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

[Resolute 14]

I did just that in the post immediately above the one you quoted.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I did just that in the post immediately above the one you quoted.

If that’s your example of it, I remain pretty unconvinced. The plaque mentions both his negative and positive major contributions, but it’s erasure?

It just doesn’t add up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...The intention of these things is isn't to give you a broad understanding of the person, but instead to give an equally narrow but wholly negative understanding. The temporary plaque that Victoria put up was basically "he was a bad guy who led violence against First Nations and the first Prime Minister." And given who's in charge of Victoria city council, there's no reason to expect whatever permanent crap they put up will be any different.

Wow.

For those interested, here is the full text of the plaque that replaced the statue outside of City Hall:

"In 2017, the City of Victoria began a journey of Truth and Reconciliation with the Lekwungen peoples, the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations, on whose territories the city stands.

"The members of the City Family — part of the City’s Witness Reconciliation Program—have determined that to show progress on the path of reconciliation the City should remove the statue of Sir John A. Macdonald from the front doors of City Hall, while the City, the Nations and the wider community grapple with Macdonald’s complex history as both the first Prime Minister of Canada and a leader of violence against Indigenous People.

"The statue is being stored safely in a city facility. We will keep the public informed as the Witness Reconciliation Program unfolds, and as we find a way to recontextualize MacDonald in an appropriate way. For more information please visit www.victoria.ca/reconciliation."

Resolute 14's rehearsal of the facts in this discussion continues to be astonishingly and blatantly skewed. For all his talk of "whitewashing" and "sanitizing history" one would think a greater concern for a comprehensive and balanced presentation would be on display.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Resolute 14's rehearsal of the facts in this discussion continues to be astonishingly and blatantly skewed. For all his talk of "whitewashing" and "sanitizing history" one would think a greater concern for a comprehensive and balanced presentation would be on display.

Ehhh... I don't know about you, but I do get the distinct and primary impression from that, or would if I had no other information, that John A. MacDonald was a terrible figure. "Leader of violence against Indigenous people" is a pretty stark condemnation. I can't help but think where in the USA you'd get away with taking down a statue of George Washington and in its place putting up a plaque calling him a slaver and aggressor against people of colour... but maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's already happened.

I'm not saying the plaque's wrong or that they shouldn't have put it up by any means, I'm just not sure it's as balanced as you're making out.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by station

The unique element here is that Christian pseudo-monarchies colonized indigenous peoples worldwide, then grew into secular, multi-cultural liberal democracies that recognize broad human rights.

But isn't a paradox that European cultures attract more condemnation because we hold them to higher standards?

Originally Posted by station

But there is still this weird limbo where indigenous people survive, but are culturally clinging to life and mostly physically segregated. Should they assimilate into Canadian culture or should traditional cultures be maintained and restored? Should Canada create opportunities to improve indigenous outcomes that are wildly inconsistent and in some places downright 3rd world, or should we just ignore it?

That's the heart of a dilemma that nobody really wants to face: How can we ensure modern standards of living for people living in isolated communities without access to economic opportunity?

We tell young people in rural Newfoundland and Saskatchewan that they need to pick up stakes, move to cities, get training and education, and participate in the modern economy. Why do we expect indigenous Canadians who want to improve their lives and the lives of their children to behave differently?

Originally Posted by station

I still don’t get your point. Christian moral authority largely led to the policies that created cultural genocide(s) in the first place. Modern Christians are likely to be on the conversative side of this issue. But then Christian atonement is leading us toward reconciliation?

Christian values are so deeply rooted in our culture that they form the foundation of many secular institutions and values. Among those are the notion that the weak have the moral high ground over the strong. That's a value found in Christian culture, but not elsewhere. Western guilt is rooted in Christian notions of guilt and atonement, even if the people who passionately express Western guilt today aren't Christian.

Originally Posted by station

Great. Which is why people freaking out over a statue is silly and distracting. No one said removal of statues and monuments are the end game. So where do we go from here?

Much of the public dialog around native issues in Canada are about these airy sentiments. Statues and names and who can write a novel or write a play. Addressing them will do little to materially change the lives of people in desperate need of a better way forward. It just gives the chattering classes and the people in the grievance industry something to wrangle over in the media. It can, and likely will, go on indefinitely. Because tackling the real issue is hard and doesn't make for emotionally-simplistic narratives of heroes and villains, oppressors and oppressed.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But isn't a paradox that European cultures attract more condemnation because we hold them to higher standards?



That's the heart of a dilemma that nobody really wants to face: How can we ensure modern standards of living for people living in isolated communities without access to economic opportunity?

We tell young people in rural Newfoundland and Saskatchewan that they need to pick up stakes, move to cities, get training and education, and participate in the modern economy. Why do we expect indigenous Canadians who want to improve their lives and the lives of their children to behave differently?

.....

Actually it is the reserves and chiefs that encourage their youth to stay on the reserve. Youth are made to feel guilty if they express that they wish to leave.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ehhh... I don't know about you, but I do get the distinct and primary impression from that, or would if I had no other information, that John A. MacDonald was a terrible figure. "Leader of violence against Indigenous people" is a pretty stark condemnation.

That is possibly true, although I am uncertain how to make the inscription any more balanced. Any suggestions as to what it ought to read? I maintain that Resolute 14's presentation of the plaque is woefully disingenuous. I think at minimum that the plaque is more informative than the statue on its own, and am eager to see how this matter is resolved in the near future.

I can't help but think where in the USA you'd get away with taking down a statue of George Washington and in its place putting up a plaque calling him a slaver and aggressor against people of colour...

I don't doubt it, but I also don't see why we should be looking to the United States to set the moral standard for how to resolve such situations. In my opinion, there is a strong, unhealthy, and potentially dangerous cult of personality that is engrained within American culture.

I'm not saying the plaque's wrong or that they shouldn't have put it up by any means, I'm just not sure it's as balanced as you're making out.

Perhaps. But I don't think I made any claims with regards to its balance, only that Resulote 14's redaction is highly misleading. I understand the concern for sanitizing history, but in this instance I still think the charge is unfairly leveled. It's bizarre to me to see critics so highly invested in keeping a part of MacDonald's legacy concealed, all the while insisting that this is a more equitable treatment of the past.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is possibly true, although I am uncertain how to make the inscription any more balanced. Any suggestions as to what it ought to read?

This is why I added the caveat about not thinking the plaque shouldn't have been put up that way... I really don't know if I have a better suggestion. You can only really put so much information on a plaque. I suppose a list of Macdonald's more positive lasting accomplishments (assembling what we consider Canada today; the railway, the RCMP etc.), but then you could arguably accuse the city of minimizing the controversial parts of his legacy (though really, I think it would be hard to characterize "Leader of violence against Indigenous people" a minimization no matter what you wrote beforehand).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is why I added the caveat about not thinking the plaque shouldn't have been put up that way... I really don't know if I have a better suggestion. You can only really put so much information on a plaque. I suppose a list of Macdonald's more positive lasting accomplishments (assembling what we consider Canada today; the railway, the RCMP etc.), but then you could arguably accuse the city of minimizing the controversial parts of his legacy (though really, I think it would be hard to characterize "Leader of violence against Indigenous people" a minimization no matter what you wrote beforehand).

Perhaps this can't be helped. I mean, fairly or unfairly, people are going to make up their minds about the legacy of historical actors on the basis of what is known. The problem here is that finding "balance" is really difficult because of the wide range and degree of emotions that MacDonald evokes.

...By the way, In am really disappointed by your decision to change your avatar. The Datsun 280 rules.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, but I crashed it, so I drive this now. I have to say, I really miss the manual steering rack. Basically the only car you can get it in now is an Alfa 4C, and that doesn't come with a stick. The hydraulic rack in the 987.2S is definitely better than the new drive by wire offerings but it's still not the same.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, but I crashed it...

Noooooooooooooooooooooo!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Believe me, I know. It sucks. I had it going pretty much perfectly. I'll own another someday.

EDIT: There, I changed the avatar anyway.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Believe me, I know. It sucks. I had it going pretty much perfectly. I'll own another someday.

I don't have many regrets, but one of them is the day I declined on a chance to own a 1980 Datsun 280 10th Anniversary with less than 90,000 kms. I bought an awesomely cool 1984 Toyota Landcruiser BJ42 instead, but still.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't have many regrets, but one of them is the day I declined on a chance to own a 1980 Datsun 280 10th Anniversary with less than 90,000 kms. I bought an awesomely cool 1984 Toyota Landcruiser BJ42 instead, but still.

Red / black 10th anniversary or gold / black? I think the gold has aged better but the red / black is rarer (2500 vs 500 units sold).

You can still get those 10th anniversaries for cheap - $10k USD for a good example. They aren't thought of as highly as the S30 Z's. I think maybe in ten years I'll get a 280z Black Pearl and restomod it, that's pretty much my dream car. If I was rich I'd just do a garage of Z's. Black Pearl S30, 10th anniversary s31, 50th anniversary Z31, Shiro Z31, SMZ Z32, 35th anniversary Z33, 40th anniversary Z34. Honestly, that whole garage could probably be had for $150k.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

That is possibly true, although I am uncertain how to make the inscription any more balanced. Any suggestions as to what it ought to read? I maintain that Resolute 14's presentation of the plaque is woefully disingenuous. I think at minimum that the plaque is more informative than the statue on its own, and am eager to see how this matter is resolved in the near future.

Making it more "balanced" requires something that is not present: a desire to present the subject honestly. The plaque that was put up was 95% moral grandstanding tied to one viewpoint: the idea that JAM was evil because a few representatives of local First Nations groups said so. There was no effort put in to explain why the statue was put up in the first place.

If that's your idea of "balanced", then you really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being disingenuous.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Making it more "balanced" requires something that is not present: a desire to present the subject honestly. The plaque that was put up was 95% moral grandstanding tied to one viewpoint: the idea that JAM was evil because a few representatives of local First Nations groups said so. There was no effort put in to explain why the statue was put up in the first place.

If that's your idea of "balanced", then you really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being disingenuous.

So...you're just straight up denying proven facts now? What is dishonest or incorrect about it?

I don't see the word evil on the plaque...what's your specific complaint?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Making it more "balanced" requires something that is not present: a desire to present the subject honestly. The plaque that was put up was 95% moral grandstanding tied to one viewpoint: the idea that JAM was evil because a few representatives of local First Nations groups said so. There was no effort put in to explain why the statue was put up in the first place.

If that's your idea of "balanced", then you really shouldn't be accusing anyone else of being disingenuous.

Here’s the text again, specifically about JAM’s legacy:

Macdonald’s complex history as both the first Prime Minister of Canada and a leader of violence against Indigenous People.

That’s balanced. It highest both what he’s known for in a broad positive sense, and a broad negative sense. Neither position goes into the details.

The plaque isn’t permanent, but the purpose of it was to explain why it was removed, not why it was put up.

I wonder: where was the outcry for a plaque explaining why it was put up when it was actually put up.

I have to agree with Textcritic, I think your interpretation and explanation of both the plaque and the situation are limited, and in my opinion, unbalanced on their own.

[Jason14h]

Just put a QR code that brings up an information page and that way people can read as much or as little as they want.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Here’s the text again, specifically about JAM’s legacy:


That’s balanced. It highest both what he’s known for in a broad positive sense, and a broad negative sense. Neither position goes into the details.

When you have to strip out 90% of the inscription - and therefore the context of its placement in its entirety - to try and argue balance, you've failed.

The entire plaque is intended to lead you by the nose to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is that some local First Nations representatives disliked its existence.

The plaque isn’t permanent, but the purpose of it was to explain why it was removed, not why it was put up.

On this point, we agree. And on this point, is the basis of the disagreement: that the statue should not have been removed in the first place. The purpose of the removal and the grandstanding plaque is to entrench a first mover advantage. There is no reason to believe or expect that the people who made this decision would respect any call from the public to keep the statue where it is. Which is why they metaphorically acted under the cover of darkness.

I wonder: where was the outcry for a plaque explaining why it was put up when it was actually put up.

The plaque or the statue? If the former, then you clearly missed that it was vandalized within hours of being put up. If the latter, you're bordering on whataboutism.

I have to agree with Textcritic, I think your interpretation and explanation of both the plaque and the situation are limited, and in my opinion, unbalanced on their own.

You guys see it as balanced because it is designed to lead you to where you already want to go. So that is not a surprise to me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You guys see it as balanced because it is designed to lead you to where you already want to go. So that is not a surprise to me.

Is it not then possible you see it as unbalanced simply because it leads you where you don’t want to go? Based on your arguments, that seems most likely.