Not too long ago, Creole was an afterthought in Louisiana consciousness. It fell out of popular memory and recognition by World War I, as a large number of Louisiana Creoles abandoned their historic identity and culture for racialized Anglo-American identities (white and negro/colored/black). I wrote about that process extensively in my doctoral thesis, so will not be reinventing the wheel here. There are other scholars in the social sciences and humanities who have also recently published on the topic.1Alexandra GIANCARLO, “‘Don’t call me a Cajun!’ : race and representation in Louisiana’s Acadiana region,” Journal of Cultural Geography 10 (July, 2018); ibid., “Creoles of Louisiana’s Southwest: Race, place, and belonging,” doctoral thesis, Queen’s University (Ontario, Canada), 2017; Darryl G. Barthé, “Becoming American in Creole New Orleans: Family, Community, Labor and Schooling, 1896-1949,” doctoral thesis, University of Sussex (Brighton, United Kingdom), 2016; Sara Le Menestrel, Negotiating Difference in French Louisiana Music: Categories, Stereotypes and Identifications (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2014).
Since around 2010, Creole is back in popular use and academic discourse, and not in the racialized way that many today often use the identity. Scholars are looking at Louisiana Créolité with far greater nuance, and public history is presenting a much fuller picture of Latin Louisiana history and culture than ever before. A fair amount of scholars and ordinary Louisianians who previously Cajunized everything Latin in the state, are now walking back on those earlier positions they once held, and many locals are now returning to a non-racialized Louisiana Creole identity. It has been exhilarating watch it all unfold, in such a short amount of time.
People can disagree on interpretation of information and opinion, but they cannot disagree with facts. The distinction between fact and opinion seemed relatively straight forward through my twenties. Wikipedia, Google, Facebook and Twitter arrived (not in that order) and ordinary people now think of themselves as experts on whichever topic. Consequently, today in the U.S., “fact” is often conflated with “opinion” among residents and politicians alike, showing their vulnerability to emotional appeal and preference for anything confirming their convictions. My personal experience, as I bring academic work to the public domain, is that many people simply refuse to read any facts challenging their opinions.
We find a large number of likeminded people in Louisiana and in the Louisiana Creole diaspora. They are not necessarily unkind or unintelligent people. But they forcefully cling to the dominant Cajun narrative in spite of facts presented to them. Just peruse Facebook groups like the Cajun French Virtual Table Francais [sic] or FRENCH Creoles [sic], or even on fanpages like KATC TV3’s, and you will see what I mean.
As these discussions on Louisiana’s actual history and cultural evolution reach and penetrate the popular sphere, there is a phenomenon worthy of consideration. It goes something like this: folks are digesting this new look at Louisianité (the quality of being Louisianian), and are more willing today than 10 years ago to acknowledge the facts that scholars and other researchers are presenting. But they tend to obsessively remark that “Creole originally meant …” They then go on to point out, God knows from what original source, that Creole “was for European descendants only” – read: white-only identity (never mind that Europeans left plenty of nonwhite descendants along the way). And they also tend to refer to Creole as a “term” rather than an identity. This position is ubiquitous enough for anyone who reads social media to attest that it is virtually omnipresent.
Microaggression /ˌmīkrōəˈɡreSHən/
a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority.”
As best I can see, this obsession over the etymology (first use of a word) over Creole is some kind of microagression. Microagressions are mostly subconscious, very subtle remarks, that ultimately seek to undermine whatever or whoever is topic of convo. The microagresser therefore is usually unaware of their conduct. All humans do this at some point. It does not make it okay, though.
Placing Louisiana Créolité in this context, obsessing over the etymology of the word Creole itself has three effects. First, it impedes looking at Creole Louisiana for what it has been and currently is. Second, it is a way to continually disclaim a shared genealogical and cultural relationship with people of opposite “races.” Third, constantly discussing the etymology of Louisiana Créolité, permits the speaker to couch Cajunité (Cajunness) and Créolité in some “pure racial” idea. In the pure race world, inhabitants do not mix, borrow from one another, live among one another, or share common ancestors. Because Americans (and now Americanized Creoles) associate race-mixing with Creole, it becomes essential to stress the “original use” of Creole, which eliminates people of color co-opting and perverting Creole.
For the last 20 years, I have devoted my life to Creole Louisiana history, genealogy, and culture. I have in my possession well over 20,000 pages of original documents spanning 300 years. I use new primary sources every week, even today. The original records do not support this racial purity idea of Creole in Louisiana. I have even demonstrated that, from the beginning of Louisiana history, Creole identity was shared by people whose parents were born in Africa, Africa and Europe, or only from Europe. Despite continuous work with primary sources, and sharing those sources with the public, the desire to find or conceptualize a racially pure idea of Creole, persists.
Even if microagressors are correct, that “Creole originally meant white,” they are missing that all words in human language evolve over time, and so are constantly changing. Today, “black” and “Cajun” are identities but before 1960, they were both insults. Kawènn/caouin has two meanings in Kouri-Vini and Louisiana French today. One is turtle (the animal). The other is vagina. Melvin Caesar, a well known Louisiana Creole, once told me that it was a Zydeco artist that repurposed caouin in his music, to mean vagina. In the 16th and 17th centuries, “American” was used by the British to refer to the inhabitants they found in the Americas during colonization. In the 1640s, white-identified folks born on the eastern seaboard repurposed American as identity for descendants of Europeans-only.
All of this considered, the question now is: why do folks continue to think they share nothing or little with people they view of a different “race,” and why do they not celebrate their shared history, genealogy, and culture, with them?
– Christophe Landry
Featured image is of a “Creole Gentleman,” by portraitist François Bernard, oil on canvas, 1870. Original in possession of the Historic New Orleans Collection. Digital copy retrieved from the Louisiana Digital Library.
References
| 1. | ↑ | Alexandra GIANCARLO, “‘Don’t call me a Cajun!’ : race and representation in Louisiana’s Acadiana region,” Journal of Cultural Geography 10 (July, 2018); ibid., “Creoles of Louisiana’s Southwest: Race, place, and belonging,” doctoral thesis, Queen’s University (Ontario, Canada), 2017; Darryl G. Barthé, “Becoming American in Creole New Orleans: Family, Community, Labor and Schooling, 1896-1949,” doctoral thesis, University of Sussex (Brighton, United Kingdom), 2016; Sara Le Menestrel, Negotiating Difference in French Louisiana Music: Categories, Stereotypes and Identifications (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2014). |
Dr. Landry, thank you again for exploring the depths of our Creole Heritage, It is written somewhere, “you can bring a horse to the water, but you can’t make the horse drink.” It’s evident whatever facts you present in your documented writings it will always be those who think they know but do not. However, your core readers will forever be grateful for you tireless works.
Best Regards,
Omar
Again Dr. Landry, excellent article. Your statement, “They are not necessarily unkind or unintelligent people. But they forcefully cling to the dominant Cajun narrative in spite of facts presented to them.” Is absolutely correct!!!!
Please keep the narrative going, there are those that troll Creole sites to keep the dominant Cajun narrative going and suppress anything not cajun. Speaking as though they are the only authority in this area, and anyone who isn’t pro-cajun is anti-cajun and that is absolutely not the case….but they use that position to exclude Creoles.
“…why do they not celebrate their shared history, genealogy, and culture…?” Indeed. Thank you for persisting in educating the public with a clear, honest and articulate voice.
Respectfully disagree with some fundamental assertions on etymology of the meaning of the ‘Creole’ in this article.
Would like to discuss further.
What is the best venue?
This website was designed to have these types of discussions so that the public may have access to resources. You say you “fundamentally disagree with some fundamental assertions on …” The article does not discuss the etymology of Creole; it argues that people in Louisiana (always when they disclaim people of an opposing “race” in my experience) run to ideas about etymology, and fail to understand that all words in human languages are constantly evolving. That is related but seperate from the way that Creole was first used in human history. So, I am unsure how you can disagree with something not discussed in the article.
Along those same lines, you speak about “assertions” regarding the etymology of Creole. There can be none if I did not discuss the etymology of Creole.
“The article does not discuss the etymology of Creole; it argues that people in Louisiana (always when they disclaim people of an opposing “race” in my experience) run to ideas about etymology, and fail to understand that all words in human languages are constantly evolving. That is related but separate from the way that Creole was first used in human history. So, I am unsure how you can disagree with something not discussed in the article.”
I agree with Dr. Landry. It’s a very clear, and honest reply to Mr. DeCuir’s concerns regarding the “definitions” of “Creole” which were not at issue in this article.
However, I’m sure that Dr. Landry can provide historical documentation which belies the later 19th century Anglo-American, French-hating culture known as Creole, which as an adjective, simply distinguished our foreign-born ancestors of any ethnicity from their COLONIAL-BORN descendants, be they free, enslaved, and including any products, food, animals, houses etc. produced in the colonies of the former French Colonial Empire.
The LATER Anglo-American era “definitions’ were imposed, and made up, by White Creoles as denoting an elite, but fictional aristocratic group of people-excluding all others who, by French definitions, were all Creoles all along, occurred in New Orleans and traveled upriver into the French-speaking triangle, later relabeled disingenously relabeled “Acadiana” in 1971, and falsely giving credit to the Acadians for Louisiana’s 300 yr + culture; a culture whose gumbos and sauce piquantes and etouffees remain UNKNOWN in Acadian and Canadian to this day, as is their native tradition of French.
Créole, as used in the earliest colonial documents of 16th century Portuguese colonial times, first referred to African slaves as “Creole” in that they were “born in the colonies” in distinction for foreign-imported slaves.
The French used this same generic term, an adjective, when referring to all colonial-born people and products-without reference to skin color or phenotype, in distinction to their foreign-born parents or patriarchs. But, it was used to designate the first white child born in the colony at Mobile, Alabama. Initially, there were no black slaves or Creole (“colonial-born slaves” until later.
This fact is also quite evident in ecclesiastical and notarial records from Mobile, Alabama, the first capitol of the Louisiana Purchase territory, in New Orleans, New Roads, Opelousas, La. to Natchitoches, and beyond; all the way across the former Louisiana Purchase territory during the French and Spanish colonial eras.
So, a person was “Créole” by virtue of birth-and acculturation-in the Roman Catholic colonies of French and Spanish Louisiana. Additionally, the adjective “creole” was applied to tomatoes, horses, houses, foods, and languages, when and if these were produced in the colony.
To this day, the French refer to the children of French parents who are born in their former colonies as “Creoles” without regard to phenotype, in distinction to themselves who were born in the homeland; notwithstanding, later, American-period representations which erroneously confound “Creole” with imaginary aristocratic and exclusively white ethnicities, or Latin physical characteristics of “bright skin” and “good hair” -all of which “definitions” reflect a desperate attempt to accommodate the feared Anglo-American socio-political and racial template of “black versus white” -an issue which was irrelevant at the time of the genesis of Louisiana’s “Creole peoplehood” in the French colonial period under Louis XIV who even encouraged interracial marriages between freed former slaves, and all free peoples, based upon the shared identity of all Frenchmen and their Creole colonial citizens-descendants, white, red, black, yellow and brown-the Roman Catholic faith.
Complicating matters, the later twentieth century “Cajunization” movement was as much a political response of insecure white Creole-métis families to manage fears of racial confusion, and consequential socio-economic privations, as it was any pretended attempt to “honor the long-neglected Acadians.” Thus, inadvertently, Cajunization aided and abetted the progressive, scientific and academic investigation of the Creole-métis, Euro- African- and Caribbean roots of our Louisiana Creole cultural peoplehood.
Illustrating the 18th century French colonial understanding of “Creole” is a passage found in the 3-volume work of French Creole writer, lawyer, historian Médéric Louis Moreau de St. Méry (1751– 1811) of Saint Domingue, now Haiti, and once France’s wealthiest plantation colony. St. Méry’s comments are quite straightforward, and leave no confusion as to what it meant to refer to someone as a “créole.” *
In describing the population of Saint Domingue in the 18th century, he says:
“…il y’a les creols blancs; les creols de couleur, et les creols nègres.” (…there are white creoles, creoles of color, and black creoles).
1
*Description topographique, physique, civile, politique et historique de la partie francaise de l’isle Saint-Domingue. : Avec des observations générales sur la population, sur le caractère & les moeurs de ses divers habitans; sur son climat, sa culture, ses productions, son administration, &c. &c. Accompagnées des détails les plus propres à faire connâitre l’état de cette colonie à l’époque du 18 octobre 1789; et d’une nouvelle carte de la totalité de l’isle, M. L. E. (Médéric Louis Elie, 1750-1819). Original publication date 1797.
In this sense, children of Germans, Italians, French, Canadians, Acadians, Africans, Swiss families born in the colonial period and acculturated in French, Spanish & Colonial Louisiana were all considered “Créole.” And, Louisiana’s colonial and historical documents show this to be the case.
Her Louisiana-born descendants were no longer authentically European, French, Canadian, African, Spanish, Swiss, Portuguese, Italian, Irish or German, or Acadian; they were “colonials” or Créole. And, their Euro- Afro-Caribbean cousins never let them forget it. They understood, and embraced this distinction, as their own unique identity.
Each colony across the former French maritime would develop a unique, but kindred, Creole character reflecting its specific historical, ethnic, linguistic and geographical ingredients; its own “Creole peoplehood.”
Suggested Reading
“Creole Cultures and the Process of Creolization: With Special Attention to Louisiana” by Dr. Berndt Ostendorf, as found in Dr. John Lowe’s Louisiana Culture from the Colonial Era to Katrina. Baton Rouge: LSU Press 2008, 103-135.
French, Cajun, Creole, Houma: A Primer on Francophone Louisiana, Dr. Carl A. Brasseaux, Louisiana State University Press, 2016
Masterless MistressesMasterless Mistresses: The New Orleans Ursulines and the Development of a New World Society, 1727-1834, Dr. Emily Clark, 2017, Tulane University, New Orleans.
Dr. Landry thank you for providing us teachable moments through your profound literary works. I am an 8th generation descendant of the rich creole heritage of Louisiana and was completely blown away when I saw my 5th removed great aunt’s name in your introduction. Azelie LaVigne was the sister of my 5th removed great grandmother Manette LaVigne Duberalde. As a child I too fell under the belief that being creole premised on how fair one’s hue was or rather how close one’s appearance matched that of their European ancestors, as this is what was taught by those of lighter complexions. I’m presently investigating the lineage of my 6th removed g-grandmother Marie Jeanne Chalambert f.w.o.c. born in 1768. She is the natural mother of Manette and Azelie. Her french surname is one of uniqueness in that it appears, based on the little information I’ve managed to unearth on her through my limited research, she is the only one in New Orleans born with it. Perhaps you’ve made mention of this family in some of your previous works, and if so, I’d love to know. You have become my go-to person for all things pertaining to the creole people of Louisiana.
Dr. Landry what a great piece on the origin of Creole. What astonished me most though was your beginning reference to my 5th removed great aunt Azelie LaVigne and her son Joseph St. Amant.