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

[Mr.Coffee]

I’m honestly surprised that people (and I mean everyone, literally) care enough about this to make Victoria’s City Hall have to care about this.

And maybe that’s exactly the problem with this country and with in particular the island / Vancouver mainland these days. Life’s just been a little too good for too long. And now the things in focus, are not the things that impact the greatest people. I can’t believe this is a pivotal issue at all, or worth spending time on.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I feel about the same, but I don’t bother wondering where it ends, because really, who of us debating this actually cares?

Imagine for a second where this could end up making only logical conclusions to get there, and ask yourself: “If that conclusion were reached, how would it impact my life?”

For me it’s basically a question of how much tax money is going to be spent removing and storing statues and renaming every 3rd school in the country (most of our past is built on people doing terrible things, not just John AA). Where does it end? Does it change anything really? No, it doesn’t matter to me that a statue was removed. There’s just a #### load of similar statues!

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m honestly surprised that people (and I mean everyone, literally) care enough about this to make Victoria’s City Hall have to care about this.

And maybe that’s exactly the problem with this country and with in particular the island / Vancouver mainland these days. Life’s just been a little too good for too long. And now the things in focus, are not the things that impact the greatest people. I can’t believe this is a pivotal issue at all, or worth spending time on.

Which people do you classify as great and which ones do you classify as not so great?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Why not quote my whole post? Kinda ties the comment together.

Because it doesn’t make a lot of sense in context of the thread, so I’m wondering what your point is

[station]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's the thing. Whitewashing history is not progress. Also, you may want to make this only about removing a statue, but it's obviously a larger issue as this isn't the first time we've been through this. Langevin Bridge ring a bell? It's clear that this campaign to "recontextualize history" is going to be pushed until people push back. So, again: how far do we allow this alleged "reconciliation" to go and how many historical figures are erased before the inevitable push back blows up in everyone's faces?

When you say whitewashing you’re asserting that they are trying to present a less honest version of history which I think is literally the opposite of what is happening. Also what is the ‘campaign’ you are referring to? Have you read the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation commission? Do you agree with the recommendations or even the purpose of the commission? Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree but I really don’t think this is regressive leftist outrage causing this. From the article:

One of the things we heard very clearly from the Indigenous family members is that coming to city hall to do this work, and walking past John A. Macdonald every time, feels contradictory,"

This doesn’t sound like outrage to me and if you have ever met any indigenous leaders and elders, most of them are very gracious people and anything but angry and bitter about their situation or what happened to their culture.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

how far do we allow this alleged "reconciliation" to go and how many historical figures are erased before the inevitable push back blows up in everyone's faces?

There is no magic finish line, but if we could get to a point where all indigenous people in Canada have access to clean drinking water that would be a nice milestone.

Who is being harmed by the removal?

Imagine you were sexually abused by leaders in the catholic church. Could you see how it might be troubling to swear on a bible in a courtroom?


I don't have a strong opinion either way on this. It is clear that it is immensely challenging to make any practical progress towards reconciliation. If this is an opportunity than can at least be somewhat meaningful (even if not practical) without any practical drawbacks, then what's the problem?

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because it doesn’t make a lot of sense in context of the thread, so I’m wondering what your point is

In context yes it does.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

There is no magic finish line, but if we could get to a point where all indigenous people in Canada have access to clean drinking water that would be a nice milestone.

How does whitewashing history address that?

Who is being harmed by the removal?

Who is being harmed by the statue's existence? And don't say "First Nations", because you've already implicitly dismissed feelings as a valid 'harm' with your own question.

Imagine you were sexually abused by leaders in the catholic church. Could you see how it might be troubling to swear on a bible in a courtroom?

You've already implicitly rejected feelings as an argument, so this has no relevance.

I don't have a strong opinion either way on this. It is clear that it is immensely challenging to make any practical progress towards reconciliation. If this is an opportunity than can at least be somewhat meaningful (even if not practical) without any practical drawbacks, then what's the problem?

Again, whitewashing history is offensive. And, as your first question implies, is ultimately an action that has no meaningful impact on things that actually matter - like ensuring all Canadians have access to clean water.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

In context yes it does.

How? You brought up a lot of different things. Going to the news with your buddies, wondering how many people it takes to be outraged, and, most bizarrely, asking who hasn’t done something offensive.

So, what’s your point? If we’ve all done something offensive, which we all probably have, how is that in any way related to this thread?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How does whitewashing history address that?...

Good lord. Stop saying this.

What is happening with the John A MacDonald statue in Victoria is literally the exact opposite of “whitewashing history.”

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How? You brought up a lot of different things. Going to the news with your buddies, wondering how many people it takes to be outraged, and, most bizarrely, asking who hasn’t done something offensive.

So, what’s your point? If we’ve all done something offensive, which we all probably have, how is that in any way related to this thread?

It's related in a sense of context. Removing a statue of a historical figure for transgressions of over 100 years ago based on our current views of acceptable is ridiculous.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Again, whitewashing history is offensive.

Have you explained what you mean by this yet? It’s not an example of whitewashing, so forgive me, but I really don’t see the connection you’re making.

How does removing the statue whitewash history? How does a statue of John A better represent the full story of his history over a plaque that actually talks about it? In what sense do you believe that replacing “half the story” with “the full story” is whitewashing history?

From Wikipedia:

To whitewash is a metaphor meaning "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data"

Given what whitewashing actually means, how does this accomplish this? I’d agree if it was being removed to pretend the bad stuff never happened, but it’s literally the opposite.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Have you explained what you mean by this yet? It’s not an example of whitewashing, so forgive me, but I really don’t see the connection you’re making.

How does removing the statue whitewash history? How does a statue of John A better represent the full story of his history over a plaque that actually talks about it? In what sense do you believe that replacing “half the story” with “the full story” is whitewashing history?

From Wikipedia:


Given what whitewashing actually means, how does this accomplish this? I’d agree if it was being removed to pretend the bad stuff never happened, but it’s literally the opposite.

If you care enough or are smart enough to know and understand the good and bad he did, that can explain more than any plaque ever could.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

It's related in a sense of context. Removing a statue of a historical figure for transgressions of over 100 years ago based on our current views of acceptable is ridiculous.

So what does the “who hear can say they’ve never done anything offensive” and comments about him and his buddies going to be outraged have to do with anything? It was without point.

But, to your point, isn’t raising statues ridiculous? Aren’t the ideas of statues plain old ridiculous in any context?

[Resolute 14]

You are completely naive if you think the plaque is going to tell "the full story", Pepsi. Also, why would adding a plaque require removing the statue?

And you are hopelessly lost if you don't think this whitewashing campaign is going to move on to other things named after Fathers of Confederation.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If you care enough or are smart enough to know and understand the good and bad he did, that can explain more than any plaque ever could.

That’s blatantly untrue. I don’t have to look at a statue to do that, I just have to read a book. Guess what’s in the book? Words. Guess what’s also on a plaque? Words?

This isn’t osmosis, people don’t gain any understanding or information at all based on a piece of metal shaped like a dude.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are completely naive if you think the plaque is going to tell "the full story", Pepsi. Also, why would adding a plaque require removing the statue?

And you are hopelessly lost if you don't think this whitewashing campaign is going to move on to other things named after Fathers of Confederation.

You’ve been called out multiple times on the whitewashing thing, and I’m not about to put a lot of faith in how lost or naive I might be coming from someone who either doesn’t understand the use of a word to the point of using it to describe the very opposite of what it is, or does know and doesn’t care enough to stop.

[Resolute 14]

Fine, I'll go back to "erasing history" then, since that is a more accurate way to describe what is happening to they who shall not be named.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Fine, I'll go back to "erasing history" then, since that is a more accurate way to describe what is happening to they who shall not be named.

How so? Explain. How does a statue do a better job of telling a story than a plaque?

[CaptainYooh]

Can we send them Bowfort Towers instead?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

How so? Explain. How does a statue do a better job of telling a story than a plaque?

Why does a statue need to be removed in order to add a plaque?