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

[station]

^^^ Oh come on. We both know my comment is directed at the many whitewashing and erasing history comments (which have yet to be explained) and are over the top reactions to a relatively benign event.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Maybe I’ve missed those posts, but maybe you can point out the people who feel this is the destruction of a historical artifact,

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Who is acting like that? Quote them.

Dude, read the thread.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by station

But to some of you guys it’s General Custer’s Last Stand. You guys are acting like an angry mob destroyed the statue with clubs, took the mayor hostage, and demanded that MacDonald be forever erased from history. The reaction to a minor issue is absolutely astonishing to me.

And you're pretending there's no wider issue at stake, or context of historical figures and names being removed all over the country. Some of us are asking perfectly legitimate questions:

Since the vast majority of people born before about 1920 held views we regard as abhorrent today, what is the criteria for removing historical memorials and names? Or do we remove them all? And who gets to decide?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by station

TIL some people really, really like statues.

A municipal gov’t is meeting with indigenous families to discuss its Truth and Reconciliation program. The families mention that passing by the MacDonald statue in that context feels “contradictory”. The gov’t says sure no problem, that’s a pretty small concession, we’ll put up a plaque instead.

But to some of you guys it’s General Custer’s Last Stand. You guys are acting like an angry mob destroyed the statue with clubs, took the mayor hostage, and demanded that MacDonald be forever erased from history. The reaction to a minor issue is absolutely astonishing to me.

No, to some of us, it is a continuation of a dangerous precedent of allowing groups to attempt to erase history. You want to try and cheapen that down to "it's just a statue" because it allows you to feel smug and superior about how "enlightened" and "progressive" you are.

Like I told the drive-by artist: we'll see you next time when they erase something else. And, again, you will try to pretend it isn't an issue with wider context. You'll try to argue that it is "just a statue" or "just a bridge" or "just a school".

[speede5]

Isn't removing the statue due to the subjects past actions actually acknowledging history? Ignore those actions and letting monuments stand would be more along the lines of erasing history.

But what do I know. I just found out I'm a evil monster this week because I had my kid circumcised. No statue for me!

[Resolute 14]

That's a transparently awful attempt at creating a "gotcha" moment, given it basically tries to imply that no 'past actions' were considered in why the statue was placed in the first place.

[PsYcNeT]

Considering Residential Schools were still operational in 1982, one would think that most persons didn't consider those "past actions" problematic.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Considering Residential Schools were still operational in 1982, one would think that most persons didn't consider those "past actions" problematic.

Actually, they ran until 1996. Cripes.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Actually, they ran until 1996. Cripes.

I just meant the statue was erected in 1982, and while I'm sure there was opposition, as you mentioned it wasn't until 14 years later that they were all shut down.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Considering Residential Schools were still operational in 1982, one would think that most persons didn't consider those "past actions" problematic.

Most people didn't find the existence of residential schools for Native children with no local schools problematic. Or are you suggesting most Canadians had no problem with the molestation of Native children?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's a transparently awful attempt at creating a "gotcha" moment, given it basically tries to imply that no 'past actions' were considered in why the statue was placed in the first place.

Or, It could be read as yet another attempt to get you to explain what the hell you mean by “whitewashing history.” I am honestly mystified by not only your puzzling use of this term, but also your flat refusal to explain what you are talking about.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Actually, they ran until 1996. Cripes.

I graduated high school in 96. I honestly cannot remember learning about residential schools in social studies. Was it part of the curriculum? I know there are lots of folks in the same age bracket on here - did you learn about residential schools in high school?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I graduated high school in 96. I honestly cannot remember learning about residential schools in social studies. Was it part of the curriculum? I know there are lots of folks in the same age bracket on here - did you learn about residential schools in high school?

We did not.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Or, It could be read as yet another attempt to get you to explain what the hell you mean by “whitewashing history.” I am honestly mystified by not only your puzzling use of this term, but also your flat refusal to explain what you are talking about.

At this point I have to believe it’s like “fake news.” He’s hoping he can say it enough without ever explaining it, knowing it’s wrong, that people will just start associating it.

It’s clearly working, look at Matata’s painfully sad comparison between replacing a statue with a plaque that provides context, with actually redacting history books.

People are just happy to be ignorant about this situation because they want to fuel their outrage. That’s why you’ll never get an explanation out of them.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And you're pretending there's no wider issue at stake, or context of historical figures and names being removed all over the country. Some of us are asking perfectly legitimate questions:

Since the vast majority of people born before about 1920 held views we regard as abhorrent today, what is the criteria for removing historical memorials and names? Or do we remove them all? And who gets to decide?

I'm not sure I understand what's at stake? What is potentially being lost by replacing a statue with a plaque? What slippery slope are we stepping onto? It seems to me that this is about putting things into an appropriate historical context rather than the whitewashing of history that takes place with statues like these.

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is talking about wiping John A out of the history books. And I don't believe removing his statue and replacing it with a plaque is a slippery slope towards that. If you do I'd like to understand why.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by surferguy

I graduated high school in 96. I honestly cannot remember learning about residential schools in social studies. Was it part of the curriculum? I know there are lots of folks in the same age bracket on here - did you learn about residential schools in high school?

Years ago when I started to learn more about Canada’s history with indigenous people I was pretty devastated. I couldn’t believe it wasn’t covered in school.

You want to improve how people treat each other... start in our own backyard. I’m all for learning about other cultures as well, but I probably learned more about Brazil, Germany and Japan than I did about the dark side of Canada.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Nobody, as far as I can tell, is talking about wiping John A out of the history books. And I don't believe removing his statue and replacing it with a plaque is a slippery slope towards that. If you do I'd like to understand why.

The only people talking about wiping John A out of the history books are the people against this. Why would they want that?

Everyone else is suggesting we should expand our understanding of his legacy. Which, by surferguy and Scroopy’s posts, as well as my own experience, it’s clear that we absolutely need to add to the history books, not remove from them. This stuff simply isn’t taught in the Canadian circulum, which is why you see so much resistance from people ignorant to it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

I never rejected feelings - I merely made the distinction between practical measures and symbolic measures. To achieve any level of 'reconciliation' both measures are required.

Practical measures are difficult and expensive. Symbolic measures may not do much to move the needle in day to day life, but they contribute to a gradual, wider understanding of the issues at play. As a greater proportion of the population becomes enlightened, hopefully the practical measures become less difficult.

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.

Chicken and the egg. This 'controversy' is actually a good thing...I bet a few hundred people know more about the history of JAM now than they did before.

[CroFlames]

Simply put, I think the first prime minister of a relatively peaceful country that has lasted 150 years deserves to have a statue in major cities across the land. He's no war criminal, nor did he have evil plans to eliminate minorities or enslave them like many a world leader.



Canadians have a long history of screwing up relations with Natives, and even though we feel morally far superior to John A, 150 years from now Canadians will view our generation with the same disgust because of how we didn't do enough to assist Native communities or give them complete autonomy. The difference is none of us were the first prime minister.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Or, It could be read as yet another attempt to get you to explain what the hell you mean by “whitewashing history.” I am honestly mystified by not only your puzzling use of this term, but also your flat refusal to explain what you are talking about.

Not only are you only pretending to be puzzled, I've only actually responded to that multiple times. You just keep ignoring it for your convenience. We're erasing names off buildings and infrastructure, and removing statues to disappear people who have become inconvenient to a single group. It's a bad precedent, and not one that should be respected or supported.

And Pepsi - you're one to talk about wanting to fuel outrage. Pot, meet kettle.