-
I: Historians and the Quiet Revolution: a Look at the Debates of the Mid-Sixties.
- University of Ottawa Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
I Historians and the Quiet Revolution A Look at the Debates of the Mid-Sixties This radically different approach in the two regions [Quebec and Montreal] is a constant factor in the history of French Canada. There is a distinct feeling that Montrealers are kept in a state of almost continual tension by their Anglo-Saxon surroundings...[whereas those in] the old capital [are] more accustomed to American or English-Canadian tourists than capitalists.... This difference accounts in large part for the divergent views of the two schools of history, Montreal and Laval. —Denis Vaugeois1 The two schools of thought that characterize mid-twentiethcentury Quebec historiography took their impetus from two archetypal figures: Canon Lionel Groulx of Montreal, and Abbe Arthur Maheux of Laval University in Quebec City. Each typified certain regional attitudes that crystalized during the 1940s to form a distinct approach. If, as we shall discover, our historical development is seen from two perspectives, it is partly because these twohistorians aroused considerable controversy at the same period. Both men had their followers and headed the two history institutesfounded by Laval University and the University of Montreal after the Second World War. 5 6 Quebec and its Historians Working in the tradition of our first national historian, Frangois-Xavier Garneau, Canon Groulx was the moving spirit behind the nationalist movement of the period between the wars, aimed at creating a French-speaking Catholic state in North America. The ideological basis for this "Laurentian dream," as it has been called, came from Maurice Barres and the founder of L'Action franfaise, Charles Maurras. The backto -the-land nationalism of Barres supported the cause of a rural Quebec, riveted to its traditions and fettered by a rigid opposition to change that one can scarcely imagine today. The monarchism of Charles Maurras contributed to prolonging an ultramontane mentality Fiercely opposed to democratic ideals. This eminently conservative nationalism soon became linked to a form of racism, inherited from the disciples of Gobineau whom Groulx encountered while studying at the University of Freiburg. Such, very briefly, is the background to the interpretation of history put forward by Groulx, who was adulated by nationalist youth for his advocacy of French minorities and his rejection, implicit or explicit, of the panCanadian nationalism of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mackenzie King, and Henri Bourassa. French-Canadian nationalist thinking, which had affinities with the racial struggles of the two world wars, received a serious setback at the end of World War II. It began with a motion by Senator Athanase David recommending the adoption of a single history textbook for Canada. The senator's proposal was quickly seconded by his colleague, Senator Damien Bouchard, who on June 21, 1944, made a stinging attack on the absurdity of "racial" battles in Canada. Among the causes he evoked was the partisan teaching of national history, which had contributed to keeping anti-English hatred alive in the younger generation. Instead of seeing written history as a story of persecution, Bouchard proposed aversion that would stimulate goodwill and acknowledge the characteristic weaknesses of French Canadians as a national group. The forces of reaction pounced on Bouchard as a traitor to his "race." The man who had often been described as an apostate was now literally jeered at by the public, especially after Cardinal Villeneuve had officially condemned him at the [3.22.70.55] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 19:01 GMT) Historians and the Quiet Revolution 7 St. Hyacinthe eucharistic congress that opened on the very day of his senate speech. Hope was not lost, however. For some years past a Quebec City university professor had been working on a history promoting national unity. Well-known to theEnglish-speaking community as a lecturer, Abbe Arthur Maheux,mentioned by Bouchard in his speech, had published a little book in 1941 that aroused a storm of protest in nationalist circles.2 In it he showed that French Canadians had no cause to complain about their fate since 1760. Recalling the conciliatoryspirit ofGovernor Murray, he concluded that the Conquest did not lead to oppression and had in no way diminished the church's freedom . Two years later, the CBC published a series of talks by Maheux on the French network, on the general theme of"Why Are We Divided?"3 According to him, hatred of the English went against evangelical principles. Absence from the business world, an evil deplored by everyone, was due to the exclusive interest in agriculture, an interest that had been promoted, in...