Symposium, Casa de Velasquez (Madrid), December 12 & 13, 2003

Cultural Transfer, mtissages and mimetism in Franco-Indian North

America

Gilles Havard

By situating ourselves in the marginal spaces of Franco-Indian America of the

17th and 18th centuries whether in the Great Lakes region, the Pays den Haut, or the

Louisiana interior and by taking up the broad theme of cross-cultural exchange, our aim

is to demonstrate how mtissages often constituted a colonial weapon (the principle of

conquest) for the French and, for the Indians, a way to assimilate the foreigner into their

own society (the principle of adoption).

We would like to begin our analysis by discussing historian Richard Whites

thesis (The Middle Ground, 1991) according to which the French and the Indians

established, in the Pays den Haut (Upper Country), patterns of intercultural

accommodation. The middle ground that he describes is not, in fact, a territorial, but a

cultural concept. It is a social space more so than a geographical space; a site of

interaction and adaptation between individuals and diverse cultures which establishes a

system of mutual understanding and accommodation. The middle ground is more

specifically defined by White as the propensity of social actors to act according to their

partners cultural referents in order to persuade him. Europeans and Indians had to

reach some common conception of suitable ways of acting, he writes. People try to

persuade others who are different from themselves by appealing to what they perceive to

be the values and practices of those others (White 1991: 50, x). The middle ground is an

especially pertinent analytical tool which allows White to re-read from a different angle

the history of the Frontier (a term which he carefully avoids, by the way).

For the French as well as for the Amerindians, there is a strong dynamic of

improvisation, allowing one to adapt to the Other. When trying to solve a crime of

pillaging or murder for which a native was found guilty, the French took into account the

Indian practice of compensation in addition to the balance of power, of course (White

1991 : 75-93; Havard 2003 : 459-472). The Indians also knew how to manipulate

European cultural categories. When the occasion called for it, they would thus avail

themselves of the missionaries religious discourse in order to persuade the French of a

number of things. Toward the end of the 17th century, for example, a French merchant in

a Miami village brandished his sword in order to obtain justice for a crime of larceny for

which he felt himself to be the victim. A Miami chief intervened and, in order to calm

down the Frenchman, showed him a cross stuck in the ground near his hut and said:

Here is the wood of the Black Robe [Jesuit]; he teaches us to pray to God and not to get

angry (JR 59: 222).

As White points out, people [] often misinterpret and distort both the values

and practices of [] others (White 1991: x). By definition, misinterpretations and,

hence, misunderstandings, are in fact at the heart of intercultural encounters. But does it

suffice to compare only the Native and the French attitudes of improvisation while

invoking the inevitable distortions which affect understanding the Other? It seems more

interesting, possibly, to explain thoroughly the mechanisms of intercultural exchange

which involve numerous factors, and whose analysis must take into account the fact that

natives and Europeans belonged to different cultural spheres and could not perceive one

another in the same manner. The greatest danger, in fact, for researchers studying Euro-

Indian relations, is to postulate the equivalency of these two universes; they are then led,

through a rationalistic perspective, to study a native cultural characteristic through the

filter of occidental culture the culture which appears in sources, or the historians

himself, which obviously does not escape his own ethnocentrism. There are of course

sociocultural bridges between Indians and Europeans, bridges that allow for establishing

areas of understanding, or for encouraging the acculturation processes, but these bridges

come (at least partly) from what C. Levi-Strauss has called universal laws or common

mental structures. The cultural gap between natives and Europeans (two categories

which also lend themselves to discussion) does exist in fact, and it is even quite large.

In a general manner, and while still emphasizing our admiration for Whites book,

we would like to make two important criticisms which both concern the concept of

middle ground. It seems to us, and this is the first point, that White, perhaps under the

influence of political correctness, underestimates the paradigm of conquest. He

mentions, rightly, the frustration of colonial authorities towards the natives spirit of

independence, but in the end he insists very little on the practice of empire. By

emphasizing the Franco-Indian balance, and by reifying the middle ground as a paradigm

of alliance, he mainly glosses over the process of conquest that was already at work

under the French regime. Without any teleology, we conclude with D. Delge (Delge

1995) that the Great Lakes natives, beyond their own perceptions, and also beyond their

room to maneuver and even, until the middle of the 18th century, their ability to resist

the process of subjugation, even if that meant throwing the French out of their territory

were objectively involved in a colonial-type relationship, which eventually led to

dependency and subordination.

Power, in fact, is not only the ability to repress or direct in an authoritative

manner. There are intermediary forms of it which are more subtle, more insidious, and

including some based on the knowledge and the manipulation of the Other (Todorov

1982; Boccara 1998: 201-205). The manipulation of Christian signs, and thus their

assimilation, shows the natives ability to improvise, but there is no question of reifying

the middle ground as an egalitarian mode of objectification of the Others culture. If the

Amerindian demonstrates cultural relativism, he does not go as far as criticizing his own

culture by putting it in perspective and turning it into an object. To put things back into

the context of colonization, in the scene of power and power struggles, the middle ground

functions above all for the benefit of the French; the only ones who can, thanks to a larger

intellectual distance, manipulate their partner. Franco-Indian relations cannot be reduced

to the model of the middle ground which, on top of hiding the superiority of the

Europeans in terms of cultural manipulation, incorrectly leads one to believe that the

social actors systematically adapted to each another, when they would often actually

impose their own vision of things.

We will now focus on the second critique. Although White is very innovative in

his analysis of cultural relationships (research on arrangements and compromises

between the two societies), he quite paradoxically neglects the theme of acculturation:

The Middle Ground is a work dedicated to the motives of compromise, but not cultural

transfers. Yet Franco-Indian encounters do not necessarily lead to compromises: cultures

and individuals are not simply characterized by their adaptability and their flexibility,

they can also transform themselves through contact with the Other. White, in this

respect, does not discuss at all the theme of Indianization. Like the concept of power,

Indianization (or acculturation, generally speaking) should not be defined abruptly; its

intensity and forms are in fact extremely variable. We will first talk about the question

of cultural transfers and mixings, and then we will explore the question of mimetism as

an expression of a logique mtisse with regard to the natives.

Transfers and mixings

Degrees of acculturation

Many authors regard the word acculturation as being outdated; it has given rise

to multiple definitions. I will use N. Watchels definition - who was himself inspired by

American anthropologists from the 1930s (Redfield, Linton, Herskovits 1936) and not R.

Whites for example, for whom acculturation can only come from the domination of one

group over the other, and who therefore reduces it to the cultural influence of Europeans

over Indians. The term acculturation does not comprise, we believe, any idea of

supremacy of one culture over another, which in this case is the European model over the

Amerindian cultures. It is rather a mutual process, a reciprocal phenomenon of one

culture borrowing from another. Any cultural influence or borrowing, however

superficial, temporary or calculated it may be, is a product of acculturation according to

N. Watchels broad definition of this term: any phenomenon of interaction resulting

from the contact between two cultures (Watchel 1974: 174-175).

From here, various specifications must be added. Let us first note, as L. Turgeon

(Turgeon and al. 1996 : 11-17) does for example, that the cultural transfer made from one

group to another does not necessarily lead to the transformation of the recipient culture:

it is important to pay attention to the usual process of transformation and

recontextualization of borrowings which is at work in the host society, the transferred

objects (as well as other practices) changing meaning through this process. When Great

Lakes Indians, for example, put crosses in their villages after the first contacts during the

1670s (JR59 : 102), this does not necessarily represent proof of Christianization, but

rather a form of incorporation or even recycling. It is most likely the desire to integrate

the Christian god into the Amerindian pantheon that explains this behavior. This might

also be a ritual absorption. In fact, acculturating oneself does not necessarily mean

identifying with another culture, and Europeans and Indians were able to absorb external

elements without renouncing their own civilization.

This is especially true for the French (and this is a warning against anachronism)

who could find among the Indians, in certain respects, objectively or not, consciously or

not, familiar elements. The fact of an officer partaking in ritual dances with the Indians

can thus correlate to his noble education (theater, dance, etc.) which predisposes him to

master these gestures (Bly 1996 ; Muchembled 1998 : 77-122). In the same way, the

receptiveness to Indian magic must be understood in the context of European pagan

beliefs of the time. Catholicism itself was, in a certain way, polytheist it differentiated

itself from Protestantism on this point, and allowed a particular closeness between

colonizers and natives in French America. Being cured by an Indian shaman comes from

a form of Indianization, but must also be related to the medical practices of the Ancien

Rgime, where it was common to see a healer or a witch. The French could therefore be

predisposed to behaving like the Indians. They reactivated, through their contact, certain

aspects of their culture, but also, probably, certain aspects of human nature. The

trappers and officers attraction to the relative sexual freedom that existed among

Indians is, we believe, part of this principle.

Third remark: two types of acculturation should be noted based on a criterion of

intensity. The first acculturation could be defined as being superficial, adaptive or

accommodating which is often related, on the European side, to manipulation.

Although minimal, this is certainly acculturation, at least when the adaptation becomes a

structural element of the intercultural relationship. This is particularly obvious in the

sphere of diplomatic relationships. The governor Frontenac, in 1690 at Montreal, took up

the hatchet and joined the Indians in their ceremonial dances (La Potherie 1753, 3: 97-

98). The same situation in Louisiana in 1754, during a congress in La Mobile where

governor Kerlrec received 2000 allied Indians. When they arrived, Choctaw medal

chiefs, singing and dancing the peace pipe, went to the governors mansion where he

was taken and carried into the barn which was set up for listening to orations and

exchanging presents. Then Kerlrec was given the title Tchacta Youlakly Mataha tehiho

anke achoukema, which he says means the King of Tchaktas and the greatest from the

race of the Youlakta and the very good father. The following eight days where used

for this party I had to appear to be very moved notes the governor, obliged, as we

can see, to adapt to the natives ceremonial and while at the same time becoming one of

them! (AC, C13A, 38: 122-124). The phenomenon of acculturation is adaptive in the

sense that this ceremonial is not used among Europeans the French and the English do

not smoke peace pipes or exchange wampum belts yet it was repeated for almost two

centuries during the history of New France!

In other cases we can talk about a more in-depth acculturation, and use without

hesitation, concerning Europeans, the term Indianization. For certain French

renegades, the resemblance with Indians is such that with their mindset they can only be

told apart by the color of their skin (P. Kalm, quoted by Jacquin 1987: 180). Those

who were called White Indians were assimilated to the Indian culture. Cavelier de la

Salle and his men met one in Lower Louisiana among the Cenis: he was naked, just like

them, says Joutel, a bourgeois from Rouen, and what was even more surprising, was that

he had almost forgotten his own language, and could not say two words consecutively

without stumbling (Margry 1876-1886, 3: 342). The phenomenon of acculturation

seems so strong that it leads to deculturation: this colonizer had fully become an Indian.

Le Sueur, around 1700, mentions the French who retired and mixed with the savage

Panis, on the Missouri; and this other one, married to an Iowa and who was going to war

with his brothers against the Panis, taking the risk of killing a Frenchman of this nation

(Le Sueur 1702, X9-4 : 93).

Between manipulative adaptation and complete assimilation can obviously be

found many different forms of acculturation. How to qualify, for example, the behavior

of an officer, Dumont de Montigny, who scalped an Indian enemy Chickasaw (Dumont

de Montigny 1747 : 162)? This is certainly not just accommodation. This native

behavior was well integrated. Yet it did not turn Montigny into an Indian. This

borrowing could be compared to the culture of violence that existed in France at that

time. This takes us back to cultural predispositions. The scalp, among other things,

refers in native culture to the profound nature of war it is a substitute for a prisoner

(Lafitau 1724, 2 : 85) which most likely escaped the attention of the French. This

cultural transfer was therefore accompanied by a transferred meaning.

Mixing of cultures

Acculturation can lead to the mixing of cultures: objects, institutions and

behaviors, with their hybrid or mixed character, testify to that. The term mtissage,

probably a little too fashionable, can seem overused, and it is even criticized by some

authors who strongly contest the notion of ethnicity and culture (Amselle 2001). In

mtissage I do not necessarily see the appearance of a mixed culture; that is, the fusion

and hybridization of identities, or what J.-L. Amselle defines as a mix in which it is

impossible to dissociate the different parts (Amselle 1990: 248). I understand the term

through its larger meaning as a dynamic: before it is an end, mtissage is a movement, a

dynamic and creative process of intercultural encounters which, through exchanges and

borrowings, generate the cultural characteristics or behaviors that are both mixed and

novel. Such creations of the Frontier, whether enduring or not, or whether they limit

themselves to certain aspects of culture or certain individuals, are all symptoms of

mtissage. It is a radical intercultural dynamic that leads to the creation of something

new. This said, mtissage in Franco-Indian America is not similar to a process of

bonding. We usually know where the Indian world starts and where the European world

begins, except when identifying a transcultural trait. There is no mix so strong that its

original traits vanish. It is important, in this respect, to establish a distinction made by

the philosopher R. Gunon, and to differentiate between syncretic creation and synthetic

creation (Gunon 1986 : 43-47).

Tattoos offer a primary example of practice tending towards hybridization. Some

French went so far in their Indianization as to have their body piqu. Tattoos, unknown

to Europeans, were common among the tribes of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi.

The Illinois and the Quapaws, for example, displayed on their skin animal heads or

objects as a sign of recognition for their military valor. J.B. Bossu, a mid-eighteenth

century officer, explains that these distinctive marks multiply gradually as they do brave

actions at war. He tells how the Quapaws tribe adopted him: they recognized me as a

warrior and as a leader and gave me the mark for it; they tattooed a deer on my thigh; I

willfully let them perform this painful operation. Tattoos, he mentions, are a mark

related only to military valor (Bossu 1980 : 76, 102-103). At the beginning of the

eighteenth century, another officer, H. Tonty, notes that the French from the Pays den

Haut like to be tattooed and many of them have their full body covered, apart from their

face (Tonti 1720 : 14). A certain Villeneuve, for example, who was living in Fort Saint

Louis, got tattooed on the back by his Illinois friends. On the Mississippi of the 1680s,

Mr. Joutel met a savage Frenchman, who had gotten piqu like them [his Indian hosts]

on the body and the face (Deliette 1934 : 328; Margry 1876-1886, 3 : 350-353). The

ritual of tattooing is, for the Frenchman, accompanied by a partial re-appropriation of

motifs, as Tonty describes about an officer who could be LeMoyne de Bienville himself,

the founding father of Louisiana.

Ive seen many, and especially a noble officer [], who, besides an image of the

Virgin with Jesus, a large cross on his stomach with the miraculous words that

appeared to Constantine, and a large number of marks in the Savages style, had

a snake which passed around his bodyand whose pointy tongue, ready to strike,

ended in an extremity that you might guess, if you can. (Tonti 1720 : 14)

This hybrid composition shows in an exemplary manner, and on an aesthetic level,

cultural mtissage. Through Christian symbols, the officer expresses his attachment to

European culture, while at the same time yielding to a fully assumed pagan iconography

(marks in the Savages style). The snake itself can be perceived as a biblical figure, as

well as an ode to the vital forces of Nature, to the savagery, if not the transgression of

Christian sexual morals of the time (an extremity that you might guess). This concerns

syncretic but not synthetic art. Pagan symbols, as well as Christian symbols, are simply

juxtaposed and clearly identifiable: no fusion is so radical that it would be impossible to

dissociate the original elements of the mix.

The duality is also present in the act of tattooing itself: the officer gives himself

over to an Amerindian custom, opening himself up to the Others culture, but this custom

takes on a particular meaning in his own culture. Bossu, who compares the tattoos to a

sort of chivalry where one is only accepted after brilliant acts, clearly finds in this native

ritual an echo of his ideology of nobility, and thus acquires a certain prestige for his

hosts. Dumont de Montigny, who was tattooed in the left arm, explains that this is the

mark of honor for all warriors, just like we have the military cross of Saint-Louis. Such

rituals increased integration into Indian society, but it also magnified the noble ethos of

French officers, for whom war and chivalric virtue were the pinnacle of human

excellence. Bossu is pleased to describe himself as currently a noble of Akanas

[Quapaw]. These people believed they had given me, by this adoption, the honor

deserved by someone who defended their country. I saw it as the honor made to M. le

marchal de Richelieu when he was put down in the gold book of the Genoa Republic as

being one of the Genovese nobility (Dumont de Montigny 1747 : 369, 375; Bossu 1980 :

76-77). Could it be as prestigious to be adopted by the Indians as it was to be adopted by

the Genovese? There were no nobles among the Quapaw tribe, but the strange

comparison made by the author, hoping for some recognition, nonetheless expresses his

attraction toward the Indian world however imagined it may be.

There are many Indian-made objects that also follow this same syncretic

principle. The Muse de lHomme (in Paris, France) owns some painted buffalo skins

that came from the kings and other nobles- curiosity cabinets, dating back from the

end of the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, and whose images sometimes illustrate

Franco-Indian mtissages: they actually reveal the influence of European models. On

one of the skins, tulips, parrots and shields are inspired by the baroque style of Louis

XIVs time. Another piece features, along with two peace pipes, a red sun, a blue moon,

cone-shaped Indian huts, and geometric images on the sides. One notices the European

style houses with crosses on top of them and even transcriptions in capitalized letters of

an Indian idiom. A third skin associates peace pipes with stylized eagle wings and with

bird shapes of most likely European inspiration, as is confirmed by the shape of two stars

located on the border of the skins neck. The composite character is visible, making this

a syncretic type of mtissage, with integration of the European aesthetic within an Indian

piece. We could also cite parchments made of birch bark and decorated with European

objects and symbols (Moussette 2002); European inspired military lodges (Charlevoix

1994: 469) ; tattoos representing all kinds of devices Crosses, names of Jesus,

Flowers (Direville 1997 : 297), etc. Very early on, Amerindians ritually absorbed, as if

through cannibalization, certain aspects of the European aesthetic, and thereby created

syncretic objects or images.

Mimetism or manipulation: two distinct practices

These Savages take pleasure in imitating everything they see Europeans doing

We will now put into perspective this cannibalization and, to this end, distinguish

two cultural practices, that of the French and that of the Indians. The middle ground is a

intercultural domain where particular practices are in fact expressed. As mentioned

before, the manipulation of Christian signs proves the natives capacity for improvisation,

but the middle ground should not be analyzed as an identical mode of comprehending the

Others culture. The European practice is more clearly a practice of manipulation let us

remember the abovementioned governors Frontenac or Kerlrec favored by the

Frenchmens greater ability, compared with the Indians, to put their culture in

perspective which nevertheless comes with a certain acculturation. The Indian practice

is different. It is also a practice of improvisation, but it often appears as a borrowing

practice of the imitative kind.

Let us note that this does not change anything about the fact that Indians were

also attracted to the utilitarian value of European objects: in a rational way, they

integrated into their lifestyle the tools, utensils and weapons whose convenience they

appreciated (Havard 2003 : 568-576); the color of pearls and textiles also held for them a

great importance (Miller, Hamell 1986). Let us also highlight the fact that borrowing

can, at its extreme, lead to a certain deculturation of Indians. During the eighteenth

century for example, the Hurons from Lorette, were living in Canadian wood houses,

having thus abandoned the traditional long house (Beaulieu 1996 : 270). But we should

not forget about mimetism which, we believe, activates important mechanisms in

Amerindian society.

Various authors from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries have noted that

Indians manifested a great willingness to imitate the French, their manners, their

movements, their attire, their costumes, their artistic manners and their objects. Father

Charlevoix wrote These savages take pleasure in imitating anything they see Europeans

doing (Charlevoix 1976, 1 : 222). Everywhere in New France, they particularly liked

wearing hats or sometimes wigs (both privileged objects of the European culture of

appearances), or even doing the musketeer salute in front of the French. During the years

1630-1640, the Montagnais chiefs of Tadoussac, when they came to Quebec, would

arrive dressed the French way linen shirt, lace folds and crimson tabard and they

would salute the governor with their hat, practicing a gentile, French-style bow (Back

2002). The Iroquois chief Garakonthi, in the same manner, usually saluted Frontenac

the French way, and he would even remove his hat every time he would give a

speech (JR 44: 288). Father Hennepin wrote that another Iroquois chief, Outrouti, ate

with us just like the French: he would wash his hands, would be the last one to sit at the

table, would untie his napkin very carefully, would eat with his fork, actually he would

do everything we did, often in order to mock us mischievously, and to receive some sort

gift from the French (Hennepin 1683 : 56-57). Was this imitation just mockery, as the

Rcollet thinks it was? During the middle of the eighteenth century, the Swedish botanist

P. Kalm, who was attending a conference in Montreal, noted that these savages are

usually very inclined to observe the forms of politeness during such occasions (Kalm

1977 : 845). Similarly, during a council held in 1757 with Governor Vaudreuil, two

Indians brought to Paris by Abbot Picquet were dressed in the French style from head

to toe. Pierre, one of them, was wearing the jacket sent to him by the Crown Prince. I

had the impression of seeing a savage Harlequin wearing a blond wig and a striped

outfit (Bougainville 1993: 157).

By wearing a hat or a wig, or by imitating French mannerisms, Indians were

acculturating themselves, but in a ritualized and superficial manner. In Louisiana,

among the Tonicas and Natchez, the great chief would completely dress the French

way in the presence of the colonizers (Dumont de Montigny 1747 : 388). In 1721,

Father Charlevoix, welcomed by the Tonicas, spoke about the great chief in these

terms: This Chief received us very politely; he was dressed the French way, and was

absolutely not embarrassed in the outfit He has not appeared dressed as an Indian in a

long time, and is even very proud of always being well dressed (Charlevoix 1994: 823-

824). Was this just a way of distinguishing himself from other Indians?

As a final salient example, let us travel to Green Bay around 1670, to a council

held by two Jesuits and their Pouteouatamis hosts. Various members of this tribe had

visited Montreal and, upon returning home, imitated the military men they had met in the

colony, who had visibly made a strong impression on them: Father Allouez relates that

these soldiers of a new kind [the Indians] started doing to us, out of honor, what

they had observed us doing during a similar meeting; but in a savage manner, in a

ridiculous way, not being accustomed to it; When the time came to gather everyone

together, two of them came over to talk to us, guns on their shoulders and tomahawks on

their belts, instead of swords; during the assembly, they stayed in front of the door of the

cabin as if on guard duty, trying to be as presentable as possible, walking around (which

savages never do) with their gun on one shoulder then on the other, in very surprising

positions, and all the more ridiculous that they were trying to do it seriously. We could

barely refrain from laughing, even though we were dealing with important matters (JR

55: 186-188).

Cannibal cultures

Let us specify that we can find similar forms of mimetism elsewhere in America as if

this were a behavior common to all Indians. Christopher Colombus was the first to notice

the natives capacity for imitation, which S. Greenblatt interpreted as a willingness to

enter into contact and engage in exchanges (Greenblatt 1996 : 156, 163). S. Gruzinski,

concerning the Indians of Mexico, speaks about a frenzy of copying and a

reproductive talent in the domain of the arts furniture, musical instruments, bell

casting, calligraphy, etc. and on the religious level reciting prayers and the catechism,

bell ringing or even the production of Biblical history (Christian theater). But this

mimetism was always controled by the Spaniards. Gruzinski explains this as being the

inexhaustable ingenuity of the Indians, and as the response (regarding the making of

objects) to the demand of a clientele He talks about it as being a dynamic rather

than a principle because this mimetism could, in reality, be a mark of Westernization

(Gruzinski 1999: 94-103).

Mimetism in Franco-Indian America could, we believe, arise from a principle and

a pure rationality consisting, for the natives, of denying the new and of reducing

otherness. The goal of the savage motive [le calcul sauvage], to quote M. Sahlins

(Sahlins 1985: 13-14, 43-44), is to neutralize, rationalize and work through the events

and other realities of unpredictability by subjugating them to the categories of their

own culture. This reasoning echoes the savage mind [la pense sauvage] as defined

by Lvi-Strauss: a thought that classes and weakens nominally the disparity of the world.

We will attempt to demonstrate that the natives tried to cannibalize otherness, since for

them it did not constitute an operative category.

Let us begin with the relationship to native myths. As M. Sahlins demonstrated in

the case of Polynesians, myths are renewed in moments of crisis and urgency in order to

deal with the subversion of time, and this all the more during contact with other

societies and in agitated historical times (Salhins 1985: 7). Historical traditions in

particular, as with all so-called myths or traditional tales (Barbeau 1994: 1-2) come

from a permanent construction, in the sense where culture is transformed historically

through action (Sahlins 1985: 7). In the nineteenth century, the Ojibwas oral tradition,

for example, describes how the arrival of the first French in the region of the Great Lakes

might have been predicted by shamans inspired by visions (Kohl 1985: 244-245; Delge

1992: 101-116; Havard 2003 : 717-719). The function of such an historical tradition is

double. The storyteller first needs to prove the spiritual power of the shamans. But there

is more: prophetic dreams, like the wonders that preceded the arrival of Cortez in

Mexico, also function in order to neutralize the event by reasoning, thereby integrating it

into their mythology. The tales from the oral tradition constitute retrospective prophecies

designed to rationalize the arrival of the Europeans. In the cold societies (socits

froides, as defined by Lvi-Strauss), in fact, novelty does not exist. The extraordinary

and the incredible do not correspond to Indian categories in the sense that the present is

only the daily reiteration of the past, an ideal of perpetuation which dominates these

societies. Myths thus appear as a malleable substance that help to respond to the

challenges of time and novelty by setting into motion the prophetic capacity of

shamans and by emphasizing the power of the manitous.

We can suppose that this theme was present from the era of contact because the

Indians, confronted with the shock of encounters and faced with epidemics were

careful in gaining back confidence in their manitous and in their capacity to communicate

with them. During the years 1650-1660, the Indians had to rationalize the emergence of

French trappers and missionaries by integrating them into their system of reasoning and

by erasing their noticeable otherness. They did not assimilate them as the Other human

being Other, that is but, at least during the very first years, they assimilated them as

manitous who, like animals, were part of a familiar otherness (B. White 1994;

Dsveaux 2001: 279).

This incorporation of Europeans through Indian semantics can also be illustrated

through the image of the Master of Life [Matre de la Vie] which the Indians often

turned to beginning from the second half of the seventeenth century (JR 51: 42-44;

Delge 1991: 56). This image is actually quite problematic since it is difficult to tell

whether it was of native origin or created by the French missionaries, or even whether it

was a syncretic product of encounters. If not concocted by the missionaries to facilitate

their monotheistic approach, the image of the Master of Life could have been invented by

the Indians in order to integrate and cannibalize the Christian message, in reference or

not to their own pantheon (Havard 2003 : 693-695).

The Indians strong ethnocentrism provides us with yet another clue. He who

says Illinois, it is as if he were saying in his language, men, as if the other Savages

around them were only beasts, a Jesuit writes (JR 59: 124). Father Hennepin makes the

same remark about the Iroquois, who refer to themselves as men par excellence, as if all

the other Nations were only beasts next to them (Hennepin 1683: 61-62). This auto-

ethnonymy (real men, human beings, etc.), which consists of denying the Other any

humanity, can be found all over the American continent and even beyond. As Lvi-

Strauss explains, primitive societies set the boundaries of humanity at the tribal group,

outside of which they only see strangers, dirty and unrefined subhumans, or even non-

humans (Lvi-Strauss 1962: 201). Such a vision of the Other, taken from the most

basic discourse of identity (the collective Us situates itself through opposition), is

grounded more fundamentally in the practice of war, which is the most normal mode of

relations with others, even if the enemy, once adopted, can also become an ally.

As anthropologist E. Dsveaux remarks, the sociological arrogance expressed

by this ethnonymy is also tied to the nature of the group itself a realm of alliance

which implies that one considers himself to be superior to others because one usually

chooses his mate among them. The friend of Cavelier de La Salle, H. Tonty,

substantiates this interpretation: Rarely, he writes, do savages marry outside their

nation. The few alliances that exist between these Nations is the cause of this: hate and

jealousy are so prevalent that the only thing they try to do is to make war with others

(Tonti 1720: 18). It is as if the Other, symbolically, did not exist, as if he were denied

the status of human being. The enemy is, in fact, doomed to disappear either physically

(he is killed and sometimes tortured and eaten according to a ritual of dissolution which

in some way relegates him to vacuity), or socially (he is adopted, he becomes one of our

own, and thus he is reborn) (Dsveaux 2001 : 229-306). Dsveaux notes that the enemy,

who does not belong to the group and belongs therefore to a sort of sociological

nothingness, is finally not any different from us. In stating this, he borrows from Lvi-

Strausss idea of an intrinsic transitivity of the transformational system (at work on the

level of myth, but also, Dsveaux believes, at the level of rituals and social

organizations): a group, whichever it may be, finds itself incapable of perceiving the

culture of a neighboring group as being different from his as it is completely intelligible

to him (Dsveaux 2001: 279).

Taking into account this interpretative framework, one first notices that Indian

mimetism is usually not mocking. The imitation of European gestures does not aim at

sarcasm. The only real laughs are the (muffled) ones coming from the French, who

sometimes deride the fact that Indians, in their urgency to imitate them, behave like

clowns. Mimetism, more fundamentally, constituted a kind of game of mirrors for

establishing a dialogue with the Other: Indians thus created a very radical way of

communicating. To imitate the Other is to appropriate difference by cannibalizing it.

This practice, also found at work in the phenomenon of war, expresses the Indians

propensity to dissolve and absorb foreigners adopting them one way or another. Indian

cultures are cannibalistic cultures: they are not concerned with recognizing difference,

but with suppressing it since assimilating the Other the enemy one wishes to annihilate,

the European one tries to imitate is to cancel out ones primary identity as Other. By

assimilating the European aesthetic (as illustrated by the painted buffalo skins), Indians

rationalized European difference by appropriating it symbolically, as if otherness were

simply not conceivable.

We can thus schematically distinguish two pratices at work in the intercultural

arena of Franco-Indian America: a practice of manipulation, which comes from the

paradigm of conquest; and a practice of mimetism which aims to destroy and absorb

differences. The Indian, unlike the Frenchman, does not wish to manipulate, but just to

imitate. This does not mean that he is more naive (this would be to judge him from a

Western point of view), but that his culture does not drive him to subjugate his partner.

By imitating the Frenchman, he is attempting to establish contact, to turn him into an ally

and, to this end, to absorb and melt his culture into his own.

Works and Documents Cited

Primary sources

AC, Archives des Colonies (Archives Nationales, Paris) : srie C13A (correspondance

gnrale, Louisiane)

BOSSU, Jean-Bernard, Nouveaux voyages en Louisiane, 1751-1768, prsent par

Philippe Jacquin, Paris, Aubier-Montaigne, 1980.

BOUGAINVILLE, Louis-Antoine, crits sur le Canada. Mmoires-Journal-Lettres,

Montral, Pelican/Klincksiek, 1993.

CHARLEVOIX, Franois Xavier de, Histoire et description gnrale de la Nouvelle-

France, avec le journal historique dun voyage fait par ordre du roi dans lAmrique

septentrionale (1744), Ottawa, lyse, 3 vol., 1976.

CHARLEVOIX, Franois Xavier de, Journal dun voyage fait par ordre du roi dans

lAmrique septentrionale, (1744), ed. by Pierre Berthiaume, Montral, Presses de

lUniversit de Montral, 2 vol., 1994.

DELIETTE, Mmoire in Th. C. PEASE et R. C. WERNER, d., The French

Foundations 1680-1693, Collection of the Illinois State Historical Library, Vol. XXIII,

Sries franaises, vol. I, Springfield, Illinois, 1934, p. 302-394.

DIEREVILLE, Relation de voyage du Port Royal de lAcadie, ou de la Nouvelle France

suivie de posies diverses (1708), ed. by N. Doiron, Montral, PUM, 1997.

DUMONT DE MONTIGNY, Jean Franois Benjamin, Mmoire de lxx Dxx officier

ingnieur contenant les vnements qui se sont passs la Louisiane depuis 1715 jusqu

prsent, ainsi que ses remarques sur les murs, usages et forces des diverses nations de

lAmrique septentrionale et de ses productions, Coll. Ayer, Ms 257, Newberry Library

(Chicago) .

HENNEPIN, Louis, Description de la Louisiane, nouvellement dcouverte au Sud Ouest

de la Nouvelle-France par ordre du Roy, Paris, Veuve Sbastien Hur, 1683.

JR = THWAITES, Reuben Gold, d., The Jesuit and Allied Documents : Travels and

Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New-France, 1610-1791, Cleveland, Ohio,

1896-1901, 73 vol.

KALM, Pehr, Voyage de Pehr Kalm au Canada en 1749, traduction annote du journal

de route par J. Rousseau et G. Bthune, Montral, Pierre Tisseyre, 1977.

KOHL, Johann Georg, Kitchi-gami, Life Among The Lake Superior Ojibway (1860), St

Paul, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1985.

LAFITAU, Joseph-Franois, Murs des sauvages amricains (1724), Paris, Maspero,

1983, 2 vol.

LA POTHERIE, Claude-Charles Le Roy, BACQUEVILLE DE, Histoire de lAmrique

septentrionale, Paris, Brocas, 1753 (1722), 4 tomes.

LE SUEUR, Archives de la Marine (Archives Nationales, Paris) : 2JJ n56, vol. 115,

Livre X, n 9 : Delisle, Claude, Mmoires de Mr Le Sueur, 1699-1702.

MARGRY, Pierre, d., Dcouvertes et Etablissement des Franais dans lOuest et dans

le Sud de lAmrique Septentrionale, 1614-1754, Mmoires et documents originaux,

Paris, D. Jouaud, 1876-1886, 6 vol

TONTI, Relation de la Louisiane et du fleuve Mississippi, Amsterdam, J. F. Bernard,

1720.

Secondary sources

AMSELLE, Jean-Loup, Logiques mtisses. Anthropologie de lidentit en Afrique et

ailleurs, Paris, Payot, 1990.

AMSELLE, Jean-Loup, Branchements. Anthropologie de luniversalit des cultures,

Paris, Flammarion, 2001.

BACK, Francis, les capitaines de tadoussac, Cap-aux-Diamants, n68, 2002, p. 54.

BARBEAU, C. Marius, Mythologie huronne et wyandotte, avec en annexe les textes

publis antrieurement (1915), dition de Pierre Beaucage, Montral, Les Presses de

lUniversit de Montral, 1994.

BEAULIEU, Alain, Les Hurons de Lorette, le trait Murray et la libert de

commerce, in Denis VAUGEOIS, dir., Les Hurons de Lorette, Sillery, Septentrion,

1996, p. 255-295.

BLY, Lucien, Le roi mon maitre: le service du Roi ltranger vu travers loeuvre

de Franois de Callires, in Socits et idologies des Temps modernes, Hommage

Arlette Jouanna, Universit de Montpellier III, 1996, p. 481-501.

BOCCARA, Guillaume, Guerre et ethnognse mapuche dans le Chili colonial.

Linvention du Soi, Paris, LHarmattan, 1998.

DELAGE, Denys, La religion dans lalliance franco-amrindienne, Anthropologie et

Socits, vol. 15, n1, 1991, p. 15-20.

DELAGE, Denys, Les premiers contacts selon un choix de rcits amrindiens publis

aux XIX et XX sicles, Recherches amrindiennes au Qubec, vol. 22, n2-3, 1992, p.

101-116.

DELAGE, Denys , Les principaux paradigmes de lhistoire amrindienne et ltude de

lalliance franco-amrindienne aux XVIIe et XVIIIe sicles, Revue internationale

dtudes canadiennes, vol. 12, automne 1995, p. 59-60

DESVEAUX, Emmanuel, Quadratura Americana, essai d'anthropologie lvi-

straussienne, Georg, Genve, 2001.

GUENON, Ren, Aperus sur linitiation, Paris, ed. Traditionnelles, 1986

HAVARD, Gilles, Empire et mtissages : Indiens et Franais dans le Pays dEn Haut,

1660-1715, Sillery / Paris, Septentrion / Presses de lUniversit de Paris-Sorbonne, 2003.

JACQUIN, Philippe, Les Indiens blancs : Franais et Indiens en Amrique du Nord,

XVIe-XVIIIe sicles, Paris, Payot, 1987.

LVI-STRAUSS, Claude, La pense sauvage, Paris, Plon, 1962.

MOUSSETTE, Marcel, Archologie dune rencontre : les univers dualistes franais et

amrindiens dans lAmrique septentrionale des XVIIe-XVIIIe sicles, Recherches

amrindiennes au Qubec, vol. 32, n1, 2002, p. 13-27.

MUCHEMBLED, Robert, La socit police. Politique et politesse en France du XVIe

au XXe sicle, Paris, Seuil, 1998.

REDFIELD, R., R. LINTON and M. HERSKOVITS, Memorandum for the Study of

Acculturation, American Anthropologist, vol. 38, p. 149-152, 1936.

SAHLINS, Marshall, Des les dans lhistoire, Paris, Gallimard/Seuil, 1985.

TODOROV, Tzvetan, La Conqute de lAmrique : la question de lautre, Paris, Seuil,

1982.

TURGEON Laurier, Denys DELAGE, et Ral OUELLET, dir., Transferts culturels et

mtissages, Amrique/Europe, XVIe-XXe sicle, Qubec, Presses de luniversit Laval,

1996.

WACHTEL, Nathan, Lacculturation, in J. LE GOFF et P. NORA, d., Faire de

lHistoire, I, Nouveaux problmes, Paris, Gallimard/Folio, 1974, p. 174-202.

WHITE, Bruce M., Encounters with Spirits : Ojibwa and Dakota Theories about the

French and their Merchandise, Ethnohistory, vol. 41, n3, 1994, p. 369-405.

WHITE, Richard, The Middle Ground. Indians, Empires and Republics in the Great

Lakes Region, 1650-1815, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.

[]