WHO ARE THE QUEBECOIS?

By John E. Wall

On October 30, 1995, the people of the province of Quebec, Canada, voted in a province-wide referendum. Its purpose was to determine the political destiny of Quebec vis-a-vis the rest of Canada. A “yes” vote would have meant that Quebec would become an independent sovereign state. As it happened, 50.6% of those voting chose to remain  with Canada,  only 1.2% more  than those voting for independence -a difference  of less than 50,000 votes out of an eligible 4.8 million . Yet the sovereignty  referendum, the second in Quebec’s history, was only one example of the political tensions that have existed  between Quebec and  the  rest  of Canada for decades. Another vote in the “neverendum” process is likely.

Who are these  passionate people,  the Quebecois (Quebecers)  whose  leaders  clamour  for a sovereign state-who demand to be maitres chez nous (“masters in our own house”)  free of Canadian  control? What is their ethnic  or racial origin and  their place  in world history? To answer that  their ancestors “came from France” is not sufficient. This work will reveal the origins of the francophone (native  French-speaking) people known as the Quebecois. Evidence will be adduced from secular and  Biblical  history  that  points  to a surprising ancestry for these  people. Speculation will also be offered as to their future, in light of their origins and history. First, however, a brief review is necessary, especially for non-Canadians reading this work, of their more accessible past.

“Of Benjamin he said: ‘The Beloved  of the Lord shall  dwell in  safety  by Him…And he shall dwell between his shoulders”‘ (Deuteronomy 33:12 NKJV)

Quebec is Canada’s largest province. With an area of 523,860 sq.mi. (1,362,036 sq. km.) it is over twice the size of the mother country, France, and nearly twice the size of the U.S. state of Texas. Covered  largely by the Canadian Shield, a vast mineral-rich  outcropping of rock, the province abounds in the natural wealth of its forests, minerals, hydro-electric power, and  rich farmlands near the St. Lawrence river, which  bisects Quebec north to south. Its scenic beauty has earned it the French nickname, “Ia belle province,” (the beautiful province).

[Origin of the Name Quebec: The name Quebec comes  from  the  Algonquin word meaning narrow passage or strait. It originally referred to the area of Quebec City and the narrowing of the river  at Cape Diamond. This information was inserted by the editor of the  ENSIGN MESSAGE]

Quebec was inhabited in pre-Columbian times by Canada’s “First Nations,” the Indians and Inuit (formerly known as Eskimos). From time to time, as the works of Barry Fell and other researchers show, the land that is now Canada’s largest province, was visited by Old World voyagers and explorers, latterly the Vikings. For a fuller explanation of Canada’s pre-Columbian past, the reader may consult Fell’s America B.C., or Saga America, or any number of similar works by other authors.

The modern European history of Quebec, however, begins  in 1534 with its discovery  by French  explorer Jacques Cartier. The following year, he sailed up the St. Lawrence river, visiting the  Iroquois  settlements of Stadacona (present site of Quebec City) and Hochelaga (now  Montreal).  It was  on  this voyage  that  Cartier, misunderstanding the Iroquois word  for “village” (kanata) assumed that it referred to the entire country, thus giving Canada  its name. (1) In 1541-42, a short-lived settlement was established above what is now Quebec City, capital of the province.

It was  not until 1608, however,  that a permanent settlement was established  by another French explorer, Samuel  de Champlain,  at the present-day location of Quebec City. Champlain, known in the history books as the “Father of New France,” encouraged trade in furs with the continent’s aboriginal inhabitants and formed an alliance between the French and the Huron Indians, resulting  in an  enmity  that  has existed  between the French and the Iroquois, rivals of the Huron, that is still with us to this day.(2) Over the next 55 years the fur trade and French influence,  especially  in the form of Jesuit missionary work, expanded; the settlement of Montrea was founded in 1642.

Still, there were only about 3,000 settlers in France’s Quebec  territory. Then in 1663, in an effort to further consolidate the fur trade, increase  settlement, defeat the hostile Iroquois, and fend off the British, (allies of the Iroquois),  the French  king Louis XIV made  New France, as it was now called, a royal province. For the next two hundred  years, until the British conquest in 1759-1763, the colony’s  population was  boosted  by immigration from the mother  country. It is the ethnic origins of these immigrants that will answer the question posed as the title of this work, “Who are the Quebecois?”. We shall uncover the  riddle by asking the complementary witnesses of history and the Bible.

A Common Misconception

Before we can discover  the racial origins of the Quebecois, we  must clear up  a common misconception: that racial or ethnic  origin follows language. It does  not. This is especially important  for non-Canadians to realise as they may have heard or read that French-speaking  Canadians  “come  from France” and therefore  must be racially French. Even scholars are sometimes misled by this false equation of language with ethnic or racial identity.

France in the seventeenth century, however, was not a racially or ethnically homogeneous society, nor is it today. In the north, in Normandy, lived descendants of Norsemen who settled that region under their king, Hrolf, or Rollo, in 911 A.D.; in the northwest  an ancient  and mysterious  people,  the Bretons; in the southwest in Gascony, the Basques; inAlsace, Germans,(3) orHebrew Issacharites;(4)  and in the south, various Mediterranoid peoples. In the central part of the country, according to the research of Australian historian Craig White, dwell the descendants of a non-Hebrew people, the Dodanim (Genesis 10:4). This leaves only the Ile-de-France region and perhaps certain northern districts as areas of “true French” settlement,  that  is,  areas  inhabited  by descendants of the Ripuarian Franks, identified by Israeli scholar  Yair Davidy as  the Israelite  tribe of Reuben, ancestors of the modern French.(5) This conclusion, however, is contradicted by Dibar  Apartian who attributes to the Ripuarian Franks a Germanic origin.(6)

To use a Biblical example, the twelve tribes of Israel spoke a common Ia nguage, Hebrew. Yet each tribe was distinct. That this distinction was based on something more concrete than mere  cultural differences  seems evident  from the Scriptural  insistence that Israelites marry only fellow Israelites, and preferrably within their own  respective tribes  (Deuteronomy 7:1-4; 25:5; Numbers 36:5-12). Marriage, perforce, includes sexual union and implies giving life to a new generation and a continuation of the genetic stream  from the previous generation.

Even though “strangers” dwelling with the Israelites spoke  the same  language as their fellow citizens the sons of Isaac, nevertheless intermarriage between the two groups was discouraged  by the legal code.  This implies that there were strengths, genetically inherited, that God wished  the Israelites to preserve, each  tribe having particular  talents  by virtue of these  inherited strengths, talents that gave rise to distinct cultural identities after the Ten Tribes’ exile, independent of the language spoken. (Lest anyone should think that this is a racialist view, let me make it clear, in the astute words of S. Gusten Olson, that “fundamentally,  it is not the race  to which  one  belongs-it is racial  purity that counts.”(7)  No race or nation has any moral superiority over another. All have sinned  and come far short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

The point of the above paragraphs was to show that race and language are independent issues. One’s racial identity,  genetically passed on  from  generation  to generation,  in the eyes of God, is independent of the language one speaks. A Scotsman  may speak English, but  this does not  make him an Englishman in genetically inherited  tribal terms. Likewise, the many ethnic groups who have inhabited France for centuries have learned to speak French, yet they remain Normans, Bretons, Basques, etc.

Racial Origins of the Early Settlers of Quebec

As mentioned above,  at the assumption of royal government  by King Louis XIV,  New France had only about 3,000 settlers, slightly more than a third of them Canadian-born .(8)  In  1665,  the  Carignan -Salieres regiment was sent from France to subdue the Iroquois. Mission accomplished , they left in 1668, but about 400 soldiers remained and married in with the population.

Between the years 1663-1673, New France received a significant boost in population  when  the French government  sent 800 filles du roi (“daughters of the king”) to their Quebec colony as brides for the colony’s surfeit of bachelors. These women of marriageable age came from Rouen in the province of Normandy, La Rochelle in Aunis, and included beggars and orphans from the streets  of Paris.(9) Thus the races  and  ethnic groups of these regions were  transferred  to Quebec. Lest anyone should think this unusual, it will be recalled that it was through Jewish filles du roi (daughters of King Zedekiah) that the Davidic line was transferred to, and preserved in, Ireland (Jeremiah 43:6; Ezekiel 21:27).

A review of census records for the year 1 700 reveals that of New France’s French-speaking  colonists, 29% came from the provinces of Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, and  Angoumois  in the  mother country;   22% from Normandy  and Perche;  15% from  Paris and  Ile-de­ France; 13% from Anjou, Touraine, Beauce, and Maine; 9% from Brittany, Picardy, and Champagne; 5% from Limousin,  Perigord,  and  Guyenne; 7% from  other regions. 10 Thus over 50% of immigrants to Quebec  and possibly much more, came from north of the Loire,river in France, i.e., areas of Norman, Breton, and Frankish settlement. In addition, many of the Seigneurs (Lords) of Quebec,  e.g., the families of de Lotbiniere   Panet Montizambert, etc., were Norman, who left Normandy in 1686.

Who are the Normans? There seems to be general agreement among scholars of Israelite history that the Norman people are the descendants of the Israelite tribe of Benjamin. Yair Davidy,  for example, in his detailed work, The Tribes, says that although the tribes of Judah and Benjamin compose the main stock of modern Jewry, “[ t)here exists some indication that also amongst the Normans were many descendants of Benjamin and possibly also of Judah.  The basic  Norman stock  may have come from Benjamin in addition to which the area of Normandy in France settled  by them had previously belonged to the NAMNETES who may have derived their name from Naaman, a son of Benjamin.”(12)

These Benjaminite Norsemen, within a couple  of generations  of  their settlement  in   Normandy mter arned with the Breton inhabitants and pledged allegiance to the French king, losing their Scandinavian language, religion, and culture in the process. In short, they lost their identity and became Norman “French”. In 1066, the  Normans  under  William the Conqueror (Guillaume le Conquerant) invaded Britain and seeded the English upper classes with a significant infusion of Norman blood. The Normans’  neighbours in France, the Belgae, may also have been Benjaminites according to Davidy. (13)

Nineteenth-century British-Israel scholars  agree With the .Norman-Benjamin identification. Though approachmg  the problem  from a somewhat different perspective  than  Davidy, one  such  scholar,  W  M. H. Milner, writing under a pseudonym, observed that “the discovery of Benjamin in the Normans … is one of the most wonderful points in the whole story of Israel in Britain.” (14)  British-Israel  pioneer,   Edward  Hine  also declared, “we believe the Normans to correspond with the tribe of Benjamin.” (15) More modern scholars agree, though It IS  often  added that Benjamin  is also  to be found among  the Jews.

Other  Israelite-descended tribes contributed significantly to the ethnic  make-up of the Quebecois. These include, most importantly, Simeon, Reuben, and Dan. If Craig White’s “Dodanim” thesis,  previously referred to, is correct, there  may be a non-Hebrew element in the Quebec population as well. The role of these groups in forming the Quebecois identity will be discussed later. For the present, I will confine myself to a further elaboration, from a Biblical and extra-Biblical prespective, of the  francophone Quebecers’ Benjaminite racial and ethnic inheritance.

Benjamin in Quebec: The Bible and History Speak

A remarkable fact is that a battle cry of Benjamin is also the motto of Quebec! Speaking of the end-times, the prophet  Hosea declared, “Blow ye the trumpet in Gibeah, and  the  trumpet in Ramah:  cry aloud  at Beth-aven, after thee O Benjamin”(Hosea 5:8). Of this last phrase, respected Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger, in a note to this passage in his Companion Bible, says that it is “[apparently a war-cry  = ‘[Look)  behind  thee,  O Benjamin!”‘. The Hebrew word used for “after” is achar. According to Strong’s Concordance, the word  means “back”  or “behind” and  is translated variously in the Bible as: continue, stay (there), or tarry (longer).  The motto  of Quebec is Je me souviens  (“I remember”). When  one  remembers , one  “looks  backward” or “behind” to that which one ought to keep  continually in one’s memory.

It is significant that this phrase is a battle cry and that it is found  in a chapter of Hosea  dealing with  the punishment of Israel. One uses a battle cry in a time of war. The struggle for independence on the part of the Quebec separatists is truly a political war being fought with all the desperation that the word implies. It is a war being fought “among the tribes of Israel” and especially against Ephraim. What are the results of that struggle? The next verse warns, “Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke: among  the tribes of Israel have I made known that which shall surely be” (Hosea 5:9). Is one of the  things that  “shall surely be”  the independence of Quebec?

In ancient  Israel, the territory of Benjamin adjoined that of three  other  tribes: Ephraim,  Judah,  and  Dan. These tribes,  sometimes including  non-contiguous Manasseh,  are often mentioned together  in Scripture (Joshua 18:11; Judges  5:14; Psalm 80:3; I  Chronicles 9:3; Ezekiel 48:32). The territory of Simeon was also not contiguous with that of Benjamin, yet this tribe played an important  role in Benjamin’s history. As well, the territory of Reuben  lay across  the Jordan  river from Benjamin.  The prophetic significance  of  this will be explained later. For a discussion of Simeon,  Reuben, and Dan in Quebec history, see the subhead below.

In The Tribes,  Yair Davidy discloses the historical fact that the tribes of the modern Israelite Diaspora settled in approximately the same geographical relationships to each other that they had occupied in the Holy Land millennia ago. Of the placement of the Ten Tribes vis-a­ vis their neighbours, Davidy says that “not only in Scythia, but also in Northwest Europe the Israelite tribes maintained the same relative alignments towards each other as they had done originally in the Land of Israel.” (16) He could have added, in the New World as well, as we shall see.

We should expect therefore, if these alignments are valid for North America as well as Northwest  Europe and  Scythia, that  Benjamin’s neighbours in Canada should be Ephraim, Judah, Reuben, Dan, and Manasseh. Indeed, upon investigation, we find that this is precisely the case.

Quebec shares  a land border with three Canadian provinces: Ontario to the west,  New Brunswick to the east, and Newfoundland  and Labrador to the north. It also borders the United States. It is in these regions that one will find settlements of the five tribes mentioned above,  and  thus further evidence of the Benjaminite ancestry of the Quebecois.

Southern Ontario became the home of Ephraimite English loyalists fleeing the American Revolution. They had lost homes,  farms, and businesses, often through theft and  violence  by the  intolerant  revolutionaries. Wishing to remain loyal to the British Crown, they, with their Indian allies and runaway black slaves, sought refuge in Canada, particularly southern Ontario and the Maritimes. So many United Empire Loyalists, as they came to be called, arrived in eastern Canada that a new province,  New Brunswick, was created in 1784 to accommodate the influx. Many also settled in southern and eastern Quebec, becoming the ancestors, in part, of today’s anglophone Quebecers.

That  these  immigrants or refugees were  mainly Ephraimites, rather than Manassites, other Israelites, or even foreigners can  be seen from  the  ethnic composition of the American Thirteen Colonies as well as from a deeper appreciation of the power of names and words in Hebrew thought and Biblical prophecy.

As for the racial or ethnic make-up  of the Thirteen Colonies,  Canadian British-Israel  author George  F. Jowett, writing of the relationship between Ephraim and Manasseh in North America,  has this to say: “A point much overlooked,” he states, after berating historians for their slipshod treatment of Canada’s British heritage and America’s  English foundations, “is that from the beginning,  settlement from 1584, to the Revolution, America  was distinctly  an  English nation.  No other people could settle in these colonies without a charter of permission granted by the Parliament of the King of England. Not until Scotland,  and Ireland became part of the United Kingdom could its people freely migrate into the new world, like the English and Welsh, although special privilege was given to the Scottish and Irish reformists by reason of being Protestant.” (17)

Furthermore,  Jowett continues: “At the time of the Revolutionary war,  the colonial  records  claim  there were  more than three  million people  in the Thirteen English Colonies, of whom 90% were English, 80% born in the Old Country. The great influx of real foreign emigrants did not pour into America, until about 1845, increasing heavily following the American Civil War.”(18)

But if the population  of the Thirteen Colonies was overwhelmingly of English stock, how can we know for certain that those who emigrated to Canada following the American War of Independence were Ephraimites and not Manassites? After all, both peoples were Anglo­ Saxon,  spoke  the same  language,  and  would  to the casual observer, be identifiable as equally “English”. The answer to this conundrum is found in the sure word of Scripture, and a careful consideration of the genius of the  Hebrew  language, especially as  it relates  to an understanding of individual and  even national character in prophecy.

As the aged Jacob,  also known as Israel, lay dying, he called his grandsons to his side and uttered a famous prophecy. Of Ephraim and Manasseh and their posterity he prophesied, after placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head, “he  [Manasseh)  shall also become  a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother  [Ephraim) shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19) . This  prophecy of a “great” people and  a “multitude of nations” is almost universally understood by Ten Tribes scholars  to refer to the United States of America and the British Commonwealth. Though the two peoples  were  to remain  together  for a time, they were later to separate. The words of Isaiah declare, “The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait [confining] for me: give place to me that I may dwell” (Isaiah 49:20). America was to be “lost” to Great Britain, a loss which indeed occurred  during the period fom 1776 to 1783. But Canada was not to be lost. Therefore those Englishmen who fled to Canada during and immediately following the American Revolutionary War must have been Ephraimites; those who remained behind  were  Manassites, separated from the Mother Country, “lost” as it were for a purpose, in order to fulfill their peculiar destiny according  to Scripture.

There is another manner in which, using the unique prophetic insight afforded by the Hebrew language, one may arrive at the same  conclusion.  In the Bible, God names things for what  they are  and  people  for the character they exhibit. Thus Israel’s  name means “prevailer with God” (Jacob’s character) and Joseph means  “increase” (Joseph’s reward  for obedience). These individual character traits of the patriarchs are passed  on to their descendants as national traits.

Respected Israeli scholar Yair Davidy, after making a thorough study of the Hebrew meaning of the names Ephraim and Manasseh, concluded in a major work on the  Ten Tribes identity as  seen from  a Jewish perspective, that prophetically speaking, Ephraim refers to a nation of nobility and aristocracy. Manasseh refers to a nation having a responsible or democratic form of government.(19) These  descriptions are  particularly suited  to Great Britain and the United States. It is therefore  to be expected that at the outbreak of the American  Revolution, those  loyalist Englishmen  who fled northward  to Canada to live under the British Crown, would have been Ephraimites displaying the aristocratic sympathies of their ancient tribal heritage. Those remaining  behind would have  been the sons of Manasseh, loyal to tribal traits of their own.

Thus, we  have seen  from Scripture  that,  just as Benjamin in ancient Israel shared a border with Ephraim, so too does  modern  Benjamin  in Canada  border  on Ephraim. Though not contiguous with Benjamin anciently, Manasseh was a close neighbour. Likewise, in these latter days, Manasseh-the United States of America- is a close neighbour of Benjamin in Quebec.

Anciently, Benjamin also shared a border with Judah in the Land of Israel. It is not unreasonable to expect a parallel to this circumstance in these  modern times. Since there is no exclusively Jewish province or region in Canada however, where  can we find Benjamin’s Judahite neighbours in Quebec? The answer must be searched for within Quebec society itself.

Montreal is Quebec’s largest city. It is also home to one of Canada’s largest and most historically important Jewish communities. It is the Quebec headquarters of energetic Jewish businesses  such as  the  giant Bronfmann empire. Jewish settlement in Quebec dates from 1760 when  General Jeffery Amherst entered the city. An encyclopedic source reports that early Jewish settlers came  from the United States,  most settling in Montreal. In 1831, there were 107 Jewish inhabitants of Ontario and Quebec; twenty years later , the number had risen to 451.(20)

Another source of Judahite ethnicity  among  the Quebecois is found in the close relationship of Benjamin and Judah in post-Exilic times. Davidy, for instance, says that there  is “some  indication  that also amongst  the Normans  [early settlers of Quebec]  were many descendants of Benjamin and possibly also of Judah.”(21)

In ancient  times, Judah,  along with the other tribes of Israel, fought Benjamin. A dispute  had arisen  over Benjamin’s refusal to hand over to Israel, the murderers, dwellers in the land of Benjamin, of a Levite’s concubine. A war ensued, resulting in the near annihilation of the Benjaminites. “There is one tribe cut off  from Israel this day,” moaned  the  Israelites,  feeling pangs  of regret for the brutality of their revenge” (Judges 21:6). A breach in the unity of Israel had been made, for which the repentant Israelites held God responsible (v. 15).

In these  latter days also, Judah,  assisted  by other peoples of Quebec, chiefly  the English-speaking descendants of 18th- and  19th-century Ephraimite settlers, fought against the Quebec government’s independence referendum, which was threatening to make a “breach” (separation) in the unity of the Israelite confederation of Canada. Losing the referendum by the smallest of margins, Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau complained bitterly that the loss was the result of the intervention of “money and the ethnic vote”. By “money” it was understood he meant  Jewish financial support of the anti-separatist side.

This war during the period of the judges of Israel, was the first of three revolts of the Benjaminites against Judah and Israel. The second  occurred  during the reign of David when Sheba, son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, led a rebellion against David in which “every man of Israel” followed  Sheba  (II Samuel 20:1-2). Though  both rebellions were  put down,  the second was in part the result of  David’s  foolishness in  provoking Israel, especially  Benjamin,  to resentment and  jealousy  (II Samuel 19:41-43) and which culminated in a third revolt after the death  of Solomon  (I Kings 12:16). This revolt was successful and resulted  in the political alienation of Israel and Judah.

There may be a prophetic parallel here. There have been two Quebec referendums, in 1980 and 1995. Both were defeated by anti-separatist forces, but the second only narrowly. The defeat  of this latter referendum, in particular, resulted in feelings of resentment, bitterness, and jealousy, virtually guaranteeing a third referendum. If  this prophetic parallel  holds,  this third “rebellion” against Israel  and  the  second against the  Davidic monarchy (as represented by King David’s descendant, Queen  Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch of Canada) may well succeed. Other prophecies such as Hosea 5:9 and  Genesis 49:27 (explained below)  also  offer this possibility. Genesis 49:22, when linked to Genesis 49:7 is an additional  prediction  of Quebec independence, as explained below.

Though I have used words such as “revolt” and “rebellion” to describe Benjamin’s confrontational attitude to Israel and Judah, the Benjaminites may not have seen things that way. In I Kings 11:36, according  to Milner’s interpretation, Benjamin is described as “a light alway” before the Lord in Jerusalem. Light implies truth, providing guidance for one  who  is in darkness; one may even infer from this that the light-bearer  has the duty or right to exhort,  rebuke,  or correct  those  who err from the path provided by the light. Perhaps in their conflicts with their Israelite brethren the Benjaminites, consciously or not, thought of themselves as having the right to correct  the other  tribes. It may be that Shimei, the Benjaminite who cursed  David thought it was only his right to correct David for his bloody ways. Likewise, to take  an  example from  early  Christian  times,  the apostle  Paul, a half-Benjaminite  who  battled with the established religious leaders of his day, subconsciously perhaps,  thought of himself as being or providing a light to those same leaders, one which they refused to accept.

Benjamin  shall “ravin as a wolf” says Scripture (Genesis  49:27). To ravin means to “pull  to pieces” according to Strong’s  definition  of the Hebrew  word taraph, used in this passage, i.e., to separate one part of a body from the whole. Indeed, this is the clearly stated goal of the Quebec separatists, to separate Quebec from Canada,  tearing off a piece  (province)  and creating a “breach” in Canadian unity. Not only would Quebec be torn  from  Canada, but  Canada itself,  according to deeply  felt but rarely expressed fears  of Canadians, would be “pulled to pieces”  under relentless pressure from American expansionists, who covet Canadian land and resources.

Thus far we have seen evidence from secular history, Biblical parallels and prophecy that the Israelite tribe of Benjamin constitutes one of the major Hebrew  tribes participating in the  settlement of Quebec and  is a dominating constituent of Quebecois ethnicity. We have also seen  that at least  three  sources in Scripture are parallels and/or prophecies of the Quebec referendum:

1) the modern  parallels of Judges 19-21, II Samuel 20:1-2, and I Kings 12:16;

2) Hosea5:9, and

3) Genesis 49:27.

Another prophecy, Genesis 49:22 linked to Genesis 49:7, will be discussed later.

Evidence has also been  brought forth from history, Biblical   parallels and   prophecy to  indicate that Benjamin’s neighbours in the  Old World,  Ephraim, Judah, and Manasseh are also Benjaminite Quebec’s neighbours in the New World. We will now proceed to show  that the Israelite tribes of Simeon,  Reuben,  and Dan also play an important role in the ethnic identity of the modern Quebecois. Lastly, we will deal  with the question of Dodanim  settlement in Quebec, a view expressed by some scholars  and researchers.

Simeon, Reuben, and Dan in Quebec

Of the several  Israelite  tribes which  comprise the entire Quebecois population,  the tribe of Simeon is the most difficult to distinguish.  This is because Simeon, along with Levi, was prophesied to be “divided in Jacob” and  “scattered in Israel” (Genesis  49:7). A scattered people is more difficult to trace than a united  people. An intertestamental source, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,  in addition,  says that Simeon  shall not be a numerous people (“few in number”), shall be divided amongst Levi and  Judah,  and  shall not be a sovereign people (Simeon 2:15). Nevertheless, we can begin our search for Simeon  in Quebec, by noting the places of settlement of the Simeonites in their post-Exilic European  home.

British-Israel scholars  of the past century  such  as Edward Hine and modern investigators such as Harold Hemenway  agree  that the Welsh represent at least a part of the Simeonite settlement in Britain. Davidy traces the Welsh Silures to Shaul, son of Simeon.(22)

In the time of the Greek geographer Ptolemy, c. 120 A.D., a people named  the Samnites lived in Brittany; in the fifth and sixth centuries, Brittany was invaded  by a kindred tribe, the  Simeni, from  Britain.  Both  are identified as Simeonites by Davidy.(23) Later, these Simeonites intermarried with Norsemen (the Normans) who settled  northern  France in the ninth and tenth centuries. Thus it is to be expected that of the Norman heritage of the Quebecois, a certain portion is Simeonite.

The Simeonites of Brittany’s past are today’s Bretons, generally  acknowledged by historians as  a “Celtic” people, closely related to the Cornish and Welsh, more remotely to the Scots and Irish. The popular culture of Quebec, especially  that of music  and  dance, is also overwhelmingly Celtic, both  Brythonic  (Breton)  and Gaelic (due to an Irish influence, explained below).

“Simeon and  Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations” says the prophecy of Genesis 49:5. Because they are mentioned together, we should expect  to find the one where  we find the other. Again, Davidy sees  Levi paired with both Simeon  and Judah  in the Diaspora of the Ten Tribes. Since both Simeon  and Judah  are present  in Quebec we should expect to find Levi with them. But what are “instruments of cruelty”?

It has been thought by some  that if the Walloons of Belgium are Levites (a view proposed by Olson,(24) among others)  then the phrase “instruments of cruelty” must refer to the war machines that have trod Belgian soil for centuries. But  there is  a  Canadian connection overlooked by those who have concentrated so much attention on locating the Ten Tribes in Europe.

In 1963, a series of bombs, cruel instruments indeed, exploded in Montreal. They had  been  planted  by the terrorist Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ). In 1970, the  FLQ struck  again  by kidnapping British  trade commissioner James Cross and Quebec labour minister Pierre Laporte. “Cursed be their [Simeon’s and Levi’s) anger,” continues the prophecy, “for it was  fierce; and their  wrath, for it was cruel”  (Genesis 49:7). Even the  murder of Pierre  Laporte  finds  a  resonance in prophecy: “for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down  a wall”  (v. 6). In ancient Israel, towns and cities were  protected by fortified walls; to “dig down” a wall meant to expose a city’s inhabitants to outside invasion-and terrorism. Is it possible that  the  perpetrators of these bombing crimes were Simeonites or Levites fulfilling the anger, cruelty, fierceness, and wrath (all words used in Genesis 49:5-7) of the prophecy?

But there  is another way that this phrase  may be understood, and  which  points  equally,  and  perhaps more so, to Simeonite and Levite presence in Quebec. In Genesis  49:22, it is prophesied of Joseph that “his branches  [descendants] run over the wall[national boundaries].” In other words, Joseph’s descendants were to become so numerous that they were to overflow these  national  boundaries and  become a colonising people.

Since Confederation  in 1867, Quebecers have lived behind the “wall” (national  boundaries) of Canada. In prophetic terms, Canada is Joseph  (Ephraim). Simeon and Levi are  prophesied to “dig  down,” meaning destroy, a wall, a national boundary. Whose boundary will they break down or destroy? It can only be Joseph’s! It is Canada’s  boundary they will destroy, perhaps by helping Benjamin to set  up one  of his own  (Quebec independence), and in the process  leave the country open for invasion from abroad-troops from a hostile European power,  for example. Furthermore, Simeon and Levi are “cursed” for their action, because the “wall” surrounding Canada  is God-ordained and “cursed  be he that  removeth his neighbour’s landmark” (Deuteronomy 27:17). A landmark is, for all practical purposes, a boundary.

Reuben is also another very important  constituent of the Quebecois people, and not one to be overlooked. However, let us make it clear that Reuben is only a part of the Quebec  people and not the whole. In a previous section, “A Common Misconception,” it was shown that simply because a people may speak a certain language, does not mean  that that people  belongs  to the same nationality or ethnic  group that has given its name  to that language. Thus most Quebecers speak French (even anglophones are  often  bilingual)  but  this does  not necessarily make them French (i.e., Reubenite) in tribal terms. Nevertheless,  Reubenites are certainly present in Quebec. Unlike Simeon and Levi who were prophesied to be divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel, no such prophecy is said of Reuben, making Reuben’s influence in Quebec,  theoretically, easier to trace.  To do  so, however, we will need to begin with Quebec geography, which in turn will lead us to another amazing  Biblical parallel.

The mighty St. Lawrence river bisects Quebec into western and eastern regions, with most of the province lying west of the river. On the east bank of the river lies a region called the Eastern Townships, an area of mixed English and French settlement. It is in eastern Quebec that Beauce county is located, a county famous throughout the  province for its individualistic, industrious, and independent-minded people, traits not unlike those of the tribe of Reuben. So much of these characteristics do  the  Beaucerons exhibit, that Quebecers  have given the region  the nickname, the “Republic of the Beauce”.

In France, Beauce, after which the Quebec county is named, was a province adjoining the Ile-de-France, an area of Reubenite  settlement. It is not too  much  to expect that Reubenites should have settled Beauce as well, though other tribes may have also inhabited  the region. Here is where  we must reach back to Israelite settlement patterns in the Holy Land, and, incidentally, find further confirmation  of Yair Davidy’s tribal placement theory.

In ancient Israel, Reuben occupied the east bank of the Jordan, across the  river from  the  territory of Benjamin,  adjoining Gad, with East Manasseh  to the north. In Quebec, the  Reubenites of the  Eastern Townships and adjoining areas,  occupy the east bank of the  St.  Lawrence, across the  river  from  their Benjaminite  brethren  in western Quebec, with “East Manasseh”  (America east  of the Mississippi river) on their  border.  Thus it is that  Reuben,  Benjamin,  and Manasseh  are  neighbours  in the  New World as  they were in the Old World.

But there are more parallels. As the Israelites were invading Canaan and Gilead, the tribe of Reuben, being pleased with  the  fertile  land  east   of  the  Jordan, requested Moses that they be allowed  to settle  there and not go over to the west of the river. For “the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle: and  … they  saw  the  land  of Jazer and the land of Gilead, that, behold, the place was  a  place   for cattle” (Numbers  32:1). Evidently, Gilead  east  of the  Jordan was  ideal  cattle-grazing country, and productive  of much  of Israel’s wealth  in that particular  husbandry.

Even so, in modern Quebec, east of the St. Lawrence, lies most of the province’s fertile agricultural land, and its dairy industry. In the 1980’s Quebec was responsible for 47% of Canada’s fluid milk production;  that figure has declined somewhat but still nearly 40% of the entire country’s fluid milk  comes from  Quebec.(25)  Eastern Quebec,  settled  by English Ephraimite refugees  from the  American  Revolutionary War, Reubenites from France, and other Israelites, is indeed a “place for cattle”. The region also adjoins  Manasseh;  in ancient  Israel, Manasseh was a close neighbour  of Reuben.

Curiously, it is in this region of Quebec that we find place-names evocative of the entrance into Canaan and Gilead over three  thousand  years ago of the tribes of Israel, in particular the first to be given their inheritance: Reuben,  Gad,  and  East Manasseh. For instance,  in eastern Quebec we find St-Gedeon, St-Elzear, St-Joseph­ de-Beauce, and St-Ephrem-de-Tring.

Gideon  (Gedeon) was  one  of the early judges of Israel; Eleazar (Elzear) was consecrated priest after the death of Aaron shortly before the entrance of Israel into Canaan (Deuteronomy 10:6); Joseph was the birthright tribe and was given the largest share of the inheritance; Ephraim (Ephrem) is a place-name found, coincidentally(?), in the same area of Quebec inhabited by English-speaking Ephraimites.

Thus,   those who  say  that  the  Quebecois are descended from Reuben are at least partly correct. The mistake that some  of these researchers have made  is that because francophone Quebecers come from France, that they must therefore all be Reubenites. Such is simply not the case.

The tribe of Dan, chiefly the Irish, is also represented in Quebec society in significant numbers. However, a term used by Quebecois nationalists must be explained here, and that is the concept of pure Laine, (literally, “pure wool”). This term describes those francophone Quebecers  who are descended from the early French colonists. Although many of the Irish in Quebec  have been  settled  in the province nearly as long as the Quebecois themselves, and over the generations have learned  French and have become an accepted part of Quebec society, they are not, strictly speaking, pure Iaine. That is, the ancestors of the Quebec Irish were not born in France.

It is universally understood among Ten Tribes researchers that Dan is represented in the modern world largely by the Irish, though Danites are found in other ethnic groups as well, as  Davidy  has demonstrated. The story of Danite Irish immigration into Quebec  begins in the earliest times with the formation of political and military links between southern Ireland and France. It is thought  that 5% of the population  of New France was Irish, 26 and certain Irish names were corrupted into French,  for example,  Reilly to Riel or Casey to Caissie. Later immigrants,  those  in the 19th century, kept their Irish names, settled  in Quebec and prospered. Except for their names,  they became more or less indistinguishable from the native Quebecois. Two modern-day premiers of Quebec, both named Johnson, were  of Irish descent as was a recent  Quebec-born prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney.

Israelites, however,  are not the only peoples  to be found  in Quebec. Besides aboriginal peoples and immigrants from all over the world, evidence has come to light that a European  non-Hebrew people  may also be present in the province. These are the Dodanim and are the subject of the following discussion.

The Dodanim Problem

Some  scholars have expressed the view that the Quebecois are at least partly descended from Dodanim, a Japhetic  people  said to inhabit central  France. Two exponents of this view are  Craig White  and  Harold Hemenway. The latter, for his part, in a book offering Biblical identities  for the world’s  peoples,  and after a brief review of areas  of the world possibly settled  by Dodanim, states  bluntly  that  Quebec is “largely” Dodanim.(27) White, in giving a more extensive argument, concludes that “the Quebecans [QuebecoisIof Canada are over-whelmingly from Alpine Dodanim stock.”(28)

However, such conclusions need to be reinterpreted in the  face  of additional historical  knowledge and prophetic revelation; if this is done, very different, if not almost opposite inferences can be drawn from such an evaluation. The Quebec-is-Dodanim hypothesis is wrong for two reasons: firstly, it does not agree with the Biblical parallels and prophecies pertaining to the Quebecois, nor does it accord with any known prophecy of either the rise or fall of modern  Israel, and, secondly, it does not agree with the historical settlement  patterns of the “French” immigrants to Quebec based on census records. The reader may refresh his memory regarding the former by reading again the appropriate  parts of this work. The second point, however, requires some explanation.

As mentioned previously in the section, “The Racial Origins of the Early Settlers of Quebec,” over 50% of the immigrants  to Quebec came  from provinces  north of the  Loire  river.  Most of the  rest  came from  the southwest. Only 7% came from other regions, including central and southern France. It is important  here that we be accurate in defining which provinces belong to which geographical region.

Unfortunately,  White,  to use  his argument as  an example, is not  very  geopolitically precise in  his definition of central France, in which Dodanim are said to dwell. He does say, however, that “the central 1eastern French and also the majority of Bretons are Dodanim Alpines (55% of the population)” (29) and that a branch of Dodanim may have settled in Languedoc.(30) Brittany, however, is not in central  France, but in the extreme northwest;  the province of Languedoc is in the south and  the waters  of the  Mediterranean lap its shores. Central and southern France  may indeed  have been areas of Dodanim settlement, but they are not, in overwhelming measure, the areas where the ancestors of the Quebecois came  from.

In the year 1,700, at the height of French immigration to Quebec, only 7% of the immigrants,  as previously noted, came from  “other regions”-central and southern France and  two or three  other  provinces  in the northeast  and  southwest. From the comparative data available for that year, we can deduce that central and  eastern  France consists of the  provinces of Orleanais, Berry, Marche,  Nivernais, Bourbonnais, Auvergne,  Bourgogne  (Burgundy),  Franche-Comte, Lorraine, Alsace, and possibly Touraine and Limousin. Southern France would  be Languedoc, Dauphine, Venaissin, Provence, Rousillion, and possibly Foix. Other areas included in this 7% would be Flandres (Flanders) and  Artois in the extreme northeast and  Beam  and Gascogne  (Gascony) in the southwest.

In order  for the Quebec-is-Dodanim hypothesis  to have a convincing validity it would have to be shown that the areas of France north of the Loire, from which Quebec received  the  majority of its immigrants  was overwhelmingly  Dodanim in population; but we have already seen, and we believe history shows, that these were areas of predominantly Benjaminite,  Simeonite, and Reubenite settlement. Alternatively, it would have to be shown  that after  1, 700, Quebec received  large numbers of immigrants from  central  and  southern France. But there is no such record in the census  books and emigration from France virtually ceased after 1760.

Thus it is obvious that if these areas  of central and southern France were areas of Dodanirn settlement, and if only 7% of Quebecois came  from these areas,  then the percentage of Quebecois that is Dodanim must be very Iow-  a distinct  minority  and  not  the  large  or overwhelming majority as claimed by some.

Conclusions and a Prognosis for the Future

On the basis of the preceding secular and Biblical historical evidence, and what I  believe to be a proper understanding of prophetic  revelation, I conclude that the modern  French-speaking Quebecois people  are descended from four Israelite tribes: Benjamin, Simeon, Reuben, and Judah.  An argument could be made  for substituting Levi for Judah, but this may not be necessary as Levi is found with Simeon  and Judah  in any case. There are also significant and  important  numbers of Ephraimites and  Danites within Quebec society, and although these peoples, particularly the latter, have adapted well to, and become a part of Quebec’s social structure, they are not to be equated with the pure Laine Quebecois whose ancestors came from  France centuries ago. There may also be a small non-Israelite minority of Dodanim.

This conclusion is brought  out in a colourful and dramatic  way  in one  of Quebec’s most  cherished symbols: its flag. The flag of Quebec consists of a white cross on a blue field. Thus there are four blue corners on the flag. Each corner  contains  a white fleur-de-lis. This emblem has  for centuries been  an  emblem of France, in particular its kings. As Davidy notes, the fleur­ de-lis may find its antecedent in the mandrakes, said to have a blue or white flower, that Reuben found in the field and gave to his mother  Leah; she in turn traded (“hired”  in Biblical language) them  to Rachel  in exchange for a night with Jacob.  It was this conjugal union that produced Issachar (Genesis 30:14-18).

The flag, with its fleur-de-lis device, is symbolic of Quebec’s  past political ties with France. One of these fleurs-de-lis clearly represents Reuben, ancestor of the French; the other three represent Reuben’s fellows in Quebec: Benjamin, Simeon, and Judah.

What of the future? Why should there be a Quebec independence movement at all? The reason, ultimately, lies in the fact that Biblical prophecy  is being fulfilled before  our  eyes. Most  of  these prophecies are concerned  with the rise and fall of the tribes of Israel; other nations are mentioned only insofar as they come into contact with Israel. It is modern  Israelites, (British, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Americans,  and  Northwest Europeans and Jews), wherever they have settled in the world, who must endure the time of “Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7), a time of punishment from God for Israel’s  grievous national  sins. These sins,  if  left  unpunished and unrepented  of, would evetually lead  to the complete destruction of Israel. God will not allow that to happen. Therefore,  He is sending, and will send  upon us more severe yet, punishments of “natural” disasters, famines, disease  epidemics, and ultimately military invasion by our traditional enemies, the Germans  (Isaiah 10:5-6). He does this to encourage his people of israel to repent, to return to Him, and be redeemed by the coming Messiah. Without  this  repentance,  return, and redemption, the Millennium, the new world of peace under God’s rule, cannot be born.

Prophecy declares that“Ephraim [Israel in general, the British countries in particular] shall be desolate  in the day of rebuke”(Hosea 5:9). The independence of Quebec,  which  both  Biblical prophecy and  modern political events, seem to indicate will come to pass, will bring with it a certain instability. The Canadian dollar will suffer as  will our  political institutions.  For instance, although the government of Canada says it has no plans to do so, it is likely that a weak-kneed  government will dispose of the monarchy to appease hotheaded  Quebec separatists  and “keep  the country united”. The effect, however,  will be precisely the opposite.  Incidentally, indications are that the Royal Family will be led into captivity with the rest of Israel, though it seems likely that one or two members of the Royal Family will receive divine protection just as God protected  Zedekiah’s daughters after the fall of Jerusalem. Certainly the Coronation Stone, also known as the Stone of Scone, Stone of Destiny, or Jacob’s pillow stone,  upon  which  nearly all British sovereigns have been crowned, will be specially protected.

Exactly  how  Quebec independence will come about, perhaps God will leave to the political powers of this world to decide. There are two political powers, however, who are intensely interested in, and supportive of, Quebec independence. These  are  the emerging European Empire and certain factions within the United States government. This is a subject  which  requires a much  greater elaboration, but so that Canadians and students of history  and  prophecy are  not  caught unawares, I will  discuss this briefly.

Craig White, in a work devoted to exposing the true history, identity and future might of the Germans and the United States of Europe which they will undoubtedly lead, reveals part of the answer.  A split has occurred, according to White,  between the American-based internationalists and  European-based internationalists.(31)  Both  groups are  competing  for control of certain  key areas  of the world such  as the Middle East, South Africa, and,  Canada.  Both groups envy and  lust after  Canada’s vast  storehouse of seemingly unlimited natural wealth. Like South African gold and stategic minerals, it is vitally important to their competing plans for world domination-a competition, which, given  Biblical prophecy, the  American expansionists can only lose.

As White  astutely,  perhaps presciently,  observes, “Quebec  is poised  today like a dagger  at the heart of North America. She may yet play a large part in the efforts of the soon-coming United States of Europe-a National European Socialist Empire-comprising overwhelmingly the Alpine and Mediterranoid elements of Europe but relatively few Nordics. Quebec may be their launching  pad into North America!”(32)

What sort of trouble  could  be expected from a European domination of Quebec? One example would be the St. Lawrence Seaway. A European-controlled Quebec could  prohibit  shipments of Canadian and American grain and other exports through this vital sea gate. Alternatively, the same St. Lawrence passage could be used  to transport  European troops  to Canada,  or carry Canadian and American  prisoners  to a German­ dominated Europe (Hosea 9:3).

At the very least the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada would create a major social disruption. English-speaking Quebecers (anglophones) and those whose  mother  tongue is neither  English nor French (allophones) and native Indians would rebel; attitudes both  on  the  part  of the  separatists and  Canadians outside Quebec would harden. Violence would ensue and one of the world’s  important  national economies, that of Canada’s, would be thrown into a tailspin. Under such conditions, Canada could expect to have a “peace­ keeping” force on its soil in short order. But would such a force be American  or European?

Most likely such  a military intervention would  be made  under  United  Nations auspices and  European troops would probably be involved in such a force. This would certainly include German  troops. It is a revived Holy Roman Empire of Europe and its military which is prophesied to “double cross”  the nations  of Israel, particularly the English-speaking  nations of the British Commonwealth and the United States. “Peace-keeping” troops whether in Canada,  the Middle East, or South Africa, are  prophesied to be  used  traitorously and suddenly against modern Israel. Many prophecies attest to this. Read  Isaiah, chapter 10; Hosea  5:13-15, 7:11, 8:9-10; Habakkuk 2:7; Ezekiel 16:28, 37, 23:22-24, 33; Joel, chapter two. The interval of time between the time such troops may be used in Canada and the beginning of “Jacob’s trouble” (the Great Tribulation) is not known. But the fact that such  an international force of troops could be used illustrates the growing power of Europe.

The independence of Quebec  is a portent of great distress for the people of Canada and its largest province. But it is only the storm before the calm. After the chaos of the next few years, the Quebecois, all Canadians, and all other Israelites who survive the Tribulation, will find a world of joy, prosperity,  and  peace awaiting  them. Repentant Israelites in their millions will return not only to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East, but to their God. Christ Himself will set His hand to saving them spiritually; David will be resurrected through the mighty power of the Father, and will be their king. “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will l lead them;” says the Lord God, “I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters  in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a  father to Israel, and Ephraim is my  firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9).

The  French-speaking people of Quebec, who presently desire  to be maitres  chez nous (“masters in our own house”) will serve a new Master-the glorified Christ. New lords and  saviours  will appear (Obadiah 1 :21)  to  teach all  lsraelites-British,  Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Americans, Northwest Europeans, and Jews and all others wherever they may live-the ways of the Lord God of Israel. Isaiah says of that day, ”And many  people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord  from Jerusalem” (lsaiah 2:3).

In that day, and only then, will the words of a visiting French politician to Quebec ring true. In 1967, Charles de Gaulle, president of the Fifth Republic, uttered words that created a controversy at the time. Speaking from a balcony to a large, enthusiastic crowd below him, he was reminded of similar jubilant crowds that thronged him after France was delivered from Nazi tyranny at the close ofWorld War II. Overwhelmed by the emotion  of the moment, he proclaimed, “Vive le Quebec! Vive le Quebec libre!” (“Long live Quebec! Long live free Quebec!”)

The words could have been  prophetic. For it is only after being delivered from a future Nazi-type tyranny by the mighty hand of God, that the Quebecois people will be liberated from the scourges that currently  beset them-political infighting and corruption, burdensome taxes, crime, poverty, and sickness – by learning to obey the laws of God which will prevent these problems from arising in the first place. In that day, and not before, the Quebecois will be truly free.

Notes and References

The possibility of a Hebrew origin for the  name Canada should not be overlooked. It is known that the Iroquois had contact  with Europeans prior to Columbus; a loan word from  perhaps Scandinavian or Celtic may have sounded like “kanata” and  meant  something like “village”. Or perhaps the  Iroquois  picked  up  the  word from earlier Israelite or Phoenician voyagers or traders.

It is interesting to note that there was a Mahaneh­-Dan in ancient  Israel (from the verb “chaneh,” to make camp). In southern Arabia  there was  a kingdom of Kinda,  a Samarkand (“camp of Samaria”) in Central Asia, a Sea of Candia in the Mediterranean, and of course, Canada. Mahaneh­ Dan, Kinda, and Canada  were  all areas  of Danite settlement. For a further discussion  of Kinda, see Yair Davidy,  Ephraim, pp. 23-26.

In 1990, a confrontation erupted near Oka, Quebec, between the Iroquois and  the  provincial government over a piece  of land the Iroquois claimed as theirs (a burial ground) but which a neighbouring municipality wanted  to use as a golf course! The Indians may have had help, however, and  provocation  from outside  Canada’s borders has been alleged. See Floyd W Rudmin, “Is the Sky Falling or What?” (unpublished paper), and Rudmin, Bordering on Aggression, (Voyageur Publishing, Prescott, Ontario, Canada).

White, Craig , Who are the Germans?. Sydney, Australia: History Research Projects, 1994, p. 47.

Davidy, Yair, The Tribes. Hebron, Israel: Russell-Davis Publishers, p. 440.

Davidy, ibid, p.166

“Les Francs RIPUAIRES, ainsi que la plupart des tribus franques etaient des peuples de race germanique. Mais il n’en est pas de meme en ce qui concerne tous les FRANCS SALIENS. Dans leur ensemble les Francs Saliens n’etaient pas  germaniques: C’ETAIENT DES ISRAELITES! Et pour des  raisons que nous allons voir, ils comprenaient notammnet des  descendants de  la tribu  de  JUDA. (Dibar Apartian, Les Pays de la Langue Francaise selon la Prophetie. Pasadena, California: Worldwide Church of God, 1982, p. 66).

Olson, S.Gusten, The Incredible Nordic Origins. Sevenoaks, Kent, England:Nordica S.F. Ltd., 1981, p185

The Canadian Encyclopedia. Edmonton,  Alberta, Canada: Hurtig Publishers, 1989, Vol. II, p. 1239.

The Canadian Encyclopedia, 1:629.

The Canadian Encyclopedia, II:696.

An anonymously written pamphlet published by a Canadian British-Israel organisation cites “reliable secular sources” which indicate that 88% of French-speaking  Quebecers are of Norman and Breton  descent. The  sources are  not  named. (Anonymous, “The Separatist  Movement in Quebec or Who  are  the  French-Canadians?”. Burnaby,  B.C. ,  Canada:  The Association  of the Covenant People, p. 1).

12. Davidy, cit., p. 235.

12. Davidy, op. cit., p. 236.
13. “Oxonian.” [W M. H. Milner], Israel’s Wanderings. London: R. Folkhard & Son, 1900. Fourth edition, p.125.

15. Hine, Edward, Identity of the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel with the Anglo-Saxons. Burnaby, B.C.: The Association of the Covenant People. Abridged version, p. 49.
16. 16. Davidy, cit., p. 427.
17. Jowett, George F., Dominion. Burnaby, B.C.: The Association of the Covenant People, p. 44.

18. 18. Jowett, ibid., p.54
19. Davidy, Yair, Ephraim. Jerusalem: Russell-Davis Publishers, 1995, pp. 61-76.

20.  The Canadian Encyclopedia, II:918.
21. Davidy, The Tribes, p. 235.
22.  Davidy, ibid., p. 337
23. 23. Davidy, ibid., p. 337.
24. Olson, op. cit., pp. 126-132.
25. 25. Canada Year Book, 1994, 481.
26. 26. The Canadian Encyclopedia, II:901.
27. Hemenway, Harold, Is the Bible Racist?. Seattle, Wash.: Harold Hemenway, 1995, p. 35.
28. 28. White, Craig M., The Central  French,  Northern Italians, Spanish and Japanese … the modern day descendants of Dodanim and  Tarshish!. Sydney, Australia: History Research Projects, 1994, 6.
29. White, ibid., p. 6.
30. 30. White, ibid., p. 4.
31. White, Craig M., Who are the Germans?, p. 65.
32. 32. White, The Central French, 6.