With all due respect

The rhetoric of “civilization,” when examined,(for example’s (?) the treatment of the Acadians) by their own hand reveals the lie at the heart of colonialism.

It wasn’t about spreading peace or building just societies.

It was about power, about domination, and about controlling whoever stood in the way. The Acadians weren’t always saintly, perhaps, but they were certainly not the villains of this story.

They were people trying to live their lives in a world that cared more about control than about coexistence.

And for that, they paid a terrible price.

The story of the Acadians isn’t just history; it’s a personal reminder of what happens when good people get caught in the tangled web of power games they didn’t sign up for.

My ancestors came here like saints, or damn close to it—royals who didn’t flaunt their status but rolled up their sleeves, worked hard, and made peace with the locals.

They weren’t the greedy conquerors or the cutthroat elites you read about in the big textbooks.

By all accounts, they got along just fine with the indigenous people. No invasions, no grand gestures of control. Just work, respect, and building something real. But none of that mattered in the end, did it?

Not when you’re dealing with an empire that needs scapegoats, pawns to move around, and faces to pin their paranoia on.

The British, the so-called “civilizers,” couldn’t handle a group like the Acadians—people who didn’t fit into the neat boxes of loyalty and servitude.

And so, they got lumped in with the enemy,

cast out like they were a threat to some grand imperial design. But let’s get real: it wasn’t about threat; it was about inconvenience.

It was easier to toss them aside than to acknowledge that they were living proof that you didn’t need force or exploitation to thrive. They didn’t line up to kiss the crown’s ring or pledge undying loyalty to the powers that be, and for that, they were marked.

Expelled. Erased.

The Acadians weren’t a threat,

not in the way the British painted them, but they were certainly inconvenient. They didn’t play by the empire’s rules, didn’t conform to the structure of dominance that made life easier for those at the top. Instead, they carved out a

life on their terms—hard work, peace with the land and people around them, and no need to bend the knee.

That’s what made them dangerous in the eyes of an empire that thrived on control and obedience.

The British couldn’t stomach the idea that here was a group, thriving without the backing or blessing of the crown, existing outside of their neat, little system.

What do you do when you’ve got a group that doesn’t conform, that doesn’t need you? You erase them.

You wipe them out, remove them from the equation, because acknowledging them would be admitting that the empire isn’t necessary, that people can live full, rich lives without its so-called “civilizing” hand.

That’s the part that sticks in the gut—the Acadians weren’t bothering anyone, but they were living proof that there’s another way to be, another way to exist without bending to the empire’s will.

And for that, they had to go.

So, they were labeled a threat. Not because they posed any real danger, but because they represented a different kind of living that the empire couldn’t control. And that’s what it was all about—control. If you can’t control a group, if you can’t make them fall in line, they become a problem.

The Acadians were too independent, too self-sufficient, too outside the imperial narrative of domination and servitude. Their existence alone was a challenge to the idea that empire was necessary or even justifiable.

The Expulsion of the Acadians (Le Grand Dérangement) is universally acknowledged as a dark chapter in the history of both Acadia and British colonial policy. However, some revisionist historians suggest that while the deportation was undeniably brutal, the narrative of Acadians as passive victims might obscure the complex realities on the battlefield Wherever suggestions that some Acadians had taken up arms or provided support to French forces or Indigenous groups who resisted British rule.

The extent of this resistance and how it played into the justification for the expulsion is a matter of debate. Were the British justified, from a military standpoint, in expelling the Acadians due to real security threats, or was this an unnecessary act of ethnic cleansing?

Historical Myth-Making: The narrative of the Expulsion often paints the Acadians as innocent victims of British oppression. But as with all histories, the stories we tell may simplify the complexities. In what ways have the Acadians’ plight been mythologized? Has this myth been used to forge a stronger Acadian identity in the centuries since?

The deportation policy of the British raises ethical and moral questions. Was the expulsion an act of ethnic cleansing or even genocide? Or was it a harsh but strategic move in the context of imperial warfare? The British framed the expulsion as a military necessity—driven by fears of Acadian disloyalty and a desire to ensure control of Nova Scotia. Some might argue that the British policy was a reflection of colonial pragmatism, albeit with disastrous consequences.

However, the sheer scale and brutality of the deportation, which displaced thousands and led to widespread death and suffering, also leads to comparisons with later genocidal actions by colonial powers. Could the British have employed a less draconian strategy, such as assimilation or negotiated settlements? The lingering debate about the morality of these actions ties into broader discussions about colonial violence and the justification of imperial control.

Acadian history is often told in terms of British vs. French, but the Indigenous Mi’kmaq played a crucial role in shaping the region and its political dynamics. The Mi’kmaq had their own relationships with both the Acadians and the French. They were key allies to the Acadians, often engaging in raids against British settlers and military forces.

Agency of the Mi’kmaq: In many traditional narratives, Indigenous groups are cast as background actors, but the Mi’kmaq had a significant and active role in resisting British encroachment. What does it mean for the narrative to place Indigenous agency at the center of the story? How does their relationship with the Acadians challenge the simplistic portrayal of the Acadians as peaceful neutrals?

Treaties and Alliances: The Mi’kmaq often entered into treaties with both the French and British, attempting to navigate colonial power struggles. These treaties were frequently broken or ignored by the Europeans. Should the narrative focus more on how the Mi’kmaq’s resistance influenced British policies toward the Acadians? This could add a dimension where the British feared not just Acadian neutrality, but also the strength of Indigenous alliances.

The Cajun identity that evolved from the Acadians who were exiled to Louisiana offers another rich area for deconstruction. The Acadians who ended up in Louisiana became the Cajuns, a group that developed its own distinct culture, cuisine, and music. However, the Cajun identity is often romanticized in popular culture—seen as a sort of “exotic offshoot” of French culture, but is this fair?

Resilience vs. Loss: The narrative of Acadian resilience—surviving deportation and building a new life in Louisiana—often overshadows the profound loss experienced. What was lost in the translation of Acadian culture into Cajun culture? How did the Cajun identity evolve differently in Louisiana’s social landscape compared to the remnants of Acadian culture in Canada?

Hybridity: The Cajun identity is a fusion of Acadian, African, Native American, and Spanish influences. Should we be thinking of Acadian culture not as something pure and unchanging, but as something hybrid from its very beginnings? Does romanticizing the “French” nature of the Acadians obscure the complex reality of their multicultural existence?

The modern commemoration of Acadian history—particularly the deportation—has shaped national narratives in both Canada and Louisiana. Acadian identity has become a symbol of survival against overwhelming odds, a proud cultural heritage revived after centuries of marginalization. But this raises questions about how history is used politically.

The resurgence of Acadian pride and identity in the 20th century came alongside broader movements for French-Canadian rights and autonomy. How much of the modern Acadian narrative is shaped by political and cultural needs? Are we viewing the past through the lens of contemporary concerns about cultural survival and language rights?

Selective Memory: Like all cultural narratives, the Acadian story is selective. What are we not remembering? How does the focus on the Expulsion overshadow the complexities of life before and after the deportation? What about Acadians who remained and integrated into British society—do they complicate the more heroic, resilient image of Acadian identity?

Erasing the Acadians was easier than admitting that people could live differently, outside the empire’s grasp. It was easier to mark them as enemies than to acknowledge the failure of a system built on control. So, they were expelled—cast out, displaced, and nearly forgotten. But the truth doesn’t go away just because it’s inconvenient. The Acadians were living proof that you didn’t need to conquer, exploit, or submit to thrive. And that’s a truth that couldn’t be tolerated in a world obsessed with power.

And the British didn’t want to deal with that.

It was far easier to cast them out, to lump them in with the enemy and pretend they were something dangerous. They weren’t dangerous to the people around them—they had peaceful relations with the local indigenous groups, they worked their land, they kept to themselves. The only ones who felt threatened were the British, because the Acadians’ very existence questioned the need for British rule. And that’s something the empire couldn’t tolerate.

What gets me is how they were treated like collateral damage in a game they had no stake in. The Acadians didn’t ask to be a part of the British-French imperial tug of war. They just wanted to live in peace, to work the land and build a future. But peace doesn’t get you much in a world that only respects power. So, when the British wanted to flex their muscles, it was the Acadians who paid the price.

Families were torn apart, homes destroyed, and their entire way of life uprooted—like they were just some pawn to be sacrificed in the name of empire. This wasn’t justice, and it sure as hell wasn’t civilization. It was raw, calculated power, dressed up in the usual lies of protection and order.

And don’t think for a second that this was an isolated case. It’s the same pattern that repeats over and over in history.

You don’t fit the mold, you don’t toe the line, and you’re either wiped out or cast out.

Doesn’t matter if you’re a hard worker, doesn’t matter if you’re peaceful, and it sure as hell doesn’t matter if you’ve done everything right by your neighbors. You’re not part of the plan, and suddenly, you’re an enemy. They take the same old fear—the fear of difference, the fear of losing control—and they use it to justify anything. Deportation, destruction, genocide. Whatever fits the bill. And the Acadians, with all their peace and hard work, got swept up in that same wave.

It exposed the lie at the heart of the empire: that power and control weren’t necessary for building a good life. The Acadians proved that you could exist without dominating, without subjugating.

And that was the real threat. Not their weapons or alliances, but their example. And so, they were cast aside.

And so, they got lumped in with the enemy,

cast out like they were a threat to some grand imperial design. But let’s get real: it wasn’t about threat; it was about inconvenience.

What’s especially bitter is that they got lumped in with the worst of the colonial narrative—thrown into the same category as the brutal conquerors who tore across continents. But they weren’t that.

They weren’t out to control anyone or anything. They just wanted to live. And in the end, they were punished for it. For being different. For not playing by the empire’s rules. For standing as a quiet example that maybe—just maybe—you didn’t need to conquer and dominate to make a life.

There’s something deeply wrong with that. And I feel it in my bones when I think about my Acadian ancestors. They didn’t deserve to be swept aside, to be erased from the land they worked so hard to cultivate. They didn’t deserve to be forgotten, their story buried under the weight of the imperial machine. But that’s what colonialism does, doesn’t it? It takes the good and the humble and the peaceful and grinds them into dust. And then it rewrites the story to make sure the world never remembers the truth. Well, I remember. And I’ll keep telling their story. Not as victims. Not as pawns. But as people who lived with integrity, who worked with their hands, and who, despite everything, held on to their humanity in the face of a system that had none.

Colonialism has always thrived on fear, and one of its most powerful tools was the fear of the “other.” Justifying the domination, exploitation, and brutal subjugation of entire nations wasn’t about bringing enlightenment or spreading civilization—it was about stoking terror.

Colonial powers painted their expansion as a moral crusade, draped in the language of salvation and protection, but beneath the surface, it was barbarism in disguise,

and the justification often hinged on the most primal fears—like the idea that if “we” don’t control “them,” our women, our families, our very way of life will be in danger.

It was a narrative steeped in threats of violence, particularly sexual violence, that sought to dehumanize the colonized and justify the barbarism of the colonizers

Throughout history, colonial powers consistently portrayed the people they sought to conquer as savage, dangerous, and uncontrolled. This wasn’t accidental. It played into the anxieties of the imperial population back home. The image of the untamed, threatening “other” wasn’t just a convenient trope—it was essential to creating the moral permission needed to justify conquest. The myth went something like this: without intervention, the savage “other” would invade, overrun, and desecrate everything held dear by the civilized society—particularly its women. It’s the same fear-mongering tactic that’s been used for centuries to demonize the outsider. It wasn’t about a genuine concern for safety or order; it was about manufacturing a reason to subjugate, control, and plunder.

The colonial narrative of the violent, hypersexualized native was a construction designed to stoke fear, giving those in power a reason to act with impunity. It painted the colonized as an uncontrollable threat, turning them into something less than human, something that needed to be tamed and ruled. The supposed threat of sexual violence against European women became a symbolic justification for all kinds of atrocities. It framed the entire colonial endeavor as defensive, even noble, as if imperial powers were protecting their people from a looming, monstrous neighbor. The idea was simple and effective: if the colonized were painted as barbarians, then the real barbarism—committed by the colonizers—could be justified.

This fear-driven narrative didn’t just serve to justify the invasion and domination of foreign lands. It also helped reinforce racial and gender hierarchies back home. Colonialism wasn’t just about controlling lands and resources; it was about controlling bodies—both in the colonies and in the metropole. The protection of European women became a stand-in for the protection of European superiority itself. The imagery of the violated white woman, threatened by the “savage” native, was used to whip up public support for imperial violence, as if to say: “If we don’t conquer them, they will conquer us.”

This manipulation of fear was calculated and effective. It tapped into the primal, visceral terror of violation and twisted it into a justification for domination.

The colonizers didn’t just want to take land and resources; they wanted the moral high ground. And so they painted themselves as defenders of purity, of civilization, of safety. But the truth is that this fear was manufactured. The real violence was coming from the colonizers themselves—the massacres, the rapes, the theft of entire cultures and peoples. The so-called savagery they claimed to be fighting was a projection, a reflection of their own brutal practices.

The tragedy of this narrative is that it worked so well. It created an enduring myth that still echoes today in various forms. The idea that the “other” is inherently violent, that our women and families are at risk, is a fear that has been exploited time and again—not just in colonial history, but in the rhetoric of immigration, race, and national security. It’s always been a tool of power, used to stoke fear, justify violence, and maintain control over both the “other” and those within the imperial power’s own borders.

Colonialism wasn’t about civilizing anyone. It wasn’t about protecting anyone. It was about power—about using fear to control both the colonized and the colonizer. And by framing that power in terms of protection—especially protection from sexual violence—it created a justification that was both deeply emotional and deeply effective. But it was all a lie, a mask to hide the real savagery, which came not from the neighbors or the colonized, but from those wielding the guns, writing the laws, and justifying the atrocities. This fear of the “other,” this fabricated threat of barbarism, was just another weapon in the colonial arsenal, one that allowed untold violence to be committed under the guise of protection and moral superiority.

And that’s the other half of it, isn’t it? You can’t rely on the good will of anyone but your own. The Acadians learned that lesson the hard way, and if their story tells us anything, it’s that even when you do everything right, even when you try to live peacefully, to work honestly, to mind your own business, it can all come crashing down because the world doesn’t play by those rules. The truth is, good will—real good will—is rare. People, especially those with power, don’t tend to act out of kindness or fairness unless there’s something in it for them. And when you find yourself on the wrong side of power, all the good will in the world won’t save you.

My ancestors couldn’t count on the British, or the French for that matter, to see them for who they were. They were just another piece on the board, caught between two powers fighting over land they had no rightful claim to in the first place. And when the time came to make decisions, to show any shred of decency, that good will wasn’t there.

The Acadians got the boot, plain and simple. Their peaceful ways, their hard work, their efforts to coexist with the indigenous people—all of it meant nothing when the empire decided they were inconvenient.

The lesson there isn’t that you should give up on doing good or that peace and hard work aren’t worth striving for!? Pretty sure?

The Acadians lived with integrity, and that’s worth something. But it’s also a reminder that you have to be prepared for the moment when the world doesn’t care about your good intentions. Because the world, more often than not, doesn’t. It’s not fair, and it sure as hell isn’t just, but it’s the reality. The only good will you can count on is your own—your own values, your own integrity, the way you treat the people in your circle. Anything beyond that? It’s a gamble. You can’t assume the powers that be, or even your neighbors, are going to show up with the same respect or decency you bring to the table.

There’s a harsh truth in that, but there’s also a kind of clarity. The Acadians didn’t expect the British to act with fairness. They were blindsided, but in a way that makes perfect sense when you look at how power operates. Colonialism, empire-building, the whole rotten system—it was never about fairness. It was about taking what you could get, and if some peaceful farmers happened to be in the way, well, they got swept aside.

The goodwill wasn’t there, and it wasn’t ever going to be. The Acadians may have been hardworking, peaceful people, but they weren’t naive. They knew the precariousness of their situation, even if they didn’t see the deportation coming in the brutal way it did.

And isn’t that the story time and time again? You can’t count on others to see your humanity, to recognize your effort, or to treat you with fairness. Sure, you hope for it, but you don’t rely on it. The Acadians held their end of the bargain—they did right by their neighbors, by the land, by the people they lived alongside. But when the empire came knocking, all of that fell away. It didn’t matter. The system didn’t care. And that’s a bitter pill to swallow.

So what’s left? You have to count on your own good will. You have to be the one who brings decency to the table, even when the world doesn’t offer it in return. You have to hold onto your integrity because that’s the only thing no one can take from you, even when they take your land, your home, your community. That’s the legacy of the Acadians.

They couldn’t count on anyone else’s goodwill, but they could count on their own. And in the end, that’s what survived. Their spirit. Their resilience. Their refusal to be crushed by a system that tried to erase them.

It’s a hard thing to accept, but history shows us time and again: the world doesn’t owe you fairness, and it’s dangerous to expect it.

You can’t lean on the idea that good will from others will save you when the chips are down.

You hope for it, sure, but you prepare for the moment when it doesn’t come. You live with honor, you treat others with respect, but you also recognize that those values may not be returned. And when they aren’t, you hold tight to the only thing that’s yours—your own good will, your own decency, your own integrity. Because in the end, that’s what’s left standing. That’s what they can’t take from you.

That’s the Acadian legacy, as I see it. They lived right, they worked hard, they treated people well. But when the empire came, they couldn’t count on the goodwill of others. What they could count on was their own sense of who they were, their own strength, and that’s why their story endures. It’s a reminder that the world will often fail you, but that doesn’t mean you have to fail yourself. You can still live with honor, even in a world that seems determined to tear it away. And that’s something worth holding onto, no matter what history or the present throws at you.

The Spell of the Serpent’s Flow

Preparation: Seek a place where shadows linger—an empty alley at dusk, a grove where the trees bend low, or even a dimly lit room where silence weighs heavy. You’ll need:

• A stone, heavy and cold (symbol of earth’s burden)

• A feather, faint and fragile (air, elusive and restless)

• A blackened candle or a charred piece of wood (fire, burned but alive)

• A vial of dark water (rain or river, but touched by night)

In the heart of this space, arrange the items around you in a circle, symbols of the elements. Close your eyes. Feel the quiet pulse of the world—an undercurrent of shadows waiting to be shaped.

Invocation: Stand tall, feet rooted into the dark soil beneath, knees slightly bent. Inhale deeply, pulling in the weight of the earth. The air is heavy here, and with each breath, let it fill your lungs like smoke. As you exhale, push all that is weak or broken out from your bones. It seeps into the earth, lost to the deep.

With each inhale, begin your chant softly, like a whisper to the shadows:

“Earth, bury my weakness, let strength rise from the grave.”

“Air, carry my breath through silence, swift and unseen.”

“Fire, let my will burn quietly, a smolder that never dies.”

“Water, flood through me, a river that bends but never breaks.”

Sink down slowly into a squat, as though lowering yourself into the depths of the unknown. At the bottom, feel the tension. Linger in it. As you rise, imagine the stone at your feet, drawing its weight into your muscles, making you unmovable.

Movement Ritual: Begin the calisthenic movements, but with a different energy—slow, deliberate, a balance between control and surrender. These movements are not just physical but rituals of inner alchemy

Earth — Shadow Squats: Perform 12 deep squats, but do not rush. As you descend, imagine sinking further into the earth’s cold embrace, where forgotten things dwell. As you rise, your legs heavy with the weight of centuries, whisper:

“I rise from the depths, unbroken, unbound.”

Air — The Silent Plank: Enter the plank position, but this time, close your eyes. Hold it for 30 seconds, feeling as though you’re suspended between the earth and nothingness. Each breath is a gust of wind. Let it move through you, saying softly,

“Air, slip through me; I am still, yet I move.”

Fire — Push-ups in the Flame’s Wake: Perform 10 slow push-ups, but with every push from the ground, imagine fire flickering beneath you—not the roaring flame, but the low, smoldering embers that can outlast any storm. Feel the quiet power in your arms, whispering:

“I rise with fire in my core, a flame that never dies.”

Water — The Serpent’s Stretch: Move into a low forward bend, letting your body fold like a river flowing through the rocks. Hold this stretch for 30 seconds, feeling your spine elongate, bend, and twist like a serpent winding through the undercurrent. As you stretch, murmur:

“I flow, unbreakable and unseen, bending but never breaking.”

Closing the Spell: Stand once more, but this time, do not close the circle with finality. Stand, letting the dark elements linger with you, shadows in your bones, the weight of earth, the lightness of air, the smolder of fire, the flow of water. These forces are not to be released—they are a part of you now. You do not banish them but wear them like armor.

Take up the stone. It is no longer heavy, for the earth now strengthens your legs. The feather? It is no longer frail, for air now fills your lungs with purpose. The blackened candle, still charred, burns in the quiet spaces of your will. The dark water? Drink it. Let it flow through you, your blood becoming the river.

“I am shadow and strength, light and dark. The balance is mine. The power is mine.”

The spell remains with you, but it is unseen, like the darkness that clings to the edges of light. You walk now in both worlds, your body stronger, your will unshaken. This is the path of the serpent’s flow—dark in the eyes of some, but a quiet and eternal light in the soul of those who know.

The people of Acadia, also known as Acadians, were French settlers who originally colonized parts of the eastern coast of North America, primarily in what is now the Canadian Maritime Provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island) and parts of Maine in the 17th century.

Origins of Acadia

Acadia was established by French colonists in the early 1600s, with the first permanent settlement at Port-Royal in 1605, in what is now Nova Scotia. These settlers were largely farmers, fishers, and fur traders, and they developed a unique culture that was a blend of French customs, local Indigenous influences, and the maritime environment. Over time, Acadia became a distinct colony of New France, separate from the French settlements along the Saint Lawrence River (Quebec).

The Acadian Settlement

The Acadians established strong communities based on agriculture, particularly through their innovative use of dikes to create farmland from tidal marshes. Despite being French settlers, they maintained relatively peaceful relations with both the local Mi’kmaq people and the British, who increasingly controlled the surrounding territory. The Acadians developed a sense of identity that was distinct from mainland French Canadians and more aligned with the unique social and geographical environment of Acadia.

British-French Rivalry

However, the Acadian region was contested by both the British and the French due to its strategic importance along the Atlantic seaboard. Following a series of conflicts between Britain and France in North America (particularly during the War of the Spanish Succession and the War of Austrian Succession), the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 ceded Acadia (Nova Scotia) to the British, while the French retained control of Île Royale (Cape Breton Island) and Île Saint-Jean (Prince Edward Island).

Even though Acadia came under British control, many Acadians chose to remain in their homes rather than relocate to French territories. They declared themselves neutral in the ongoing conflicts between Britain and France, but this neutrality was seen with suspicion by the British authorities.

The Great Upheaval (Le Grand Dérangement)

Tensions between the British and Acadians culminated in the Great Upheaval (or Le Grand Dérangement), which began in 1755 during the lead-up to the Seven Years’ War. The British authorities, fearing that the Acadians would support the French in military conflicts or assist them in any invasion, demanded that the Acadians swear an unconditional oath of allegiance to Britain. Many Acadians refused, wishing to maintain their neutrality.

As a result, the British government undertook a massive deportation of Acadians. Between 1755 and 1763, thousands of Acadians were forcibly removed from their homes in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. This event is referred to as the Expulsion of the Acadians. Acadians were sent to British colonies along the Atlantic coast, the Caribbean, and even as far as France and Louisiana (where their descendants became known as Cajuns).

Acadians Return to Canada

After the Seven Years’ War ended in 1763, and with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, some Acadians were allowed to return to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but they were not allowed to settle on their original lands. Instead, many Acadians moved to less fertile areas or to regions where they could rebuild their communities in relative isolation from British settlers. These areas included northern New Brunswick and parts of Prince Edward Island.

The descendants of these returning Acadians, along with those who had managed to avoid deportation or who returned from exile, became part of the vibrant Francophone community that continues to exist in Canada today. Acadian culture and identity have survived through strong traditions, language preservation (they speak a dialect of French called Acadian French), and cultural expressions such as music and dance.

Legacy of the Acadians

The history of the Acadians is deeply tied to both the colonial struggles between European powers and their ability to adapt to new and often harsh conditions.

The Acadian diaspora spread throughout the world, particularly to Louisiana, where they helped shape the Cajun culture that remains influential today. In Canada, Acadian communities remain a vital part of the cultural landscape of the Maritime Provinces, where their history, resilience, and traditions are celebrated in festivals such as the Acadian National Day on August 15.

My Acadian ancestors, like so many others in history, were victims of the kind of sweeping generalizations and power plays that define the injustice of colonialism. The story of the Acadians stands as a stark reminder that colonialism didn’t just destroy indigenous peoples and cultures; it also chewed up and spat out those who were cast as “other” even within their own expanding empires. The Acadians were hardworking, peaceable, and by many historical accounts lived harmoniously with their indigenous neighbors. Yet, despite their intentions and efforts, they were treated as pawns in the violent, ever-shifting geopolitical games of European powers.

Acadian history is particularly painful because it defies the typical colonial narrative. Unlike so many colonizers who arrived with a sense of entitlement, claiming land and enforcing their will through violence or domination, the Acadians came with a different approach. They didn’t build empires through war but rather through cooperation and coexistence. They worked the land, built communities, and fostered relationships with the Mi’kmaq people based on mutual respect and understanding—an anomaly in a world that so often viewed native populations as obstacles to be overcome rather than partners to be embraced.

But history didn’t care about their peaceful ways or their hard work. They were caught in the middle of larger forces—imperial rivalries that had no room for nuance, no space for those who didn’t fit neatly into the colonial chessboard. The Acadians, with their distinct identity, language, and way of life, were treated as threats or as burdens, depending on who held power at any given moment. And when the British decided that Acadia was more trouble than it was worth, the Acadians were expelled in one of the great injustices of colonial history.

The Acadian deportation—Le Grand Dérangement—wasn’t just about removing a population; it was about erasing a culture, a way of life, and the possibility of peaceful coexistence in a world driven by imperial ambitions.

They weren’t deported because they were dangerous or rebellious. They were deported because they were inconvenient. The Acadians were a people without a powerful army, without the backing of a mighty empire, and so they were swept aside like so many others who found themselves on the wrong side of history’s power struggles.

It’s particularly tragic because the Acadians embodied the very qualities that colonial powers claimed they were trying to promote—hard work, resilience, and peaceful living. But those virtues meant nothing in the face of raw power. They were lumped in with the “enemy,” seen as potential collaborators with the French, and that was enough to justify their expulsion. It didn’t matter that they had lived peacefully on the land for generations, or that they had cultivated a unique and rich culture in the process. In the eyes of the British, they were a threat simply because they didn’t fit the mold of loyalty that the empire demanded.

The Acadian story is one of profound injustice, and it serves as a reminder that history often rewards power, not virtue. The Acadians didn’t come to North America with a sense of entitlement. They didn’t come to exploit or conquer. They came to live, to work, and to create something lasting in a new land. And for that, they were punished—caught in the crossfire of larger forces that didn’t care about their peaceful ways or their hard-earned existence.

In many ways, the treatment of the Acadians echoes the broader pattern of colonialism. People who didn’t fit the mold—whether because of their race, religion, or politics—were cast aside, marginalized, or destroyed. The Acadians, with their royal heritage mixed with a working-class ethic, found themselves lumped in with all the other so-called “undesirables” of the colonial world. They were treated as just another problem to be solved, another population to be displaced, another culture to be erased.

But this isn’t fair—because it ignores the reality of who the Acadians were and what they represented. They were a people who, by all accounts, lived with integrity, who fostered peace with their indigenous neighbors, and who built a community based on mutual respect and cooperation. They didn’t deserve to be cast out, to be treated as pawns in the imperial game. They didn’t deserve the suffering that followed their expulsion—the broken families, the loss of land, the destruction of a culture.

The real tragedy of the Acadian story is that their example—a community that thrived without exploitation or violence—was destroyed by the very forces that claimed to be civilizing the world.

They were, in a sense, too good for the colonial system that eventually turned on them.

Their hard work, their peaceful ways, and their unique identity were not enough to protect them from the larger forces of greed and power that drove colonial expansion.

In the end, the story of the Acadians is a reminder that history is written by the powerful, but the truth of that history is carried by the survivors. The Acadians may have been cast out, but they endured. Their culture survived, their resilience became legend, and their story stands as a testament to what could have been—a world where people worked together, where peace was possible, and where power didn’t always have the final say. But colonialism, with its fear of difference and its hunger for control, couldn’t tolerate that possibility. And so the Acadians, like so many others, were caught in the machinery of empire, with their lives, their lands, and their culture torn apart in the process.