French Creoles/Cajuns

[Gooding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Creole_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajuns


I was approached earlier today and I was asked a question:thumb001:
I really love questions like these because they kind of boost my obsession with genealogy and frankly, this particular question was very good.In modern parlance,French Creoles are indeed considered to be those who are of mixed French, African,Spanish and Amerind ancestry.The only thing is, and I must point this out, those folks are normally called simply Creoles.The wonder of Louisiana is that every family is unique.Now, Cane River Creoles are certainly of mixed racial origin.Certain families of Southwestern Louisiana, such as the Pecots, the Armelins, the Perrets and others, however, are quite French and have mixed with the local Cajun families such as the Prejeans or the Pellerins.
The upside of this is that most of these families are descended from aristocratic houses and have honorable pedigrees that lead back to French,Spanish and/or German regions, among others.The downside of this is that these noble lines have crisscrossed so much that negative effects of inbreeding can be and are often observed among the natives of the region.
As the world gets smaller, especially since the Katrina disaster, these families will become more dispersed and outbreeding(types a living example of such) will hopefully strengthen and enrich the uniquely Southern cultures of both Cajuns and Creoles, at home in Louisiana and in Derangement all over the country and the world.
Thoughts?

[Electronic God-Man]

Well, as I thought before, I thought that all "creoles" were mixed race and that most (but not all) Cajuns were purely French, if not European.

Not to be an asshole, but I would still question the "unmixedness" of any Creoles from Louisiana. I am sure that that will draw discussion, haha. :cool:

[Psychonaut]

Well, as I thought before, I thought that all "creoles" were mixed race and that most (but not all) Cajuns were purely French, if not European.

That's my understanding as well. However, that particular definition of Creole that Gooding provides is somewhat modern. In the seventeen and eighteen hundreds, any Cajun who mixed with even the other "white" ethnic groups in Louisiana was considered a creole. This included the Germans (mostly from Baden), the Spanish (from the Canary Islands) and even the "foreign" French who came straight over from France. Nowadays Cajun refers to to any Louisianian of predominately French descent, but until fairly recently it was strictly reserved for the descendants of the Acadian exiles. Up until the 1800s the church marriage records made it very clear whether one was Acadian, "foreign" French, or some kind of Creole.

As an interesting side note (I just learned this a few days ago), the shift from the term Acadian to Cajun follows the same pronunciation shift as Indian to Injun. :shrug:

[Lenny]

the shift from the term Acadian to Cajun follows the same pronunciation shift as Indian to Injun. :shrug:

What do you mean by "pronunciation shift": Indian-->Injun is just a corruption of the original word, pronounced in the lazy drawl of the Southern states in the USA. Right?

[Psychonaut]

What do you mean by "pronunciation shift": Indian-->Injun is just a corruption of the original word, pronounced in the lazy drawl of the Southern states in the USA. Right?

Lazy drawl? Come on... :nono:

But yes, it is a Southern pronunciation/spelling shift that (amongst French words at least) happened to quite a few words with -dian and -dien suffixes.

[Lenny]

Lazy drawl? Come on... :nono:Relaxed? What would you call it? :D

It's so hot in the summer that no one cares to use the muscle to contort the mouth to make hard sounds anymore. That's my explanation for it. :)


Here's another question: Do Cajuns speak English noticeably differently than "Anglos" from nearby?

[Barreldriver]

What do you mean by "pronunciation shift": Indian-->Injun is just a corruption of the original word, pronounced in the lazy drawl of the Southern states in the USA. Right?

Indian = Injun whilst Acadian = Cajun the cadian in Acadian becomes Cajun, so I'd guess the progression would've gone Acadian to Acajun to Cajun. Dian is usually substituted with a jun.

[Gooding]

Perhaps the propensity of somebody from that region of the world to pronounce their "dians" as "juns" simply because it might be a more compact way of saying it?LOL, I do stand by my distinction between the white French Creoles and the black/mixed race Creoles as well.:p
I do find it funny how names and claims to those names can galvanize debate, because for the longest time,I thought that the Cajuns were the mixed race and the Creoles were white. :D
Growing up, I believed that Creole meant "person of French and/or Spanish parentage born in Louisiana", in short, someone of European parentage born in the New World.That understanding was given to me by someone who understood the term "French Creole" in its late nineteenth century sense, though.:) My two cents and "Laissez les bons temps rouler!"

[Psychonaut]

Here's another question: Do Cajuns speak English noticeably differently than "Anglos" from nearby?

Very. Cajun English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_English) is what more than a few of my relatives who grew up only speaking French would use around me. It's an odd mixture of Cajun French and English (Franglais perhaps :D).


do stand by my distinction between the white French Creoles and the black/mixed race Creoles as well.:p

There certainly is, it's just a distinction that get's lost nowadays.


I thought that the Cajuns were the mixed race

You're not alone. This perception is common enough that my family has been referring to ourselves as Acadians rather than Cajuns for years now just to clear things up. The funny thing about that is, until the last 20 or 30 years, Cajuns were probably the most endogamous ethnic group in the US.

[Gooding]

LOL,ah yes, the "kissing kin" that newcoming Americans would accuse us of being when Louisiana was a new U.S. territory.The isolation of the bayous and also the fairly remote culture I think greatly contributed to the endogamy.There was some outmarriage early on (the Germans, Spanish and francaises du France) that did strengthen the gene pool somewhat and provided elements of diversity that I believe made this culture a quite distinctive one.:)
My grandmother was a third parent to me and my sister when we were growing up and I take great pride in my French Creole/Cajun heritage, even if it is only 1/8 of my background, so I use the adjective "us" every now and then when discussing the Louisiana French.

[Gooding]

Naturally, that last post just sort of leads to how this culture can survive in the Derangement, or the Diaspora, if you like.With hurricanes,poverty and job commitments displacing people, who then disperse all over the country,marrying those natives in the places they've settled in and raising families, how can these cultures survive in exile?English will replace the French language as the mother tongue of these families by the second and third generation, so that the blood quantum and cultural affinities may lessen.What would be the best way to keep the French Creole/Cajun culture functional in these cases?

[Lenny]

What would be the best way to keep the French Creole/Cajun culture functional in these cases?The decline of the USA and the rise of a French-Cajun ethnostate would do it.

That is definitely one of the most coherent identities that could logically give rise to a local nationalism, in a theoretical post-USA North America. As far as most people forgetting the language, children can easily learn "new" (or, old) languages.

[SouthernBoy]

There was some outmarriage early on (the Germans, Spanish and francaises du France) that did strengthen the gene pool somewhat and provided elements of diversity that I believe made this culture a quite distinctive one. I'm tired of this "strengthening the gene pool" nonsense. What are the real effects of inbreeding on human populations? Is exogamy really benefical to humanity?

As I see it, it reduces phenotypic variation, causes phylogenetic regression, disrupts tradition, lends itself to conflict, destroys cultures, stifles human happiness, and carries with it it's own set of medical issues.

[Absinthe]

I'm tired of this "strengthening the gene pool" nonsense. What are the real effects of inbreeding on human populations? Is exogamy really benefical to humanity?

As I see it, it reduces phenotypic variation, causes phylogenetic regression, disrupts tradition, lends itself to conflict, destroys cultures, stifles human happiness, and carries with it it's own set of medical issues.
Are you suggesting folks should marry their cousins? :p

[SouthernBoy]

Are you suggesting folks should marry their cousins? :pI was suggesting that people not miscegenate. :rolleyes:

[stormlord]

I'm tired of this "strengthening the gene pool" nonsense. What are the real effects of inbreeding on human populations? Is exogamy really benefical to humanity?

As I see it, it reduces phenotypic variation, causes phylogenetic regression, disrupts tradition, lends itself to conflict, destroys cultures, stifles human happiness, and carries with it it's own set of medical issues.

Yeah, when pc people use scientific examples they don;t understand to justify interracial relationships they sound fairly moronic.

As I know it the general rule in breeding is that hybrid vigour only lasts for a generation or so, giving way to outbreeding depression thereafter (the reason why crossed animals can be high quality specimens, but crosses aren't bred). Generally it's accepted amongst scientists (who don't have a political agenda) that inbreeding and outbreeding is bad. Marrying a first cousin causes genetic defects, and marrying someone completely unrelated is likely to wipe out beneficial traits that have evolved within a specific group. Generally it's considered ideal to (this sounds dodgy but it's true) breed with very distant relatives, i.e.that's the way humans have evolved, living in groups of a few hundred. People had it right in the past; people who lived in very small communities would tend to marry someone from the nearest village; related enough to avoid genetic mutations while retaining beneficial traits.

[Gooding]

Yeah, when pc people use scientific examples they don;t understand to justify interracial relationships they sound fairly moronic.

As I know it the general rule in breeding is that hybrid vigour only lasts for a generation or so, giving way to outbreeding depression thereafter (the reason why crossed animals can be high quality specimens, but crosses aren't bred). Generally it's accepted amongst scientists (who don't have a political agenda) that inbreeding and outbreeding is bad. Marrying a first cousin causes genetic defects, and marrying someone completely unrelated is likely to wipe out beneficial traits that have evolved within a specific group. Generally it's considered ideal to (this sounds dodgy but it's true) breed with very distant relatives, i.e.that's the way humans have evolved, living in groups of a few hundred. People had it right in the past; people who lived in very small communities would tend to marry someone from the nearest village; related enough to avoid genetic mutations while retaining beneficial traits.

Excellent, excellent.If you read my post, you'd understand that I was referring to one European ethnic group marrying into another European ethnic group.Yes, my family, on all sides, did have the propensity to marry more or less distant kin.Until the early twentieth century, when my grandparents on both sides met,married and procreated in D.C., so my parents and I could do the same in Northern Virginia.My wife and my daughter resemble me, although I didn't have the "benefit" of some arranged marriage with a related stranger down in Charenton,St.Mary's Parish,Louisiana, which was the birthplace of my great grandmother.:rolleyes: We're quite happy, although my amorousness does get to my wife now and again.:D As it has been pointed out to me, tribalism is no longer possible and that might not be so bad, as newer white groups might strengthen the gene pool.Back to my break.If I'm politically correct, then it must be politically correct to stand for the integrity of one's people and one's land.It's a brave new world out there.:)

[SouthernBoy]

...newer white groups might strengthen the gene pool. How?

[Gooding]

Well, I do disagree with miscegenation.Whites belong with whites.To answer your question,I will cite European history as an example.When certain societies,such as those of the ancient Roman Empire, began to decay, newer Germanic groups rushed in.Europeans are nomadic by nature and they do tend to breed with similar folk.I'm just suggesting for the French Creoles/Cajuns to follow the pattern that's kept Europe's racial integrity strong for nearly two millenia.Sure,it would be in a New World setting, but it's possible with folks coming in from Europe,new American and Colonial American families simply letting nature take its course and maybe teaching and being taught by the French of Louisiana.French Creole/Cajun culture will of course continue to evolve, but you know enthusiastic folk eager to fit in might do much to revive old French Creole/Cajun language,culture and lore.

[stormlord]

Excellent, excellent.If you read my post, you'd understand that I was referring to one European ethnic group marrying into another European ethnic group.

Excellent, excellent, if you'd read my post you'd see I didn't refer to you :D
What I said wasn't targeted at you, but a response to SouthernBoy's post, truth be told I accidentally skipped past the first page and didn't even see your post, so there's no need to get animated :p

[Gooding]

Excellent, excellent, if you'd read my post you'd see I didn't refer to you :D
What I said wasn't targeted at you, but a response to SouthernBoy's post, truth be told I accidentally skipped past the first page and didn't even see your post, so there's no need to get animated :p

Right on:thumb001: