This May Day, “Je Me Souviens”
On this of May Day of Action, many of my family and
friends of French-Canadian descent remember this:
At the turn of last century, our ancestors were
part of a huge migration into the United States ,
with Canada
losing a near-third of its population in the process. (Our branch of Pothiers
came from the Trois-Rivières area in Quebec .)
And when we poured into the pulp, textile, shoe, and other manufacturing
mill-towns of New England (Chicopee ,
Mass. , in our case), the
established citizens were none-too-welcoming, due in part to our loyalty to
church, language, and family. Cheap labor, everybody likes; but our growing
numbers and différence were soon seen as just another threat to the
existing order.
The New York Times
published a piece to this effect on July 5, 1889, including the following:
“…In those New-England States that adjoin Lower Canada, the
influx of French-Canadians … tempted by a more genial climate than their own
and a higher rate of wages, have swarmed the factories and taken up the farms
abandoned by the natives as unprofitable. They are so much more prolific than
their neighbors that the proportion of them to the whole community, whenever
they have established themselves, tends to increase with surprising rapidity…
“Whether this immigration is a good thing or bad thing for
the country is a question the answer to which depends upon the same
considerations that determine the character of any other immigration. It may be
summed up in the general statement that immigration is a source of strength to
the country insofar as it is capable of being readily assimilated and
Americanized… Tried by this standard, it must be owned that the
French-Canadians do not give promise of incorporating themselves into the body
politic…
“The French-Canadians mean to retain in this country, as for
two centuries they have succeeded in retaining in Canada , the religions and language
of their ancestors, as distinctive badges of their separation from their
neighbors. Comparatively few of them become citizens at all, and those who do
rate their citizenship so low and understand its duties so little that the power
of voting renders them much less acceptable members of the community than they
would without it…”
That public alarm mushroomed a few years later in another New
York Times editorial (June 6, 1892), after recent statistics showed that
400,000 of our ancestors were affecting the “balance of power”in New England ’s “principal cities.” They weren’t
assimilating as well as the editors might hope, due to “Notre religion,
notre langue, et nos moeurs” (“Our religion, our language, and our mores”
was the motto of the more organized). That editorial goes on to say:
“Mr. Francis Parkman has ably pointed out their singular
tenacity as a race and their extreme devotion to their religion… It is next to
impossible to penetrate this mass of protected and secluded humanity with
modern ideas or to induce them to interest themselves in democratic institutions
and methods of government… No other people… is so persistent in repeating
themselves… Where they halt and stay, they multiply and cover the earth… the
migration of these people is part of a priestly scheme now fervently fostered
in Canada
for the purpose of bringing New-England under the control of the Roman Catholic
faith….
“It has been hoped heretofore that the free pressure of
American life upon our foreign populations was sufficient to change all
new-comers, not matter what might have been their previous affiliations, into
interested and enthusiastic Americans in the course of one or two generations,
but when an immigration like that of the French-Canadians in New-England takes
possession of the centers of population and has the power to crowd out the less
productive race in the struggle for the survival of the fittest, the free
action of American institutions is not strong enough to counteract these
designs, and it is only by national legislation that the difficulty can be
reached.”
That phrase — the “free pressure of American life” — makes
the old “melting pot” sound downright homey by comparison. To be
sure, editorials such as these two from the New
York Times, a century ago, were part of that pressure-cooker. But, thankfully,
today’s marchers are too.
Vive la difference!
(I am grateful to the writer Clark Blaise, whose excellent I Had a Father: A Post-Modern Autobiography
taught me a great deal about my own parentage. These clips are some of his
research.)