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

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

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?

The Alberta standard for provincially protecting building is 75 years... if it meets certain criteria proving its historical significance. generally it s a question of provenance-- who lived there, what architectural style, is it unique to Alberta,what condition is it in, is it representative of larger historical themes ect... There is a mantra "just because its old doesn't mean its important." It is difficult to get provincial protection. It costs tax payer dollars and it is not a well funded program. Municipalities also protect buildings but this has less legal power than the provincial government.

I am not absolutely certain but statues get similar protection and likely have similar criteria.

A statue like this one doesn't fit under protection because: A it is not old, B it is not unique and C the location of the statue does not have historical significance.

My guess is that any statue in a similar context would be fair game to get moved from a regulatory perspective.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

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.

So you're just arguing based on word count?

There is a 6 word phrase that paints him negatively on that plaque. The rest is a fairly succinct, factual summary of the current situation/recent events.

What exactly do you think should have happened? Leave the statue in place, and add another plaque? If so, what would you have it say?

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.

Are you suggesting that this was a grand scheme from the mayor this whole time?

The reality seems to be:
1. Statue has existed for nearly 40 years. After the first year or two, it likely faded into the background for most people and was barely noticed, except by smokers out for a break, or school field trips to city hall, where a teacher might give a 20 second summary on JAM while students squint in the sun or shiver in the cold.
2. Aboriginal groups point out the incongruity walking past the statue when coming to discuss TRC stuff.
3. Mayor/councillors hear this - I'm guessing for many their first reaction is "what statue? ...oh, yeah...I guess I noticed that once."
4. After some discussion during a city council meeting (you know...the way they make most other decisions) it is resolved 7-1 to temporarily remove the statue, and store it safely until they decide if/where it should go.

I'm completely guessing here, but I imagine most of the councillors weighed the pros/cons of the issue, as they do with each decision, and reasoned that there were some significant benefits to removal, while leaving it place didn't really serve anyone.

Or, it was all a grand conspiracy from an SJW mayor.

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.

Who's pretending he didn't exist?

[MelBridgeman]

The federal government is planning to announce a new statutory holiday to mark Canada’s destructive residential school legacy.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/otta...iday-1.4053676

[Red Slinger]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sorry_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Apologize_campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIDOC_Week
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Day

A few of the other "virtue signalers" in similar Western Democracies.

We have stat holidays for Queen Victoria, both the birth and death of Jesus Christ, organized Labour, soldiers, the fall harvest and "families". Would this potential holiday be an less relevant than those?

[station]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But isn't a paradox that European cultures attract more condemnation because we hold them to higher standards?

Only if I accept either side of that statement as true. Who is doing the condemning and standard holding in your view? The political far left? The UN?

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's the heart of a dilemma that nobody really wants to face: How can we ensure modern standards of living for people living in isolated communities without access to economic opportunity?

We tell young people in rural Newfoundland and Saskatchewan that they need to pick up stakes, move to cities, get training and education, and participate in the modern economy. Why do we expect indigenous Canadians who want to improve their lives and the lives of their children to behave differently?

Absolutely. Isolation and geography is a core issue not easily fixable. But given the complexities and varying notions of belonging and nationhood, it will require tools of inclusion and recruitment rather than forced assimilation. And there are lagging outcomes on reserves situated right next to major urban centres so there is more at work. There are myriad other issues that need attention such as education, reclamation of culture and heritage, cultural behavioural tendencies, cleaning up the legal morass of status, an honest discussion of history, etc.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Christian values are so deeply rooted in our culture that they form the foundation of many secular institutions and values. Among those are the notion that the weak have the moral high ground over the strong.That's a value found in Christian culture, but not elsewhere.

Can you corroborate this statement? I can’t square this idea with the absolute conviction of rightness required to be a Christian, or even the moral duty and righteousness aka ‘white man’s burden’ felt by European colonizers.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Western guilt is rooted in Christian notions of guilt and atonement, even if the people who passionately express Western guilt today aren't Christian.

There are also psychological notions of guilt which are more related to remorse or responsibility than atonement. Some healthy measure of guilt can lead to positive behavioural change. Guilt may even have evolutionary purpose.

If we are strictly discussing negative aspects of guilt cultures though, I’m pretty sure notions of guilt are also present in Islam and both are inherited from Judaism, so it’s not exclusively Christian. And other cultures tend to be rooted in fear or shame which are just different but equal measures of control.

And I even if accept your statement as true, it would require me to also accept that collective guilt manifesting as identity politics is the driving force behind truth and reconciliation for it to have any relevance to this thread. Is that your contention?

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.

But what does complaining about the airy sentiments accomplish? I already agreed that much of what will be done in the name of reconciliation will be fruitless, but is it possible that hard work by sensible people could yield some positive? And if so, musn’t we try? I see clearly what you are against, but I want to know what you are for.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

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?

I don’t think I really have a line. I think all statues are stupid, but I also think you might as well leave all of them up. Add a plaque to give a bit of education on the subject where deemed appropriate.

As I’ve said in this thread, I wouldn’t have even removed the John A one. Just add a plaque that says “JAM was significant to Canadian history because of (major positive, negative impacts).”

But it’s already done. It’s not the first statue, and not the last to be removed.

I have a soft spot for statues that have some historical significance in their architecture or art (which are actually technically sculptures, I guess?) but I don’t know. I don’t think “He was bad” is a necessarily valid reason to take down a statue today, and I don’t think “he was good” is a necessarily valid reason to put up a statue today.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/otta...iday-1.4053676

Oh god please make this a June stat.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Oh god please make this a June stat.

Ya i think Jun 21 which is already aboriginal day would be the wise choice.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Sorry_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Apologize_campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIDOC_Week
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Day
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitangi_Day

A few of the other "virtue signalers" in similar Western Democracies.

We have stat holidays for Queen Victoria, both the birth and death of Jesus Christ, organized Labour, soldiers, the fall harvest and "families". Would this potential holiday be an less relevant than those?

Sure, make it a stat for federally regulated employees and allow the provinces to decide the rest on their own, just like Remembrance Day.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The Australian "National Sorry Day" sounds like basically the same thing. Though I guess it's not a holiday for them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The Australian "National Sorry Day" sounds like basically the same thing. Though I guess it's not a holiday for them.

in canada, every day is national sorry day

[puckedoff]

I hope its not September 30th, that's a quarter end.

Maybe only First Nations should get the holiday, while the rest of the country works. That ought to help unify the country.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

"Under the cover of darkness" -- In Broad Daylight

With almost no public notice beforehand. I also specified that statement as being metaphorical since I knew one of our resident hit and run posters would come along and play Captain Literal.

"before consultation rather than after" -- a year of consultation

With only one minority group, not the community at large.

"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.

Already commented on multiple times.

"The nature of the message on the temporary plaque." -- a 7-1 vote on City Council

Appeal to authority. Also, don't even pretend that you have never disagreed with a city council decision.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

in canada, every day is national sorry day

If you’re a married man.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Sure, make it a stat for federally regulated employees and allow the provinces to decide the rest on their own, just like Remembrance Day.

Why tho.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

We have stat holidays for Queen Victoria, both the birth and death of Jesus Christ, organized Labour, soldiers, the fall harvest and "families". Would this potential holiday be an less relevant than those?

Plus, the only reason we have Family Day is because Don Getty wanted to distract us from the fact his son was arrested for cocaine possession.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/otta...iday-1.4053676

Interesting Twitter quote from that article:

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/st...22397581094913


Maxime Bernier
"Why not celebrate instead the heritage and renewal of aboriginal cultures? That would unite us in positive way. Cult of victimhood and obsession with past wrongs instead of focus on the progress made and to come are another sick characteristic of extreme PC and multiculturalism."


Bolding for emphasis is mine as it is the only part of the tweet I am referring to and thus anyone wanting to debate the latter part can go find someone else to play with.

I don't particularly find a lot of common ground with the CPC, but I gotta say, in this moment he's kinda talking sense here. Am I out of line in thinking that the right way to frame this holiday is to celebrate them and their culture instead of a yearly reminder of "Hey, remember when we used to royally screw you all, yeah sorry 'bout that"?

I think an apology should be a one time thing, and after that you make sure you don't do the thing for which the first apology was needed.
- If the wronged party accepts the apology, great, we move on and try to make things better.
- If they don't, well, you don't have any control over that, the best you can do is carry on continuing to avoid doing the thing that was apologized for, and try to otherwise co-exist in a pleasant and positive manner.

I think continuing to apologize just re-opens the wound to the wronged party, and I have no idea what purpose it serves to the person(s) apologizing other than some self-serving notion of "well, I apologized so morally I'm in the clear".

[wookster]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

We have stat holidays for Queen Victoria, both the birth and death of Jesus Christ, organized Labour, soldiers, the fall harvest and "families". Would this potential holiday be an less relevant than those?

Of the ones you mentioned, only Christmas and Easter are actual stat holidays. The rest are federal holidays. Provinces can opt out of them if they so choose.

ex: Remembrance day is not a holiday in Nova Scotia unless your a federal employee.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Sorry you got sodomized, we're giving all the non-victims a paid day off.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

We have stat holidays for Queen Victoria, both the birth and death of Jesus Christ, organized Labour, soldiers, the fall harvest and "families". Would this potential holiday be an less relevant than those?

National "Canadian-summer-is-too-short-not-to-have-a-long-weekend-in-August" Day is the best holiday.

Originally Posted by wookster

Of the ones you mentioned, only Christmas and Easter are actual stat holidays. The rest are federal holidays. Provinces can opt out of them if they so choose.

Labour Day is a national Stat as well. National days are New Year's, Good Friday, Canada Day, Labour Day, Christmas Day.