View Single Post
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 5:42 PM
wg_flamip wg_flamip is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
I think one of the reasons why the LGBT movement is one of the most successful enfranchisement movements of our period is because they proceeded incrementally and were always attuned to the social climate of the day.
I can see why that reading might be appealing (esp. in the wider context of this thread), but it doesn't really reflect LGBT history terribly well. The success of the gay rights movement in particular (at least the movement as pursued by those who see/saw marriage as the end goal) is likely owed, in large part, to the fact that there is "one in every family."

In response to this thread in general, I would argue that some uncomfortable compromises will have to be made if we are legitimately interested in pursuing reconciliation (reconciliation, by its nature, is not comfortable). Although I'm not at all convinced that this specific issue should take centre stage as one of those compromises, I believe we ought to remain open to the idea that—just as in post-apartheid South Africa or various other nations after decolonization—some place names should change to better reflect Indigenous history/language (compare Dorchester > René Lévesque, for example, as a domestic precedent).

I haven't once heard this topic come up IRL, and even the usual suspects that I'm connected to through social media (the ones who generally toe the line WRT leftist identity politics) have been mostly silent on this one. I suspect that the media, looking for an "us too" narrative re: Charlottesville, seized upon this and blew it out of proportion. Similarly, I wonder whether those engaged in the backlash are using this relatively frivolous debate to avoid more serious discussions about Indigenous rights and the exigencies of the truth and reconciliation process (i.e., I doubt all of those spouting "they had me til . . ." really, genuinely mean it—although I'm sure many think they do).
Reply With Quote