Cajun "tribe"

[Lulletje Rozewater]

OK. I got a question for you then. What is the difference between a Boer and an Afrikaner? You said the cultures were different, I always thought modern Afrikaners were descendants of Boers.

As for your question about Britain: Pretty much Britain fits in because they had ruled Acadia at the time. The British and French were fighting over that land. the French had an outpost in Louisbourg, the British had an outpost in Halifax, and the Acadians lived around what is now the Annapolis Valley. The order to expel the Acadians from Nova Scotia was drawn up by the British Governor Charles Lawrence because, as I said before, the Acadians did not want to sign an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.

Read this slowly

During some of the various posts I have contributed here & elsewhere there have been those who sought to impugn or marginalize the discernment & insight I have gained from the many years I have spent looking into & reading up on the Boer people. Westerners often do not realize & even refuse to acknowledge the Boers as a people indigenous to the African landscape who were formed in an era preceding the arrival of the Colonial powers. Certain non-White racial Nationalists can not see beyond the general paleness of their skin as though their colour disqualifies them from being a homegrown people tied to the African continent. Then there are those who ignore the anthropologically distinct origin of Boers on the Cape frontiers & refuse to recognize the Boers as a distinct entity from the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population.


The advocating of self determination for an ethic / cultural group is not about "dividing" the said ethnic group from any other related ethnic group but rather about empowering that ethnic group in question. All throughout history whenever an ethnic or national group wanted freedom from oppression & to find self determination for itself: they have often had to do so on their own as many others [ even closely related groups ] refused to support them or even wanted freedom for themselves. Just as when the Boers were seeking self determination on the Cape frontier & later beyond: the Cape Dutch did not support such moves & refused even to struggle for their own freedom from Colonialism. The long standing anti Colonial outlook of the Boers' & their centuries long struggle for self determination has always been one of their most striking & contrasting features when juxtaposed next to the pro Colonial & anti-independence Cape Dutch / Afrikaner population.


The pro status quo sentiment of the latter & their modern descendents is the consensus outlook within the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population while a significant portion of the Boer descendents have never abandoned their republican & independent outlook nor their long standing desire for self determination. While there are of course exceptions to this generalization [ ie: Cape Dutch descendents looking for independence & some pro status quo Boer descendents ] due to basic numbers: the Boers [ & others ] looking for independence will always be outnumbered within the macro Afrikaner designation by those who are not in favour of independence or of secessionist proposals. The notion of intermarriage is a moot point because individuals often assimilated into the culture they live among just as no one would dispute that former President Vicente Fox of Mexico is a Mexican despite having an American grand father. When the Czechs & Slovaks opted for independence in 1993 no one asserted that they were "diving" the West Slavs because the point of the secession was not division but self determination. Czechoslovakia was a macro State which lumped two related but distinct groups together. I set out over 15 years ago now to learn about the Boer people in particular [ which by its very nature entails sifting them out from the bulk of the macro Afrikaner population ] & to research their history & the context in which they exist in the modern era. The Afrikaner domination of the Boers is a discernible reality which one inevitably will encounter while investigating the topic & can not be ignored for whatever reason as it plays a significant part in the suppression of the Boer people in their continuous efforts at finding self determination.




The main reason I ever started pointing out the valid distinction of the Boers from the Afrikaners was due to being constantly exposed to Westerners' total ignorance on the topic & their irritating / unjust & continuous erroneous assertions that the Boers were "responsible" for the behaviour & laws which were enacted in the 20th cent by a people who in fact marginalized the actual Boers This ignorant behaviour is tantamount to accusing the Acadians of passing Bill 101. [ The French language law in Quebec. ] based solely on an erroneous assumption that all French speakers in Canada "must be" Acadian. It is evident that many people have a glaring blind spot when it comes to the actual Boer people because a lot of folks make sweeping presumptions based solely on the fact that the folks who ran South Africa in the 20th cent were generally White & Afrikaans speaking & automatically presuming [ or rather jumping to conclusions ] that these White Afrikaans speakers were all descended from the Boers while never once taking the time to discern that this is mathematically impossible as the actual Boer people have always been outnumbered by the erstwhile Cape Dutch: the Afrikaners of the Western Cape who have had a totally different outlook to the Boers who developed on the frontier.


When I note the Boers as distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners: I am not trying to "divide" [ as though a marginal blogger such as myself even has the power to do so ] them from anything they do not wish to be divided from [ in fact it is totally their own decision even if they should all wish to remain part of South Africa & hope for the best ] because I am trying to do justice to the actual Boer people & their centuries long just struggle for self determination.


The problem is that a lot of people forget or do not realize that the Boers have had to struggle not just against the Dutch & British powers in the past for self determination but they have also had to struggle against the Afrikaner power as well. The first notable example of this was with the Maritz Rebellion of 1914 but the most blatant example of this was during the 1940s when the drive to restore the Boer Republics was popular among the Boers [ massively so ] & was only stopped because the Afrikaner establishment broke it up fearing it as a threat to their control & even later when Robert van Tonder left the National Party in 1961 in order to advocate for the restoration of the Boer Republics as he felt that they were being betrayed [ 1 ] under Hendrik Verwoerd who created a nominal republic for the macro State of South Africa that exact same year. Boervolk Radio Chairman Theuns Cloete noted publicly that key Afrikaner leaders [ even those who were political opponents ] organized & broke the Boer Republican movement of the 1940s down to nothing. [ 2 ]


Therefore to simply ignore the Afrikaner dynamic in the subversion of the Boer people is to perpetuate a grave injustice against the Boers as the Afrikaner establishment has routinely worked against Boer aspirations of independence & self determination. It has been repeatedly observed that the erstwhile Cape Dutch have never had a struggle for freedom. This is due to the salient fact that they were often quite content with Colonial rule [ 3 ] & could not understand why anyone would want to be independent from the Colonial powers they admired. While the Boers on the other hand have had numerous freedom struggles & have had a strong desire for independence from the start & were formed as a distinct people on the Cape frontier over this independence desire when they trekked out of Colonial society & into the Cape frontier during the late 17th cent & were initially known as Trekboers. The Boers therefore have a long history of anti Colonialism. A sentiment which eventually led to the establishment of upwards of 17 Boer Republics from 1795 to the late 19th cent. When the macro State of South Africa was created & the Boers were subjugated & forced into it: the Boer Republican outlook was soon replaced by the neo empire building of the Afrikaners who institutionalized laws which are often ignorantly blamed on the actual Boer people who had a very minimal role in the implementation of the said laws ergo any conflation of the subjugated Boers with the larger Afrikaners only further perpetuates an injustice against the Boer people who were now under the domination of the Afrikaner network.


No people anywhere on Earth can ever hope to find authentic self determination if they are forced to be tethered to another ethnic / cultural group [ particularly one which is either unsympathetic to them or might even work against them ] even if they might happen to share a language. It is for that reason why there exists separates states / collectivities / provinces for the Germans & Austrians. The Serbs & Croats. The Romanians & Moldovans. The Canadians & the Americans. The Quebecois & Acadians. Etc. Few would tell the Basque people to give up their struggle for self determination just because they are under the Spanish State or have "intermarried" with the Spanish people. The only way for the Boers to find self determination is to do so as Boer people because anything else is just a license to dispossess them further under a macro designation which was only ever used in the first place in order to achieve such a goal. [ 4 ]


Few would assert that the Coloureds are all one nation or not recognize the Cape Malays as a distinct group from the Griquas & recognize that they are both distinct from the macro Coloured population. Few would argue that Xhosas & Zulus no longer exist & that they are all one nation. Despite their common Nguni origins. But for some strange reason there are those who would deny the Boers their distinct nationality & argue that they are not distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaner population.


When Dixie declared independence no one claimed it was "dividing" the North American English speaker. [ The assertion was that it was diving a "union" re: macro State ( which was supposed to be voluntary) but not a monolithic people. ] When the various countries of South America were established no one asserted that it was "dividing" the local Spanish speakers. Cultural groups are organic & are the result of anthropologically distinct histories. The desire of self determination is the natural process of cultural groups to take responsibility for their own well being & to defend themselves from forces which are detrimental to their long term survival.


The homepage of the old Stop Boer Genocide web site specifically noted that the Boers are a distinct entity from the Afrikaners. Therefore no one should have to endue attacks for simply noting what others [ who are more directly related to defending the Boer people ] have already mentioned themselves. These attacks only serve to obscure the distinct struggles & history of the Boer people which is probably the whole point of the cavalier attacks in the first place.


The point of pointing out this valid distinction is not about "dividing" but rather about raising cognizance of the fact that the Boers can not find the self determination that they seek & have been struggling for centuries now so long as they remain under the tutelage of a powerful & well funded Afrikaans speaking network which works hard to keep them on the Afrikaner reservation which works at maintaining the Boers as a colonized people under the suzerainty of the macro State of South Africa & at the mercy of its neo colonial surrogate ruling regime which is in fact tied to the Afrikaner financial [ 5 ] power.


Not enough generations have passed to have merged the two groups as the different political outlooks between the two are still evident. All one has to do is to contrast the sentiments of the mainstream Afrikaans media outlets with that of the actual Boer people. Afrikaner academics even use crafty techniques when they assert that the independence outlook of the Boers "is not within the mainstream of Afrikaner thought." [ direct quote ] Well no kidding genius because the Boers are only a segment of the macro Afrikaner grouping - ergo even if every single Boer were to stand up & say they want independence [ or even just like the colour blue for that matter ] the Afrikaner academics could still claim that Boer thought "is not within the mainstream of Afrikaner thought" thereby marginalizing them as though they are just some fringe movement that "average" Afrikaners need not pay any attention to. Are the anti-Boer neo Afrikaner Nationalists starting to wake up to the danger of the proposed "unity" they seek to propagate? Do they not consider just who will ultimately control such a language based union?


Consider also the fact that if White Afrikaans unity becomes such an "important" political goal: then what is to stop the natural progression & calls for White "unity" / South African "unity" / African "unity: / Global "unity"! [ As is already happening ] Notice more dangers to ethnic / national independence? Do not be fooled that you can call for one type of "unity" & be able to refuse the others because as history has clearly shown [ especially in South Africa ] one call for "unity" will only embolden & "legitimize" [ there is the real danger as even the illegitimate macro State of South Africa has an "air of legitimacy" as a result of just such "unity" behaviour ] other calls for "unity" until everyone will be dispossessed of their inherent national [ or folk ] right to self determination.


Furthermore an eclectic range of personalities & vast array of sources have noted this distinction as well. The following notable folks ALL recognize the distinction between Afrikaner & Boer: Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio & Boer Separatist / Adriana Stuijt: a Dutch born former South African journalist / the late Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party & founder of Randburg / William McWhirter of Time Magazine / Noel Mostert former Canadian journalist. Arthur Kemp former South African policeman / author. Fred Rundle long time Boer self determination activist. Malcolm & Debbie Wren of Stop Boer Genocide.com. Professor Tobias Louw. Frank / John & Peter of the Right Perspective radio program. Louis Pepler aka Bok van Blerk & Johann Botha commenting on the De La Rey song. [ 6 ] Theuns Cloete notes that: "we are being told that we're Afrikaners & that has been our death". The Unrepresented Nations & Peoples organization has accepted the Boers into the organization & separately from the Afrikaners they accepted into the organization prior further demonstrating recognition of the distinction.


One can propagate the dangerous & insidious meme of "unity" with all Afrikaans speakers all day but what point is there to such a mindless action when such an association will only come to the great detriment of the Boer people [ & anyone attempting to find self determination ] who will be represented by the Afrikaner leadership who are by their very nature totally against any notion of any authentic form of self determination. I have tried to understand what possible benefit could ever come from advocating that the Boers must submit or continue to submit to the Afrikaners just for the sake of a dangerous "unity" with the very forces which work so hard at undermining & subverting Boer self determination. This act simply makes no sense at all & is suicide for Boer freedom. I however do favour unity in the name of Boer independence [ & ethnic / national independence in general ] but one must be careful about simply aligning with everyone just for the sake of increasing numbers when many among those numbers might simply be adamantly opposed to the goal of Boer self determination.


None other than Paul Kruger himself was rather wary of allowing too many of the Cape Dutch into the ZAR as he felt that they were too influenced by the British [ pro British ] & would work to undermine the independence of the ZAR. [ 7 ] Just as their descendents are today too influenced by the current & past South African regimes & could threaten the independence of any future Boer republic.


I remember reading many years ago an informative article on this from a Radio Pretoria news commentary or from another Boer news service website about the danger of a mindless Afrikaner union which noted that the Boers who seek independence must be careful about the non-Boer descended Afrikaners who could be the "albatross" [ their word ] around the neck of the Boer Nation in any reconstituted Boer Republic because they would naturally undermine Boer traditions & would agitate towards the inclusion of all & any other surrounding cultures into the new republic. Therefore the call for this sort of dangerous "unity" is not all that different from the folks who call for a "unity" of all of the peoples of South Africa because in the end the right to ethnic & cultural self determination will be conquered in the face of the union as the majority of the folks within such a union will not favour such self determination.


Theuns Cloete of Boervolk Radio has noted that the Afrikaner financial elite are adamantly opposed to Boer independence & spend lots of money against it & that they would not want to live in a Boer republic because "they do not accept that they are Boers" [ as Cloete noted ] & would be forced to go back to the Cape & Natal. Therefore to those who falsely accuse [ or rather to the individual who has ] please cease with the shortsighted & erroneous allegation that any recognition of Boers as distinct from the bulk of the Afrikaners is "divisive" when in fact any ignorance to or dismissal of such an inherent & documented distinction is dangerous to the cause of Boer self determination. Because the Afrikaner political elite KNOW that Boers are a distinct entity from themselves & work hard & have worked hard in the past at preventing the Boer from reclaiming their self determination.


Just remember that the term Afrikaner is a macro term / label which was applied to all Afrikaans speakers & includes two main ethnicities / cultural groups within the White population in the same way the term Coloured includes numerous ethnicities / cultural groups. The term Afrikaner just means African therefore everyone in Africa is an Afrikaner therefore this term spells even more trouble for those of Boer descent [ & even Cape Dutch ] as it has the potential to dispossess them even further as more & more ethnicities claim the Afrikaner designation.

http://iluvsa.blogspot.com/2010/02/s...rmination.html

[Cristiano viejo]

I'm not an expert on what went on in Canada, and I won't pretend to be. What I do know is that a great deal of us left and wandered down into the shittiest location we could find . This was a time when Louisiana was owned by the Spanish, and they helped the Cajuns relocate there, so that's where the Spanish tie in. We later overthrew the Spanish governor with the help of the Germans though, but I'm not sure what prompted that.

Incorrect.
Louisiana ceased to be spanish because Spain gave it to France in 1800 by the Treaty of San Ildefonso
There are cajuns of spanish origin as well, from Canary Islands.

[Ouistreham]

The Cajuns of yore were certainly very resilient and tough people. They managed to assimilate to their culture the many German immigrants who settled down in the area (mainly the Côte des Allemands,, North of New Orleans along the Mississipi River. .

A minority assimilating another minority: this must have been a unique occurrence in history.

From Wiki:

German Coast

The German Coast (French: Côte des Allemands) was a region of early Louisiana settlement located above New Orleans on the east side of the Mississippi River – specifically, from east to west, in St. Charles, St. John the Baptist, and St. James parishes of present-day Acadiana. The four settlements along the coast were Karlstein, Hoffen, Meriental, and Augsburg.

Originally, the Germans settled at the Arkansas Post, however the conditions were intolerable. The area's name was derived from the large population of German pioneers who were settled there in 1721 by John Law and the Company of the Indies. When the company folded in 1731, the Germans became independent land-owners.

Despite periodic flooding, hurricanes, and the rigors of frontier life, the German pioneers made a success of their settlements. Their farming endeavors provided food not only for themselves but also for New Orleans' residents. Some historians credit these German farmers with the survival of early New Orleans.

In 1768, they joined with Acadians from the Cabannocé Post area to march on New Orleans and overthrow Spanish colonial governor Antonio de Ulloa. The German and Acadian settlers united again, under Spanish colonial governor Bernardo de Gálvez, to fight the British during the American Revolution.

Most of the German Coast settlers hailed from the Rhineland region of Germany, the German-speaking cantons of Switzerland, and other places today called, Bayou des Allemands and Lac des Allemands (meaning Germans' Bayou and Germans' Lake, in French). Many Germans came from the German-speaking region of Alsace-Lorraine in France, and some from Belgium.

From the time of their arrival, the German immigrants began speaking French and intermarried with the early French settlers. Over the subsequent decades they intermarried with the descendants of the latter as well as the Acadians. Together with other settlers, they helped create Cajun culture. For example: German settlers introduced the diatonic accordion to the region, which become the main instrument in Cajun music by 1900.

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

[deffender]

this is based on what i know from the top of my head so excuse me if i have any facts wrong. accadian drift wood most likely has more info about this than i do
creoles-
the creole people are often of mixed ethnic background in this day and age within the USA.
The creoles are often of French heritage mixed with black and even Indian american, spanish sometimes and some Germans were known to have mixed with them as well. many have roots to the light skinned mixed race Haitians who moved to the southern USA after and during the wars between 1800-1804. Their culture has much in common with the Cajuns.

Cajuns-
most are of a french Canadian heritage from the 18th -19th century when the british were trying to kill and run all french out of the british Canadian controlled territory. They made their was to Louisiana a then spanish controlled region and were most comfortable in places like new orleans for many reasons but mostly because they were Catholic as were the people in Louisiana.

Both these groups have amazing history and culture.
they both speak a french creole dialect.
they both have foods that are very french inspired.
the Cajuns formed communities within swamps and many have become amazing outdoors men who can live off the land in harsh conditions.
both groups have many catholics within them and they have created many amazing forms of music like zydeco and dancehall cajun music and traditional cajun music and the list goes on.

[Isleño]

What exactly is it you need to know? There's a few of us around here.



And can you explain what you mean here? A lot of Cajuns in Louisiana have French Creole ancestors as well.

You are 100% right. I live in south Louisiana, born and raised, and I’ve been researching this for years. Many of the folks claiming to be “Cajuns” are not Acadians as they claim to be. Yes, there are those that are full or near full Acadian, most of which live in the bayou areas near the Gulf of Mexico. However, a great many of the “Cajuns” are mixed with other ethnicities and French Creole (white Creole type) are one of them.

Let me give you an idea....many popular “Cajun” surnames have non-Acadian origin (the term Cajun derives from Acadian, which were colonial immigrants to Louisiana from the area known as Acadie in the French Canadian maritimes).... Cajun surnames like LaFleur, Soileau, Fontenot, Mouton, Devillier, Ardouin, Fuselier and many more I could list are French Creole (white colonial Louisiana French descendant) and those surnames were in Louisiana before the arrival of the Acadians. Cajun Names like Rodrigue, Domingue, Migues, Barrios and Romero came from Spanish Creoles (white colonial Spaniard descendants) and lastly, Cajun surnames like Zeringue, Labranche, Trosclair, Schexnayder, Haydel, Keller, Zeller, Waguespack, Vicknair and Tregre come from German Creoles (white colonial Louisiana German descendant) and adopted French creole surnames used by Louisiana Native Americans also found their way into some families like Dardar, Gregoire, Billiot, Verdin, Parfait, Courteau and Solet.

So you see, many Cajuns are not fully Acadian. And Cajuns that are fully Acadian like those found in places like Vermillion, Lafourche and Terrebone Parishes, are Creoles themselves because in Louisiana, creole means you descend from the colonial Louisiana population that were “native born” to the Louisiana colony and the Louisiana born children of those Acadian immigrants were Creoles just as any other native born to the colony.

In fact, before the term Cajun came to be popular (1960’s-1980’s) the term Cadien (the French corruption of Acadien) was used for Acadian descendants sparingly for about 100 years since the mid 1800’s. The term “Acadian Creole” was used before that for every Acadian descended generation after the immigrants.

So if we were to categorize correctly, Louisiana would be made up of Creoles which include the different creole groups like French creole, Acadian Creole, Spanish Creole (of which I am one), German Creole, Creoles of color (mulattoes), Métis creole (mestizo) and black creole (Afro-Creole). All of these groups have in common they descend from the Louisiana colonial population, which is what makes them Creoles. The rest of Louisiana are simply Louisianians whether they be English descent, Irish descent, Italian descent, non-Creole French descent, non-creole black African descent or non-creole German descent.

Everything I’ve said I’ve researched to death, believe me when I tell you these are truths.

[Isleño]

Incorrect.
Louisiana ceased to be spanish because Spain gave it to France in 1800 by the Treaty of San Ildefonso
There are cajuns of spanish origin as well, from Canary Islands.

Cristiano, you are correct about the history of transfer of Louisiana from Spain to France, but about Isleños being Cajuns....well half not and half yes. Let me explain...

Isleños from St, Bernard Parish (next to New Orleans), which is where I come from are not Cajuns as we identify as Isleños, not Cajuns and our ancestry is Canarian Spanish. This is also the case with many Isleños that live near Baton Rouge, which is known as the Valenzuela settlement of Canarians. However, there are many Cajuns (Acadian French descendants) that have Isleño spanish ancestry admixture, but identify as Cajuns, not as Isleños as their Isleño admixture may not be large enough or they just don’t know about it. Some have tried to call us “Spanish Cajuns”, but that’s a misnomer.

So overall, Isleños are not Cajuns. However, some Cajuns are part Isleño but identify as Cajun. I hope that helps your understanding, from a point of view from an Isleño of Louisiana

Oh and for a bonus....all of us that descend from colonial Louisiana are Creoles. Louisiana Creole=colonial Louisiana descendant. Examples....French Creoles (white French descendants), Spanish Creoles (Isleños and Malagueños), German Creoles, Acadian Creoles (Cajuns), Creoles of color (mulattoes), Métis Creoles (Louisiana colonial mestizo descent) and Afro-Creoles (black African descendants that lived in the colony).

[Isleño]

Good Cajun music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fs12...eature=related

Lyrics as translated by some guy on youtube:

My favorite Cajun song is “La danse de Mardi Gras”...check it out

http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pr_HcNzNBXg

[Lucas]

Cristiano, you are correct about the history of transfer of Louisiana from Spain to France, but about Isleños being Cajuns....well half not and half yes. Let me explain...

Isleños from St, Bernard Parish (next to New Orleans), which is where I come from are not Cajuns as we identify as Isleños, not Cajuns and our ancestry is Canarian Spanish. This is also the case with many Isleños that live near Baton Rouge, which is known as the Valenzuela settlement of Canarians. However, there are many Cajuns (Acadian French descendants) that have Isleño spanish ancestry admixture, but identify as Cajuns, not as Isleños as their Isleño admixture may not be large enough or they just don’t know about it. Some have tried to call us “Spanish Cajuns”, but that’s a misnomer.

So overall, Isleños are not Cajuns. However, some Cajuns are part Isleño but identify as Cajun. I hope that helps your understanding, from a point of view from an Isleño of Louisiana

Oh and for a bonus....all of us that descend from colonial Louisiana are Creoles. Louisiana Creole=colonial Louisiana descendant. Examples....French Creoles (white French descendants), Spanish Creoles (Isleños and Malagueños), German Creoles, Acadian Creoles (Cajuns), Creoles of color (mulattoes), Métis Creoles (Louisiana colonial mestizo descent) and Afro-Creoles (black African descendants that lived in the colony).

Very interesting. Do you know some Islenos Gedmatch kits?

[Celestia]

My maternal side is Cajun ^_^

Very fun, wild, family-oriented and proud bunch.

[Isleño]

I'm ashamed to say I don't know anything about any of the colonists of South Afrika. I'll have to remedy that soon. If you can recommend any articles I'd appreciate it.

I'm not an expert on what went on in Canada, and I won't pretend to be. What I do know is that a great deal of us left and wandered down into the shittiest location we could find . This was a time when Louisiana was owned by the Spanish, and they helped the Cajuns relocate there, so that's where the Spanish tie in. We later overthrew the Spanish governor with the help of the Germans though, but I'm not sure what prompted that.

As for where the name Cajun comes from, it's just a phonetic spelling of how people tend to pronounce "Acadian". The "A" is dropped and and "dian" ends up jumbled together as "jun". It's sort of like the American use of Injun rather than Indian. I don't know truly how to define the soul of a Cajun and I'll leave your other questions to the more knowledgeable posters.

Actually the Acadians (at that time, the term Cajun didn’t exist yet) did not overthrow anyone in the Spanish government of Louisiana. It was the French Creoles (white French descendants, whom many “Cajuns” today have as ancestors), with the help of Germans that made the attempt to overthrow Governor Antonio de Ulloa, but in his place Spain sent Alejandro O’Reilly and O’Reilly crushed the rebellion, restoring Spanish rule and Louisiana remained Spanish until it was given to France, nearly 40 years later. You can read more about the rebellion of 1768 on its wiki: http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi...ellion_of_1768

Also, notice the Cajunization of much Acadiana’s white Creole population (called French Creole historically) into the general “Cajun” population, whom are hardly Acadians. Many Cajuns are a mixture of Acadian, French, Spanish, German even some have English or American Indian admixture. Some “Cajuns” are not even Acadians, as they descend from French Creoles completely. This is more common around Avoyelles, St. Landry, Pointe Coupée and Evangeline Parishes where there are still populations of French Creoles (white French descendants) that still claim a creole identity, but many have been assimilated into Cajun identity.

There are still Cajuns of full or near full Acadian descent which most of these live in parishes along the gulf like Vermillion, St. Mary, Lafourche and Terrebonne. But much of the Cajun population in the rest of south Louisiana is mixed with others ethnicities besides Acadian. Cajunization of the area of what is now called Acadiana took place because politicians Edward Edwards, a “Cajun” with an English surname and Dudley LeBlanc, along with the French language preservations group CODOFIL, which is headed by “Cajuns”, together worked to cajunized the area and name it Acadiana. Now there is a push for products of Louisiana to be stamped with “certified Cajun” stamp, which is ridiculous given the history of food in Louisiana, which would exclude all the culture groups that contributed to Louisiana foods. South Louisiana was once creole as it should be, but is now Cajunizing by forces with a Cajun agenda and have been since the 1960’s.

You probably also have ancestors that were not Acadians as well.

And what’s worse, since Acadians were known in Louisiana as poor folks living off the land, those who claim to be Cajuns that have French creole ancestors, by default of claiming to be Cajun are disowning their ancestors that had wealth, status and power, that owned plantations and vast tracts of land and prestige in Louisiana history. I met one before that I helped complete a family tree. He thought he was strictly Acadian and descended from poor folks that lived off the land. Turned out he was a descendant of three of the wealthiest and most powerful French creole families (remember, French Creoles are white people) in Louisiana with the most prestige in Louisiana history, the Livaudais, Roman and Verret families.