Four types of frontiers could be identified in Canada before the 1970s. These included the religious, commercial, settlement and the military.
These could actually be put together into one frontier to represent the control and influence that the French had over the Natives. There were restrictions on which religion to support where to settle and what activities to engage in (Salimey, 2001). Being the leaders, the French dominated all these areas hence leading to frontierism.The account of Canada before 1760 therefore supports frontierism when the author talks about the when he says that the landlords and the clergy dominated the Natives completely.
Careless (1990) notes that Canadian churches were moulded by the frontier environment due to the control of the clergy and the foreign accomplices. On the other hand, the best land went to the colonists. For example, the colonists took over the banks of St. Lawrence River and built their farms along the banks. This was a frontier area and colonists living here called themselves Habitants or Canadiens (Salimey, 2001).Prior to their settlement, the Natives practiced agriculture, planting maize and squash in St.
Lawrence Valley. Dominance of the French drove them out of this fertile land which would now belong to the elite and whose composition was the Frenchmen and a few Natives. The frontier is said to have had a great formative influence which means that the colonists determined the way of life for the Natives (Salimey, 2001). They determined their moral code, religion and how they lived. Having control over the frontier areas, they got to influence the kind of resources available to the Natives at any one given time.Development in Canada could be witnessed but under the control of the French.
The author in the account fails to properly address metropolitanism which was quite evident before 1760. He especially ignores the role played by Metropolitanism in Canada's development. Canada's main metropolitan centre, Montreal was a centre for a wide array of developments. Quebec was similarly developed and this concentration of economic activities and social organization is what brought about development in the area at the time of the New French.
The fur trade especially flourished as a result of the metropolis (Salimey, 2001).The habitats of the metropolitan shared in economic ties as well as social ties. Probably the statement given by the author about Natives falling under the Europeans who brought about trade is the one that supports metropolitanism. Even though the Natives were used to fuel the trade while they did not gain much from the trade, they learnt through these economic networks which were mostly reserved for the colonists (Salimey, 2001). Metropolitanism led to the development of infrastructure as the French strived to make trade and transport easier.To make their lives more comfortable, social amenities such as hospitals and schools for their children were built (Salimey, 2001).
This can be said to have benefited Canada in terms of development long after the French left. The great expansion of the Metropolitan power slowly drove out frontierism as commerce, communication and the economy grew around the Metropolis. Quebec was similarly developed and this concentration of economic activities and social organization is what brought about development in the area at the time of the New French.The metropolitan not only served the transport and communication but also organized the supply of capital as well as marketing of products. The culture of the Natives was affected as well. The author of the account recognizes the nature in which Natives having no religion of their own took to the European's religion.
With metropolitanism, it was much easier for their religion to spread to other Natives as they came to the Metropolis to help the Europeans in trade since they were not allowed to take part in trade at the time.Referring to the changing masters thesis, New France ushered a new authority under King Louis XIV becoming a royal province (Salimey, 2001). This is to mean that the colonists now had superior control over the Natives and their leadership system was replaced. The land was now under French rule and the Natives had to learn to respond to the new system of government. When we talk about the changing masters thesis, we note that there is bound to be confusion as new systems and new rules are put in place to govern the land.
The author of the account does not address this issue even though he acknowledges the fact that the Europeans take a dominant position in the society and literary influence the Natives to a large extent including directing their religious beliefs and economic life. The Natives who had in the past been used to a nomadic lifestyle could not understand the meaning of all this centralized leadership at first. Even though, the royal province leadership strived to help the Quebec community get along. The Natives were important to the administration because they influenced trade and labor to a large extent.The French also needed to expand their population which resulted in intermarriages between the two so that rules were better administered and understood (Salimey, 2001). The religion instilled by missionaries on the Natives replaced the tradition that was present before and their forms of leadership were demolished.
This satisfies the decapitation thesis in de-chairing the native leaders in Quebec. The Seigneurial system that was introduced in New France in 1627 forbade non-Roman Catholics from settling in the area (Salimey, 2001).In this respect, it was like saying that all settlers in the land were required to follow the religion which meant that the Natives had to abandon their ways of life and follow what the French required of them. In the account of Canada before 1760, the author is keen to note that the clergy and the great landlords actually dominated the habitants' lives. It was them that determined the kind of activities they could take part in and what they could not. For example, they were to stay out of entrepreneurship since this was a colonist's area of specialization.
Only fur trading involved the Natives because then, they were in a better position to access the fur which they sold to the merchants (Salimey, 2001). Even then, the prices were oppressive and they had little to show for their efforts. Decapitation as we think of it today could be used to refer to depriving a person of their rights. The author notes that the landlords and the clergy picked out of their pockets without restraint which is an indication of how their earnings were taken away after they had worked so hard for them. Decapitation is therefore evidenced in this account.
