Reconciliation Bridge

[FireGilbert]

You mean it's not the Calf Rope bridge? Thankfully that was clarified before I went on a rant about how calf roping is cruel and they need to change the bridge name.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No, but the purpose here is to make us forget about a Father of Confederation.

Except it's not about that. It's about demonstrating that we no longer believe that the people who were big players in the cultural genocide of FN deserve to have landmarks named after them.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by icecube

and pretty please, save the ridiculous spiel that they had First Nations best interest in mind.

As abhorrent as it sounds to us today, they did.

At the time, there was only a rudimentary education system in Canada. No welfare system. Most people farmed or performed a trade that they learned from their parents. If you had no work, you had no money and went hungry.

Since few natives had the land or knowledge to farm, or knew any trades, they lived in dire poverty. Authorities concluded that their children would also be consigned to dire poverty if they did not learn skills to make them employable. It was thought if they were taught English, to read and write, and given a plot of land, they could become self-reliant and secure like other Canadians. There were few schools in the hinterlands of Canada, and they were religious.

We find it awful to take children away from their parents. People back then were more hard-hearted, and many non-native children were also taken away and put into orphanages or indentured labour if their parents were deemed 'unfit'. Even upper-class British children were sent away from their parents for most of the year to toughen them up.

We find it awful that one culture could feel itself superior to another. They didn't, and you wouldn't either if you were born in the 19th century.

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

[PepsiFree]

That's all well and good, but it rely's entirely on the predominantly white-christian view of aboriginal culture, which had survived and grown on it's own terms before our arrival.

Colonialism is based upon the white man feeling a duty to educate and "fix" the "savages."

They may have believed they had First Nations best interest in mind, but that is no longer relevant. The nice thing about history, is we can look back with added context.

"It was acceptable back then" is not a reasonable argument.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except it's not about that. It's about demonstrating that we no longer believe that the people who were big players in the cultural genocide of FN deserve to have landmarks named after them.

Nobody today would suggest that a landmark be named after Sir Hector-Louis Langevin. So the question is whether landmarks, schools, etc. are meant to reflect the public sentiments of the times when they were built, or the public sentiments of today. If the latter, then we have a lot of work to do, as the attitudes of most people born before about 1930 are reprehensible by our standards.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except it's not about that. It's about demonstrating that we no longer believe that the people who were big players in the cultural genocide of FN deserve to have landmarks named after them.

Yeah except you're using the perspective and values that we have now to judge people's actions and opinions from a hundred years ago.

Thats patently absurd.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah except you're using the perspective and values that we have now to judge people's actions and opinions from a hundred years ago.

Thats patently absurd.

It's only absurd if you think the white perspective of history should have primacy over others. As I said, I doubt the judgement of the guy from a FN perspective is all that different now than it was 100 years ago.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's only absurd if you think the white perspective of history should have primacy over others.

Primacy has nothing to do with it. At the time the bridge was built, maybe a couple dozen well-off or influential people in Calgary decided what to name the bridge. People today, or a different group of people back then, would have chosen differently.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by icecube

The historical context of unquestioned white supremacy?

and pretty please, save the ridiculous spiel that they had First Nations best interest in mind.

The view espoused by Langevin in the quote would have been progressive in the societal context of the 1880s. Obviously the education of indigenous children in Canada was a noble goal that was horrendously executed.

Making your mind up on an issue based on a two sentence quote is not the correct way to form an opinion. Langevin is an important figure in Canadian history with both positive and negative aspects of his legacy. Whitewashing his name from the record actually serves to hinder the reconciliation movement in the grand scheme of things. The obvious choice would have been to keep the name and incorporate an installation to the bridge detailing Langevin's involvement in the residential schools system, thus creating dialog and awareness regarding uncomfortable truths in the development of our nation.

Unfortunately, City Council has decided to go with the solution of the simpleton in this case and we are poorer for it.

[afc wimbledon]

Could someone explain why a French Canadian politician who had no connection to Calgary what so ever that I can see has a bridge named after him in Calgary in the first place?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Primacy has nothing to do with it. At the time the bridge was built, maybe a couple dozen well-off or influential people in Calgary decided what to name the bridge. People today, or a different group of people back then, would have chosen differently.

I heard that "they" named it after him because he was the minister of transport at the time, and it was an almost guaranteed way of keeping funding in place for it's upkeep. Sneaky 20th Century Calgarians...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Primacy has nothing to do with it. At the time the bridge was built, maybe a couple dozen well-off or influential people in Calgary decided what to name the bridge. People today, or a different group of people back then, would have chosen differently.

I'm talking about judging Langevin's actions, not the people who named the bridge. So a group of people back then named the bridge, another group of people have now come along and said "we'd like to name it something else." What's the problem?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I heard that "they" named it after him because he was the minister of transport at the time, and it was an almost guaranteed way of keeping funding in place for it's upkeep. Sneaky 20th Century Calgarians...

I hereby do declare that the Green Line shall henceforth be known as 'The Trudeau/Notley Express".


Did that help?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah except you're using the perspective and values that we have now to judge people's actions and opinions from a hundred years ago.

Thats patently absurd.

Wait... why is it absurd?? I mean I'm pretty judgemental about the Spanish inquisition. Those guys were real dicks.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging the flaws in our historical figures. We've improved significantly, and that's worth remembering.

[DiracSpike]

I didn't know or care what that bridge was called until this all started. Now it'll be virtually impossible for me to ever drive past it and not think "Langevin".

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I hereby do declare that the Green Line shall henceforth be known as 'The Trudeau/Notley Express".


Did that help?

Doubtful. We named another bridge the Peace Bridge, but I don't see Peace chipping SFA. All I see are my property taxes going up.

[GaiJin]

I can't wait for the guilt show over Japanese internment to start.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except it's not about that. It's about demonstrating that we no longer believe that the people who were big players in the cultural genocide of FN deserve to have landmarks named after them.

He was a big player in a reprehensible program, but he was also a big player in the formation of our nation. Whether or not you want to admit it, we are whitewashing the latter.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

I can't wait for the guilt show over Japanese internment to start.

What the #### does that mean?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He was a big player in a reprehensible program, but he was also a big player in the formation of our nation. Whether or not you want to admit it, we are whitewashing the latter.

How so?