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

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, that's because Nazi architecture ####ing sucked.

What's with dictators and their desire for overly wide roadways lined by repetitive concrete blocks leading up to a gargantuan state building?

They are great for parades.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, that's because Nazi architecture ####ing sucked.

What's with dictators and their desire for overly wide roadways lined by repetitive concrete blocks leading up to a gargantuan state building?

I am fairly sure this was not the only reason. There are still significantly more Nazi buildings left standing in Munich.

But your point is a good one. It is interesting that the Obersalzburg in Garmish has been completely obliterated save for the spectacular Kehlsteinhaus.

[Northendzone]

I would truly like to know what the average indigenous person in Victoria thinks of this? I’d also love to see a stat on how often the average native person in Victoria passes by this statue.

For reference, I believe I am a somewhat average calgarian, and in almost 20 yrs I have been inside city hall twice, could not really tell you anything about the art in the building.

I’d also like to know if those driving for this, are now planning on focusing their efforts on something like helping the numerous natives that live out on the streets in Victoria.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

What's with dictators and their desire for overly wide roadways lined by repetitive concrete blocks leading up to a gargantuan state building?

This is sheer ignorance. Until you've walked a mile in their jackboots, you're in no position to pass judgment on those aesthetic preferences, philistine.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't disagree but in the great scheme of things I couldn't really give less of a crap if statues are taken down and buildings, roads, etc. have their names changed. If it makes people feel better, let 'em have it.

This is my intuitive reaction too - I don't really care. But the thing that gives me pause is capitulating to moral orthodoxy, because they simply become emboldened to target things I'm going to care about for control, and I'd prefer it not get to that point (to the extent it hasn't already).

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

You make it sound like John A. MacDonald went out exclusively to destroy Natives and as such he should be vilified when in reality he just did what he thought was prudent at the time.

You can say that about most of history's greatest monsters. I'm not comparing John A. to Hitler but that's a poor argument.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can say that about most of history's greatest monsters. I'm not comparing John A. to Hitler but that's a poor argument.

How? How is that a poor argument?

You're applying 2018 information to a decision made 150 years prior.

Hitler's Nazis practiced Eugenics, you know who else did? Canada and the US far beyond Hitler's lifetime.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can say that about most of history's greatest monsters. I'm not comparing John A. to Hitler but that's a poor argument.

Well, let's, for a minute. Do you think there's a morally relevant difference between the views actions of someone like Hitler - which were more or less universally thought to be monstrous at the time he executed them - and the views of someone like MacDonald, who was more or less a product of his time? Should history have more sympathy for the latter sort of person (which I guess probably describes most major historical figures)?

[Coach]

I'm pretty indifferent to things like this. Is my culture or life enriched by having a John A. MacDonald statue somewhere? Not really. Is it actively making a large enough group of people uncomfortable because of it's ties to genocide and/or slavery for them to want it taken down? If so, it should probably be taken down.

I would have liked that passage noted in the OP to have been something I learned about him in school though, which is where I think we are really failing our indigenous peoples' history. I've had multiple friends from other countries ask me about native cultures in recent years and I'm embarrassed by the lack of information (or misrepresented information) we received about it in school.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, let's, for a minute. Do you think there's a morally relevant difference between the views actions of someone like Hitler - which were more or less universally thought to be monstrous at the time he executed them - and the views of someone like MacDonald, who was more or less a product of his time? Should history have more sympathy for the latter sort of person (which I guess probably describes most major historical figures)?

More sympathy than Hitler? Sure. Complete absolution? Probably not.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

More sympathy than Hitler? Sure. Complete absolution? Probably not.

If you want complete absolution you need to find Religion.

Nobody's perfect.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Silly person. It's only the names/likenesses of white males that must be purged.

It's not about skin color - you will be hard pressed to find any ethnicity of people in this world that hasn't acted in 2018 standards.

Residential Schools had horrible unintended consequences which isn't in the same league as the Nazis who had horrible intentions.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Locke

If you want complete absolution you need to find Religion.

Nobody's perfect.

I think it is (or should be) more about re-contextualizing our history to accurately represent the truth, vs wiping history away.

Sure it happened, is having a statue of a man who did great and also terrible things a good way to represent that history? It's arguably not unless that statue comes with a full, unglorified history lesson.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Locke

How? How is that a poor argument?

You're applying 2018 information to a decision made 150 years prior.

Your point was that John A. was doing what he thought prudent at the time. My point was that you can say that about almost every historical figure. Hitler was a product of centuries of anti-semitic sentiment and propaganda throughout Europe. He seriously thought the Jews were an enemy of the German people and the Aryan race. His views at that time were not exactly considered fringe. He acted in a way he believed prudent and necessary to save Germany. Does that somehow exculpate his atrocities even marginally?

If you believe that principle for not removing these monuments is "people doing what they believed prudent at the time," then really all that remains are degrees of atrocity.

Hitler's Nazis practiced Eugenics, you know who else did? Canada and the US far beyond Hitler's lifetime.

Kind of a weird non-sequitur. What does this have to do with anything?

[TheIronMaiden]

I love how in every historical debate Hitler is the litmus test for who a "bad guy" is.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I love how in every historical debate Hitler is the litmus test for who a "bad guy" is.

I mean you can substitute Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. if you want to.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

More sympathy than Hitler? Sure. Complete absolution? Probably not.

That wasn't my question - obviously he's going to get more sympathy than Hitler because Hitler is the quintessential evil force in history. My question is whether it matters, in terms of judging historical figures, that their views were a product of their time. That is, is it important whether the person's contemporaries recognized what we now see as abhorrent views? Do they get any leeway for that, or is your position that they should be judged as harshly as if your next door neighbour said the same things?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

I would truly like to know what the average indigenous person in Victoria thinks of this? I’d also love to see a stat on how often the average native person in Victoria passes by this statue...

I am not sure that the second point is all that relevant. It is possible to feel the effects of oppression, or to feel offence without actually being in the same vicinity as the offender. If it turns out that only four native people pass the statue each day, does that somehow mitigate the feelings of many others who might find it offensive without ever seeing it in person?

For reference, I believe I am a somewhat average calgarian, and in almost 20 yrs I have been inside city hall twice, could not really tell you anything about the art in the building...

Why do you think that is? It could be a reflection of a norm by which people generally do not notice such things. But it is also possible that none of the art in City Hall has caught your attention because you are neither inspired nor repulsed by it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I mean you can substitute Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. if you want to.

Julius Caesar?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Your point was that John A. was doing what he thought prudent at the time. My point was that you can say that about almost every historical figure. Hitler was a product of centuries of anti-semitic sentiment and propaganda throughout Europe. He seriously thought the Jews were an enemy of the German people and the Aryan race. His views at that time were not exactly considered fringe. He acted in a way he believed prudent and necessary to save Germany. Does that somehow exculpate his atrocities even marginally?

If you believe that principle for not removing these monuments is "people doing what they believed prudent at the time," then really all that remains are degrees of atrocity.

Yup, and you can keep moving your goalposts to wherever they suit you.

Hitler did some things that were actively and consciously terrible.

MacDonald did some things that seemed okay at the time but look terrible in hindsight.

I'd think we could all empathize with that. Past regrets. But we're judging and vilifying someone a century later based on modern values, beliefs and information.

Isnt it better to say: "This is what he did, he forged Confederation, but he also did this, residential schools for natives and it didnt go well, but he didnt know that at the time."

[TheIronMaiden]

I am surprised that people even like McDonald. I have always found the veneration of state leaders comical.