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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When you have to strip out 90% of the inscription - and therefore the context of its placement in its entirety - to try and argue balance, you've failed.

The entire plaque is intended to lead you by the nose to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is that some local First Nations representatives disliked its existence.


You guys see it as balanced because it is designed to lead you to where you already want to go. So that is not a surprise to me.

Really? That's the conclusion we are meant to draw?

My takeaway from the plaque is "this is a complicated issue because he was an important historical figure who did good and bad. The statue has been indefinitely removed as part of the process to repair the bad parts (with a little explanation of the process). This topic requires more consideration."


It's clear that a lot more people than the local FN communities take issue with how we commemorate JAM and other historical figures. Not sure why you're trying to minimize that?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is it not then possible you see it as unbalanced simply because it leads you where you don’t want to go? Based on your arguments, that seems most likely.

Obviously. If the message being offered by the small handful of people who made this decision wasn't so utterly one-sided, I wouldn't be arguing against it, would I?

And powder - virtually the entire plaque presents the issue from that one viewpoint. So, yes, it is designed to lead you to that one viewpoint's conclusion.
And, it is also clear that a great number of people find this kind of erasure offensive. Given you (and others here) are going out of your way to minimize that, you are at least as guilty of what you accuse me of.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Much of the public dialog around native issues in Canada are about these airy sentiments. Statues and names and who can write a novel or write a play. Addressing them will do little to materially change the lives of people in desperate need of a better way forward. It just gives the chattering classes and the people in the grievance industry something to wrangle over in the media. It can, and likely will, go on indefinitely. Because tackling the real issue is hard and doesn't make for emotionally-simplistic narratives of heroes and villains, oppressors and oppressed.

Completely agree, but it's also a chicken/egg thing. With such challenging problems, no progress will ever be made while so many people in the country remain blissfully unaware of how this situation came to be. It is a challenging balance between the status quo of blaming indigenous communities for their problems vs. infantilizing them as being powerless to any self-determination.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Ehhh... I don't know about you, but I do get the distinct and primary impression from that, or would if I had no other information, that John A. MacDonald was a terrible figure. "Leader of violence against Indigenous people" is a pretty stark condemnation. I can't help but think where in the USA you'd get away with taking down a statue of George Washington and in its place putting up a plaque calling him a slaver and aggressor against people of colour... but maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's already happened.

I'm not saying the plaque's wrong or that they shouldn't have put it up by any means, I'm just not sure it's as balanced as you're making out.

As has been pointed out, this isn't the permanent plaque.

Nobody should draw passionate conclusions about anything from any single source of information (including an encyclopedia or 1000 page biography, let alone a statue or plaque).

IMO, blind patriotism isn't good for anybody. Canadians can be just as guilty of it as our southern neighbours, but we may not always express it as loudly.

There's no way to know for certain, but I would bet that a higher proportion of Americans are aware of the negative arguments about GW and Abraham Lincoln, than Canadians know about JAM's negatives. Hell, I bet more Canadians know about GW and AL's negatives than JAM's. That awareness doesn't mean it's any better/worse to idolize those figures, but it's interesting to consider.

[iggy_oi]

Resolute why don’t you just tell us all specifically how you would like for JAM to be remembered, and which parts a of history, again specifically, are being erased and specifically how the removal of the statue impacts both?

I’m not trying to criticize your position, I’m just trying to figure out where you are coming from, as I believe a few others are as well.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And powder - virtually the entire plaque presents the issue from that one viewpoint. So, yes, it is designed to lead you to that one viewpoint's conclusion.
And, it is also clear that a great number of people find this kind of erasure offensive. Given you (and others here) are going out of your way to minimize that, you are at least as guilty of what you accuse me of.

The entire plaque is intended to lead you by the nose to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is that some local First Nations representatives disliked its existence.


Again, this is the conclusion you're saying we are meant to draw? ...why would they want us to believe that?


Some people seem to want to believe that this plaque exists in a vacuum, and that vast scores of people will be deriving all of their knowledge of JAM from these few lines. Nonsense.

[PaperBagger'14]

I'd like to open up a side discussion for a minute. Overall, was removing the statue a success? One of the goals of reconciliation was to unite the 2 communities, I feel this has been a more divisive move than one of unification and has been a net negative.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I'd like to open up a side discussion for a minute. Overall, was removing the statue a success? One of the goals of reconciliation was to unite the 2 communities, I feel this has been a more divisive move than one of unification and has been a net negative.

Reconciliation is a process, not an event. Those who are opposed to building a relationship likely have not changed their opinion. It is likely that they feel more validated than they did before. I would like to think that building a relationship between two communities happens on the street or in day to day encounters not in government sponsored symbolic gestures. Removing the statue likely did nothing except for initiate a conversation about what sort of history we would like to celebrate. The conversation to me is the important part.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I'd like to open up a side discussion for a minute. Overall, was removing the statue a success? One of the goals of reconciliation was to unite the 2 communities, I feel this has been a more divisive move than one of unification and has been a net negative.

I'm not sure that anti-removal people (who seem to prioritize their preferred contextualization of history over improving relations with indigenous communities) are any more steadfast about that? Are they more or less likely to make a derogatory comment at the bar with their buddies or racist joke? Temporarily more vocal is the only outcome I see from that side.

You may argue that a few fence sitters may have been pushed firmly into the anti-SJW camp, but if this was the straw that broke that back...it was only a matter of time.

On the positive side, it was a good faith gesture from people in power, that actually resulted in action (albeit symbolic action) - after generations of false declarations and empty promises (not to say that there hasn't been effort or desire to help, but we've mostly heard a lot of talk, and seen very little action). The local communities involved likely feel a little more welcome at the table, and appreciate having been heard.

The unknown is how much it's impacted uninformed folks. Most people in this thread already held strong opinions on the issue. The important thing is that some more people may now know about it, and more people may eventually care.

So my cynical view is that those upset with this may be more upset than they were before, but it doesn't matter if they are outnumbered by people giving new/more thought to the issue.

While I think the issue is being presently fairly (especially in the greater context of all existing commemoration of JAM), I would argue that even if it were as unbalanced and unfair as some suggest, I'd still weigh increased awareness of the plight of fellow humans living today over the perceived legacy of an individual who's been dead for over 125 years.

[powderjunkie]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...-not-going-to/

If the tearing down of my sculpture is the best way to move forward, then I am all for it, but I cannot believe that any rational person who has reflected on our history can really think that removing about 150 kilos of bronze from view is going to change our history, or help us understand it better.

And there’s the rub, as Shakespeare might say. We need to understand our history, we need to acknowledge the misery wrought by colonialism and the continuing suffering it caused.

[...]

So far, this discussion and coming-together is not happening.

The coming-together may not be happening (yet), but this is post #429 of just one discussion.

We definitely do need to better understand our history. But that's not going to happen magically. We can improve school curriculums for the future, but that doesn't do much for everyone in this country who is already able to vote today. Publicized events are going to prompt a lot more discussion and awareness than the existence of an unremarkable 150 kilos of bronze that fades into the background for most people, while being a prominent reminder for others, that the rest of the country continues to know an incomplete view of Canadian history that ignores the past, current, and future suffering of so many.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Obviously. If the message being offered by the small handful of people who made this decision wasn't so utterly one-sided, I wouldn't be arguing against it, would I?

I might not have made my point clear. Isn’t it possible that you only see this as unbalanced/one-sided, because you are clearly bias towards a side that does not represent balance at all?

Is it possible that you only believe the split isn’t balanced because your view of “balance” is that of “John A is 90% good and 10% bad,” so even a suggestion that it’s a 50/50 situation seems grossly out of proportion to you?

That’s how it seems. Not that you care about balance, but that your version of balance weighs the good much more heavily than the bad, and anything that suggests otherwise is unbalanced/unfair/one-sided/etc, when to others who feel the good should be weighted equal to the bad, the current split is much closer.

You were fine when the statue was there, just a 100% positive representation, and now that it’s less than 100%, you have an issue.

Maybe I’m mischaracterising your views, so I apologise if so, I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. I think the statue should’ve been left up, and I think it’s important to highlight the good things that JAM did AND the bad, but I just don’t see the extreme imbalance you’re seeing.

[jayswin]

Excellent posts powderjunkie.

[para transit fellow]

Turns out that MacDonald was called out on his attitudes to first nations during his term of office

Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/SeanCarleton/sta...062212608?s=19

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I might not have made my point clear. Isn’t it possible that you only see this as unbalanced/one-sided, because you are clearly bias towards a side that does not represent balance at all?

Is it possible that you only believe the split isn’t balanced because your view of “balance” is that of “John A is 90% good and 10% bad,” so even a suggestion that it’s a 50/50 situation seems grossly out of proportion to you?

If we're still on the plaque, then it's actually 95% "this opinion of these people" and 5% "oh yeah, first PM". Like I told the others, you simply cannot claim the wording is 50-50 and expect to be taken seriously.

You were fine when the statue was there, just a 100% positive representation, and now that it’s less than 100%, you have an issue.

If by "less than 100% positive" you mean "almost 100% negative", yes, I have an issue. It's rather obvious that I've had an issue with the desire to erase history that these types of decisions represent.

However, if you want to argue on ratio of good to bad, the inconvenient truth is that his role as a Father of Confederation and advocate for the CPR benefited far more people than his role with the residential schools and Pacific Scandal harmed. So I would add that anyone looking for 50-50 is advocating for a fallacy of false compromise.

Maybe I’m mischaracterising your views, so I apologise if so, I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from. I think the statue should’ve been left up, and I think it’s important to highlight the good things that JAM did AND the bad, but I just don’t see the extreme imbalance you’re seeing.

If this is your position, then we're actually close the same page, believe it or not. However, the imbalance is in how the entire thing is handled. The removal of the statue, essentially under the cover of darkness, before consultation rather than after (except, of course, for the limited consultation of two minority groups that the mayor knew would support her desire). The nature of the message on the temporary plaque. The symbolism of the removal. The fact that this isn't the first time we've tried to erase someone to placate people in a completely hamfisted way, an the knowledge that it won't be the last.

Removing these things and trying to pretend these people didn't exist, and didn't do things important to the country, is not the answer to anything. It is nothing more than moral grandstanding. You say we need to do a better job of teaching the good and the bad about these people, and I agree - adding that we also need to face the context of the time in which they lived. But, Jayswin's anecdote notwithstanding, nothing that has been done in this case achieves that. But that is no surprise, because it was never meant to.

[Shazam]

Looks like we're going to get a stat holiday out of the whole thing. Whiteys should've oppressed more groups!

Wait, what?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If this is your position, then we're actually close the same page, believe it or not. However, the imbalance is in how the entire thing is handled. The removal of the statue, essentially under the cover of darkness, before consultation rather than after (except, of course, for the limited consultation of two minority groups that the mayor knew would support her desire). The nature of the message on the temporary plaque. The symbolism of the removal. The fact that this isn't the first time we've tried to erase someone to placate people in a completely hamfisted way, an the knowledge that it won't be the last.

Removing these things and trying to pretend these people didn't exist, and didn't do things important to the country, is not the answer to anything. It is nothing more than moral grandstanding. You say we need to do a better job of teaching the good and the bad about these people, and I agree - adding that we also need to face the context of the time in which they lived. But, Jayswin's anecdote notwithstanding, nothing that has been done in this case achieves that. But that is no surprise, because it was never meant to.

I agree that we’re probably close, but the bolded is where we diverge. I don’t think removing a statue moves us towards pretending someone didn’t exist. I think this because because history is littered with events and people we remember and think about without monuments and statues in their name. Nor do I think they do anything to suggest these people didn’t do something good.

A statue, to me, accomplishes little. I’m not about to suggest we remove all the ones we have, but i’d be happy if there was never another one put up.

[CliffFletcher]

Is there another country in the world that has a stat holiday for historical crimes? Is Kristallnacht a holiday in Germany? Does Spain have an Inquisition Day? Do Japanese take a day off to remember the Rape of Nanking?

Canada has to be the most virtue-signalling country on earth. We're desperate, absolutely desperate, to broadcast that we're the sort of people who disapprove of bad things.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A statue, to me, accomplishes little. I’m not about to suggest we remove all the ones we have, but i’d be happy if there was never another one put up.

I'm honestly curious then...which ones (and where) do you think should be left up? Where is your line? What's your criteria for an acceptable statue?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is there another country in the world that has a stat holiday for historical crimes? Is Kristallnacht a holiday in Germany? Does Spain have an Inquisition Day? Do Japanese take a day off to remember the Rape of Nanking?

Canada has to be the most virtue-signalling country on earth. We're desperate, absolutely desperate, to broadcast that we're the sort of people who disapprove of bad things.

Indigenous Peoples Day, which is already June 21st, makes sense as a celebration of our/their history.

Framing it, as the Feds are doing, as a day to acknowledge the impact of residential schools is baffling, stupid and borderline offensive.

[Flash Walken]

"Under the cover of darkness" -- In Broad Daylight
"before consultation rather than after" -- a year of consultation
"Removing these things and trying to pretend these people didn't exist" -- Replacing the statue with a plaque that provides even more information about said person.
"The nature of the message on the temporary plaque." -- a 7-1 vote on City Council

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Is there another country in the world that has a stat holiday for historical crimes? Is Kristallnacht a holiday in Germany? Does Spain have an Inquisition Day? Do Japanese take a day off to remember the Rape of Nanking?

Canada has to be the most virtue-signalling country on earth. We're desperate, absolutely desperate, to broadcast that we're the sort of people who disapprove of bad things.

Boy Scout Nation strikes again.

It's ironic that while we're desperately showing how much we hate our past transgressions, or lower our carbon emissions, or decry human rights abuses in other countries, the rest of the world gives exactly 0 ####s.