Les Québécois francophones et leur “identité” alimentaire : de Cartier à Expo 67

Abstract

Tout nous vient des Amérindiens … ou presque ! Combien de fois avons-nous lu ou entendu ce cliché lorsqu’il est question de l’alimentation des francophones. Ce lieu commun débouche sur l’inévitable corollaire de la tradition et donc sous-entend la pérennité des aliments. Mais qu’en est-il vraiment? À l’analyse de quatre produits de base – le maïs, le sucre, le lard et la pomme de terre –, il devient évident que la tradition alimentaire n’existe pas; notre cuisine soi-disant « traditionnelle » se veut plutôt une construction identitaire du 19e siècle. Il existe plutôt des modèles alimentaires qui perdurent de trois à quatre générations jusqu’à ce que la quatrième ne soit plus en contact avec la première qui se veut la gardienne des valeurs. Et ces valeurs reflètent la culture, car, pour reprendre l’expression de Massimo Montanari, « Cibo come cultura – Food is culture ». Manger reflète par conséquent le savoir et l’apprentissage et se définit ainsi au moyen de goûts et de dégoûts, d’associations et d’exclusions d’aliments, mais aussi à travers la production et de la consommation de ceux-ci. L’acte reflète donc une certaine altérité, qui se situe également au carrefour de quatre cultures – l’amérindienne, la française, la britannique et l’américaine – avant de s’internationaliser. Dès lors faut-il parler d’identité alimentaire ou d’identification alimentaire, selon l’expression de Peter Scholliers ?This paper explores the cliché that Québécois food identity derives almost entirely from First Nations foodways. Through an analysis of four staple foods—corn, sugar, lard, and potatoes—it demonstrates that “traditional” Quebec cuisine is in fact a 19th-century development. Various food models continue for three or four generations until the fourth is no longer in contact with the values of the first. Yet the original values continue to inflect the culture through food because, as Massimo Montanari observes, “cibo come cultura—food is culture.” Eating reflects both knowledge and learning and is defined in terms of tastes and distastes, inclusion and exclusion, as well as by the production and consumption of certain foods. The act of eating is therefore an assertion of alterity, of a Quebecois “otherness” deriving from the intersection of four cultures—First Nations, French, British, and American. Perhaps we should therefore discuss not “food identity” but, to borrow Peter Schollier’s phrase, “identification with food.

Savage Lands, Civilizing Appetites: Power and Wilderness in Quebec City (1535–1900)

“…While the density and frequency of indigenous remains, such as raspberry and strawberry, do increase, they do not do so in a drastic manner (Figure 4). Thus, contrary to what Armstrong (1989) and Desloges (2011) have suggested, there seems to be a high degree of continuity rather than disruption in foodways through the century, at least where local plant resources are concerned. Furthermore, regional trade seems to have continued despite the political shift, as attested by the presence of butternut, red juniper, and shag-bark hickory.…”

“…Among the 220 recipes proposed, only seven clearly called for vegetal ingredients indigenous to the region, and this number decreased in the later Directives the la Mère Caron (Caron 1878), where their uses were limited to desserts and drinks. Both works had a tremendous influence on local foodways (Desloges 2011; Williamson 2004:23), for they were amply used in the expanding schools for the education of housewives (Armstrong 1989:119; Coulombe 2005:511). The uniform foodways they promoted were further encouraged by the Catholic Church, which had long associated agriculture with godliness and feared loss of its control over a French population (Little 2012:15).…”