City of Victoria to remove statue of John A. Macdonald from the steps of City Hall

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by locke

i find myself saying this far too often:

There is no 'they.'

we tend to look at the native community as a united collective but this simply isnt true.

We think of the native community as a cohesive group, which they are not. I cannot stress that enough.

They are a divided group of various tribes who also do not get along with one another let alone the rest of canada.

Herein lies the problem.

So one tribe can be offended by one thing that another tribe doesnt have a problem with and then we want to build a road through another tribe's land and then another tribe gets offended because they didnt get that money and on and on it goes.

nvm.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I noticed the word "Indians" in bold font in troutman's post. I have dealt with various first nations leaders a few times. In our communications with them and internally, we go out of our way to ensure we refer to them only as "first nations", usually adding nation's name before the term. However; in all our meetings, the chiefs and tribal administrators always refer to themselves as "Indians". I find it quite comical. Similar to how the media completely abandoned the word "black" in favour of "African-American", while African-Americans themselves keep calling themselves "black" and don't see a problem doing it.

Can our forum political correctness police clarify the use of terminology?

Not for me to say, but "indian" is based on the colossal ignorance of Columbus when he claimed to have found India in the Bahamas.

I'm going off-topic here, but this NOVA documentary was very interesting:

First Face of America
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...e-america.html

[speede5]

I really don't understand why this is such a big issue. People have their honors removed all the time when their transgressions become known. Be it a statue, something named in honor, order of canada, on and on.

You just seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of people who are perpetually offended yet refer to everyone else as a snowflake.

History is not being rewritten or changed in any way by this. If anything history is getting spotlighted and people will become more aware of both the good and bad sides of John A.

It really makes me wonder if it's the subject of the removal or the proponents of removal that you have an issue with.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

To be more accurate, I don't think what we are doing here is a worthwhile process because it will fail to achieve any meaningful progress as a means of reconciliation. Here's the thing: reconciliation is a two-way street. What is happening now is not.

As to the rest of your post, lets face the elephant in the room: our politicians will agree to renaming bridges and removing statues and putting "Native-inspired" art along highway overpasses because it's the path of least resistance. First Nations leaders will praise the same for the same reason. And everyone pats themselves on the back in celebration of how progressive they are.

If we can't do the easy steps/low hanging fruit, how will we ever make progress on the big challenges (that I credit you for articulating well in the rest of your post)?

The only way things will ever change is when a greater proportion of the population is legitimately aware of the issues. This will achieved mostly through passage of time and new generations, but only if these easy steps continue to happen to promote the re-evaluation of history to create more allies.

[rubecube]

Honestly, they would be justified removing the statue based on the fact that it's an absolute eyesore.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If we can't do the easy steps/low hanging fruit, how will we ever make progress on the big challenges (that I credit you for articulating well in the rest of your post)?

The only way things will ever change is when a greater proportion of the population is legitimately aware of the issues. This will achieved mostly through passage of time and new generations, but only if these easy steps continue to happen to promote the re-evaluation of history to create more allies.

Because you're at least equally likely to create more enemies instead.

Or, as the top comment on the Reddit thread about it put it: "this is how populists gain popularity".

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

If we can't do the easy steps/low hanging fruit, how will we ever make progress on the big challenges (that I credit you for articulating well in the rest of your post)?

The only way things will ever change is when a greater proportion of the population is legitimately aware of the issues. This will achieved mostly through passage of time and new generations, but only if these easy steps continue to happen to promote the re-evaluation of history to create more allies.

This is a valid point. Reconciliation is a process not an event.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Simply put, I think the first prime minister of a relatively peaceful country that has lasted 150 years deserves to have a statue in major cities across the land. He's no war criminal, nor did he have evil plans to eliminate minorities or enslave them like many a world leader..

Uh this is quite literally most of the issue here.

The establishment of residential schools was to "educate the savage" and erase their history. Sure he wasn't looking to put them to the sword (outside of general uprisings), but how many degrees less evil is it to forcibly take children from their parents and "re-educate" them?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by speede5

...
History is not being rewritten or changed in any way by this. If anything history is getting spotlighted and people will become more aware of both the good and bad sides of John A...

Removal of the statue unequivocally puts the bad sides of Macdonald's political career over-weighing its good sides. Specifically, all of the bad weight is being given to one issue of Macdonald's belief in assimilation of the aboriginal population, which was widely shared and supported at the time. The statue is an honour given in recognition of the balance of Macdonald's political achievements. Is that one issue enough to warrant the statue removal? This is the core of the debate here.


P.S. As another example, most political and cultural figures of the past centuries viewed homosexuality as a deadly sin. Should the society bring it up now and start revising the way we look at those figures?

[OMG!WTF!]

I think art is a very good place to start and likely end. Given the statue is in Victoria, British Colombia it would seem art has greater meaning to people than place names for example. Renaming is often easier and can likely be in addition to the statuary. But for sure the art should change. It means more than other things.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Removal of the statue unequivocally puts the bad sides of Macdonald's political career over-weighing its good sides. Specifically, all of the bad weight is being given to one issue of Macdonald's belief in assimilation of the aboriginal population, which was widely shared and supported at the time. The statue is an honour given in recognition of the balance of Macdonald's political ahievements. Is that one issue enough to warrant the statue removal? This is the core of the debate here.

And vice versa.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Can our forum political correctness police clarify the use of terminology?

In the last 30 years I've seen the transition from Indian > Native > Aboriginal > First Nations > Indigenous. The most common term I hear Indian/Native/Aboriginal/First Nations/Indigenous people use is Native. So that's what I commonly use myself.

Anyone who thinks we've settled on Indigenous has to be very young or very naive. There will be another term coined in 5 or 6 years. It will be rapidly adopted by those eager to demonstrate their sophistication, and those who are slower will be scorned and shamed. And on it will go. You'd almost think the terminology treadmill were a way for the early adopters to signal their enlightened status to one another.

[PsYcNeT]

This of course isn't even going to MacDonald's white supremacism...

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...e-supremacist/

In 1885, John A. Macdonald told the House of Commons that, if the Chinese were not excluded from Canada, “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed …” This was the precise moment in the histories of Canada and the British Dominions when Macdonald personally introduced race as a defining legal principle of the state…

Macdonald’s comments came as he justified an amendment taking the vote away from anyone “of Mongolian or Chinese race.” He warned that, if the Chinese (who had been in British Columbia as long as Europeans) were allowed to vote, “they might control the vote of that whole Province” and their “Chinese representatives” would foist “Asiatic principles,” “immoralities,” and “eccentricities” on the House “which are abhorrent to the Aryan race and Aryan principles.” He further claimed that “the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics” and that “the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful; it cannot be, and never will be.” For Macdonald, Canada was to be the country that restored a pure Aryan race to its past glory, and the Chinese threatened this purity.

[CaptainYooh]

Why not adding a plaque next to the statue explaining how Macdonalds' personal and societal views at the time conflicted with societal views on assimilation today? Then the plaque can be re-done every time those views change again.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Why not adding a plaque next to the statue explaining how Macdonalds' personal and societal views at the time conflicted with societal views on assimilation today? Then the plaque can be re-done every time those views change again.

Maybe that's what will end up happening. The statue is being removed while they determine what they believe is the best course of action. I doubt it, but it could happen.

[PsYcNeT]

I mean we can all pretend that MacDonald was a product of his time, but those Aryan statements came out around the same time as Firmin published his On the Equality of Human Races.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This of course isn't even going to MacDonald's white supremacism...

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ott...e-supremacist/

Do you really expect anyone with even a basic knowledge of history to be shocked that MacDonald, and virtually every other European political leader of that era, believed that stuff?

Canadian immigration policy in the early 20th century listed a preferential ranking of prospective immigrants: Anglos at the top, Northern Europeans next, then Mediterranean stock, then Eastern Europeans, then Asians, finally Jews (black immigration was discouraged altogether). This wasn't secret, or considered embarrassing - the government was completely open about which ethnic groups it most wanted in Canada.

In 1915, Canada's National Council of Women championed sterilization to prevent unfit mothers from "filling the cradles with degenerate babies." As an MLA, Nellie McLung pushed for Alberta's eugenics laws to ensure "simple-minded women" couldn't breed. There's a school named after her about 2 km away from my house.

So we seem to have three options:

A) Denounce and remove the memorials of the great majority of politicians and public figures from about 1940 and earlier.

B) Denounce and remove the memorials of some. But which ones? Who gets to decide?

C) Recognize that "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." And acknowledge that while those beliefs are not acceptable today, there's nothing meaningful to be gained by retroactively vilifying everyone from earlier eras.

[TheIronMaiden]

They should just put a cone over his head...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equest...ngton,_Glasgow

[station]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As to the rest of your post, lets face the elephant in the room: our politicians will agree to renaming bridges and removing statues and putting "Native-inspired" art along highway overpasses because it's the path of least resistance. First Nations leaders will praise the same for the same reason. And everyone pats themselves on the back in celebration of how progressive they are.

Well that’s pretty cynical and I certainly hope more is achieved than that. Please reference the 94 recommendations from the TRC and show me the trivialities you are obsessing over. I think you will find that it is far more serious and clear eyed than you realize.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile none of this will achieve the slightest thing in resolving the actual issues that lead to the high drug use, high suicide rates and other systemic issues that you mention. The problem is that the reserve system sucks. We've created this awful system of segregation that has been entrenched for over a century and we've put most of these reserves in the middle of nowhere where there is no opportunity.

And you know this because? You’ve laid out your own blanket version of a scenario that is actually taking place across thousands of local level programs and conversations and predicted a result based on your own worst case. The problem is there are many problems and they require many solutions, big and small.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And nobody actually wants to deal with the reserve system because doing so will be ugly. It will create new wounds on top of old and will take multiple generations to come to terms with. And it is entirely understandable why many would not even want to try. But we're not going to actually achieve reconciliation until we come to a point where we are actually neighbours. And by that, I do not mean in the sense of Calgary and the T'suutina being adjacent municipalities.

The forced reserve system is clearly one of the main issues and it’s most certainly part of the discussion. This system was created and actively enforced mainly during a hundred year period starting in 1870 during formal colonial organization. Many people conflate treaties with reserves and most of the atrocities committed by our govt were obviously within the context of the reserve system. We absolutely have to talk about this.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I mean when a family of First Nation descent lives beside yours and you and they work together while your children play together and go to school together and think nothing of it because that's what kids do.

Hey we agree on something! If that is what individual people want then that should absolutely be a viable option.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

...
C) Recognize that "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." And acknowledge that while those beliefs are not acceptable today, there's nothing meaningful to be gained by retroactively vilifying everyone from earlier eras.

There is option D): Recognize past achievements that are significant for the mankind and ignore views/deeds that are not. Wagner and Voltaire were vicious anti-Semites, yet we admire Wagner's music and Voltaire's writings on human rights while ignoring their personal anti-Semitic views.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you really expect anyone with even a basic knowledge of history to be shocked that MacDonald, and virtually every other European political leader of that era, believed that stuff?

So we seem to have three options:

A) Denounce and remove the memorials of all politicians and public figures from about 1950 and earlier.

B) Denounce and remove the memorials of some. But which ones? Who gets to decide?

C) Recognize that "the past is a different country; they do things differently there." And acknowledge that while those beliefs are not acceptable today, there's nothing meaningful to be gained by retroactively vilifying everyone from earlier eras.

How about option B and just limit it to people who said ####ty things? Like, we can just limit it to people who publicly advocated against those of other races I suppose.

Memorials for politicians are pretty stupid regardless.