The Micmac Chiefs rebuttal to the French criticism of his culture is the gist of the Chrestien Le

Clercq writings. The Chief argues the sensibility of building sixty foot tall homes when you are at
most six foot tall, when you can build a home which you can transport to any location you
desire without the consequence of paying tribute to a feudal lord. He also dismisses the French
argument that his people are unhappy and miserable because of the perceived lack religion,
order and law which makes his people no better than the beasts they hunt. He states his people
are perfectly happy and content with their lives as they are. He cements his argument by
stating why would you leave paradise if your land is better then ours. He concludes by
wondering why the French work hard and incessantly to barely survive when they can live
comfortably by hunting and fishing.
The answer to the first question, How does the Micmac Chief talk about the Europeans?, Is
that the Chiefs tone is dismissive, defensive and most importantly incredulous. None of the
French critiques make sense to him.
To answer the second question, Does the response to the French match up with what we are
traditionally taught about Native Americans?, brings into question the definition of Other. To
put it briefly, No. Traditionally we were exposed to a single story, that of the European
perspective. We were taught this one point of view was the right and only point of view. Other
perspectives, most importantly, the Native American point of view was ignored. The concept of
Other implies that we formulate our ideas about other societies based on our cultures
standards. It also places a value on other cultures, better, worse and nothing in between. Our
view as well as the French is ethnocentric based on principles established by the Greeks and
Romans. In Aristotles Politics, he states that man without a state, is either a bad man or above
humanity: he is like the Tribeless, lawless, heartless one, (1), he is essentially a beast. The
one sided view traditionally presented ignores the fact that Native Americans did have
governments, cities and actively participated in trade and commerce. The French premise
disregards the fact that Native Americans tried to adapt to their environment, not changed it.
1. Who is the author?
Micmacs Chiefs Observation of the French is written by Chrestien Le Clercq a French
missionary who recorded the chiefs response.
2. What type of source?
The response was written at the time and place of the event and is a primary source. It
is Chrestien Le Clercqs recollection of the Chiefs response.
3. What is the message of the source?
The message is that the Micmacs are happy with their lives and dont want to change.
4. Who is the intended audience?
The intended audience of the Chiefs observation are the French and the French settlers.
5. Why was the source created?
The source was created to express the Chiefs discontent with the French assessment of
his culture and to question the supposed superiority of the French culture.
6. Is the source credible and accurate?
The source appears to be credible because no opinions are offered by Le Clercq and the
Chiefs response would be the way I would respond to such criticism.
7. How is the source valuable to me?

The source gives me another viewpoint of how people felt and what happened. It helps
complete the story. One good point about the Chiefs observation, is that two
viewpoints were-resented, the Chiefs and the French.
Work Cited
Aristotle. Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. 350 B.C.E.. Web.