Discover the First Mass-Deported Europeans in North America – The Acadian Genetic Mystery
Evo Inception | 16 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6igWKqFsXQ
The Vatican was horrified. 4:23 Letter after letter arrived from Rome 4:25 demanding the colonists stop polluting 4:27 French blood with indigenous marriages.
This is a blatant lie. Catholicism isn't and historically wasn't racist. Where Catholic states have been racist, this has been a question of political or social convenience or prejudice, out of touch with Catholic dogma.
Two very different things could be totally true, however.
1) Settlers not waiting till the Miqmaq fiancée was a baptised Catholic. A marriage with an unbaptised person is automatically invalid.
2) Settlers who had left wives in France and preferred getting a new one rather than wait till the wife could afford getting over to Acadie too.
The latter would be rarer, if at all occurring, France would hardly have encouraged married men to leave their wives.
The 6:32 Catholic Church kept meticulous records 6:34 of pure French marriages, but 6:36 conveniently failed to record marriages 6:37 with converted Mikmach women.
If this is true of the Catholic clergy in place, it is very surprising, but especially it is not a policy coming from the Vatican, but from Gallican clergy, tending to independence from Rome.
- Dubh
- @Dubh-u1h
- The presenter makes a false claim against the Catholic Church. (Anti-Catholicism is common amongst the Scottish). He claims a "cover-up by the Catholic Church" whereby the marraiges between Indian women and French men were "hidden". He "supports" his claim by stating the marriage records "did not mention the women were Indian", and that they had had their Indian name changed at birth! Oh no! Well the facts of history have news for the presenter. The first fact is that race is not recorded in marriage records. The second fact is that it was/still is, common for a pagan to change their name to a Christian name at baptism. Eg, when the Chief Rabbi of Rome durring WW2 became a Catholic he took the name of the Pope as his new Christian name.. Thirdly, for a Marriage to take place in the Church, the Indian woman had to be Christian, so with her new Christian name, and with race not being recorded, this anti-Catholic presenter sees a "cover-up by the big bad Catholic Church". The Catholic Church always bent over backwards to facilitate the marriage of natives and Europeans. That's a way for the Faith to spread. The Vatican would have been discouraging invalid "marriage" between French men and unbaptised Indian women, not valid marriages as the presenter asserts. The presenter is a shonk. This is probably A.I. too..
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @Dubh-u1h Not sure it is AI.
When it comes to conditions in Acadia, let's not forget the clergy could have been very Gallican, so, morally different from Rome (it's a big difference about how death penalty is applied, among other things, like Gallicans taught the condemned could confess, but not receive Communion, Rome taught and teaches they should both).
While race is not recorded in Baptismal records, it could happen nationality is, and the Miqmaq were not fully French subjects.
- Dubh
- @hglundahl I have no idea what you are saying
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Dubh-u1h Too bad, I'm not your English teacher. Tried to teach you some French Church history, but OK ..
7:41 "we record them as French, to avoid scandal"
Ah, this means, in clear, that the clergy was locally adapting to the prejudice back in France.
- Zachary Necan
- @Zbezt
- Exactly lets not confuse the narratives only a few individuals would go out of their way to help these people the rest are pre programmed citizens from an alien country.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Zbezt There is obviously a difference between clergy that feels at home best in Rome and one that feels at home lots better in Lyon.
13:13 "In Louisiana ... they faced discriminations as foreign Catholics in Spanish territory"
Louisiana wasn't Spanish territory. Discrimination might be due to accent or being less like homeland France than typical Louisiana society, but unless the original text included Florida (which was Spanish), it doesn't add up.
- Pascal Lapointe
- @PascalLapointe-z6d
- Louisiana was a Spanish territory between 1762 and 1803.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @PascalLapointe-z6d W h a t!
It was founded by French (as a colony) and it was sold by Napoleon, as Emperor of the French to the US, so, I always presumed, it had been French all this time ...
My bad, I suppose ...
Looking up 1762 and finding:
November 13 – In the Treaty of Fontainebleau, Louis XV secretly cedes Louisiana (New France) to Charles III of Spain to compensate his ally for territorial losses to Britain.
Looking up the latter, yes, it was a secret in 1762, and then finally revealed in the full open in 1769 (a disclosure in 1764 having been met with a rebellion, so in 1769, after it was quenched, it was settled ...).
OK, you always happen to learn sth. I did today, thank you!
- Rose Lee
- @roselee4445
- Well itvwas owned by both. Look at street names in the French Quarter New Orleans. Street have both french and spanish names.
Creoles were the french side originally
- Michele Broyles
- @michelebroyles6941
- I read when they left on the trip to Louisiana it was still a French territory. However by the time they arrived- it was Spanish
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @michelebroyles6941 Ah, OK.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @roselee4445 "Well itvwas owned by both."
After what I read, it would have remained culturally French after getting a Spanish governor.
Even if they put down rebellions by French, they didn't do a wholesale population change.
The church was 15:13 literally trying to erase the culture it 15:15 had once worked to preserve.
Again, this is a calculation from local clergy, not an order from Rome.
The Acadian story isn't just about 16:05 one small population in Eastern Canada. 16:07 It's about how peoples emerge, evolve, 16:10 and endure.
It's also a case study of genetic bottlenecks, you mentioned the genetic disease Retinitis pigmentosa hitting one in 27 of a subgroup, against one in 4000 generally.
The bottleneck only increased the frequency after the mutation already existed, didn't cause it.
The genetic bottleneck after Eden and after Mountains of Armenia would have been less deleterious, because there were as yet fewer mutations. In each case it was resolved into a few more bottlenecks that were less bottlenecked, because they could intermarry.
Thank you for making a point about Young Earth Creationism!
No comments:
Post a Comment