Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[kwoldtimer]

If it were up to me, the Cornwallis statue would be installed inside Halifax City Hall and displayed along with some information panels to explain his importance in the City's history, the controversy, and the decision to move the monument.

[niwell]

Like almost all of us, I learn my history solely from statues in parks. None of those damn SJW "museums" - or should I say, commie brainwashing factories.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If it were up to me, the Cornwallis statue would be installed inside Halifax City Hall and displayed along with some information panels to explain his importance in the City's history, the controversy, and the decision to move the monument.

Whoa, that's sounding wayyyy too reasonable. Should probably amp up the outrage a bit. You can pick either side (there are only two, after all)!

(Interestingly enough cycles of erecting and removing statues based on current whims is probably more of a historical norm than preserving them in perpetuity...)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by niwell

Like almost all of us, I learn my history solely from statues in parks. None of those damn SJW "museums" - or should I say, commie brainwashing factories.





Whoa, that's sounding wayyyy too reasonable. Should probably amp up the outrage a bit. You can pick either side (there are only two, after all)!

(Interestingly enough cycles of erecting and removing statues based on current whims is probably more of a historical norm than preserving them in perpetuity...)

At this stage of my life, outrage is in increasingly short supply, I have to say. I recognize I'm not really in sync with the zeitgeist.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shreddog

The decision comes after increasing controversy over Cornwallis's so-called scalping proclamation that offered a cash bounty to anyone who killed a Mi'kmaw person.

Weren't the British at war with the Mikmaks at the time?

I mean, with that kind of logic, we Québécois won't rest until the city of Moncton is renamed -- the guy literally came here to wage war on us Canadians. I'll have to write my elected officials to demand we pressure our little neighbor to the East into erasing that cursed enemy's name.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Weren't the British at war with the Mikmaks at the time?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid...rtmouth_(1751)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid...rtmouth_(1751)

I didn't know this Acadian hero/leader was a direct ancestor of Beyoncé, learned that useless tidbit today thanks to your wikipedia link. Thanks for sharing and yes, it's what I recall, the Mikmaks were allied with the French against the Brits. In that context, you can't possibly be serious in blaming the Brits for harming them.

In fact I am insulted that Cornwallis' behavior against Canadian natives seems singled out, while in fact he was also just as much of an enemy of French Canadians and Acadians! I demand another statue of him removed for that second just-as-valid reason; this removal is unsatisfactory as it wasn't done for all the right reasons.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by niwell

Like almost all of us, I learn my history solely from statues in parks. None of those damn SJW "museums" - or should I say, commie brainwashing factories.





Whoa, that's sounding wayyyy too reasonable. Should probably amp up the outrage a bit. You can pick either side (there are only two, after all)!

(Interestingly enough cycles of erecting and removing statues based on current whims is probably more of a historical norm than preserving them in perpetuity...)

True enough, but I was foolishly hoping we could learn from the mistakes of others and NOT repeat them. I was giving us more credit than we're due, I suppose. I'm all for putting a balanced historical narrative in the descriptive plaques around the statue, or erecting other statues nearby as a counterpoint but when a city can no longer be proud of it's founder, the culture of that city has fundamentally changed. This can and has happened of course, but I don't believe that it has in this case as much as progressives like to think and people will get fed up with one sided ideology being pushed on them.

I react strongly to things I have already seen long ago and far away, that I have built up a strong intolerance for.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by JM5

True enough, but I was foolishly hoping we could learn from the mistakes of others and NOT repeat them. I was giving us more credit than we're due, I suppose. I'm all for putting a balanced historical narrative in the descriptive plaques around the statue, or erecting other statues nearby as a counterpoint but when a city can no longer be proud of it's founder, the culture of that city has fundamentally changed. This can and has happened of course, but I don't believe that it has in this case as much as progressives like to think and people will get fed up with one sided ideology being pushed on them.

What is disappointing to me is how vulnerable our democratic institutions are to mob justice pressures.

I would imagine that most people who are convinced the Cornwallis statue should have come down would have a hard time reciting even basic facts about history from 1750. Cornwallis just happens to register as a "colonial oppressor" so he has to go. There is probably no constructive plan for how to deal with the statue or the park.

Will we be better off when there is hysteria over something more important, or will city councillors, MPs, and MLAs all fold again instead of risking their reputations and careers? I don't blame them for choosing another hill to die on, but I doubt their ability to collectively make good decisions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

If it were up to me, the Cornwallis statue would be installed inside Halifax City Hall and displayed along with some information panels to explain his importance in the City's history, the controversy, and the decision to move the monument.

I thought you were on the right track with this approach.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

True enough, but I was foolishly hoping we could learn from the mistakes of others and NOT repeat them. I was giving us more credit than we're due, I suppose. I'm all for putting a balanced historical narrative in the descriptive plaques around the statue, or erecting other statues nearby as a counterpoint but when a city can no longer be proud of it's founder, the culture of that city has fundamentally changed. This can and has happened of course, but I don't believe that it has in this case as much as progressives like to think and people will get fed up with one sided ideology being pushed on them.

I react strongly to things I have already seen long ago and far away, that I have built up a strong intolerance for.

I think you're right that the culture of the city probably hasn't changed much.

The effect of this is really to allow people to feel good or better about themselves, without actually having to go through a cultural change!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

and yes, it's what I recall, the Mikmaks were allied with the French against the Brits. In that context, you can't possibly be serious in blaming the Brits for harming them.

The past is a foreign country. In the current zeitgeist, we are okay with some foreign countries but not others.

It's already been pointed out but even in the 20th century, a huge number of famous personalities were either extremely racist by today's standards or eugenics supporters who approved involuntary sterilization. Back in the 1930's, some of them liked Hitler and the Nazi party.

In the future, hopefully humanity will continue to evolve and our views today will be seen as inhumane.

I don't think the conclusion from this should be that we need to constantly purge our historical relics...

[EpicPonyTime]

I am most interested in what they are going to replace Cornwallis' statue with. I like the idea of putting up a statue for the Mi'kmaq and Acadians alongside it.

[Acajack]

This is a story from a few months ago, but although I couldn't quickly anything more recent, it appears to just be gaining traction on social media now - perhaps because the changes are only now being phased in?

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ool-board.html

Just so people know, the word "chief" comes from old French many hundreds of years ago (before the colonization of the new world in fact).

The French word "chef" at the time meant "head" as in the top part of your body. This evolved into "chef" and later "chief" to mean a leader who heads up something.

In modern French it's more often used in combination with another word, as in "couvre-chef" which is kind of a poetic way of referring to a hat or a cap.

Its origins at least have nothing to do with aboriginal peoples in North America.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The past is a foreign country. In the current zeitgeist, we are okay with some foreign countries but not others.

It's already been pointed out but even in the 20th century, a huge number of famous personalities were either extremely racist by today's standards or eugenics supporters who approved involuntary sterilization. Back in the 1930's, some of them liked Hitler and the Nazi party.

In the future, hopefully humanity will continue to evolve and our views today will be seen as inhumane.

I don't think the conclusion from this should be that we need to constantly purge our historical relics...

Over the weekend I was at IKEA in Ottawa and the store had its flags at half-mast and there were pictures of Ingvar Kamprad all over the place. He was the founder of Ikea, and he died a few days ago.

Mr. Kamprad was also an active fascist and even very clearly a Nazi sympathizer back in the day.

[bless-u]

The merits and methodology of Colonialism are always debatable and controversial. The process of colonization wasn't exactly a nice walk in the park for everyone involved. Colonizing a distant and foreign land back then could be a violent and bloody business. However, things must be accomplished at all cost in the name of progress.

There will always be "Conquerors/Winners" and "Victims/Losers" in that kind of epic struggle. The real world of the Colonial period was, for the most parts, alien to us, modern inhabitants. The mentality of the people and the justification of their actions weren't always comprehensible. Political Correctness didn't exist; things like slavery and discrimination were the norm of the Colonial society. Such was the environment the founding members of our country were living and breathing in.

Fortunately, human civilization had moved on to a more positive direction since then. Many of the inheriting flaws had been eradicated. We are enjoying the benefits of this centuries old development today. What we consider morally acceptable and correct nowadays would probably be strange and impractical to our Colonial counterparts.

If we start judging the founding members of our country using our modern standards, morality, sensibility and political correctness, etc., and nip-picking on who'd done what, how and for what purpose during the Colonial period, then not a single honourable man would be left to be commemorated, including the founding Father of the country, and we will ALL be living in shame forever.

In view of that, is it really fair and appropriate to judge the founding members that way, to single them out and take them out of context, out of history, to dishonour them just to please certain people so that we could feel better about ourselves and sooth our modern sensibility and conscience? Is it how we repay the founding members of the country for what we are enjoying today? Where is the justice in that? Are we being hypocritical?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by bless-u

The merits and methodology of Colonialism are always debatable and controversial. The process of colonization wasn't exactly a nice walk in the park for everyone involved. Colonizing a distant and foreign land back then could be a violent and bloody business. However, things must be accomplished at all cost in the name of progress.

In the Cornwallis case I think a lot of people imagine a "white guy" arriving in a pristine area inhabited by natives and subjugating them. Whether or not you like Cornwallis, this isn't a very accurate way to think about what happened.

Nova Scotia had already been colonized for 150 years when Cornwallis came, and the British had already nominally controlled Nova Scotia for 40 years. The Mi'kmaq had already been converted to Catholicism by missionaries who came starting around 1600, and they generally got along with the French settlers and authorities. They were French allies that got weapons from colonial French authorities and were encouraged to fight in the conflict between England and France. England and France were constantly fighting and attacking different towns. There weren't really good guys and bad guys, and there were a lot of poor settlers and villagers on every side who were randomly killed or had all of their possessions destroyed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This context of everyone randomly attacking everyone else whenever possible was the one in which Cornwallis placed a bounty on Mi'kmaq scalps.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I think you're right that the culture of the city probably hasn't changed much.

The effect of this is really to allow people to feel good or better about themselves, without actually having to go through a cultural change!

Touché my friend. On the other hand, the group of people who want to feel better about themselves by pretending to have changed is slowly shrinking, while the group that feels they have no reason to feel bad in the first place is on the rise.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is a story from a few months ago, but although I couldn't quickly anything more recent, it appears to just be gaining traction on social media now - perhaps because the changes are only now being phased in?

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ool-board.html

Just so people know, the word "chief" comes from old French many hundreds of years ago (before the colonization of the new world in fact).

The French word "chef" at the time meant "head" as in the top part of your body. This evolved into "chef" and later "chief" to mean a leader who heads up something.

In modern French it's more often used in combination with another word, as in "couvre-chef" which is kind of a poetic way of referring to a hat or a cap.

Its origins at least have nothing to do with aboriginal peoples in North America.

le chef d'un parti. chef cuisinier , on entend toujours ces expressions au Québec.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

le chef d'un parti. chef cuisinier , on entend toujours ces expressions au Québec.

En effet. La signification moderne c'est "une personne qui dirige", mais dans le sens de la tête (du corps humain), c'est un emploi plutôt rare. De là mon exemple du "couvre-chef" pour un chapeau.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by someone123

What is disappointing to me is how vulnerable our democratic institutions are to mob justice pressures.

I would imagine that most people who are convinced the Cornwallis statue should have come down would have a hard time reciting even basic facts about history from 1750. Cornwallis just happens to register as a "colonial oppressor" so he has to go. There is probably no constructive plan for how to deal with the statue or the park.

Will we be better off when there is hysteria over something more important, or will city councillors, MPs, and MLAs all fold again instead of risking their reputations and careers? I don't blame them for choosing another hill to die on, but I doubt their ability to collectively make good decisions.

I know SJWs are not exactly the politburo, but they do in fact have institutional power. The leaders of our and many other Western nations believe in progressive ideology which is simply the idea that people can change for the "better". They have a pretty utopian and therefore impossible definition of "better" stemming purely from sociology and therefore taking no account of biology whatsoever. It will inevitably have to come down to us voting a stop to their idea of progress before it causes too much harm. To do that, someone smart will need to step forward and find the path which preserves the benefits of progressive thinking, while clearly demarking it's limitations by pointing out where it enters the realm of fallacy. That's going to be a tough one.