We owe the popularity of the expression “give the runner a chance” to René Lévesque. In 1976, the PQ leader implored skeptics not to judge his new government before it had begun its work.
Published at 2:22 a.m. Updated at 6:00 a.m.
The image came from baseball, where the runner is not out if he touches the base at the same time as the opposing player touches him with the ball 1.
But baseball and politics are not exactly the same discipline, the metaphor has its limits.
The warning from academics about the future National Museum of Quebec History is not incompatible with our tradition of giving the benefit of the doubt to the runner.
“By organizing the framework around a people of French language and culture, the institution also risks obscuring the indigenous nations and several groups – the black, Jewish, Irish, Chinese, Italian, Ukrainian communities, for example – which have contributed to shaping Quebec society,” warned the thirty signatory historians.
Read “National Museum of Quebec History: The risks of a return to the “national narrative””
It is a preventive approach addressed to the small scientific committee which is led by two members – Jenny Thibault, general and artistic director of the Society of Technological Arts, and the historian Éric Bédard.
It is better that this debate takes place upstream. The real waste would be if the museum was attacked when it opened.
François Legault intensified this debate in spite of himself. At a press conference, he said he hoped visitors would leave the museum with a feeling of “pride”. By his own count, he asked the director general of the Musée de la civilization 25 times.
Pride is certainly preferable to shame. So much the better if you feel it while visiting the museum. But this strong political message has unnecessarily frightened historians skeptical of his approach.
Added to this is the context. At the start of his mandate, Mr. Legault launched the concept of Blue Spaces. He saw it as a “nationalist legacy”. Each region was to have a museum established in a heritage building which would at the same time be restored. However, the budget was clearly insufficient for this work, and museologists feared a swallowing up of regional establishments which lacked resources.
After the abandonment of the Blue Spaces, Mr. Legault found a new tool of pride: a museum of the Quebec nation.
The idea is not bad, on the contrary. If anyone thinks that Quebecers suffer from too much knowledge of their history, raise their hand to have their vital signs checked urgently.
It is also legitimate to dedicate a museum to the Quebec nation itself. Other countries do this – for example, the Smithsonian in Washington can be called a patriotic museum. The definition of the Quebec nation is the subject of constant debate, but it does exist – even the federal government recognizes it. And this debate does not justify giving up telling the story. On the contrary, one might think that it makes this work even more important.
Looking back, the adventure of a French-speaking people in North America arouses astonishment and admiration. This deserves to be told. The whole debate is how.
This historiographical debate pits specialists against each other, and I do not claim to settle it. Rather, I offer an example which shows that history is always being rewritten and that it is possible to tell both the destiny of this nation and that of the people who preceded it, because their stories are inseparable.
In 2021, American and English anthropologists David Graeber and David Wengrow published In the beginning was… 2.
The first chapters of the work focus on North America. These two intellectuals are on the left. They nevertheless criticize a romantic and reductive vision conveyed by part of the left, according to which the First Nations lived in an idyllic state of nature before being colonized and attacked by explorers. To reduce them to this victim status would be an insult to them.
I summarize two examples which show that the destinies of nations are intertwined, and which also help to avoid the reductive binary of our identity debates where morality replaces knowledge of the other.
The Jesuits who crisscrossed the territory in the 17th century left several writings. Some were admiring. For example, in his Great trip to the land of the Hurons, Father Sagard noted, at the end of the trip, that the Huron-Wendats stood out for the quality of their rational argument and praised their sense of sharing and their disinterest in possessions. These writings circulated in Europe and inspired great thinkers like Locke and Voltaire.
Another story, that of Kondiaronk. This Wendat leader is admired for his eloquence, wisdom and strategic intelligence. On the political level, we know his decisive role in the treaty of the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701.
But Graeber and Wengrow also show how Kondiaronk was a precursor of the Enlightenment. His thoughts circulated in Europe through the book Dialogues with a Savage of Baron de Lahontan, who stayed in New France. Leibniz, a universal spirit, was particularly inspired by it.
And of course, more generally, the First Nations fed and cared for the French settlers, in addition to trading with them to enable their economic development. One does not exist without the other.
You will forgive me for having summarized four centuries in three paragraphs, two anecdotes and a book.
This reminder simply serves to show how identities are porous and cross-pollinate. And to illustrate to what extent the adventure of this nation is both fascinating and little-known.
This story will not be easy to tell. But this risk is preferable to another, that of forgetting it.
1. If the metaphor interests you enough to read this footnote, here is an analysis that verifies this interpretation of the rules of baseball (in English).
2. In the beginning was… A new history of humanity, David Graeber and David Wengrow, Editions The links that liberate, 744 pages.
2024-05-12 10:17:23
#complicated #story #Press
