Reconciliation Bridge

[Resolute 14]

Seriously, Rube? We are literally scrubbing away an honour given nearly a century ago for being a major player in the building of our nation because that aspect of his history is more than a little inconvenient to the narrative we want to present now.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I don't get the whitewashing claim at all. They aren't covering anything up, this won't be erased from the history books. It's a move to not glorify a name, but no history is being glossed over.

From the CBC

The city will now work with First Nations and Calgary Heritage Authority to tell the story of the bridge and the reasons why the name was changed.

Any claim of whitewashing is just patently false.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

And that is exactly the reasoning that makes me happy withe the name change.

One was nation moved onto a southern Alberta Reserve where they shifted to agriculture with such great success -- the local farmers became alarmed, insisting the Indian agent take away the hoes, rakes and shovels

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

What the #### does that mean?

We can start changing everything named after WLMK to Compensation whatever.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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?

It's only a problem if you think there should be general principles regarding these things. If there is, then we have a lot of renaming to do.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's only a problem if you think there should be general principles regarding these things. If there is, then we have a lot of renaming to do.

I think it's absolutely fine to deal with things on a case-by-case basis. I don't know who is suggesting some standardised policy where anyone who did anything questionable has all their namesakes renamed.

Seems like a slippery slope argument.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's only a problem if you think there should be general principles regarding these things. If there is, then we have a lot of renaming to do.

Let's no let perfect be the enemy of good, right?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's only a problem if you think there should be general principles regarding these things. If there is, then we have a lot of renaming to do.

So are you saying don't rename anything, or we must rename everything? Is there any possibility of taking it a bit at a time? Is life all or nothing? If my daughter gets a 'B' on her report card, do I shower her with gifts, or burn down her room? This is so confusing.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 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.

Now for the rant about the cruelty of robing calves... well, maybe not cruel, just a little humiliating for calves to be out wearing robes. It's like a bloody scene from Far Side.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If my daughter gets a 'B' on her report card, do I shower her with gifts, or burn down her room?

Shower her with burning gifts. You need to stay unpredictable to keep her guessing.

Big yawn from me on the actual topic. It's not like I knew who it was named after anyway (other than obviously a guy named Langevin), I figured Langevin was a hockey player or maybe the French word for "dingy".

[4X4]

What if one of us is good and one of us is bad?
Poison Pizza?
Oh, no. I'm not making two stops.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

And here I was wondering why there was a bridge named after a brand of scotch whiskey.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by 4X4

If my daughter gets a 'B' on her report card, do I shower her with gifts, or burn down her room? This is so confusing.

You should chug a gallon of chocolate milk in front of her.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Table 5

You should chug a gallon of chocolate milk in front of her.

I pour it down the drain for full shock factor.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So are you saying don't rename anything, or we must rename everything? Is there any possibility of taking it a bit at a time? Is life all or nothing? If my daughter gets a 'B' on her report card, do I shower her with gifts, or burn down her room? This is so confusing.

The way I view it is that in the context of 1883, he did nothing wrong. Like Cliff explained in an earlier post, they believed it was the only way to save Natives from poverty. And it was widely accepted as the best solution. (As an aside, is the current Canadian government doing any better? We set up reserves for them and just throw money at the situation)

Langevin being a father of confederation was honored with a bridge and it should probably stay that way. PM Harper and Chretien will probably be honored with an airport or bridge someday, yet were involved in the war in Afghanistan. In 100 years, should we rename the monuments to someone more vanilla?

What Hitler did was abhorrent then and it's abhorrent now, hence he is not honored anywhere (except by morons).

[OMG!WTF!]

Stealing kids is pretty abhorrent.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Stealing kids is pretty abhorrent.

No man, it was best, you know... for the savages.

Nothing to see here!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The way I view it is that in the context of 1883, he did nothing wrong.

And viewed in the context of 2017, it was obviously wrong. The residential school system was a disaster, and it is a national disgrace.

Even if the guy thought it was the right thing to do doesn't change the fact that it was not the right thing to do.

You don't honour someone who was a part of a terrible mistake, even if the mistake was made with good intentions.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And viewed in the context of 2017, it was obviously wrong. The residential school system was a disaster, and it is a national disgrace.

Even if the guy thought it was the right thing to do doesn't change the fact that it was not the right thing to do.

You don't honour someone who was a part of a terrible mistake, even if the mistake was made with good intentions.

You're not wrong.

But in that case, nothing should be named after anyone, and everything should be renamed to something meaningless. Washington had slaves, Tecumseh killed people, Obama ordered drone strikes, Mackenzie-King ordered the imprisonment of Japanese Canadians, FDR & Churchill committed war crimes, and the lists go on. Even Ghandi was a racist.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

But in that case, nothing should be named after anyone

Fair point, kind of, but going a little overboard.

Honestly, until this controversy I didn't know who the hell Langevin was. He could have been the first white man to swim across the Bow River for all I knew. But, it turns out he's connected to a very bad policy that negatively affected millions of Canadians. We can't pull everyone's name from everything, but if it comes up on a case-by-case basis, like this one did, why not?

The objection (I don't mean from you) only seems to be "it's politically correct to do this".