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

[V]

^^^ this guy can be in charge of making the plaque.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Jesus Christ, of COURSE it will.

You can disagree with removing the statue on whatever grounds you want, that's your right, but seriously do some of you guys never interact with Indigenous Canadians on any level, ever?

So I guess my question STILL stands, what will that benefit be? Talking to FN? Is that the benefit? Your post is confusing and dodges the original question and comes across as the usual jayswin/rubecube supporting anything a minority group does regardless of how useful the act actually is.

[redforever]

I just spent a month in Russia. Every city that I visited has kept at least one statue of Lenin. They have decided it is a part of their history.

Even in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan they have kept statues of Lenin. However, they have just moved some of them to other less prominent locations...and Lenin Square was renamed as Victory Square in most cases with other functions now associated with those squares.

On the other hand, almost every statue of Stalin was destroyed. I only saw one statue of Stalin, in Moscow, in an open air museum. However, right beside his statue was sort of an iron mesh bag, filled, with rocks, each about the size of a head. Each rock depicted a face of anguish...depicting all the millions of Russians that died while Stalin ruled. It was obvious that these two leaders of Communism are remembered in very different ways.

So I don't think we have to be SJWs and destroy every statue. The statues should be judged in the context of the period of history they were in.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think all historic statues should be removed as with very few exceptions they are made by hack sculptures who couldn't make a living on their artistic merits and are asthetically ####e

And while we're at it, non-historic statues as well.

[Snuffleupagus]

Just my opinion but if we're going to start erasing Canadian history can the Trudeau's be 2nd and 3rd?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by redforever

I just spent a month in Russia. Every city that I visited has kept at least one statue of Lenin. They have decided it is a part of their history.

Even in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan they have kept statues of Lenin. However, they have just moved some of them to other less prominent locations...and Lenin Square was renamed as Victory Square in most cases with other functions now associated with those squares.

On the other hand, almost every statue of Stalin was destroyed. I only saw one statue of Stalin, in Moscow, in an open air museum. However, right beside his statue was sort of an iron mesh bag, filled, with rocks, each about the size of a head. Each rock depicted a face of anguish...depicting all the millions of Russians that died while Stalin ruled. It was obvious that these two leaders of Communism are remembered in very different ways.

So I don't think we have to be SJWs and destroy every statue. The statues should be judged in the context of the period of history they were in.

Why would the Russians want to hide Lenin's legacy? The ousting of the tsarist autocracy is still viewed favorably throughout most of Western Russia.

[David Struch]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Just my opinion but if we're going to start erasing Canadian history can the Trudeau's be 2nd and 3rd?

‘Statues are not history’:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4380641/d...rce=GlobalNews

“Okay, John A. built the nation,” Adese said, “but he didn’t build the nation on nothing. He built the nation by displacing people.”

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why would the Russians want to hide Lenin's legacy?

There are the 100k or so people the Cheka killed, not to mention the hundreds of thousands sent to concentration camps; the attempted genocide of the Cossacks (estimated 300k to 500k killed or deported); it took Stalin to finish the liquidation of the Kulaks, but it was well underway under Lenin. Not to mention ordering the murder of the Tsar and his family.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The ousting of the tsarist autocracy is still viewed favorably throughout most of Western Russia.

The founding of Canada is still viewed favourably throughout most of Canada.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by David Struch

‘Statues are not history’:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4380641/d...rce=GlobalNews

Displacing people historically integral in nation building, unfortunately.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

And while we're at it, non-historic statues as well.

What is this?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What is this?

It’s supposed to be a bust of Ronaldo which is at an airport in Portugal but as you can see it is pretty awful haha.

[David Struch]

Although the Prime Minister endorsed the pass system, it was never enacted as a matter of law; rather, the system was accepted and applied for its perceived usefulness to colonizers.

Until recently, few Canadians were aware the pass system existed; those who did were likely unaware of the fact that it was never a law. This may be attributed to the fact that recent research has shown the federal government made efforts to destroy any evidence of a pass system in Canada. In a post–Truth and Reconciliation era, the pass system highlights a dark and ignored part of Canadian history.

https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/e...tem-in-canada/

[V]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Displacing people historically integral in nation building, unfortunately.

No one likes to see the sausage made, but yeah. I'm not sure anything this fella has posted really surprises me.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

It’s supposed to be a bust of Ronaldo which is at an airport in Portugal but as you can see it is pretty awful haha.

That's interesting, and this sort of speaks to the point I am getting at. In this instance, is this particular likeness of Ronaldo bad history because of how poorly it resembles him? Is it bad art because of that? Or is it redeemed by trying to say something else?

I don't know, because I know nothing about this particular example, but these are the sorts of questions that it inspires, which I think is good.

A good example of what I am talking about is the "Footsoldiers of Birmingham" monument:

Spoiler!

*Images are spoilered for size.

This statue was erected in 1995 to commemorate Martin Luther King's famous march in Birmingham in 1963. It is a testament to the fortitude, virtue and perseverance of the Civil Rights movement, and it is based on this famous photograph:

Spoiler!

The sculptor has clearly taken some liberties with the photograph in his immortalization of the event, and in so doing has produced something that by conventional measure is "not historic." At least, the depiction is a fairly judicious exaggeration of what was happening in the photograph: the police officer appears to be less concerned about restraining his dog in the statue than he does in the photograph; the dog itself is substantially more vicious looking and frightening; and to say nothing for the man apprehended by the officer, who has been replaced by a teenage boy with his arms outstretched like a crucified martyr.

So, is this "revisionist history"? Is it "whitewashing" or "sanitization"?

(* I am giving another shout out here to one of my favourite podcasts, Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History, which devoted an episode to the story behind this statue.)

I would argue that the reason this is such a good monument is precisely because of the exaggerations. The story it tells IS historically true, even if it had to over-dramatize a snapshot of the event that was captured on film. While the historical actors in the photograph are not the focus, I think this is the sort of thing we should look to be achieving in our efforts to commemorate the past. Embellishment is not always "wrong." On timely occasions it provides a sharper lens to seeing a greater truth.

I would hope that part of the plan for the "recontextualization" of the John A MacDonald statue outside of Victoria's city hall will follow a similar course.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by David Struch

‘Statues are not history’:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4380641/d...rce=GlobalNews

Poll results are resoundingly no, the question reads "should we remove statues of John A?"

83% say no
15% say yes

If that doesn't send a loud and clear message I dont know what does.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Poll results are resoundingly no, the question reads "should we remove statues of John A?"

83% say no
15% say yes

If that doesn't send a loud and clear message I dont know what does.

I don’t know if it’s a loud and clear message that means anything, though.

And has been brought up in this thread, the lack of education Canadians receive around the subject we’re discussing is alarming.

[FireGilbert]

Maybe they should remove 15% of all MacDonald statues then? You can't just make decisions based on the majority rule or else you have a tyranny of the majority.

I still don't see what the big deal is. A segment of the population did not like the location of a piece of public art and ran a successful campaign to have it removed. No history has been erased and the daily lives of the locals are unchanged.

[getbak]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, online polls aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know if it’s a loud and clear message that means anything, though.

And has been brought up in this thread, the lack of education Canadians receive around the subject we’re discussing is alarming.

Very true and that arguement goes both ways. It's pretty disingenuous to dismiss a polls findings because the polled group doesn't meet someones imaginary level of knowledge required to participate in the debate.

I would imagine most of those polled are old enough to vote and therefore their opinion is equal to yours or mine.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know if it’s a loud and clear message that means anything, though...

Would you have said the same if it was 83% yes?