Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish goals of the site. The evolution to discuss all history was well underway already. I noted it will inflame a lot of people, I'm not one of them. I just think its sad, superficial, and diminishes the important of the Fort as a catalyst to the modern city.
You seem to think it was needed to show that its about more than the western history of the area. I don't. Simple as that. I think we can agree to disagree here.
|
How can the name be both superficial and unnecessary to accomplish the goals of the site, and able to diminish the importance of a part of the city’s history?
You say they’re already talking about indigenous history, but they’re also already talking about Fort Calgary and continue to do so, so if changing the name does nothing to positively impact the former goal, how exactly do you reason that it negatively impacts the latter?
Your position just kind of contradicts itself.