Reconciliation Bridge

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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

See, and that's the point Cliff made - what you've just written is a principle.

First, I'm not sure I agree even just on the face of it - can't you honour someone for doing something good, even if they've also done something terrible in another arena (especially if that judgment's a product of historical hindsight)? The liberal in me intuitively says, "honour the good, but talk about the bad".

Second, if you're right, then you have to apply this to every historical figure, which is going to produce crazy results - that is, this principle doesn't stand up to a reductio ad absurdum.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

See, and that's the point Cliff made - what you've just written is a principle.

First, I'm not sure I agree even just on the face of it - can't you honour someone for doing something good, even if they've also done something terrible in another arena (especially if that judgment's a product of historical hindsight)? The liberal in me intuitively says, "honour the good, but talk about the bad".

Second, if you're right, then you have to apply this to every historical figure, which is going to produce crazy results - that is, this principle doesn't stand up to a reductio ad absurdum.

I've never been principled, so I couldn't have written a principle. Or, at least, I didn't mean too.

This is not like renaming Stalingrad, or shuttering Winston Churchill High School. It's just a bridge named after a guy that nobody even knows, but turns out he was a leading figure in a terrible policy that lasted for decades and caused untold harm.

And if I'm right, we don't have to apply this to every historical figure. We just don't. And we won't. This just happens to be something we can do. If they just went ahead and did it, nobody would even have noticed.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I've never been principled, so I couldn't have written a principle. Or, at least, I didn't mean to.

And if I'm right, we don't have to apply this to every historical figure. We just don't.

Well, you did. You wrote a statement about how we ought to act - we should do X, we shouldn't do Y. That's a moral principle. You can't apply a principle only in cases where you feel like applying it - it's either right or wrong. If you want to honour some people who've done terrible things and not others, you're just being arbitrary.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, you did. You wrote a statement about how we ought to act - we should do X, we shouldn't do Y. That's a moral principle. You can't apply a principle only in cases where you feel like applying it - it's either right or wrong. If you want to honour some people who've done terrible things and not others, you're just being arbitrary.

Sure you can.

Humans do it all the time. We always have. There's really no being arbitrary outside of an academic view of things.

People are fairly simple. Things are fine until they're not. Then we change them. We don't change all things in that moment, just some things. Why? Because while things might be related we're still very selective in how we process that. That's just being human.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure you can.

Humans do it all the time. We always have. There's really no being arbitrary outside of an academic view of things.

People are fairly simple. Things are fine until they're not. Then we change them. We don't change all things in that moment, just some things. Why? Because while things might be related we're still very selective in how we process that. That's just being human.

My only issue is that we have replaced something tangibly historical and real with an abstract concept that has no meaning outside of a certain group's ideology.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

My only issue is that we have replaced something tangibly historical and real with an abstract concept that has no meaning outside of a certain group's ideology.

Oh boy.

[Slava]

So why does this bridge need a name exactly? I have a feeling we could remove the name to satisfy the current thoughts around Langevin and just leave it at that with no problem whatsoever?

[RougeUnderoos]

It's a bridge named after a guy nobody even knows. We don't have to write principles or have some philosophical chin-rubbing over it.

"Hey, we have a bridge named after a guy who caused some harm, I think we should change the name and it would be really easy to just change the sign."

That doesn't mean:

"If we are going to do this we must be consistent, and apply this principle to every street, park, and building in the country, and we have to change the tradition of naming things after people, and change the name of everything named after every person ever who wasn't perfect".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Oh boy.

I'm not saying that the name should not have been replaced, I just don't like the replacement.

Even having the name stand is a good reminder of what actually happened. We've erased our own shortcomings for a bit of virtue signalling.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure you can. Humans do it all the time. We always have. There's really no being arbitrary outside of an academic view of things.

Yes. There is. This is an argument against making sense in its most basic form. Logical consistency is something to strive for. If a belief is morally right, it's morally right in all cases, without exception. This should be obvious - you can't say, for example, that capital punishment is morally wrong, so we're not going to hang Bob, but go ahead and hang Jim.

If your argument is that human beings are generally pretty bad at reasoning clearly, I've no argument, but if you're suggesting that this means anything for how we should approach these questions, you've fallen into the naturalistic fallacy.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"Hey, we have a bridge named after a guy who caused some harm, I think we should change the name and it would be really easy to just change the sign."

Right, which is why we immediately go back here:

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.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say that the rationale for this is that it's wrong to honour someone who held views we now see as abhorrent, you've got to live by that principle. If you just want to change the bridge name because it's easy enough to do and will please some people, that's a different story.

[troutman]

Bridgey McBridgeface

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by troutman

Bridgey McBridgeface

Yes yes thrice yes

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say that the rationale for this is that it's wrong to honour someone who held views we now see as abhorrent, you've got to live by that principle. If you just want to change the bridge name because it's easy enough to do and will please some people, that's a different story.

Sure you can. You can believe both that it's wrong and that it's pragmatically impossible to rename everything.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say that the rationale for this is that it's wrong to honour someone who held views we now see as abhorrent, you've got to live by that principle. If you just want to change the bridge name because it's easy enough to do and will please some people, that's a different story.

I can have my cake and eat it too.

I can, without losing sleep, ask that Bridge X can be renamed, and then not ask that we rename everything in the country to remain consistent with why I asked for the renaming of Bridge X.

You can go ahead and repeat to me how this is inconsistent and I'm sure you're right, but such is life.

[nik-]

Slippery slope


Slippery slope!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sure you can. You can believe both that it's wrong and that it's pragmatically impossible to rename everything.

I guess so, but I don't think it's actually pragmatically impossible to re-name a whole bunch of things. And if it is possible, we shouldn't do it. It's possible to re-name Washington D.C., but I don't think Washington D.C. should be re-named just because Washington owned slaves. We could take John A McDonald off the ten dollar bill because he advocated against voting rights for asians but I don't think that's something we should do. And so on and so forth for nearly any historical figure you could possibly name.

I don't care about Langevin and I don't care about this bridge. I just don't think it's reasonable to adopt a principle that no one who ever did anything terrible or held any terrible views can be honoured by having a monument or having something named after them.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You can go ahead and repeat to me how this is inconsistent and I'm sure you're right, but such is life.

It is if you're sticking to the view that "we shouldn't honour people who made terrible mistakes, even if they had good intentions" but you don't care if that's followed in other cases. I can't force you to value reason, it's just depressing that so many people are eager to tell you why they think certain things are morally right or morally reprehensible without caring in the least whether or not those beliefs actually make any sense.

[PepsiFree]

Humans aren't reasonable, but we are capable of using academically inconsistent reason to justify both action and inaction in obviously similar situations.

I mean yeah, Ghandi was kinda horrible. Find the Ghandi bridge and rename it if you want, but to most people it doesn't have anything to do with this particular issue.

Rename Washington, take McDonald off the bill, whatever. Not all issues are equally relevant or important to enough people to make a difference. The bridge was, and that's fine.

It changed because enough people cared to outweigh those who didn't. Go ahead and try to rename Washington D.C, see if the resistance to that is as limp as the resistance to renaming a bridge that was named after someone most people don't care about anyway.

I get what you're saying Corsi, and I know it's upsetting, but to most people it just doesn't really matter to be that consistent.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It is if you're sticking to the view that "we shouldn't honour people who made terrible mistakes, even if they had good intentions" but you don't care if that's followed in other cases. I can't force you to value reason, it's just depressing that so many people are eager to tell you why they think certain things are morally right or morally reprehensible without caring in the least whether or not those beliefs actually make any sense.

Ha. Okay. If by "valuing reason" you mean I travel the country looking for monuments and infrastructure named after people I believe had bad ideas, I can't value reason.

I live in Calgary, and there is a bridge named after a guy who was instrumental in developing the residential school program, and I don't think that guy should be honoured with a bridge named after him. It's not complicated. You might not get it, but it makes sense to me.

Are there other things named after other people I'd disagree with? I'm sure there are. I have things to do (like to to work, sleep, et cetera) and don't really have the time to fight those fights. Hell, I'm not even fighting this fight. I'm pointlessly arguing about it on the internet with another person who isn't doing anything either.

We can't all be consistently consistent. I'm sorry that depresses you. You might want to look elsewhere for something to buck up your spirits.

[Swift]

Though I lean towards Corsi's argument more, I can see the points of both sides. However, none of it changes the fact that Reconciliation Bridge is a dopey name.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

....

It changed because enough people cared to outweigh those who didn't. Go ahead and try to rename Washington D.C, see if the resistance to that is as limp as the resistance to renaming a bridge that was named after someone most people don't care about anyway.
...

That can not be even close to true. Also, I don't believe resistance to doing something is a good indicator of if that something should be done. If a whole bunch of weirdos who worship Langevin and his horrible ideas came forward to protest you would have been fine with keeping it the same?

To the main point, I don't really care about the bridge. I had to just look up which one it was. This whole time I thought it was the bottom half of the center street bridge. I think the name should stay as it is part of our history and can drive the conversation about our past. Its great they are putting a plaque up to give a blurb about the residential system but I don't think many people will see that, no one will learn anything from it. By removing the name everyone can just go back to forgetting and not talking about that part of our history at all..... great