dual roles as, for instance, arrivant and guest) acted in relation to the colonial project, a denizen ‘ideal’, and Indigenous peoples and land. I will approach this investigation of colonist thought and action through a broader analysis of western and (where available) Indigenous materials focused on earlier interactions within the east, placing thoughts and actions within this cacophony through which I attempt to explore and further elucidate denizen-like behaviours amongst early colonists. Such an investigation can contribute to a fuller articulation of the denizen vis à vis colonial thought and action as it is empirically manifested in the past. Such an analysis allows contemporary non-Indigenous people to reflect upon these historical narratives in light of the colonial thought and action today and begin to articulate the possibilities of a normatively-informed, denizen praxis for contemporary society. Such an historical-empirical analysis will demonstrate that the French ‘colonist’ of the seventeenth century is not a monolithic singularity, but rather a complex alignment of differently situated actors, implicated within a grander colonial project at various points and through fluctuating relations of power within the colonizing body as well as outside of it. Actors who at various points and in various ways acted as colonists and denizens. In approaching this study through this particular lens I explore the historically-situated, empirical ‘denizen’ so as to begin challenging the two-dimensional nature of the country’s settlement stories and their characters. 45 This brings me to a second intention of the historical analysis – to investigate and tell an alternative narrative of citizenship through a re-storying of settlement history focused on membership, invitation and colonial thought and action. Ultimately, this will complicate the master narrative of Canadian citizenship, as a universal, multicultural, largely uncontested membership within a peaceful and legitimately-settled western state (see Mackey, 2002), by exploring how the French (and post-1763 the British) went from foreigners who lived outside of Indigenous territories and societies; to invited denizens and intruders of these same territories and societies (whether intentionally or not); to citizens of their own now imposed ‘sovereign’ settler colonial state. In addition to situating the historical denizen, therefore, this analysis complicates and challenges narratives of the inevitability of colonial structures and relations. Understanding the narratives of (potential) denizenship that evolved into citizenship opens up a new conceptual avenue for decolonizing current relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples and political and societal structures. Thirdly, this historical analysis enables me to situate myself within the study of settler/Indigenous relations as a non-Indigenous scholar in the same way that Edward Said speaks of the situated scholar in relation to the post-colonial relations of the ‘orient’ (1979). Being a colonial denizen myself, requires situating myself as a scholar with a responsibility towards Indigenous peoples and the goal of decolonization (Cannon, 2013; Nicoll, 2004); as well as in relation to my ancestors and their roles in the colonial project of New France. Identifying myself in relation to my ancestors is to be respectful of the protocols of many Indigenous scholars and activists who begin with their own community identification and self in relation to ancestors and territory. Self-situation is key to the ontologies and diplomatic procedures of many Indigenous nations today (Chilisa, 2012; Cajete, 2014; Wilson, 2009). As such, it embraces both a post-colonial need to challenge western paradigms around the scholar being objective and able to study outside of existing power relations (as Said argues) and is consistent with Indigenous protocols in identifying oneself in relation to one’s ancestors and relations. Thus, as a thirteenth generation French-Canadian I have ancestors who settled on the shores of the St. Lawrence in Champlain’s habitation as far back as 1617. And so throughout the next five chapters I use my own ancestors – their roles within the colonial project and their relations to colonial powers and Indigenous people – as case studies for identifying early colonists in New France. Not only do such cases empirically ground this analysis, they force me 46 to situate myself within this research and on the land as well as more broadly within both historical and contemporary citizenship regimes. Thus, I can begin my own discursive work as a colonial denizen in my own methodological approach to research, consistent with a post-colonial focus on situated knowledge and take up my responsibility to Indigenous peoples and land – a responsibility grounded within the stories of my ancestors as well as my own contemporary position vis à vis colonial structures, thought and action. These interconnected processes and responsibilities, broadly understood, are important components in the move to decolonize as they require non-Indigenous peoples (at an individual and collective level) to understand privileges and positions in relation to contemporary structures and processes of colonial thought and action. With this in mind the next five chapters present the reader with a re-telling of the original Indigenous-French encounter period. A narrative which seeks to challenge western conceptions around citizenship and settlement through exploring the various roles played by a multiplicity of actors during seventeenth century encounters along the St. Lawrence and into the interior. A narrative that explores the choices taken by initial colonists, potential denizens, and in certain cases un-invited intruders, through which I look to uncover some of the earliest seeds sowed for the competing paths of respect and assimilation. The following is a narrative that conveys the complex nature of actors and relationships within the colonial project. A narrative which looks to elicit a fuller and more nuanced articulation of the historical-empirical colonial denizen so that it might help articulate a contemporary, normatively informed colonial denizen praxis. A narrative through which I seek to demonstrate a practice of self-situation as well as record the beginning of my own journey of taking up responsibility through understanding the roles of my ancestors in the colonial project and the implications this has upon my own self-situation and actions today. 47 Chapter 3: Searching for the Colonial Denizen in the Early Trade Colony of ‘New France’ (1600-29) While contemporary Canada is widely understood to be a settler colonial state, built on and fostered through the logics and structure of settler colonialism, its origins actually derive from imperialism5 and trade colonialism6 which are themselves built on a different (though not necessarily antithetical) logics and structures. Settler colonialism did not really come into being until the 1860s when the, by then, British colony gained a significant level of independence from Britain and the freedom to pursue specific settler colonial goals and interests. It is within the early days of French trade colonialism, however, where my application of and search for the colonial denizen begins: amongst the Innu, Anishinaabe, and French people along the St. Lawrence River in the early seventeenth century. The fur-trade-based colonialism established during these early years, has been linked to more generalized practices of trade colonialism that date back to early Greek and Roman commerce practices of establishing temporary trading posts that colonists would travel to for a period of time to trade before returning home (Arneil, 2017). This was a temporary and so less invasive form of colonialism focused on economic profit and the spread of an Empire’s reach across, though not necessarily to physical occupation of, continents. Here, imperialism, the building of an empire through symbolic, economic and spatial claims, was aided by the functions and procedures of trade colonialism as a material and symbolic means of spreading empire. For the purposes of the following historical analysis, it is important to distinguish this commerce-based colonialism from the agrarian-based colonialism that came to dominate colonial practices and which ultimately fed into settler colonialism. In comparison, agrarian-based colonialism (originating with the Greek apoikia) is a colonialism based on permanent, independent and self-sustaining agrarian settlement by colonists within an area that is a far distance from their home city or country (Arneil, 2017). As such, this is a permanent and more invasive form of colonialism focused on dispossession. And so there are important differences between these two key forms of colonialism: between goals (trade and dispossession) and 5 Here and throughout the dissertation ‘imperialism’ refers to the expansion of Empire through the extension of claims over Indigenous territories, even where (in most cases) such territories were not physically settled (colonized). 6 Here and throughout the dissertation ‘colonialism’ refers to the ideology of colonizing areas wherein ‘colonization’ refers to the physical act of colonizing an area. 48 between presence (temporary and permanent) and the resulting roles (sojourner and settler), processes and structures that result. While European forms of colonization have always tended to have elements of both trade and agrarian colonialism, trade-based settlements often preceded but were usually then superseded by agrarian-based settlement, processes and structures (Arneil, 2017). It is my contention that due to the less invasive nature of trade colonialism, its logics and structure, as well as the small and vulnerable population of French colonists that participated in the early trade colony within the St. Lawrence Valley one is more likely to find denizen-like behaviours amongst the early trade-colonist population. To test this hypothesis, the following considers the very early days of colonial New France with its focus on the fur trade. It identifies and explores a set of actors from colonial officials like Champlain, to temporary fur trade workers and relations and even those few colonists, such as my ancestor Louis Hébert, who came to the shores of the river to establish themselves as more permanent agrarian colonists. A Quick Note on the European Context of Colonial Relations and its Implications for the Denizen The typical story non-Indigenous Canadians tell themselves about initial encounters between Europeans and Indigenous peoples along the Atlantic coast speaks of fish, furs, and a friendly interest in trade between European and Indigenous peoples. Mainstream narratives suggest that the founding of French trade settlements (like Tadoussac and Québec) along the St. Lawrence River were acceptable to, and may have even been encouraged, by Indigenous peoples like the Innu. The picture is, generally, pretty rosy – aligning with later articulations of Canada as a ‘peaceful’ and ‘tolerant’ country (Mackey, 2002). Such a picture suggests that one would find denizens amongst the earliest of colonists who came to the shores of the St. Lawrence – individuals who understood their foreignness to the lands; acknowledged Indigenous peoples’ self-determination, their legal, and governance systems; acted deferentially in-kind; and only came to establish themselves on Indigenous territories following invitation and the continual fulfilment of responsibilities based on this invitation and its broader agreement. In analyzing these early interactions between Europeans and Indigenous peoples within North America, however, one also needs to be cognizant of the broader inter-European developments occurring at the time. By the seventeenth century, the Age of (European) Discovery - an era through which European kingdoms sought to expand their empire and influence beyond Europe under the guise of Christian responsibility - was well under way (Green 49 and Dickason, 1989). Europeans were quick to justify their imperial objectives by claiming that the Americas were res nullius, legally vacant lands, since the Indigenous peoples European explorers encountered led largely nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles and so could be conveniently dismissed as legal inhabitants under European legal thought (Dickason, 2001). Yet Europeans found that the Indigenous peoples they encountered, who had vast intra and inter-national legal and governance systems, like the Wyandot Jacques Cartier encountered along the St. Lawrence River in the sixteenth century (Sioui, 1992), could not be so easily dismissed. This led the French to use the legal doctrine of consent, originating in Roman law, as a means to establish themselves within North America. The French, therefore, first looked to establish relationships with Indigenous peoples, from whom they got consent to co-habit Indigenous lands. Once this consent was garnered the French then sought to have such an invitation recognized in Europe as justification for French settlement (Dickason, 2001) and hence a sort of sovereignty over these lands as against the interests of other European powers. This was the ‘sovereignty’ of imperialism wherein monarchs laid claim to lands they had not necessarily physically colonized (Greer, 2018). Where the French may appear to have acted as colonial denizens (looking for and gaining invitation before establishing trade settlements), therefore, they did so with imperial intentions that, at least in part, counter such denizen-like actions. This broader colonial policy suggests that the French could never be proper or ‘perfect’ colonial denizens because, even from the beginning, they were using whatever invitation they obtained from Indigenous hosts, and hence their de facto role as guests or denizens, to claim a sovereignty that sought to displace any possibility for the international recognition of Indigenous governance systems that, as denizens, the French should have recognized and accepted as legitimate. Instead, the French (as with other Europeans) tended to come to Indigenous territories believing that their societal structures and intellectual traditions were superior (Doxtator, 2001; Sioui, 1992). Therefore, while one might be able to identify moments, thoughts and actions through which French colonists exhibited denizen-like behaviours such instantiations exist within a pre-inscribed colonial project as determined through the European Age of Exploration and its rationale. This is something to keep in mind when re-visiting these narratives of encounter, (potential) invitation and responsibility. 50 Questioning Invitation onto Innu Territories at Uepishtikuiau (Québec) It is a common misconception of the grand Canadian narrative that the St. Lawrence Valley was uninhabited by Indigenous peoples by the early seventeenth century. Innu and Wyandot activists and scholars, like Georges Sioui (1992) and An Antan Kapesh (1976), whose nations claim areas within the valley as their ancestral territories, have pointed out that this has been a purposeful misconception (from the seventeenth century through to the contemporary period) to bolster governmental claims to the valley. Claims that form an important part of the historiographic myth of French settlement used to cement Québécois identity and claims for self-determination (Gaudry and Leroux, 2007; Michaud-Ouellet, 2019). While the Wyandot, whom Jacques Cartier had met earlier in the valley, had ‘disappeared’ (Moogk, 2000; Trigger, 1985; Gilmour and Turgeon, 2000; Parmenter, 2014), there were still numerous semi-nomadic Innu and Anishinaabe groups living throughout the valley who had established connections with and forms of governance over the lands (Brown and Wilson, 2004; Witgen, 2012). Importantly, the Wyandot had not disappeared but had, due to the devastation of epidemics carried to them by the French in the sixteenth century, largely moved westward for a time to live amongst their Huron allies (Sioui, 1992). These lands were, therefore, not terra nullius (empty lands) waiting to be claimed by France – as they are popularly depicted within the Canadian narrative. Rather they were lands ancestral to a given and clearly identifiable people still in existence today, not the mythologized ‘St. Lawrence Iroquois’ of the contemporary mainstream narrative (Sioui, 1992) mobilized to ease the settler colonial erase to replace mechanism. There were lands still occupied and governed by various Indigenous groups who had the ability and perhaps even the responsibility7 (in certain cases) to force Europeans off the land. Early Euro-Canadian accounts and interpretations of initial Innu-French encounters suggest that the Innu happily invited the French onto their lands to establish trading posts at Totouskak (Tadoussac) and Uepishtikuiau (Québec) in 1603 and 1608, respectively. Such 7 Here I refer to traditional concepts around governance structured on responsibility to the land, the animate and in-animate world, and treaties conducted with animal-beings. While she is specifically referring to Anishinabek conceptions of responsibility and governance, Heidi Kiiwepinesiik Stark identifies how governance functions as the act of taking seriously one’s responsibility to the land, animal-beings, etc. and how Anishinabek-settler treaty relations are premised on earlier Anishinabek treaties to the land and animal-beings that require both Anishinabek and settlers to meet the continuing obligations they hold to these earlier treaties. A similar function of responsibility in terms of Innu governance over land is also mentioned in Brown and Wilson’s chapter on the northern Algonquin. Heidi Kiiwepinesiik Stark. “Respect, Responsibility, and Renewal: The Foundations of Anishinaabe Treaty Making with the United States and Canada.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 34.2 (2010). 145-164. 51 interpretations are largely based on the writings of Samuel de Champlain whose recordings, John Pollack notes, one should be wary to take at face value since the explorer (and others involved in the printing of his works for European audiences) easily could have misunderstood, mistranslated and could have even fabricated the stories recorded to make Indigenous peoples appear as willing commerce partners and potential religious converts for France and the Roman Catholic Church (2012). Yet even where such works are taken cautiously, Euro-Canadian versions of these initial relations suggest that interactions (specifically in 1603) are representative of a positive agreement initiated by the Innu to have the band of French explorers and traders establish a trading post on Innu territory on the understanding that the French, in turn, provided military support to the Innu in their battles against the Haudenosaunee. While the specific details and understandings of this agreement differ, this is the basic framework to which they all adhere.8 Such interpretations of Innu-French encounters suggest that the foundations for colonial denizen thought and action were present for the earliest of French colonists. Grave du Pont and Champlain, it appears, were invited to an already established ceremony of the Innu, Anishinabek and Etchmin. Through mutually reciprocated speeches, performances and words an alliance for defense and commerce was established between parties that enabled the French to settle (at least temporary) trading posts amongst their new-found allies (Pollack, 2012). From such a vantage point all the necessary components for the denizen are present: the French secured an invitation before establishing themselves along the shore, they established such invitation by largely deferring to Indigenous governance customs and law (Pollack, 2012), they then actively looked to fulfil their obligations within the treaty/invitation by aiding the Innu in their efforts against the Haudenosaunee (Heidenreich, 2001). Oral traditions of the Innu, collected by anthropologist Sylvie Vincent, however, relay a different story. Within these oral traditions the Innu were not quite so inviting as Euro-Canadian accounts depict. The Innu were rather hesitant and suspicious of the French and their interests. In 8 For instance Bruce Trigger identifies this 1603 agreement as one through which the Innu and their neighbours agreed to permit the French the right to explore the interior territories and form trading relations throughout these territories; Olive Patricia Dickason argues that this agreement establishes an original and lasting transatlantic agreement between the Innu, Anishinabe and French based on trade and friendship, wherein the French are allowed to establish themselves on Innu territory but hold no title-like claim to this territory; and Alain Beaulieu argues the agreement established an alliance that was beneficial to both sides, which allowed the French to populate the country to the benefit of trade and military support for both parties. Pollack. pp. 85-86. 52 some accounts it is even stated that from the very beginning the Innu actually opposed French presence on their lands through force, though the French were ultimately able to come ashore. This highlights the tension, as identified by Amélie-Anne Mailhot, between the two versions of history (mainstream and Indigenous/subordinated) apparent within the works of Indigenous scholars like An Antan Kapesh and becoming increasingly apparent throughout critical scholarship focused on the history of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations in Canada (2017). According to these accounts it was the French who asked for land to settle – specifically the land of Uepishtikuiau (Québec City). The Innu refused their initial request, only finally agreeing to grant the French permission to inhabit this specific area after the French took it upon themselves to sow some wheat there, let it grow, and ask again for the land on the promise that they would grow more food at the site and share this food with the Innu. Here an invitation to inhabit a very specific site was hesitantly granted to the French (through force) on the condition that the French provide economic aid to the Innu (Vincent, 2002). These Innu narratives of initial encounter do not align with Euro-Canadian accounts. They suggests that the French were pushy and demanding and ultimately used settlement-based (agrarian) tactics to encourage, if not force, an invitation onto Innu lands. While Euro-Canadian accounts suggest that the French upheld their responsibilities to the Innu by joining them in raids against the Haudenosaunee, the Innu accounts suggest that the responsibilities were not military-based but economic and were, as such, poorly met if they were met at all (Vincent, 2002). The Innu accounts, therefore, intimate that while the French recognized their foreignness to some degree, and became de facto colonial denizens in their inhabitation of Uepishtikuiau, their actions were not indicative of denizen-like behaviour – they forced their invitation and, it seems, failed to meet their responsibilities. What would a ‘good’ denizen-like trading relationship look like here? First of all, the French would not have forced an invitation. This would have meant that they either should have returned to France and let go of their American aspirations or else spent more time establishing relations of mutual trust and respect with the Innu, Anishinaabe and Etchemin in the hopes that some sort of invitation would be more naturally extended. Secondly, it would have required clear deference to Innu law and custom whose lands they were on. This would mean that the French needed to spend time learning from the Innu about their ways and making an effort to communicate to the Innu and abide by their legal and governance systems. This could include world-building efforts – efforts to share and create new avenues of communicability, 53 understanding and ways of being between parties. Thirdly, it would mean that the French needed to appreciate the limitations of their invitation and the responsibilities this invitation/agreement/alliance placed on them as allies and inhabitants of a specific site on Innu lands. Finally, it would require that the French re-visit their relationship with the Innu periodically, as conditions arose, in recognition that it was the French who were foreigners who needed to be recognized by the rightful and self-determining stewards of the land upon whom their presence was dependent. Where Innu tradition places the French as failing to properly meet the first condition of a more mutually-desired invitation, the following seeks to identify how well the variously situated French actors at the site faired in meeting the other conditions for a good ‘denizen-like’ trading relationship as I have identified here. Fragile Alliances: Charting the Maintenance of Early French-Innu Trade-Based Relations During these early days the small French population on Wyandot and Innu territories was largely composed of sojourners: men who came for temporary (contracted) visits based at the established trading posts (Tadoussac, Port-Royale, Québec). These French sojourners would have been composed of colonial elites like Grave du Pont as well as colonial officials of lesser rank like Samuel Champlain, and unnamed (though seemingly voluntary) labourers employed by the fur trading company to establish trading relations with local peoples and accumulate furs to take back to France for the company’s profit (Biggar, 1901; Wrong, 1928; Trudel, 1968). Unfortunately, very little is known about the unnamed early company employees within the first two decades of French trading settlement along the river, and so little can be said about their roles. It can be said, however, that their transient presence helped strengthen the colonial project. But it is difficult to say if these men were voluntary or in-voluntary servants, criminals, or willing participants within the trade. Work by W.J. Eccles suggests that some of the men who came in 1608 may have been criminals exiled to the colony (1969). Until more is known about these men, it is difficult to say much more surrounding their roles as denizens and colonists within the French colonial project. For now the following will focus on largely voluntary (elite) sojourners within the early days of the colony, leaving discussion of involuntary colonists for chapter five. According to Innu tradition, it appears that these more elite and official French sojourners began as acceptable inhabitants of the patch of land they had been hesitantly offered at Uepishtikuiau. The Innu talk of how the French established a small sustenance garden on the 54 site, which they surrounded with a wooden fence (Vincent, 2002). French efforts remained small and focused on survival at this point, although, it is interesting to note that even while this site was meant to be a trading post, mechanisms of more permanent and agrarian settlement were being used to establish French presence. Given that such mechanisms would have been necessary for survival, however, and without evidence of the use of agrarian labour to lay claim to the territory at this point, it appears that this might not have been the case. And yet, within the Innu oral tradition, it seems that agrarian labour was eventually used to widen the boundaries of the French habitation. When the Innu were not on their lands at the shore, when they had gone further into the interior, it is argued that the French widened their fences to increase their agricultural output – claiming that they needed more land to grow their wheat (Vincent, 2002). This does not bode well for identifying early colonial actors at Québec as potential denizens in relation to the Innu whose lands they were inhabiting. Not only did the French force an invitation onto the site but, according to Innu tradition, they cunningly sought to expand the boundaries of the site upon which they had been permitted to establish themselves, which in turn pushed the Innu further and further off their own territory. This is not denizen-like behaviour – this is agrarian colonial behaviour. This is behaviour that is more aligned with colonial objectives of land acquisition, dispossession and profit than with denizen-like objectives of mutual respect, responsibility and deference. The French at what became known as Québec forced their invitation and then did not adhere to the reluctant territorial limitations of their agreement with the Innu. This is not to say that all interactions between the French and the Innu were decidedly and always bad. In June of 1609, the French (Champlain and two volunteers from the habitation) are said to have accompanied 60 Innu and Wyandot warriors into a successful raid on a band of Haudenosaunee at the Richelieu River (Heidenreich, 2001). While military aid might not have been part of the original invitation/agreement, this sort of aid suggests potential denizen-like action and consideration on behalf of the French colonists – though it could also suggest interference and meddling in affairs they could have and maybe should have stayed out of. While one needs to approach colonial documents with caution, the Jesuit Relations do make mention of these early colonists repeatedly protecting the Innu and other allies from the Haudenosaunee by sheltering them within the French habitation (Thwaites, Vol. V, 1633). If true, this would be a good denizen-like act based on mutual respect and responsibility. Such positive behaviour may 55 be further supported by the events of 1624, when a short-lived peace treaty between the Innu, Wyandot, Haudenosaunee and the French (Biggar, 1901) was established and the habitation became a site for an annual summer trade fair that would have benefited both the French and their Indigenous allies through commercial profit and endeavours. And yet, by the 1610s, the French habitation itself was a forcibly imposing structure: built for defense it was “surrounded by a wall in the form of a square, with two small turrets at the angles” which were added for increased security (Sagard, 1968). It was not a welcoming place – built in European style on Indigenous lands, it functioned, however tacitly, as a demonstration of French strength and even sovereignty, an imposition of French governance on Indigenous lands. While relations with the Innu had always been rocky, as the years drew on the Innu grew less and less trustful of the French. Not only had the French pushed past Innu barriers to make a treaty with the Wyandot in 1615, placing the later as the preferred middlemen of the French-Indigenous fur trade, but as the price of trade goods began rising in 1614 (due to the enforcement of a trading monopoly in France) the Innu became quite disgruntled with the French. Innu resentment, importantly, was reportedly limited by the “clandestine traders who continued to offer the Montagnais [Innu] goods at cheaper prices” (Trigger, 1971). But even with this tempering there were moments of extreme violence seen between the French and Innu at Québec. According to Euro-Canadian accounts, one such instance involves a French locksmith, an Innu man named Cherououny and murder. In either late spring of 1617 or late summer of 1616,9 Cherououny, who appears to have frequented the habitation, was poorly treated by the locksmith. In retaliation Cherououny later attacked this man and his companion in the woods outside the habitation, killing both men and tying their bodies down with stones to dispose of them in the river (Champlain & Grant, 1907). The bodies washed ashore in 1619 (Biggar, 1901). This resulted in the inhabitants at Québec temporarily refusing to let the Innu into their habitation and requesting retribution in the murder. In response, the Innu initially steered clear of the settlement, finally coming to the habitation to inform the French that as a collective they had had no knowledge of the murder and had not consented to it. They offered reparations, gifts, as befitted their customs. But the French demanded that the perpetrators be delivered to Québec. While the 9 Accounts differ here between Sagard and Champlain’s recordings, which is understandable given that the bodies were found years after the fact. 56 Innu reportedly found this strange and were not happy with the demand, they eventually agreed. Interestingly, when the perpetrator was being delivered there was a big show of arms and security by the French at the habitation. As Champlain’s records suggest, there was considerable mistrust on both sides. Every Frenchman stood to arms, keeping a good watch with his weapon in hand, with sentinels posted everywhere necessary for fear of an attempt of the savages outside because of this suspicion that it was intended actually to do justice on the culprit who had put himself so freely at our mercy…The whole was very well contrived, arranged and executed, to make them feel the enormity of that offence, and to be afraid in future…(Champlain & Grant, 1907, 190) Here the French made a big show of intimidating and telling the Innu that the perpetrator should be killed as retribution and again, according to Champlain, the Innu representatives stated that they had not been a part of the murder and had only kept it a secret because they did not want the relationship to suffer. They wanted and expected a pardon. Eventually, it is described in the European records, that Checououny laid his own life on the line telling the French they should kill him. The French deliberated, knowing they were weak in numbers (as Champlain admits: outnumbered even at this public meeting), they also realized that killing him would lead to perpetual mistrust and possible warfare which would impede (if not destroy) France’s position in the fur trade. And so the colonial officials granted Checououny his life asking that the Innu leave hostages for the French colonists’ security. The Innu agreed, and left two children who were taught by Father Le Caron (Champlain & Grant, 1907). Acting as colonial denizens here would have meant that the French recognized the authority of the Innu, Innu laws and customs around justice, the requirement of the French colonists to show deference to these laws and customs (rather than trying to intimidate the Innu), therefore, agreeing to a solution more in line with the reparations culture of their allies. While the ultimate agreement appears to have aligned more so with an Innu conception of justice as reparation (the Innu children given to the French) this solution was only arrived at following great displays of French intimidation and the understanding by the French that they could not impose their own form of justice less they risk their entire colonial trade project and presence along the St. Lawrence. Of course there is also the issue that the Innu apparently knowingly withheld the murders from the French which is demonstrative of bad ally behaviour. But it still stands that the French, as forcibly-invited denizens, were foreigners on Innu land who needed to 57 recognize and abide by local law and custom. This is something that the French may have somewhat done, through coming to a compromise with the Innu that was marginally more in line with Innu customs, only when they recognized they had to act this way. In the absence of corresponding Innu oral tradition, it is difficult to come to any firmer arguments or conclusions here. Regardless, this encounter (as recorded by Euro-Canadians) demonstrates an interesting instance through which one sees early colonists actively grappling with their position on Innu territory – wanting to be colonist-proper, wanting to impose their will, their ‘superior’ laws and customs on their Indigenous hosts, but ultimately realizing they are too vulnerable to do so and so acting more in line with a denizen ethos. Ultimately, this solution left both the French sojourners and Innu unhappy. For the French, proper justice had not been served and for the Innu this ‘solution’ was a display of French weakness because a proper reparation had not been offered. It appears that French-Innu relations were never the same.10 According the Champlain, by 1624 the Innu were openly boasting about the possibility of killing all the French at Québec and looking for other Europeans with which to trade furs for more reasonably priced European goods (Trigger, 1971). The Innu-French alliance, therefore, was fraught with these tense moments of violence and continued to be tense given the monopoly on trade trying to be imposed from afar and the resultant rise of trade goods. Sojourner-Innu relations at the French habitation, therefore, appear to always have been marked by a growing level of caution and distrust as the French had forced their way onto Innu lands, increasingly seeking to expand their territory and power. It seems that the French continued to be tolerated by the Innu due to the prestige that Champlain and the other fur trade workers had received in helping the Innu, Wyandot and Anishinaabe in reducing the Haudenosaunee threat – a threat reduction that lasted until 1634 (Trigger, 1971). While relations with the Innu were marked with tension and mistrust, records suggest that the French may have enjoyed more favourable and deferential relationships with the Wyandot with whom they seem to have had a clearer and stronger commercial relationship. The following, therefore, briefly 10 In 1624-5, Sagard notes a Wyandot response to the death of two other Frenchmen. He says that while the representatives had been at the ceremony of forgiveness (during which the French symbolically threw a sword into the river) the Wyandot were unmoved and solemn but upon returning to their village they mocked the French joking that “henceforth for killing a Frenchman one could get off at the cost of a dozen beaver-skins.” Sagard. Long Journey into Huron Country. p. 86. There are also reports of Louis Hébert’s servant, Choppard, as well as a man named Dumoulin being killed by Innu. The killing of Choppard reportedly led to Champlain receiving three Indigenous children from the Innu. James Douglas. Old France in the New World. Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers Co., 1905. p. 181. 58 explores the early relationship between the French and Wyandot within the fur trade focusing on the exchange of young boys and men as demonstrative of more denizen-like behaviour. Tending to the Living Relationship as Mutual Responsibility: Wyandot-French Exchange It appears that the French were more deferential toward the Wyandot (at Huronia) following their formal alliance in 1615. While the Wyandot and the French were already allies, through earlier ceremonies and treaties with the Innu and Anishinaabe, they established a more direct and mutually satisfactory trade relationship when Champlain brought two Récollet friars to stay with the Wyandot in 1615 (Moogk, 2002). It seems that the French had more respect for their Wyandot allies, largely recognizing the Wyandot role as middlemen (conduits between the fur-trapping nations to the west and the French) and refraining themselves from barrier pushing until the dispersal of the Wyandot at Haudenosaunee hands in 1650. It is important to note here that the economy, specifically the fur trade, was one of the main methods by which the French sought to establish themselves amongst Indigenous peoples for the further exploration and ‘discovery’ of their lands. While religion was used as the official justification for this European exploration (Green and Dickason, 1989), and the real goal was ‘discovery’ (as against other European sovereigns) for empire building, the fur trade was a means by which to satisfy both. As such, the trade functioned as a major component in French colonial policy toward Indigenous peoples. Trade was already a vital component of inter-national life for Indigenous peoples, and it took many forms,11 but required the establishment of relations between strangers (in many cases fictive kinship relations) to establish familiarity and connection prior to the exchange of goods and people (Miller, 2015; Witgen, 2012). Early on, the French learned to use the rhetoric of fictive kinship to support and strengthen these alliances that centered around trade and war (Doxtator, 2001). These interactions led to the formation of treaty relationships and agreements that largely followed Indigenous governance practices and diplomatic protocols. In different ways, both the Wyandot and French were looking to gain from their relationship to each other. While the French wanted to use this relationship to eventually enable their further exploration of the continent, and hence strengthen their discovery claims, the Wyandot sought to benefit from their middlemen status in the fur trade. As middlemen the 11 As will be explored within chapter five, Indigenous trade diplomacy included not only the trade of furs for goods, but the trade of people and slaves. 59 Wyandot could amass European goods that could then be used in ceremony or easily traded with interior hunting groups for furs they did not have to trap (Delâge, 1981; LeBlant, 1972; Trigger, 1985). Relative to the interior nations, their role was less labour intensive and potentially more profitable as they oversaw the flow of goods. Both groups, therefore, were looking out for their own interests in strengthening their relationship through trade and even military-based bonds of alliance, although one might identify the French interest as inherently more troubling and ultimately deleterious to maintaining good relations. Beyond these troubling intentions, however, it appears that during these early years the French were more interested in tending to their relationship with the Wyandot than they were with the Innu. Perhaps one of the strongest examples of this was the mutual exchange of young men between the French and Wyandot. As early as 1610 the French and Wyandot (and even the Anishinaabe) began exchanging boys as a means of strengthening their relationship. These boys would live with their allies for a period of time, learning the language and culture of their hosts. French boys like Étienne Brûlé, gained a greater sense of the land and eventually reported back to their people what they had seen and learned. Thus began the integral role of the French-Indigenous interpreters and trade agents (Wrong, 1928; Heidenreich, 2001). These boys functioned as diplomats between nations, helping to further communication and understanding between allies as well as trust and hence strengthening bonds of alliance. Peaceful and equal exchanges like these demonstrated a recognition of mutual obligations that were necessary to sustain the life and well-being of community between nations. Following Indigenous diplomacy protocols, these sorts of ritual exchanges “made fur trade exchange possible by creating a social nexus that facilitated the peaceful transfer of goods and peoples between different social groups, across jointly occupied territory” (Witgen, 2012). So while the French certainly gained specific information that helped them in their colonial mission, specifically the knowledge those like Brûlé acquired about the geography of the pays d’en haut and later the interior, such exchanges also demonstrated a deference to Indigenous diplomatic protocols and an understanding of the French colonists’ need for and vulnerability amongst those like the Wyandot and Anishinaabe. While this analysis of French-Wyandot relations is brief, it is suggestive of more denizen-like behaviour with the Wyandot than with the Innu. In line with the call to explore treaty relations in chapter one, this mutual exchange of boys suggests that the French understood (or at least could be interpreted as understanding) the need to re-visit treaty and to tend to the 60 relationship. The exchange of boys and with this the exchange of language, culture, and worldview was a step toward strengthening the relations between the two parties – a way to continually re-visit the original trading agreement and relationship. While French intentions were less than pure, such interactions are demonstrative of denizen-leanings especially when combined with the sojourners’ general observance of Wyandot territories and respect for their physical boundaries to more direct engagement with the trade. Settlement Attempts: The Increasing Tendency Toward Agrarian Practice and Permanence While the early colonial mission for France was focused on the establishment of trading posts and more temporary and efficient presence, as early as 1617 there were attempts at more agrarian and permanent colonial settlement. The first permanent colonist of Québec is considered to be my ancestor, Louis Hébert, who uprooted his family (wife, Marie Rollet, and three children) from Paris to take up a fief in what became the Upper Town of Old Québec (Champlain & Grant, 1907; Fischer, 2008). Hébert was a Parisian apothecary who lived on rue Sainte-Honoré in the première-arrondissement (Choquette, 1997), and was the son of Nicholas Hébert who had been the apothecary to Catherine de Medici in the sixteenth century (Biggar, 1901). Cousin by marriage to Jean de Biencourt de Poutrinecourt and friend of Pierre Sieur de Mons and Samuel Champlain (Fischer, 2008), Hébert had accompanied Poutrinecourt and Champlain on various voyages to the New World such as to Acadia wherein he acted as the crew’s surgeon (Choquette, 1997) to help establish Port-Royal in 1605 (Fischer, 2008). It appears, therefore, that he held a sustained interest in the colonial project of New France and came from some wealth. As such he is identifiable as an early voluntary and elite colonist of New France. Before analyzing the more intricate actions and implications of the Hébert family within the broader French colonial project, I think it’s important to ruminate on how a denizen-like settler actor might have functioned during this early period in relation to Indigenous peoples and lands. As mentioned in chapter one, you will not find a perfect colonial denizen, but you might be able to find denizen leanings. Such leanings would demonstrate relations between such agrarian colonists and Indigenous peoples based on mutual respect and trust – this would require forms of direct engagement and communication beyond official/Crown mediators. Such leanings would also demonstrate colonist deference to the Indigenous peoples whose lands they were inhabiting – for instance, a deference to Innu law, governance and customs. One would also 61 expect to find minimal cultivation of territory (cultivation based on subsistence), the sharing of goods and services, as well as respect for the land itself and treatment for it along local-based worldviews and customs. Given such vulnerable positions of early agrarian colonists (the lack of structural support from France and knowledge of the land) one would suspect that such early colonists were more inclined than their later followers toward such denizen-leanings. The following will analyze the various records of Hébert’s actions along the St. Lawrence in light of these enumerated denizen-leanings. In 1616, Champlain was able to convince Hébert to settle at Québec by offering him a contract that Champlain had wrangled from the Compagnie des Marchands (Company of Merchants). Through this contract the company offered to support Hébert and his family for two years on a sizeable plot of land, providing him with two hundred Crowns a year for the first three years of their settlement. Happy with the offer, Hébert sold his property and assets in France and set off for the port of Honfleur as a voluntary colonist headed for the valley. Upon his arrival at the port, however, the company shareholders had changed their minds. Hébert would only receive half of the original land agreed to, would only be given 100 Crowns for the first three years and was obliged (alongside his wife; children; and servant, Henri Choppard), to serve the company during this first three years. He was strictly forbidden to engage with the fur trade, which introduces an impediment to the direct relations a denizen-leaning settler would require for more positive and mutually respectful relations with the Innu. He also had to continually offer his services as an apothecary to the company without payment, and had to sell whatever produce he was able to grow to the company at the current price of produce in France rather than at a price suitable to the conditions of the trading colony. Having sold off his assets, Hébert was compelled to accept this new offer. While he had intended to come to Québec as a self-determining colonist, Hébert ended coming to the colony as a servant of the company, allowed to clear ‘his’ land, build ‘his’ house, and settle only when the chief factor at the habitation did not require his services (Biggar, 1901; Fischer, 2008). At this juncture, Hébert came to occupy an interesting position within the early colonial cacophony – willing colonist who came to be dominated by the trading company at the same time (as will be demonstrated) that he helped contribute to the success of the French colonial project, eventually profiting from such exploits himself. In other words, Hébert was both oppressed and oppressor during these early years of the French settlement. 62 For Champlain and the few Récollet missionaries at the colony there was considerable interest in encouraging the settlement of French colonists within the valley. The rationale of Champlain’s exploratory efforts and the missionaries’ religious labour suggested that civilization and religious conversion, which those like Champlain thought would strengthen bonds of alliance enough to enable further exploration (Moogk, 2000), would best be completed amongst French subjects from whom Indigenous peoples could learn French language and culture. In other words, assimilation would best occur when Indigenous peoples were surrounded by French colonists. For many of the Protestant company shareholders, however, settlement placed too heavy a burden on their profit margins. Many of the shareholders were merchants from western France at this point, who were really only interested in the economic gains they could make from the trading of furs (Eccles, 1969). This opposition to agrarian settlement within the company likely led to the poor treatment of Hébert and his family along the river. As recorded by Sagard, it was not only the shareholders that treated Hébert poorly but also the factors at Québec who went even further in their cruel treatment of the family looking to “discourage others from following in their footsteps, unless indeed they came as slaves” (Sagard, qt. Biggar, 1901). While there were numerous other mitigating factors discouraging settlement (Trudel, 1968; Greer, 1997) at this time the treatment of the Hébert family likely played a role in discouraging other French subjects from embarking for permanent settlement in the colony. While Hébert was contracted to work for the company, only being provided his spare time to build a house and cultivate the land, recent archeology excavations of this property suggest that the family’s original dwelling was actually built quite quickly. By 1618, it appears that Hébert had not only constructed this first dwelling but had already done well to establish a healthy farm – this was important as their contract with the company required that following their first two years the family would have to rely on their own resources for food as well as all other needs (Simoneau, 2009). At this point such cultivation could be interpreted as subsistence and therefore still aligning with colonial denizen-leanings. By the 28th of February 1626, this land was established as a noble landholding: the fief of Sault-au-Matelot (Simoneau, 2009). This suggests that, independent of what Hébert’s socio-economic standing had been on arrival, by the mid 1620s he was certainly a Sieur – a noble living within the French trading colony. While it appears he came from some affluence in France, one might consider that his actions within the colony – his perseverance in settlement even when he received such poor treatment by the 63 trading company - ultimately provided him and his family great privilege. This was a privilege experienced through and premised on the colonial project. In 1621 his daughter, another one of my ancestors, Guillemette, married Guillaume Couillard, a carpenter employed by the company. They took over half of the fief. When Louis passed away in 1627, due to a bad fall, the last half of the fief was divided in two and so a quarter of the original fief went to Marie Rollet, his widow, and her new husband, Guillaume Huboust, the last quarter to his son, Guillaume Hébert, and his wife, Hélène Desportes (also my ancestors). Regardless of his original position at Québec, therefore, Louis Hébert and his family became wealthy and noble colonists (in the eyes of the French) upon Innu territories. This evolution from company service to noble land-holder demonstrates a step away from denizen-leanings toward colonial profit and privilege. By the late 1620s such profit and privilege was clearly demonstrated in the grandeur of the Hébert-Couillard property. The fief was well developed at this point and contained “not only the houses and secondary buildings of Couillard and Guillaume Huboust, but also a brewhouse with outbuildings, a mill and an associated dwelling, a barn, a stable, and several pathways and tracks” (Simoneau, 2009). The extended family – as the first of ‘New France’ – had done quite well for themselves despite active discouragement by the trading company. This is further suggestive of a step (or multiple steps) away from denizen-leanings. It does not appear that under so grand and comfortable a development of these lands that the Hébert-Couillard family was cultivating the land for mere subsistence but profit and wealth through the use of Innu territory. Furthermore, one imagines that this plot of land they were cultivating, which was on the upper terrain of Québec, was likely not territory originally ‘granted’ by the Innu in 1608. Beyond such heavy cultivation of this land, which itself could function as a breach of invitation, one is left wondering what the Innu thought of the family’s presence and endeavours at this spot of their traditional territory and how mutually respected and comfortable they felt with the colonists’ presence here. Importantly, from a colonial standpoint, Hébert’s perseverance and success in clearing his fief and growing enough food to feed his family and others at the habitation (Fischer, 2008; Eccles, 1969) was important for the survival of the trading colony in its early years. Not only did Hébert’s success bring a much needed sense of stability and order to the habitation, it also demonstrated that the dream of a self-supporting French population was possible along the shores of the St. Lawrence (Fischer, 2008). In fact, there is evidence to show that a small handful 64 of families did in fact come to settle at Québec following Hébert’s example. For instance, Martin Abraham dit L’Écossais (the Scotsman), another of my ancestors, was a fisherman that Champlain personally helped finance to settle at Québec sometime before the conquest of 1629. He also settled in the upper territory with his wife, Marguerite Langlois, on the land referred to today as the Plains of Abraham where they began a large family (Fischer, 2008). And so, despite any possible denizen-leanings, Hébert’s actions directly contributed to the early success of the French colonial project. Hébert and Martin were colonists in a very traditional sense – pioneers of French-Canadian society within the St. Lawrence Valley. They were some of the very first agrarian colonists to be ‘given’ property by the Crown (through a trading company) upon lands that were considered by the French Crown free for the taking. The idea that a society could happen upon a foreign land and impose its own property structures for settlement (it was feudal-like fiefs given to Hébert and Martin) of their own people is emblematic colonial practice – even if such lands had been extended to the French in invitation. In accepting such fiefs, these two men became an important part of a broader process of colonization. As recipients of such property, these men contributed to what became an important colonial fixture – the rendition of Indigenous territories into European property increasingly accomplished at the price of Indigenous dispossession. At such an early stage this did not necessarily translate into Hébert and Martin acting as malevolent colonists, the settlement of these families appears to have been at least tolerated by Indigenous allies and neighbours. But this early use of the seigneurial system certainly did set the stage for later colonial thought and action that would use property as a tool of domination and subversion. And my ancestors, Hébert and Martin, were some of the first actors to willingly make this colonial path possible. Excavations of the Hébert-Couillard fief suggest that the family ate a varied diet (domesticated and hunted animals) and likely traded with Indigenous allies, for there were objects like glass beads found throughout the excavated dwellings (Simoneau, 2009). This suggests that the Hébert-Couillard family broke the law regarding their contracts, as well as the law later, which stipulated they were not allowed to enter trade with Indigenous peoples. This suggests that the family set some foundations for potential denizen-leanings - foundations for direct interactions with Innu and other Indigenous allies. Unfortunately, little is known of their direct dealing with Indigenous peoples and how productive or destructive such relations might 65 have been. Although if such trade relations were mainly premised on fair and mutually-supportive exchanges of goods, however clandestine, one might consider such relations positive and possibly even supportive of denizen-leanings. Without further evidence here, however, little more can be said. Reportedly, Hébert was a deeply religious man who was keenly interested in helping civilize and missionize the Indigenous peoples within the valley (Choquette, 1997; Wrong, 1928).12 Such convictions would align with the official colony policy of France within the valley. While claims are difficult to substantiate, it has also been suggested that Hébert was quite friendly with local Indigenous peoples: providing them his apothecary services and even opening his home to them (Fischer, 2008). Importantly, it was the Indian corn and peas that his family grew that were used by the French to trade for furs during annual summer markets at Québec (Sagard, 1968). If any stock is to be taken from Sagard’s writings and the Jesuit Relations, Indigenous visitors to the habitation and the Récollet and Jesuit seminaries nearby were frequent (Thwaites, 1633; Sagard, 1968). Given the reported frequency of interactions, the evidence found suggesting illicit trading occurred at the fief, and Hébert’s interest in aiding religious conversion one can at least suggest there was a premise for direct contact between a colonist like Hébert and the Innu and other Indigenous allies. While it appears such interaction, if premised on religious conversion, was problematic, there is still the possibility that some of these relations, specifically trade-based ones, were positive for both parties. Unfortunately, as previous stated, without further credible resources it is difficult to say. Intriguingly, Father Le Jeune wrote that Madame Hébert stated “the savages had helped them [the Hébert family] to live during the greater part of the time” of English occupation (Thwaites, 1633; Sagard, 1968), which suggests a relationship of (possibly mutual) dependence and trust. And so, even if Louis did not have much of a direct relationship with the Innu and others during his time at Québec, it appears that after his death, during occupation, his family did have and needed that direct relationship to sustain themselves until the French returned. Unfortunately, information of these very early colonial families is difficult to ascertain. There are no first-hand accounts of their experiences like there are for the missionaries and 12 According to Wrong: “Like many founders of New France he [Hébert] was inspired by religious fervour and on his death-bed praised God most of all that his chief purpose in crossing the sea had been fulfilled since he had seen savages converted to the faith.” 66 educated men like Champlain. Instead there are only brief mentions of them through the annals of European history as recorded by political and religious elites. It is, however, quite clear that at least men like Hébert came, voluntarily and with colonial intentions – knowledgeable that their presence and actions within the trading colony were helping the French achieve their colonial and imperial aims. At the very least, one can argue that Hébert was quite aware and interested in the colonial project helping found Port-Royale alongside his reported interest in ‘helping’ to Christianize the Indigenous peoples of the continent. The intentions and complicities of the wives and children, though they importantly helped populate the colony, are even harder to determine. When Champlain brought his wife to settle for four years (1620-24) at Québec, it is said that she “tried to instruct the Indian women and especially their children” (Wrong, 1928). Perhaps she encouraged the small handful of other colonist women to accompany her on such a mission – it may never be known. But such instruction, if its aim was assimilatory, as history suggests it likely was, would suggest a step away from denizen-like behaviour. These first families came to the shores of the St. Lawrence with very little structure or support from France. Unlike later colonists who would land along the shores and be incorporated into an increasingly structured colonial society, these first few colonists came with a relatively blank slate. Certainly their agency was shaped by the past actions of explorers, traders, the French Crown and the company that had allowed their settlement, there was still a good deal of agency, of freedom in their approach to Indigenous-French relations relative to later French arrivals. These colonists came with, perhaps the least security of any voluntary colonists that would follow. There was little to no French Crown policy or support. With their small numbers they were dependent on the good will of the trading company for provisions, which only came by ship once a year in the late Spring, if they came at all (Trudel, 1968), and their Indigenous hosts and neighbours. The implications of their vulnerable position suggests that they would have every incentive to act as colonial denizens, foreigners who understood the fragility of their presence on Indigenous lands and who needed to act in kind toward the Innu. But even under these circumstances, these early colonists sought to re-develop European structures upon Innu territory, likely participating in the challenge to the laws and customs of the Innu during moments of unrest like those identified above. It appears, therefore, that these early colonists occupied a complex space wherein they wavered back and forth between damaging colonial and more deferent denizen-like behaviour – leaning more toward problematic colonial 67 roles given the implications of their presence and the overwhelming leanings of their actions and intentions. While it was likely the case that individual agrarian colonists and their Indigenous allies got along best during periods of hardship (harsh winters and English occupation), their position as colonists seem to dominate their roles and influences within the French colonial project. Summary It cannot be denied or overlooked that the French came to the shores of the Atlantic with colonial and imperial intentions: the pursuit of commercial profit and the discovery of ‘new’ lands to be claimed in the name of their sovereign. Such ‘discovery’ was part of a European reality, a vying for power and empire between Crowns. Due to this imperial context, while one might find denizen-like behaviours amongst French colonists, it appears that French thought and action with Indigenous peoples was always pre-inscribed within the damaging rhetoric of colonial and imperial thought. This chapter has searched for any potential iterations of denizen-like behaviour amongst the original colonists of France’s trading settlements along the St. Lawrence River. It began from the premise that the actual vulnerability of these first French colonists and the nature of trade-based colonialism one might lead to one more easily finding denizen-like behaviour here than amongst later colonists within what became New France. Two primary groups were identified as actors here: early colonial sojourners (employed by the trading company) and early agrarian colonists (the handful of individuals who came to settle at trading posts during commerce-based colonial policy). What has been found is a tangled web of relations and actions that ultimately point to more aggressive colonial leanings than denizen-like behaviours and yet, which are not devoid of these latter behaviours. While the official and elite sojourners forced their invitation onto Innu territories; slowly encroached further onto Innu territories; built imposing structures; and resisted abidance to Innu law and custom in cases of inter-cultural conflict, they also provided protection to their Innu allies, as well as military aid against Innu enemies; and helped host annual trading fairs and peace treaties. When these sojourners sought more direct trading relations with the Wyandot, their behaviour appears to have improved as it seems they respected imposed boundaries to more direct trade engagement and better upheld and deepened trade relations through the mutual exchange of young men. Yes, these sojourners were overwhelmingly dominating colonial actors who failed to meet a number of crucial principles of denizen 68 behaviour (like deference to local customs and laws, a mutually agreeable and unforced invitation) but there are still important actions one can point to as potential denizen-like behaviours. And even where these sojourners did not meet denizen behaviour principles, reviewing their troubling behaviour from a denizen-lens serves to challenge one’s readings of their actions with a view to understanding and identifying avenues toward better, more denizen-like, actions that can inform one’s understanding of the past, present and future. The same can be said of the exploration of my ancestor, Hébert, and his actions as an early agrarian colonist. The review of what records are available of his life in the colony suggest he acted in potentially destructive ways – living beyond subsistence on lands that were likely not actually formally granted to the French, his reported interest in the religious conversion of Indigenous peoples, and his very presence and progress leading to the future success of agrarian based colonial endeavours. And yet, there is at least the suggestion within these records that he may also have acted in more denizen-like ways – he very likely traded directly with Indigenous peoples, which increases the possibility that he had, if not overly friendly, then at least mutually respectful relations with those Indigenous peoples with whom he traded. He also indirectly contributed to trade relations through supplying corn to official traders and so helping to sustain and develop positive trading relationships between the French and Indigenous allies more broadly. And, as records suggest, during times of hardship – like when his family was stranded during English occupation – they relied on their Indigenous allies and neighbours for survival which is indicative of positive relations since those like the Innu likely would have not considered themselves beholden to the French following the Kirke brother’s conquest. I expected to find quite deferential colonial denizens during these year years. Instead I found that, even when their numbers were so low, and they were so vulnerable amongst stronger and more numerous Indigenous hosts and neighbours, these original colonists struggled with their identity as colonial denizens. They wanted to be more – to be powerful colonists benefitting from the colonial project, spreading the righteous word of God or benefiting from the trade of furs or the glory of ‘discovery’. While colonial denizens need to demonstrate deference to the laws and rules of those whose lands they have been invited onto, even at this early stage the French colonists were pushing up against their role as denizens and looking to impose their self-ascribed ‘superiority’; where and when they could. Interestingly, it appears that when the French (were forced to) recognized their vulnerability and their need for mutual aid they were more 69 likely to act as denizens. This likely rings true for a contemporary denizen ethos. The more one can find common interests across difference, the more likely that Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples are going to have good relations. There is a need to find mutual interests and mutual vulnerability – this doesn’t require a shared citizenship, as Alan Cairns suggests (2001), such shared understandings can exist across difference. People will always carry self-interest. As demonstrated here, both Indigenous and colonists did during this early period. The Innu and later Wyandot were interested in maintaining alliances for economic and military profits while the French were interested in maintaining these alliances for further exploration and ‘discovery’. Today, however, there needs to be a shift, specifically, in colonist self-interest. It is certainly time as western, colonial structures are not even benefiting the majority of non-Indigenous peoples anymore – though they certainly maintain non-Indigenous privilege throughout state and society. With the rise of the Occupy Movement, the stronghold that neo-liberal policies of austerity and economics continue to have upon society and state, the concentration of wealth amongst the one-percent – what is even being protected anymore? Perhaps one should identify the early 21st century as a moment of rupture through which to re-align priorities, as well as mutual and self-interests in a way that benefits a greater share of people within a de-colonial society, in a way that recognizes the self-determination and inherent rights of Indigenous peoples, the inherent responsibilities of being a denizen upon Indigenous lands, and the need to establish and maintain good relations. As such there is a need to re-position the narrative that is told about ‘Canada’ around this concept of invitation – around the actual (forced) invitation between the French and Innu, around the other instances of (potential, forced, real) invitation throughout the rest of these lands. Re-positioning the narrative around this invitation, around the need for such invitation, has considerable de-colonizing power in and of itself as it helps provincialize the European intellectual tradition around discovery and sovereignty at the same time that it opens up a very real space through which to meaningfully identify the inherent rights and responsibilities of Indigenous self-determination and stewardship to the land. The struggle to do these things – to find mutual interests across real difference, to re-position the stories that are told around invitation - is real. It is a struggle that needs to be taken up at both the individual and societal level. I have begun to take it up here through the exploration of early trade-based colonial history. I have begun to take up the responsibility of 70 exploring the roles my ancestors played in such a history through exploring the actions of my ancestor Louis Hébert. Identifying my ancestor as the first agrarian colonist to take up land as property within the colony, to consider his reported religious leanings and interests within New France has been unsettling. It has forced me to recognize the complicity of my ancestor within the broader colonial project – at such an early and integral state. He helped set the stage of the use of property as a colonial tool within a largely trade-based colony. He supported the colonial project. And while there are many generations between myself and Louis, I am still connected to this complicity in addition to being complicit within contemporary structures of property and colonialism as I sit writing this chapter in my rented apartment on unceded Coast Salish territory. This is something I need to sit with and consider was I move forward looking to articulate a contemporary denizen ethos and a way of orienting myself in the move to decolonize state and society. The following chapter departs from this focus on early trade-based colonialism and the early agrarian colonists efforts therein, to focus on the early religious actors and religious-based imperialism and colonization within the colony. Where I have identified that the conversion of Indigenous peoples to the Catholic faith was merely a justification for colonial presence on Indigenous lands and the actual goal of ‘discovery’ for empire building, such religious based actors and colonialism still played important roles in the development of the colony. Amongst the most important influences of the religious presence was the aid religious actors and institutions played in the move from trade-based to agrarian-based colony. Chapter three once again uses the lens of colonial denizen to approach such religious colonialism and their actors. 71 Chapter 4: Religious Colonialism in the Laurentian Valley (1623-63): Denizen Contradictions The previous chapter focused on trade colonialism and its sojourner and early agrarian colonist actors of the French colony along the St. Lawrence River. This next chapter seeks to tackle a different type of colonialism and set of actors from the end of this same period up until the mid-seventeenth century (when the French Crown took control of administration over the colony) by focusing on the functions of religious colonialism (as conversion and missionization) and the roles of religious actors within the Laurentian Valley. Whereas trade-based colonialism is focused on economy and temporary settlement, theoretically holding a greater positive proclivity towards more mutually beneficial relationships; and agrarian colonialism is focused on dispossession, labour and more permanent settlement; religious colonialism is focused on psychological assimilation and the ‘civilization’ of Indigenous populations. All three forms of colonialism were used to aid the imperial and colonial interests of the French Crown and its subjects throughout its first century in North America. While all three types of colonialism are identifiable today, this religious-based form has been one of the more recognizable forms within contemporary Canadian discourse following the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the consequential establishment of and report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Religious actors, specifically those of the Roman Catholic Church, have been implicated within the Canadian colonial project through various means and contexts since the fifteenth century. The religious colonialism in which these actors participated is a psychological and discursive colonialism mobilized to aid broader imperial and colonial aims. These actors’ work within missionization projects helped colonial aims in that it led to the assimilation of Indigenous peoples as well as the strengthening of colonial society in its move toward greater permanence and colonial endeavours. It is through these mechanisms that church members were directly involved in early colonization efforts within seventeenth century New France. Church influence and involvement, however, extended beyond the specific function of missionization efforts. It was the papal bulls, released by the church in the fifteenth century, through which all European imperial endeavours were originally established and justified. Through establishing a legal convention whereby European sovereigns could ‘discover’ new territories in the name of God, as against other sovereign counterparts and irrespective of Indigenous occupants, these papal bulls 72 provided the legal and moral basis upon which European nations claimed sovereignty over Indigenous peoples and lands. The church and its actors, therefore, had a widespread influence over global imperial projects at the same time that they were active and more direct members within the processes and structure of religious colonialism – focused as it was on the conversion of non-Christian peoples to the Christian faith. The papal bulls actually became the foundation upon which the entirety of the North American continent was eventually established as two separate settler colonial states. While these papal bulls were used merely as convention through which to overwrite the sovereignties of non-Christian peoples with the imperial claims of European monarchs throughout the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. By 1823, this convention became the ‘doctrine of discovery’ as codified in American law through the United States’ Supreme Court ruling in in Johnson v. McIntosh (Crosby et al., 2016). It has since been used to support major court cases that uphold settler state sovereignty over Indigenous land rights within both the United States and Canada.13 In recent years the Six Nations Confederacy (the Haudenosaunee) has been requesting that the Vatican revoke the doctrine and, hence, its codification into law (Barnsley, 2016; Brown, 2013). To date it has not been officially revoked. This demonstrates that the church, beyond its role within religious colonization (as conversion), has played an integral role in providing the continuing moral and legal foundation for colonialism within the country. While the following chapter focuses on the roles of church actors and religious colonialism during seventeenth century New France, it also opens space for this broader discussion of the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ – a discussion that extends beyond a given form of colonialism as it permeates the entirety of the Canadian colonial project and needs to be taken up and challenged if non-Indigenous peoples are serious about decolonization. While the basis of religious colonialism does not lend itself well to any denizen-like instantiations, the following chapter still uses a denizen-lens to explore a few key roles of variously situated religious actors during this period along the river. As such, it is hoped that even where such religious actors may be found overwhelmingly colonizing in behaviour such an 13 See for instance: R v Sparrow,  1 S.C.R. 10975 (upholds Crown sovereignty as uncontested and absolute); R v Van de Peet,  2 S.C.R. 507 (defines reconciliation as requiring the reconciliation of previous Indigenous occupation of the land with Crown sovereignty); City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (affirms U.S. government’s sovereignty over lands even when they’ve been ‘sold back’ to Indigenous nations). 73 exercise will still be useful in challenging long-held assumptions and narratives of the early encounter period. This exploration will also help in identifying the influence of religious actors and actions in the move from a trade based colonialism to one increasingly focused on agrarian colonialism within the French colony and hence the move further away from denizen-like behaviours amongst colonists. As such, this chapter will begin with an exploration of the roles played by the Récollets in the early colony – an exploration of religious foundations and actions during the colony’s earliest and more vulnerable days wherein one expects to find more denizen-like actors. Analysis will shift focus to the founding of Ville-Marie (present day Montréal) as a Catholic mission following the French return to the Laurentian Valley after English conquest. Discussion here will focus on the European settlement of Ville-Marie as the site of a boundary between Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee territories, and will investigate religious and trade-based relationships between colonists and Indigenous peoples within the area. Focus here will be given to questions surrounding invitation and settlement intentions as they concern both religious and more agrarian-based colonist actors. This chapter will end with an investigation of the roles played by three official religious women within the colony: Marie de l’Incarnation, Jeanne Mance and Marguerite Bougeoys focusing on their relations with local Indigenous peoples as well as their important role as founders of an increasingly self-sufficient French colony along the St. Lawrence River. The Récollets: Early Religious Actors and their Vulnerable Missions The following considers, somewhat briefly, the role of one of the first religious orders within the French colony: the Franciscan order of the Récollet. This was a religious order that was pledged to poverty (Thwaites, V. IV, 1634) which sent a small handful of brothers to the nascent trade-based colony as early as 1615 to ‘improve’ Indigenous-colonist relations through religious teachings and conversions. While such intentions, the conversion and assimilation of Indigenous peoples, is inherently colonial, similarly to the study of the first sojourner and early agrarian colonists from chapter two, one still expects to find religious colonists who were more conscious of their foreignness and vulnerability (as compared to later colonists) and so somewhat more inclined to act in a denizen-like manner. What has been found amongst these early actors is rather much more colonial leanings and the foundations for further assimilatory practices that helped support the gradual move from a trade-based colony to one that was increasingly settled and agrarian. 74 Before launching into a specific discussion of the Récollet roles and influences within the early French colony, it is important to identify and understand the context in which they came to the Laurentian Valley. While French charters for exploration and the establishment of trading posts and monopolies cited the religious (specifically Catholic) conversion of Indigenous peoples as the main aim and justification for exploration and settlement, during early colonial days there was little interest and effort in establishing French missionaries along the river or amongst Indigenous allies. While there had been small-scale attempts to establish secular and Jesuits missionaries within Acadia from 1610 to 1613, these missions were short-lived failures (Codignoa, 2001).14 In large part, this was due to the fact that religious civilization was not the real prerogative of French exploration and settlement within the continent (Eccles, 1969; Biggar, 1901; Codignoa, 2001). For those few who were interested in religious civilization, there were mitigating factors in establishing such religious presence. The most prominent of factors was the inter-religious nature of French fur trade interests and the burgeoning civil war between Catholic and Protestants (Huguenots) back in France (Biggar, 1901; Codignoa, 2001). It is, therefore, impressive that Champlain was able to garner the support of the company to establish four Récollet missionaries (Moogk, 2000; Wrong; 1928) in 1614 given that many of the shareholders who had to agree to this support were protestants and supporting a Catholic order was likely seen as an unwelcome burden (Thwaites, V. IV, 1634). Champlain and other like-minded sojourner type colonists were interested in such religious settlements because they thought they would strengthen local relationships with their Indigenous allies. Even with the strength achieved through fulfilling military and trade obligations to their allies, the French at Québec (with the exception of interpreters and trade agents like Brûlé) were not being taken by their allies to explore to the north and west of their habitation. Further exploration and the resultant ‘discoveries’ this would make available were a prime motivation of high-level French sojourner presence as such acts would help expand imperial claims over the continent. Religion was thought to be the answer to encouraging closer ties, and hence greater discovery, since it was believed in France at this time that one’s faith determined their loyalty (Moogk, 2000). The four Récollet missionaries were, therefore, brought 14 The earliest missionary effort was established in 1610 at Port-Royal when Jessé LaFléché, a secular priest, settled at Port Royal explicitly for the conversion of the local Mi’kmaq people. A shortly-lived Jesuit mission was also established in Acadia between 1611-13. 75 to the colony so that they could help strengthen cultural ties between the French and their Indigenous allies in the hopes that this would help re-vitalize the colonial process of exploration and ‘discovery’. The religious presence therefore was preceded and entwined with such imperialist intentions – something important to keep in mind when investigating the roles and actions of these early religious actors. Joseph Le Caron, a Récollet, was the first missionary to visit the Wyandot people. His presence amongst the Wyandot was identified as an important component toward fostering a more direct and strengthened relationship between the Wyandot and French people (Moogk, 2002). Le Caron lived with the Wyandot during the winter of 1615-16. During this time Champlain (who had accompanied Le Caron) visited neighbouring nations to further promote trade and alliance, while Le Caron began learning the Wyandot language and attempted to missionize his hosts. In certain respects, therefore, Le Caron’s presence and actions were supportive and indicative of trade-based colonial relations and, therefore, more denizen-like behaviour. He was there, in part, to support commerce relationships. He took the time to learn the Wyandot language and customs – suggesting a greater equality that goes hand-in-hand with the basis of trade colonialism which is itself based on a greater sense of interdependence between trading parties. Yet, Le Caron was still interested in missionization. He came to Wyandot territory with the aim of converting his hosts to the Catholic religion – grounding his relations within such a goal disrupts one’s understanding of his seemingly more denizen-like, deferential, interactions. Le Caron’s early presence amongst and understandings of the Wyandot would play an important role in future missionization efforts for the French colony. Upon returning to Québec the following spring, Le Caron claimed that it would be impossible to convert Indigenous peoples to Christianity without first civilizing them. This would be the prevailing rationale supporting further missionary efforts by not only the Récollets but also the Jesuits following them – the idea that Indigenous peoples had to be assimilated into European cultures before their ‘souls could be saved’. At this early stage it was determined by the Récollets that the best way to civilize Indigenous hosts and allies would be to make them settled agriculturalists amongst French settlers from whom they could learn French language and culture (Sagard, 1632; Heidenreich, 2001). Early on, therefore, there was an important connection fostered between religious and agrarian colonialism – supported by the idea that the logics and structure of one 76 (agrarian) would support the establishment of the other (religious), therefore, simultaneously strengthening the French colonial project. Le Caron’s hypothesis led to the establishment of a seminary along the St. Charles River two miles from the Québec habitation (Wrong, 1928) as well as concerted efforts to establish Récollet-led missions in Wyandot territory.15 Such thought and behaviour is undoubtedly colonial – focused on transforming Indigenous peoples into ‘civilized’ Christians. Even at so early a stage, missionaries (believing they were doing the good work of God) came to the French colony with the specific intention of changing Indigenous peoples through spreading the Roman Catholic Scripture. The very rationale behind their arrival suggests that these missionaries understood themselves and their order as at least spiritually superior to Indigenous peoples. Coming onto Indigenous territories with the intention of assimilating self-determined peoples into a foreign faith suggests a refusal of any sort of denizen status. Missionaries likely did not understand themselves as humbled foreigners invited onto Indigenous lands, but rather superior religious representatives sent to change their allies’ behaviours as well as legal, social and religious structures. While the missionaries likely did this out of a genuine belief in the power and goodness of Christianity,16 such thought and action was destructive and disrespectful of Indigenous peoples’ lives, lands and roles as allies. If one considers the writings of Gabriel Sagard (the only first-hand account available from the Récollet missionaries in New France) it becomes clear that there is a need to dig beyond the surface of recorded encounters. For instance, in Sagard’s account of his 1623 visit and mission establishment amongst the Wyandot, he recorded his interactions with his hosts in a way that suggests he understood some basic social customs of the Wyandot . He wrote: I also went out very often…and visited them in their lodges and households. They liked this very much and were better friends with me on that account seeing that I dealt with them in a kind and affable spirit; otherwise they would not have regarded me with a fabourable eye, and would have thought me proud and scornful…(Sagard, 1632) This demonstrates that Sagard understood some basic Wyandot customs and followed suit, whether or not he might have done this anyway, by visiting his hosts so as to show respect and 15 Main records of these missionization attempts are found within Brother Garbiel Sagard’s writings surrounding his experiences with establishing such missions. 16 See for instance the writings of Gabriel Sagard and the Jesuit Missionaries who routinely praise their work as virtuous in light of their duty to God. 77 interest in their relationship. He goes on to state that had he not acted in this way he would not have been able to gain enough influence over them (Sagard, 1632) that, it is implied, would be necessary for their religious conversion and ‘civilization’. And so, while such potential denizen-like deference might be suggested within the recordings of these religious colonial actors, even during these vulnerable early missionary years, such deference did not necessarily originate from an honest and respectful place. As one sees with Sagard, deference was used to gain influence so that the colonial mission could be successfully administered since it was necessary to curry trust amongst the targeted Indigenous populations. While it might, therefore, be tempting to write-off missionaries as colonists par excellence, whose goals of Christianization trump whatever other actions and relations they had, their roles were still more complicated than one might assume. There were also moments within Sagard’s writings where one sees him grappling with his position as a guest and with his understanding of the Wyandot. He wrote, for instance, of a need to act deferentially toward the Wyandot although he still recognized a need to instil fear amongst them in order to encourage their conversion (Sagard, 1632). This suggests that at a certain level he was able to identify his vulnerability amongst the Wyandot - since he realized he could not just come into their society invoking fear and lording power over them without also establishing some amicable relations with them. And yet, he was still focused on and was supportive of invoking power over the Wyandot through encouraging fear amongst them as a method of persuading them to take up Christianity. At other times, Sagard recognized the Wyandots’ humanity, at times arguing they were even more patient, kind and pious than Frenchmen, yet describing their language as poor and defective (Sagard, 1632). Where he wrote of recognizing the importance of following Wyandot customs, specifically the importance of accepting invitations to feasts and finishing one’s entire meal so as not the offend one’s hosts (Sagard, 1632), he also admitted that he and his brothers refused feasts as much as possible so as not to have to reciprocate such a gift (Sagard, 1632). While the brothers were reportedly often visited by their hosts at the seminary that the Wyandot had helped them erect, they also made a number of efforts to construct the building so as the discourage familiar behaviour amongst the Wyandot and themselves. For instance, Sagard reported, “around our little dwelling we made a little garden, fenced off by stakes so as to prevent free access by the small children of the savages, who for the most part seek only to do mischief” (Sagard, 1632, 80-1). Such an action, the fencing of their garden on Wyandot lands 78 demonstrates a disrespect for their hosts’ customs. While the order was forbidden to own property (Thwaites, V.IV, 1634), such an act is curiously demonstrative of a sense of property. The fact that the brothers constructed this fence exemplifies the force of colonial ideas at the same time that it demonstrates an imposition of western custom within Indigenous territory. All of these competing actions and thoughts, while suggestive of a clash of cultures, also intimates that even Sagard (and likely his missionary brothers) struggled with their role amongst Indigenous peoples as should-be-denizens who ultimately sought to be colonists and rightful-inhabitants of lands they likely saw as rightfully God’s and hence rightfully theirs for the taking. The Récollet missions17 of the early French colony were ultimately doomed since the brothers were pledged to poverty and since the interest in missionization within the trading company was so low – the latter of which is a phenomenon that would plague the religious colonial project throughout the French era (Codignola, 2001). By the mid 1620s it was clear that the Récollet’s efforts for missionization were not successful (Heidenreich, 2001). Recognizing the limitations of their poor resources (Wrong, 1928), the Récollets sought cooperation with the Jesuits - asking for them to send missionaries at the Jesuits’ own expense (Thwaites, V. IV, 1634). Having abundant resources, the Jesuits used them to quickly send men to clear lands and establish buildings to begin their missionary work within the colony (Wrong, 1928). While the Jesuits went on to play an integral role in religious colonization in New France, they would not do so until the French returned to the Laurentian Valley in the 1630s. One could argue that the Récollets could never have been successful religious colonialists within New France given their pledge to poverty and the importance of property (and so wealth) within colonization. Property is, after all, central to processes of colonization. The concept of property, whether it is through the establishment and imposition of the Doctrine of Discovery or the actual possession and occupation of land, has always been an integral aspect of the colonial project (Arneil, 1996) - even under trade-based contexts. While the Récollets might have fallen into implicit conceptions of property in their dealings with the Wyandot, ultimately the order’s prohibition of property ownership led to their ineffectiveness within the colony. Beyond this, it is questionable just how well the order could have done even if they had secured funding to 17 By 1624 the Récollets had established missions at Tadoussac, Québec, Trois-Rivières, Carhogouha in Wyandot country, one mission among the Nipissings, and one at Acadia on the St. John’s River. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. Volume IV. Note 21 from page 171. 79 continue their efforts. The pledge to poverty suggests that at a foundational level the order’s beliefs were counter-intuitive and hence counter-productive to the logics of the agrarian and settler-based colonialism that increasingly took shape and dominance within later colonial years. Even given such caveats and the vulnerability of such an order so early within the French colonial project, these religious actors struggled to accept their should-be-roles as denizens on Innu and Wyandot territories. This, at least in part, mirrors the early sojourner, trade-based actors explored in chapter two. Actors who may have shown some deference to their Indigenous allies in certain contexts, but whom nevertheless consistently sought to push past the limitations and vulnerabilities of their foreign-status and questionable invitations onto Indigenous territories. Situated from within religious colonialism, the roles of actors like LeCaron and Sagard are unquestionable tied into damaging processes, actions and structures of the broader imperial and colonial project leading the way for future, destructive religious and agrarian colonialisms when the French returned to the Valley in 1632. La Folle Enterprise: Religious and Agrarian Colonists in the ‘Founding’ of Ville-Marie The following focuses on the ‘founding’ of Ville-Marie (Montréal) in the 1640s by a more economically sufficient religious order than the Récollets: the Société de Notre-Dame de Montréal. It considers the context in which French religious and agrarian actors established themselves on the island as well as the results of their un-invited settlement. Important for study here is not only the ‘real’ results of this invasion of the island but also its implications for the instantiation of a denizen-like ethos - both of which are addressed below. Analysis moves from settlement without invitation into an exploration of the implications of establishing a settlement specifically for missionization purposes, which again denotes an important step away from a denizen-like ethos since such intentions (as previously identified) are inherently colonial and assimilative. Such analysis leads me to conclude that the establishment of Ville-Marie in 1642, by religious and agrarian colonists alike, demonstrates a growing trend away from the limited denizen-like behaviour identified in chapter two, toward increasingly more assimilative and damaging colonist behaviour. This is in part due to this shift from a trade-based colonialism to an increasingly agrarian-based colonialism – a shift that these later, more self-sufficient, religious actors helped bring about in their establishment of social welfare programs. The security that such programs provided helped to foster the settlement of French people and the assimilation of Indigenous allies along the St. Lawrence. Discussion of this self-sufficiency will be left to the 80 following and last section of this chapter, which focuses on the actions of the leading religious women of the colony. When the French returned to the Laurentian Valley in 1632 it was with a pre-dominantly Catholic presence.18 The return to the colony, therefore, marks a second period of religious activity in New France that was specifically Catholic and more active than before, wherein actors were composed of not only clerical men but also nuns and dévote laymen and women. The colony saw the return of the Jesuits but not the Récollets (Codignola, 2001; Moogk, 2000), at the same time that it saw the introduction of a number of female religious orders and leaders (Trudel, 1973; Noel, 2013; Simpson, 1997).19 During this period, French settlements along the river were being re-established as not strictly commercial but also religious sites for the conversion of Indigenous allies. Members of the clergy (specifically the Jesuits) were moving further inland to establish missions amongst allies. The French return in 1632, therefore, marks an important turning point from earlier relations that placed much greater emphasis on economic alliances – when the religious justifications written within trading company charters were largely ignored (Eccles, 1966; Biggar, 1901; Codignola, 2001).20 Although the role and importance of economic and military concerns did not dwindle during this period, there was a renewed vigor for religious conversion as a method of assimilation that would ultimately enable the French further discovery rights throughout the continent. Importantly the ‘success’ of these religious endeavours was due to religious and private funding as the trading company and the French Crown remained largely disinterested in any such projects themselves. While all the previous major French settlements along the river (Tadoussac, Québec, Trois-Rivières) had initially been established as fortified commercial sites, only later receiving institutions like churches, hospitals, and schools; as a mission-settlement, Ville-Marie (Montréal) had all three types of institutions from the outset (Eccles, 1990). It was thought that developing a 18 A Catholic-only stipulation was actually part of the charter for the Company of New France in 1627. Due to the siege of Québec, however, this stipulation was only substantively acted upon when France returned to the colony. H.P. Biggar. The Early Trading Companies of New France: A Contribution to the History of Commerce and Discovery in North America. Ed. George Wrong. St. Clair Shores: Scholarly Press Inc., 1901. p. 136. 19 Examples include the Canonesses of St. Augustine of the Mercy of Jesus, who established the hôtel-dieu (hospital) of Québec in 1637; the Ursuline nuns who established a monastery and school at Québec in 1639; and the Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Montréal who established a school and almshouse on the island in 1658. 20 As explored within chapter two, from the outset, French charters for exploration identified the religious civilization of Indigenous populations as the main intention behind exploratory voyages to the New World. However, such justifications and their mandates were largely ignored until the 1630s, as the main intention behind these journeys was to find an alternative route to the Orient and its riches. 81 settlement with so many amenities would further encourage Indigenous allies to permanently establish themselves on the island, thereby making their assimilation to French culture and the Catholic religion that much easier. Given that the island sat at the junction of both the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers, two integral routes for communication, travel, and trade, it was also thought that settlement here would appear highly accessible and favourable to Indigenous peoples (Eccles, 1990). And so the site was established by the French as both a mission for Indigenous peoples and a settlement for French colonial subjects. This is suggestive of the close connection established between religious and agrarian based colonialism – following from Le Caron’s suggestion that the assimilation of Indigenous peoples would more readily occur amongst settled French populations. Unlike previous settlements along the river, therefore, Montréal was explicitly established as a site of assimilation – something that tends to be conveniently glossed over within the grand narrative of its founding.21 Its origins as a settled-mission indicate that the settlement and the relations therein (between the dévotes, the agrarian colonists and Indigenous neighbours and allies) were already pre-inscribed within a clearly demarcated colonial project specific to the site. As such, Montréal’s ideological foundations are potentially the most damaging of the denizen-ally relationship than any of the previous French settlements along the river. Settling Montréal: Invasion of the Divide In 1642 the island now considered Montréal, was ‘granted’ by the French Crown as a seigneury to the dévote group, the Société de Notre-Dame de Montréal (Greer, 1997; Codignola, 2001). In the seeming absence of inhabitants, the French understood they held a right to claim 21 For instance, mainstream news coverage as well as the Prime Minister’s official statement concerning the 375th anniversary of Montréal’s founding in 2017 makes no mention of how the city was founded as a religious-settlement whose goals were primarily focused on the conversion of Indigenous hosts and neighbours. In fact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau actually referred to Ville-Marie as a ‘fur trade settlement’ rather than a mission-settlement in his official statement released for the anniversary. Montréal only later became an important spot for the fur trade later on in the 17th century. Although, importantly, some mainstream coverage does speak to the recognition of a history of mistreatment of Indigenous peoples within the Montréal area, as well as the recognition that Montréal was founded and continues to exist upon unceded Haudenosaunee territory, its religious origins need to be brought forward and recognized. Government of Canada. Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on Montreal's 375th Anniversary. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada. N.p., 17 May 2017. Web. 17 Mar. 2018. https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/05/17/statement-prime-minister-canada-montreals-375th-anniversary; Benjamin Shingler. “Montreal honours its founders, stresses diversity at 375th anniversary celebration.” CBCNews. 17 May 2017. Web. 17 Mar. 2018. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-375-birthday-coderre-1.4119164; Morgan Lowrie. “Festivities galore as Montreal celebrates its 375th birthday.” 17 May 2017. Web. 17 Mar. 2018. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/17/trudeau-other-dignitaries-gather-in-montreal-to-celebrate-citys-375th-birthday.html 82 the territory as their own through the imposition of a feudal property regime. This is the sort of logic fostered by the Doctrine of Discovery as established through Rome’s papal bulls in the fifteenth century – used to establish earlier settlements along the river – it is indicative of an imperial or colonial mindset, which identifies Indigenous lands as discoverable by ‘superior’ or more improved European powers. While there appears to have been no formal ceremony or agreement for the French to establish themselves on the island, it has been suggested that as early as 1611 some Anishinaabe allies encouraged a French presence here as it would make the fur trade route that much safer for them – as the French could help protect them against the Haudenosaunee (Trudel, 1968). If one digs deeper, however, French habitation of the island is fraught with tension. When the French had first ventured to the island in the sixteenth century it was clearly inhabited by Indigenous peoples, at least some of which were the Wyandot who later moved to Huronia following European-carried epidemics that threatened their populations (Sioui, 1992). These Indigenous peoples referred to the site as Hochelaga (Douglas, 1906). In the absence of the Wyandot during the early seventeenth century, the French identified the site as being vacant – no longer anyone’s land and so free to be taken up and claimed by France. But they were wrong. As the works of Haudenosaunee scholars like Taiaiaike Alfred and Audra Simpson argue the island is actually a traditional boundary between the northern part of Haudenosaunee territory and Anishinaabe territory. Alfred even identifies the Haudenosaunee name given to the island ‘Hochelaga’ as meaning ‘island where the people divide’ (1995). For the Haudenosaunee and Wyandot their physical absence from their territory, the divide, when the French arrived in the seventeenth century does not equate to a vacancy that the French could take advantage of to claim the lands as their own. And so, even if Anishinaabe allies were supportive of French settlement on the island, which is questionable when relying on Euro-Canadian accounts, given the island’s site as a boundary between Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee territories both groups would have to have had agreed to invite the French onto the island for French presence to be legitimate. Without such invitation early colonists of the settlement were invaders and so had no real grounding upon which to situate themselves as denizens since invitation is a pre-condition for denizen-ship proper. While the first year on the island was relatively free of strife, when the Haudenosaunee discovered the French on the site in the summer of 1643 the violent skirmishes between the 83 French and the Haudenosanee that were to threaten French presence on the island for the greater part of the seventeenth century began (Simpson, 2014). While the Anishinaabe may have tolerated French presence here the Haudenosaunee were decidedly against French presence. They saw the French as intruders on their territory – more than mere intruders the French were in league with the Anishinaabe and Wyandot, the Haudenosaunee’s enemies. It is no wonder that the Haudenosaunee consistently attacked the French who had settled on the Haudenosaunee’s own territory for several decades following 1643 – the Haudenosaunee were, at least in part, looking to defend a claim to their own land. According to Wyandot scholar Georges Sioui, they were also looking to get rid of the French due to the epidemics French presence had brought, and continued to bring, that en masse were threatening Haudenosaunee populations (Sioui, 1992). The recordings of François Dollier de Casson, a Sulpician Priest who settled on the island, published in 1871, document a number of violent skirmishes and events between the French and Haudenosaunee during these years (Casson, 1871). These recordings point to the fact that it was not only religious colonists and officials who were actively involved in the invasion of Hochelaga, it was also the French agrarian colonists who, in helping to defend their settlement against the Haudenosaunee, were actively participating within such invasion efforts. It is important to keep in mind that while the Haudenosaunee were attacking these settlements, specifically targeting Ville-Marie, the French were also actively engaged in attacking Haudenosaunee villages with the Anishinaabe and Wyandot. For the Haudenosaunee, as will be contextualized within the intra-continental slave trade in chapter 6, these raids were a means of replenishing Haudenosaunee populations that had been, and continued to be, threatened by European epidemics (Sioui, 1992). For the French re-population was not an end goal of their own retaliatory raids against Haudenosaunee villages. Casson’s recordings note that a number of my early ancestors, who helped invade the island and settle Ville-Marie, like Jacques Achambault, Jean Gervais and Urbain Tessier dit Lavigne, were among the many agrarian colonists who helped fight off the Haudenosaunee who attacked the French on the island (1871). Jacques lost a son, Denis, during an attack in 1652 (Drouin Institute, 1965). And Urbain himself was captured as a prisoner of a Haudenosaunee raid and released in 1660 (Casson, 1871). Such stories have been used throughout the Euro-Canadian settlement narrative to paint a very specific picture of French-Haudenosaunee relations wherein the French are depicted as humble heroes of a legitimate and burgeoning French society. While 84 the Haudenosaunee are identified as the wild and violent war-like people (bent themselves toward imperial aims) who constantly attacked a relatively weak and meek French population. Such a picture is inaccurate. The French were invading and claiming Haudenosaunee territory as their own. They were not invited. And it was not just the religious officials who were actively invading Haudenosaunee territory. Agrarian colonists on the island like Jacques, Jean and Urbain, were more than tacitly supporting French occupation of the island through their presence, they were also actively helping to fight off those people whose territory they were settling – stealing. Even with the Anishinaabe, Wyandot and Innu with whom the French were allies, relations on the island were tested and plagued with tension. As de Casson’s recordings suggest there were moments of unrest between the French and the Wyandot in particular during the first two decades of French settlement on the island.22 Given that the Wyandot counted territories within the vicinity of the island as their own ancestral lands (Sioui, 1992), their alliance and views of French habitation there must have been complicated following 1642. A notable example of tense relations between the French and Wyandot is recorded by Casson who wrote about the Wyandot looking to betray the French on the island in 1646-7, currying favour with the Haudenosaunee who were attacking the settlement (Casson, 1871). While the priest did not go into much detail, this recording still suggests that even the French colonists’ allies were not fully supportive of their presence on the island. Whether the Wyandot were motivated here through self-interest or anger is not the primary element in identifying such an event as indicative of tense relations – ones which might further discredit French presence on the island. And yet, it is also important to note that in many cases at Ville-Marie relations between the French and Wyandot were positive, lending themselves to mutual dependence and good relations. Casson identifies times during which the Wyandot sought refuge with the French on the island, and other times when they fought alongside the French, against the Haudenosaunee, in and around the settlement (1871). While it appears, therefore, that the French were in bad relation with the Haudenosaunee – specifically were refusing their roles as should-be-denizens with the Haudenosaunee since they ‘settled’ the island without invitation – in establishing themselves on 22 While de Casson was not living in the settlement during the 1640s and 50s, it is understood that the recordings of such earlier events (which are plentiful within his writings on Montréal) would have been collected through a rich oral history of the French settlers at the site, if not also from the writings of the few literate members of French society along the river. 85 the island the French were (at least at times) acting as good allies to their Anishinaabe and Wyandot allies through helping fend off the Haudenosaunee and preventing their access to the major trade routes of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers. And yet, the settlement of Ville-Marie, above and beyond its religious colonial purposes, fundamentally neglects the requirements of a denizen ethos. The French did not clearly acquire an invitation from any of the territory’s rightful stewards. They in fact actively fought against the Haudenosaunee whose lands they were (at least partially) on. While it appears that their presence was at least generally condoned by their allies: the Anishinaabe, Innu and Wyandot, even their support of the French on the island was tested and more broadly contestable. And so the basic foundation for any sort of denizen-like relationship was missing during the early years of French settlement at Hochelaga, even if (at times) French presence was beneficial to their Anishinaabe and Wyandot allies with whom they fostered more positive and even sometimes denizen-like relations. Mission Efforts As mentioned, the French established Ville-Marie, without invitation, explicitly for the purposes of Christianizing Indigenous peoples. While many Indigenous allies were warry of establishing themselves around the island in part due to the consistent skirmishes between the French and Haudenosaunee, a number of Wyandot, Nispissing and Anishinaabe people did come to establish themselves at French missions here. According to scholars like Georges Sioui, for the Wyandot settlement around the island in the mid-seventeenth century was a return home following the dispersal of Huronia (1992). The proliferation of religious colonialism on the island points to yet another means through which the French colonists at Ville-Marie found themselves further and further away from any instantiation of a denizen-like ethos. Their actions and support of the mission enabled the implementation of missionization efforts focused on colonizing Indigenous peoples. While it would be easy, from within Euro-Canadian accounts, to leave the discussion here it is important that one once again visits Indigenous-based narratives and experiences around these events and processes to begin uncovering how Indigenous peoples who established themselves at these missions might have understood their own roles and interactions within the broader colonial project and relations. Such insights lend further complexity to one’s understanding of the actual function of religious colonialism within the colony. 86 Where those who established themselves within these missions generally practiced a syncretic Christianity (Havard, 2001), and were subjected to religious teachings and imposed cultural practices and standards of the missionaries, as a group they retained a great deal of autonomy from colonial officials. There was, therefore, a limit on the colonial power that could be exercised by the French over these populations, due in large part to colonists’ appreciation of their own vulnerable position along the river and the de facto autonomy of the mission members. Many of the Indigenous peoples who found themselves living in the missions often established, amongst themselves, their own political ties and alliances independent of the French. These Indigenous peoples would become important military allies to the French in the late half of the seventeenth century as tensions with the Haudenosaunee League peaked (Havard, 2001). The Wyandot in fact had considerable strength in commercial alliances at these missions – a strength that built upon their traditional roles within the Laurentian Valley as conductors of a vast network of trade that predated European arrival (Sioui, 1992). And so the Indigenous peoples who participated within the missionization efforts at Ville-Marie were not the heavily subjected and colonized individuals one might initially paint them to be from a Euro-Canadian perspective but rather still largely independent and even enterprising individuals who were maintaining large levels of autonomy and even benefiting from their positions within the missions. While the French had baptized 78 (largely Anishinaabe) at Ville-Marie by 1643, they also came to realize that until they mitigated the threat posed by the Haudenosaunee on the island (who sought to eliminate colonists from their traditional territory) other Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples would be reluctant to settle and assimilate on the island – indeed this is exactly what the Haudensaunee sought to achieve (Eccles, 1987). Given this intention and the sustained violent relations with the Haudenosaunee on the island, it is at first glance surprising that by the 1660s members of the Haudenosaunee League joined French missions near the island. Take for instance, the large number of Mohawk members who settled within the Jesuit-led mission of Kentaké (La Prairie) just south of Montréal in the 1660s. Why would members of a nation of the Haudenosaunee League come to establish themselves in a Catholic mission that had been imposed on their own traditional territories? Religion was an important motivation. It became a major cleavage amongst the League nations who had taken in Christianized Wyandot people following their dispersal at Haudenosaunee hands in 1650 (Alfred, 1995). Given that the great law of peace, by which the 87 League lived, required the achievement of consensus in decision making, introducing Catholic religion as an exterior cleavage proved burdensome and led to stalemates and additional strain on factional divisions already present amongst nations. And so for some Haudenosaunee, coming to establish themselves in missions near their Hochelaga was one way through which to avoid these tensions and cleavages. A move to these missions, during their early days at least, was also a move to find temperance (Simpson, 2014) given the availability of alcohol in the southern reaches of Haudenosaunee territory and the violence, social disruption and cultural disintegration it was purported to induce (Alfred, 1995). More than this, the move by those like the Mohawk to the mission at Kentaké, was a move to extend or reclaim the League’s territory (Simpson, 2014). At the same time, it was a calculated move specifically for the Mohawk who came, since they could position themselves at the island (the central site of the French fur trade during these years) to become “intermediates in the lucrative Albany-Montréal trade route…to generate a profit out of their individual political immunity and special legal status as Mohawk people in the colonial balance of power” (Alfred, 1995, 44). And so, while the French understood these missions as vital to the success of their assimilation project, and hence broader project of ‘discovery’, in practice, these missions also afforded Indigenous individuals and nations who used these missions (for the purposes of political and social tools) a means of survival as well as political and territorial development and even territorial reclamation. This brings into relief avenues by which to question the actual function of French missionization efforts on the island and to highlight the resiliency and actions of Indigenous allies and neighbours. The fact that the Indigenous peoples of the missions retained so much autonomy and authority, however, does not un-do or override the assimilative intentions behind the establishment of these missions. These projects, therefore, still maintained the religious and agrarian colonists as colonists who were edging further and further away from denizen roles. It was not only through physical missionization efforts that the French sought to encourage the assimilation of their Indigenous allies. The French Crown also introduced a policy that any Indigenous individuals who “professed the Catholic faith would be recognized as naturals français (‘French Nations’) without the need for lettres de declaration ni de naturalité (affidavits or citizenship papers)” (Trudel, 1968). In other words, at this juncture, French Crown policy attempted to induce assimilation through the provision of French subject-hood via religious affiliation. It was thought that such a status, which the French colonists of New France 88 retrained, would encourage and ease assimilation and loyalty, thereby strengthening alliances. It was only through strengthened alliances, after all, that the French might get to explore further into the interior and be able to claim ‘discovery’ over more of the continent. This is a further instantiation of a move away from denizen-like thought and behaviour as it depicts an official policy which identifies French culture and subject-hood as preferable and desirable to Indigenous peoples. It demonstrates an attempt to impose French society onto Indigenous peoples and lands and is, therefore, demonstrative of increasingly aggressive colonizing endeavours. Throughout the seventeenth century the miscegenation of French men and Indigenous women was also encouraged by the French Crown. It was thought that such a policy could kill three birds with a single stone. It was considered an avenue through which to increase a ‘French’ population, and hence expand and cement the Empire along the St. Lawrence when there was little interest in actively encouraging French subjects to emigrate to the colony. It was a way by which to strengthen alliances with Indigenous allies. And it was believed that such intermarriage was a good avenue through which to assimilate Indigenous women and their communities (Belmessous, 2005) into French civilization and so an avenue through which to encourage Indigenous subject-hood under the French Crown. Intermarriage by these standards was not about métissage, therefore, but the Frenchinization of Indigenous peoples (Gaudry and Leroux, 2017). Both of these later results it was thought would aid further imperial expansion and discovery goals. This supports the view that during the seventeenth century official French policy was not racially prejudice toward Indigenous peoples. As Peter Moogk’s work suggests, even French colonists during this century were certainly culturally self-centered, but they did not see themselves as racially superior. They accepted the Amerindians’ humanity. The presence of Mediterranean people, with black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin, in France’s population meant the traits of native Indians were regarded as normal by the French (Moogk, 2002). And so in theory the policies encouraging miscegenation were acceptable to French agrarian and religious colonists and desirable for the French project of ‘discovery’. By the eighteenth century, however, this policy was replaced by one that forbade intermarriage since it was feared that more often than not French men who married Indigenous women were the ones being assimilated and developing many of the vices (such as idleness) the French associated within their Indigenous allies (Moogk, 2002). While the policy’s success along the river was questionable (Trudel, 1968; Gaudry and Leroux, 2017), by the eighteenth century French men involved in the fur trade were 89 consistently practicing miscegenation within the interior (Prodruchny, 2006; Barman, 2014). The reversal of policy, therefore, was likely based on the practice of inter-marriage within the fur trade during the late seventeenth century and the mistrust of certain fur trade actors by the French Crown although it did initially play at least a discursive role within religious colonial endeavours. The missionization efforts at Ville-Marie and these assimilative policies focused on subject-hood and marriage indicate an important aspect in the shift from a trade-based colony to an agrarian colony – a shift that religious actors were important in helping to bring forth. As the French began gaining greater traction and security along the river, colonial policies became increasingly assimilative. Imposing such policies suggests that the French Crown, its religious emissaries and even average agrarian colonists were stepping further and further away from their proper roles as denizens to Indigenous allies and their lands, by looking to elevate themselves in their relations with Indigenous peoples whose lands they were taking over. *** The unsanctioned establishment of Ville-Marie, as a settled-mission, represented the new-found zeal with which the French returned to the Laurentian Valley. It is also demonstrative of the increasing distance from which French colonists could be associated with the colonial denizen. In the gradual shift from trade-based colonialism to agrarian colonialism, colonial actors became increasingly destructive and focused on assimilation and settlement at the expense of more friendly and interdependent relations. While evidence demonstrates that in actuality the number of those involved in these evangelization efforts, both within the colony and at home, was small (Codignola, 2001)23 these men and women were integral to the establishment and survival of an increasingly self-sufficient French society within the Laurentian Valley. Devoted Women: The Role of Religious Women in Establishing a New French Society Religious and dévotes women, such as Jeanne Mance; Marie de l’Incarnation; and Marguerite Bourgeoys, alongside their largely female benefactors, like Madame de la Peltrie; the Duchesse d’Aiguillon; and Madame de Bullion (Simpson, 1997) played vital roles in the establishment of French society and the recruitment of colonists at both Québec and Montréal 23 In fact, “only 190-193 male and 26 female members of clergy, at all levels (including lay brothers and the converse [lay] sisters) voluntarily went or were forcibly sent to North American between 1610 and 1658.” Codignola. p. 184. 90 during the mid-seventeenth century.24 Their prominence and influence was not always fully supported by the male-dominated Roman Catholic Church, and yet these women were able to actively help establish New France as a more self-sufficient and increasingly agrarian colony. Their roles within the larger Euro-Canadian settlement narrative have since been preserved and cherished within French-Canadian history (Noel, 2013). While the male order of the Jesuits played an important role in mission work during this period, these religious women who stayed along the river were the ones establishing hospitals, almshouses, and educational institutions for French colonists and Indigenous allies – the institutions which helped secure French presence and society within the colony and which enabled the shift from trade-based to agrarian-based colony. In part, the presence of these women within the French colony was due to the Counter-Reformation which was itself a response to the critique and challenge that faced the Roman Catholic Church following the Protestant Reformation. During the Counter-Reformation women were vying for more prominent roles within the Church – specifically looking for ways to participate within the missions that the clergy were establishing within the colonies (Rapley, 1993). But “patriarchal Europe had never been entirely comfortable with the religious communities of women it harboured…[and so] insisted on clausura, the strict confinement of religious women within the cloisters of their convent” (Greer, 1997, 72). This imposed cloister presented an obstacle for women who wanted to do mission work because such work to create hospitals and almshouses as well as missionary work amongst Indigenous peoples required an un-cloistered or at least less cloistered lifestyle. Teaching within educational institutions in the colonies, therefore, became one way to fulfil women’s desires to participate within missionization without too heavily challenging “the sacrosanctity of the clausura” (Rapley. 1993, 73). It was in this spirit that the Ursuline nuns, “the feminine teaching congregation par excellence of seventeenth-century France (Rapley, 1993), were first established at Québec in 1639 under the guidance of Marie de l’Incarnation (Noel, 2013). As the “exercise of charity towards the poor had always been a feminine prerogative” (Rapley, 1993, 77) within the French Roman Catholic tradition, other congregations that established hospitals and almshouses were 24 As financial donors, Madame de la Peltrie helped establish the Ursulines at Québec; the Duchesse d’Aiguillon (the niece of Cardinal Richelieu) helped establish the hospital nuns at Québec; and Madame de Bullion (widow of the late Treasurer of France) was one of the largest benefactors of the Société de Notre-Dame de Montréal, which was the society that originally founded Ville-Marie as a religious settlement in 1642. 91 quick to follow if not precede teaching-based establishments along the river. The women who helped establish these institutions tended to come from bourgeoisie backgrounds (Noel, 2013), playing the roles of colonists and/or denizen in differing degrees upon Indigenous lands. In order to explore the roles these women played in the colonization of New France, the following will first consider the role and actions of Marie de l’Incarnation at Québec, who though she actively helped assimilate young Indigenous girls to Catholicism and French culture, demonstrated, to some extent, denizen-like behaviour through her multilingual and diplomatic services. It will then consider the role and actions of Jeanne Mance at Ville-Marie, who though also predominantly aggressively colonialist in her work also could be seen to demonstrate denizen-like behaviour to the extent she provided healthcare to Indigenous peoples (thus taking seriously the responsibility for mutual care and reciprocity between those who come to land and those who ‘host’ them). And finally, will consider the role and actions of Marguerite Bourgeouys at Ville-Marie whose schools helped strengthen the colonial and assimilative presence at Ville-Marie but who also may be seen to have questioned her role as religious colonist amongst Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands. Marie de l’Incarnation: Educator and Diplomat of Québec In 1639 Marie de l’Incarnation helped establish the Ursuline nuns at Québec. While the Company of St. Ursula was a cloistered congregation, the nuns at Québec ultimately modified, though still kept many of, the constraints of their order’s cloistered lifestyle. While their primary intention was to instruct young girls in the ways of the Catholic tradition and French culture, they ended up instructing both males and females in the parlour of their small convent at Québec (Trudel, 1999; l’Incarnation & Marshall, 1967). Such interaction with men would not have been permitted under a more strict adherence to the claustura, a loose application was important for the maintenance of diplomacy at Québec. Importantly, the ultimate purpose of this education within the colony was to assimilate Indigenous girls for marriage with French men or else their re-introduction into their communities where they were to spread the word of God and French civilization (Marhsall, 1967; Noel, 2013). The Ursuline nuns were thus colonialists who it appears strayed far from their proper roles as denizens – looking to impose foreign culture, ways and religion onto Indigenous peoples and failing to show deference to the culture, ways and religions of the peoples whose lands they were on. 92 Marie de l’Incarnation was somebody who was somewhat of an exception to this picture. She learned various Indigenous languages and provided instruction in Algonquin, Innu, Wyandot as well as the French language (Noel, 2013). The endeavour to provide a multilingual service may show some deference to Indigenous allies, though the learning of these languages was ultimately used to broaden the reach of assimilation through education. While, according the Marie’s letters, the nuns were never left wanting for young girls to instruct (l’Incarnation &Marshall, 1867), she also makes clear that she (and other nuns in her order) did not use force or entreaties, should the girls wish to leave because they found the lessons were causing them pain – of course the plan was still that these girls might be ‘won over’ to civilization if they were left alone. As Marie de l’Incarnation wrote in a 1668 letter to her son, many Indigenous girls: are here only as birds of passage and remain with us only until they are sad, a thing the savages’ nature cannot suffer; the moment they become sad, their parents take them away lest they die. We leave them free at this point, for we are more likely to win them over in this way than by keeping them by force or entreaties (Marie qt. l’Incarnation & Marshall, 1967, 336). The quote suggests that these nuns were not permitted to use force to encourage the assimilation of young Indigenous girls and that they ultimately had to hope that such girls would be more likely to assimilate if force was not used to keep them housed with the nuns. And so while someone like Marie de l’Incarnation may appear to have demonstrated considerable deference in providing instruction through multiple Indigenous languages, and in ‘letting young Indigenous girls go’ when they were not happy under her tutelage, her intentions (and those of here order) were overwhelmingly and damagingly colonially-focused. She may be a more denizen-like religious actor than those who followed her, but her aims and desires were still clearly focused on the colonial assimilation of Indigenous peoples. Women like Marie de l’Incarnation also played important diplomatic roles within the colony. Not only did she instruct and provide charity to both men and women within her parlour, she and the nuns in her order provided refuge to Indigenous allies during times of violent warfare with the Haudenosaunee nations (Noel, 2013; l’Incarnation & Marshall, 1967). Furthermore, they helped fulfill important diplomatic ceremonies with neighbours and allies. Marie de l’Incarnation writes of entertaining important Indigenous dignitaries “who order their visits as do persons of rank in France” at their parlour in a 1641 letter to the Superior of the Visitation of Tours (Marhsall, 1967). Given the statement that these Indigenous officials “ordered” feasts for 93 the visits there is an implication here that the Marie de l’Incarnation recognized the important of feasting as a practice of diplomacy with Indigenous allies that was similar to rituals of feasting with French officials back home. Whether or not she recognized that these feasts were part of a very specific custom of pre-existing Indigenous diplomacy or a way through which to impose French ways of food-based socialization is ultimately unclear. Nevertheless, such actions are suggestive of attempted diplomatic relations between the nuns at Québec and their Indigenous allies and neighbours. Such diplomatic roles even extended to the Haudenosaunee. Acting in consultation with the governor, during the 1650s, the Ursuline nuns would keep young Haudenosaunee girls at the convent following attempted peace treaties or raids (wherein these girls had been captured) since the exchange of children and kin could be an important matter of diplomacy for Indigenous nations in negotiating peace or cease-fires (Noel, 2013). The Ursuline nuns were, therefore, an important component of the colonial project within New France. They aided the colonizing mission through their services as educators and diplomats, thereby also helping to support the permanence of the colony at Québec. But they also sought to assimilate Indigenous girls into the Roman Catholic religion and French culture thereby ultimately seeking to assimilate Indigenous populations into the French empire. Jeanne Mance and Ville-Marie’s Survival Jeanne Mance, a devout nurse, was not only integral to the original settlement of Ville-Marie but also key to its survival during the 1640s, 50s and early 60s. While she was a member of the dévote group, the Société de Notre-Dame de Montréal, she did not belong to a convent or other religious order. She was, rather, a deeply religious woman who had taken no vows but who wanted to support the religious mission of Ville-Marie. Even before embarking from France, Mance was so committed to the project that she actively sought to increase the society’s membership and funds. On the heels of her induction, as the first female member of the Société, she convinced the members of the society to write a prospectus of their project which she sent to Madame de Bullion and a number of other wealthy Parisians. This prospectus was so well-received that donations more than doubled and the company expanded from eight to thirty-eight members (Noel, 2013). At this time, another women integral to the project of Ville-Marie, Mme de Bullion, became one of its biggest benefactors and even provided the society with 22,000 livres to fund the establishment of a hospital within the religious settlement. As there was no specific order in mind to establish the hospital, she asked Mance to take on the task and so 94 Jeanne Mance travelled to help establish Ville-Marie and its hospital in 1642 (Choquette, 1992; Noel, 2013). Mance was not only the hospital director within Ville-Marie, she was also the financial manager (or treasurer) and principal fundraiser of the mission (Casson, 1871; Noel, 2013). Through medical care and financial planning she was integral to the settlement’s survival, travelling back and forth between the colony and France to secure greater funds, recruits and supplies for Ville-Marie (Noel, 2013). While Mance was not directly involved in the re-education or assimilation of Indigenous neighbours and allies, it is important to recognize that she sought to enable this re-education and assimilation through actions that looked to enable the funds, security and colonist presence necessary for these colonial endeavours. While the settlement was sparsely populated during the period within which the majority of her work occurred - due to the continual war-like violence between the French and their allies against the Haudenosaunee - by the time settlement increased in numbers, the character of Ville-Marie had turned from its religious beginnings – through the work of those like Mance who had enabled the settlement to last long enough for this to occur – to an increasingly settled site that functioned as an inter-societal hub of trade and diplomacy. And so, Mance’s work was important in helping the settlement of Ville-Marie not only shift into a more agrarian-based colony but also to last long enough to survive (however illegitimately) to see this more agrarian-based colony. As an un-cloistered, devote, Mance had considerable freedom in her interactions with both Indigenous and French peoples but she faced resistance from some sects of society who favoured the patriarchal nature of European society. Like other religious women at various settlements along the river, however, she was able to establish sufficient favour with enough political elites to withstand such resistance (Noel, 2013). Not only did Mance help found a French settlement whose purpose was to assimilate the Indigenous peoples of the Laurentian Valley, she also paved the way for future missionization projects at Montréal and beyond. She was a powerful women in a patriarchal society, who challenged gender norms, but simultaneously deployed her religious zeal to formulate destructive foundations for colonial relations between Indigenous and French peoples. While she treated Indigenous patients at her hospital on the island, where she likely considered her efforts to have a positive effect on Indigenous neighbours and allies, her intentions and her legacy were ultimately colonial in nature suggesting she falls closer to aggressive colonizer than colonial denizen. 95 Marguerite Bourgeoys and Religious Schooling at Ville-Marie Marguerite Bourgeoys came to Ville-Marie in 1653 with the recruitment of ‘one hundred men’ in order to ostensibly ‘save’ the island for the French from what was seen by the colonizers as Haudenosaunee aggression (Simpson, 1997, Rapley, 1993). Bourgeoys came through the “agency of the Congrégration de Notre-Dame de Troyes” (Rapley, 1993, 101) and founded the Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Montréal (Simpson, 1997). This was a ground-breaking congregation for New France because it was un-cloistered (Rapley, 1993), unlike the Ursuline nuns at Québec discussed above who had a modified clausura. Like Jeanne Mance, Bourgeoys experienced significant backlash from elite clergy who wished to maintain strict cloistered life particularly for religious women. Powerful men within the Catholic Church were not comfortable with autonomous women,25 who in many cases were financially independent thanks largely to female benefactors (Noel, 2013). One the other hand, the French Crown favoured un-cloistered congregations over the Ursuline nuns because they were more flexible and suitable to the demands of travelling to Indigenous settlements, and teaching – often done because of religious support – free of charge (Rapley, 1993). Bourgeoys and her sisters thus established a school in 1658, and taught French and Indigenous children free of charge (Simpson, 1997; Rapley, 1993); caring for the young boarders at their household; offering help, encouragement and advice to the colonists who came to them in need while managing to support themselves and their own needs so that these services (education, alms, etc.) could be rendered to the Indigenous and non-Indigenous public free of charge (Greer, 1997; Simpson, 1997). While Mance helped establish and lead the settlement, and oversaw the administration of the hospital, it was Bourgeouys and her congregation that provided the public and colonial services that had been wanting during the 1640s. For the rest of the seventeenth century, Mance’s hospital sisters and Bourgeouys’ congregation worked closely together to provide services to French and Indigenous peoples alike (Simpson, 1997). From the outset Bourgeoys and her order were eagerly welcomed by the French inhabitants of Ville-Marie and the surrounding areas. The habitants recognized the need for such mobile, un-cloistered nuns – teachers – who could travel freely and live amongst the regular 25 There was considerable struggle for Bourgeoys’ order to remain un-cloistered within New France, specifically following the arrival of Bishop Laval in 1659. Even the more formal cloister of the Ursuline nuns at Quebec was threatened with his arrival. For further information, please see: Leslie Choquette. “Ces Amazones du Grand Dieu”: Women and Mission in Seventeenth-Century Canada.” French Historical Studies. 17.3. (1992). 627-55. 96 population (Rapley, 1993). It is quite likely that my ancestors’ children, the children of Jacques Archambault and Urbain Tessier di Lavigne, were taught by Bourgeouys’ order at Ville-Marie. While the settlement and the colony more generally were places of great violence during these years (due to warfare between the French, their allies and the Haudenosaunee) the presence and actions of the congregation during these years still afforded great privileges to the French colonists on the island and within the surrounding areas. The services they rendered including free education, health care, poverty assistance, and greatly improved the lives of the peasant-class within the colony. This was especially true of women who would not have had access to education in France (Noel, 2013). The hospital broadly benefited all colonists that, like the sister institution at Québec, had a ninety-two percent survival rate by 1681 (Noel, 2013). These sorts of services and institutions were integral to a growing colonist independence from not only France but their Indigenous allies. It was this sort of religiously-based support that induced the French population to shift from a vulnerable position as denizens and invaders on Indigenous lands to increasingly become a more permanent, self-sufficient and growing agrarian colony. The nuns served not just the colonist population. As has been argued, these religious orders were coming to the St. Lawrence with the specific intention of assimilating Indigenous allies to the Roman Catholic religion (Noel, 2013). As early as 1683, Intendant Muelles identified Bourgeoys congregation, the Congrégation de Notre-Dame de Montréal, as the most successful order in New France at assimilating Indigenous peoples to Christianity. By 1763, the congregation was the largest community of nuns within the French colony (Choquette, 1992). While Bourgeouys and Mance, seemingly in good faith, offered health care services to Indigenous neighbours and allies as well as colonists, and their educational services were voluntary, thereby abiding by the sort of mutual respect and goodwill one would expect to find within a denizen ethos, they also helped established at least one basis for the assimilative policy through education that ultimately resulted in the residential school system – an intergenerational trauma still being felt today. Intriguingly, there was a letter from 1658, written by Louis Tronson (a Sulpician Priest), as cited by Etienne Michel Faillon (nineteenth century Catholic historian), that suggests that Marie Bourgeoys had to be reassured concerning her mission efforts to ‘civilize’ young Indigenous children within the colony at some point (Faillon, 1853). Unfortunately, the letter, as appears to have been lost to time. The existence of such a letter, however, if it were found, would 97 be quite at odds with what is known about a religious woman like Borgeoys and of the colonial mentality of the time. Perhaps Bourgeoys’ experience missionizing in the French colony for over a decade had instilled within her such doubts that she began to question her role as a colonist even as her congregation went on to be one of the most successful assimilationist institutions during the French regime.26 Without physical evidence of the letter and further context behind it, it is difficult to offer much more beyond conjecture. Whether or not Bourgeoys began to fundamentally question her role, potential evidence of such doubt within the project would be demonstrative of the complexity of these women and their roles and their implications within the French colonial project. It would suggest that while these women predominantly acted as colonist there were glimmers of them seeking to take up or at least grapple with responsibility as a denizen, quite possibly questioning and resisting the pull to impose one’s own ways while living on the territory of the people one seeks to assimilate. *** These devoted women played a crucial role in the development of the French colony from trade-based to agrarian-based colonialism. Their ability to work in less or un-cloistered orders was an important aspect of their contributions here. They provided colonial society with a huge amount of support through not only helping to secure a more stable, healthy and educated agrarian colonist population but also through challenging European patriarchal genders roles. While their goals in coming to the Laurentian Valley were, as with all the other religious actors explored in this chapter, aggressively and damagingly colonial, one can also see moments or brief shimmers of more denizen-like behaviour or awareness – in the rendering of equal health services provided by Mance and the multilingual and diplomatic services provided by de l’Incarnation. Analyzing and understanding the roles and actions of these women, while only briefly begun here, helps one in determining not only the complexity of these mid-seventeenth century female religious actors but also the ways through which their actions helped pave the way for increasingly destructive, agrarian-based colonist actions and policies. 26 Yet even when discussing the supposed success of conversions one must keep in mind the tendency for ‘native syncretism’ – that many Indigenous peoples who were seen to have converted to Catholicism still held the beliefs of their own people and merged the two into a hybrid worldview. Havard. pp. 35-7.; Noel. p. 65. 98 Summary This chapter has focused on identifying early instantiations of religious colonialism and its actors in early to mid-seventeenth century New France. It has considered how the actions of these colonists aligned and/or misaligned with a denizen ethos from the more vulnerable positions of early Récollets missionaries, to the mission colonists of Ville-Marie, and the devoted religious women of the colony whose actions helped sustain and secure and increasingly agrarian colonial based presence on Indigenous lands. What has been found is an overwhelming tendency for these religious and agrarian colonist actors to behave in increasingly aggressive and assimilative ways although, as has been shown there remain glimmers of denizen-leanings, and suggestions of doubt surrounding more aggressive and assimilative-based behaviour toward Indigenous peoples. Above and beyond these more specific action-based analyses, this chapter has also identified and explored how important religious actors were in the move from trade-based to agrarian-based colonialism within the French colony – specifically here the devoted religious women who established the hospitals, public education and almshouses that were important for supporting a more secure and permanent settler colony. And finally, this chapter has shed light on an important narrative readily silenced in the grander narrative of Euro-Canadian settlement: the ‘founding’ of Montréal as a mission to assimilate Indigenous peoples into French culture and the Catholic religion. What can the contemporary reader take away from all of this? In terms of the broader narrative of settlement, this chapter suggests that taking up a denizen ethos will require grappling with contexts in which no invitation was extended to Europeans to settle a site that has long since been settled by Euro-Canadians. For contemporary inhabitants of Montréal, any negotiation with the Haudenosaunee and/or the Anishinaabek nations needs to recognize this settlement-without-invitation, this contested history and claim to the island and what this might mean for Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations moving forward within the city and surrounding area – what an invitation might look like today, if deemed appropriate, and what obligations it might carry and to whom. Interestingly, there is some recent movement toward recognizing the city of Montréal as having been founded upon the unceded territory of the Wyandot, Haudenosaunee and even Anishinaabek nations.27 This is a positive step forward, though it needs to go hand-in- 27 For example, through their websites both McGill and Concordia universities recognize that they are located on unceded Indigenous territories. 99 hand with recognizing the intentions behind this settlement and their religious and assimilative nature. Beyond the specific nature of grappling with what this means for contemporary city dwellers to live on stolen land, there is a broader question surrounding Doctrine of Discovery that needs to be addressed within Euro-Canadian society and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. There is a need to recognize the historic use of this doctrine to attempt to legally and morally justify colonization and its continuing use to sustain the settler colonial state and society against the perceived threat of Indigenous self-determination and stewardship over the lands currently claimed by Canada. This chapter has also been about signalling the importance in the connection between religious and agrarian colonialism. This connection is especially important for contemporary readers to recognize in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Final Report and recommendations regarding the structure, effects and legacy of the destructive residential school system. To understand this connection between the assimilative-focused religious mission and the agrarian-based colony of the seventeenth century is to be open to identifying and accepting a continuing connection between these two types of colonialism into the present day and so during the residential school system – since it is agrarian colonialism that lead into the settler colonialism that took formal root in the 1860s. As such, this chapter has helped demonstrate how religious and agrarian colonialism are intertwined as part of a larger project of colonization that has led to the establishment and sustenance of the Canadian settler state, settler privilege and implication. Finally, the exploration here (as within the other historical chapters
UBC Theses and Dissertations
The colonial denizen : a proposal to move beyond the politics of recognition toward a politics of responsibilities LeBlanc, Deanne Aline Marie 2020
Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.
- 24-ubc_2020_may_leblanc_deanne.pdf [ 1.43MB ]
- JSON: 24-1.0389604.json
- JSON-LD: 24-1.0389604-ld.json
- RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0389604-rdf.xml
- RDF/JSON: 24-1.0389604-rdf.json
- Turtle: 24-1.0389604-turtle.txt
- N-Triples: 24-1.0389604-rdf-ntriples.txt
- Original Record: 24-1.0389604-source.json
- Full Text