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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I gotta ask, how many people here have actively sought out more information about a statue in your home country?

I mean, I could see like on vacation in Europe and be like "who was this guy?" but you have to some sort of hyper-lameass to stop while powerwalking to the falafel place in downtown Victoria and go "huh, I know he was the first PM and he started the ball rolling on the murder and disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of people, but what else?" and then scroll on wikipedia while you scarf that pita.

Conversely, nobody reads a plaque unless it's underneath a statue or they read about it beforehand and are making a pilgrimmage. If you want to teach people about Macdonald's legacy the statue is helpful to attract attention to whatever you want them to read.

I'm also going to say that given the state of Canada today, the father of Confederation is still a net positive.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That wasn't my question - obviously he's going to get more sympathy than Hitler because Hitler is the quintessential evil force in history. My question is whether it matters, in terms of judging historical figures, that their views were a product of their time. That is, is it important whether the person's contemporaries recognized what we now see as abhorrent views? Do they get any leeway for that, or is your position that they should be judged as harshly as if your next door neighbour said the same things?

I think judging historical figures while taking into context the time period they were in is important. But the reality is, should we have monuments or statues in public places of those who thought our First Nations people were savages and treated them as such? To me the answer is no. I don't see him as a monster, as you said he was a product of the time, but I'm not First Nations. Their perspective is really what's important here.

IMO, statues of colonizers belong in museums, sure. They're absolutely part of our history. Not as celebratory displays in front of a city hall while the government is still trying to reconcile with First Nations the damages done in the past.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yup, and you can keep moving your goalposts to wherever they suit you.

How is that moving the goalposts? I was quoting you.

Hitler's actions and ideologies at the time were popular with a very large section, as such he was acting in a way he thought prudent, agree or disagree? If you agree, then is your argument that we shouldn't take down the statue of historical figures who acted in a way they thought prudent, or is there another litmus test we should use?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I think judging historical figures while taking into context the time period they were in is important. But the reality is, should we have monuments or statues in public places of those who thought our First Nations people were savages and treated them as such? To me the answer is no. I don't see him as a monster, as you said he was a product of the time, but I'm not First Nations. Their perspective is really what's important here.

I see your point, but I'm in principle hesitant to give control over things like "what can be displayed in what place" to the offended solely because they're offended. On the one hand, it's a statue... who cares. We'll barely notice its absence. On the other hand, it seems to me that you could probably make the same argument about, say, a book. Moreover, it seems likely to me that this same righteous impulse is what leads people to try to ban books. Like I said earlier in the thread, moral orthodoxy, even where it's applied in fairly inconsequential cases, makes me uneasy.

That's the source of my lingering anxiety here, even though like I said, I think they probably should just move the thing.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

...Isnt it better to say: "This is what he did, he forged Confederation, but he also did this, residential schools for natives and it didnt go well, but he didnt know that at the time."

I don't think this is any better at all. At least not in how you have framed it. I think it is equally disingenuous to project onto an historical figure like MacDonald our own beliefs as if he would have adopted them in our place. It's better to judge actions rather than imbuing intent. A much better response would be to say: "This is what he did, he forged Confederation, but he also did this, residential schools for natives," and to restrain from attempting to rehabilitate his intentions.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean you can substitute Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. if you want to.

Let'st not lump Stalin in with those guys....

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, that's because Nazi architecture ####ing sucked.

What's with dictators and their desire for overly wide roadways lined by repetitive concrete blocks leading up to a gargantuan state building?

I can't comment on their architecture but man do the Germans ever know how to build a damn fine internal combustion engine.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I think judging historical figures while taking into context the time period they were in is important. But the reality is, should we have monuments or statues in public places of those who thought our First Nations people were savages and treated them as such? To me the answer is no. I don't see him as a monster, as you said he was a product of the time, but I'm not First Nations. Their perspective is really what's important here.

IMO, statues of colonizers belong in museums, sure. They're absolutely part of our history. Not as celebratory displays in front of a city hall while the government is still trying to reconcile with First Nations the damages done in the past.

And by that same line of thinking, we can remove the statues depicting the Famous Five. Should we have a monument on Parliament Hill dedicated to those who pushed eugenics and were responsible for legislation that saw the forced sterilization of thousands?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't think this is any better at all. At least not in how you have framed it. I think it is equally disingenuous to project onto an historical figure like MacDonald our own beliefs as if he would have adopted them in our place. It's better to judge actions rather than imbuing intent. A much better response would be to say: "This is what he did, he forged Confederation, but he also did this, residential schools for natives," and to restrain from attempting to rehabilitate his intentions.

No, no, no! Its been made abundantly clear that we're to determine his intentions and he should be judged by that interpretation.

Its about Residential Schools right? If all he wanted to do was exterminate Natives there were easier ways to go about it.

I could go on and on. Its revisionist history. And I dont even like John A. MacDonald all that particularly.

Mistakes were made. Lets learn and move along. But he was the father of Canadian Confederation (such a joke as it is) so lets just acknowledge it and move along.

[activeStick]

I support the removal of the statue. Removing the statue doesn't remove him from history or ignore his wrong doings (or achievements) from the record. The act of removing the statue is, to me, acknowledging that he believed in some nasty things and thus, should not have a statue erected to honour him.

[habernac]

Next are they going to change the name of the city, too? Queen Victoria wasn't all smiles and sunshine, either.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

And by that same line of thinking, we can remove the statues depicting the Famous Five. Should we have a monument on Parliament Hill dedicated to those who pushed eugenics and were responsible for legislation that saw the forced sterilization of thousands?

I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up as some sort of "got ya!" argument. The few people I know who actually even give a crap about such things have no issues with removing or "contextualizing" monuments to the Famous Five.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, let's, for a minute. Do you think there's a morally relevant difference between the views actions of someone like Hitler - which were more or less universally thought to be monstrous at the time he executed them - and the views of someone like MacDonald, who was more or less a product of his time? Should history have more sympathy for the latter sort of person (which I guess probably describes most major historical figures)?

Just on this note, the bolded is not true. By some, sure, but the atmosphere of hatred towards Jewish people was fairly universal itself, and not only were the actions of Hitler supported by the German people at the time, they were supported by other European and Eastern powers.

The Holocaust itself was not even fully realised or documented until years after it happened. Until relatively recently, there were ongoing debates on whether it even happened.

I don’t think history should be sympathetic, it should be based on the facts as we know them. No, Hitler is not a good comparable, but “He wasn’t as bad as Hitler” is not a good reason to excuse what we come to learn are atrocities years after they occur.

There are many things don’t with the best intentions that are black marks on our world society. “They meant well” is no excuse.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I support the removal of the statue. Removing the statue doesn't remove him from history or ignore his wrong doings (or achievements) from the record. The act of removing the statue is, to me, acknowledging that he believed in some nasty things and thus, should not have a statue erected to honour him.

This is just it. The argument that the statue should be left up so that we can remember the things that were done is silly. We don’t need to honour a figure to remember their actions. Books and actual education have done a remarkable job of that since they were created.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just on this note, the bolded is not true. By some, sure, but the atmosphere of hatred towards Jewish people was fairly universal itself, and not only were the actions of Hitler supported by the German people at the time, they were supported by other European and Eastern powers.

The Holocaust itself was not even fully realised or documented until years after it happened. Until relatively recently, there were ongoing debates on whether it even happened.

I don’t think history should be sympathetic, it should be based on the facts as we know them. No, Hitler is not a good comparable, but “He wasn’t as bad as Hitler” is not a good reason to excuse what we come to learn are atrocities years after they occur.

There are many things don’t with the best intentions that are black marks on our world society. “They meant well” is no excuse.

Not to mention that during the occupations of Poland and Hungary, the Poles and Hungarians were by and large pretty pleased with the Nazis eliminating their "Jew problems." So yeah, again, this wasn't some fringe movement that really went against that period's societal norms.

[rubecube]

I can also kind of empathize with the sentiment that City Hall isn't exactly welcoming for First Nations when there's a statue in front of it, lionizing a guy who helped steal your land and hand your ancestors over to pedophiles and child abusers, creating a ripple effect of long-lasting, inter-generational abuse and trauma.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

See that hypocrites? He got ya! Can't remove one symbol of a tainted historical figure unless you remove all of them. Them's the rules!

It's like I always tell my friends who are smokers and drinkers, unless you're willing to cut out both, you're a god damn hypocrite if you only cut out one.

I'm sorry Rube, but this response is nothing more than "I can't refute his point so I'll just mock it in the hopes that it goes away."

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just on this note, the bolded is not true. By some, sure, but the atmosphere of hatred towards Jewish people was fairly universal itself, and not only were the actions of Hitler supported by the German people at the time, they were supported by other European and Eastern powers.

The Holocaust itself was not even fully realised or documented until years after it happened. Until relatively recently, there were ongoing debates on whether it even happened.

Fair point. It just seems to me that there would have been some difference in reaction to the position "we must eliminate all the Jews" in the late 1930s as compared to MacDonald's views on indigenous peoples, quoted earlier in the thread. Notwithstanding that there were plenty of anti-semites who agreed with the Nazis, particularly in Europe, genocide wasn't ever a mainstream unobjectionable position to hold. My intuition is that, in the context of their respective times, these things are different (not just in degree but in being a product of their situations).

There are many things don’t with the best intentions that are black marks on our world society. “They meant well” is no excuse.

Couldn't agree more.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm sorry Rube, but this response is nothing more than "I can't refute his point so I'll just mock it in the hopes that it goes away."

Seeing as it's a complete tu quoque fallacy, it got what it deserved, IMO.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Seeing as it's a complete tu quoque fallacy, it got what it deserved, IMO.

And you're arguing a fallacy fallacy.