Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This works under a decolonization scenario or in the case of Germany where you kind of do an entire shutdown and then reboot of the country's governance structure.

But Canada never really did that. (See the picture of the lady above!)

I'm well aware of GB's involvement with our history and culture but the point is that we shouldn't honour historical figures if they were exterminators and murderers. That isn't the kind of historical importance you want to highlight publicly. See what they're doing with Gen. Robert Lee in the U.S.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I'm well aware of GB's involvement with our history and culture but the point is that we shouldn't honour historical figures if they were exterminators and murderers. That isn't the kind of historical importance you want to highlight publicly. See what they're doing with Gen. Robert Lee in the U.S.

I do understand your point.

Personally I don't feel strongly about this either way.

I can see both sides.

[optimusREIM]

They tried erasure in ancient Rome too, but I suspect strongly it wasn't about political correctness back then. The point is that most often figures whose memories were damned didn't really deserve it. I would put forward that in 200 years time they will be looking at political figures from our era with as much disdain as folks like McDonald and Amherst so let's chill a little bit and not go instantly to statue removal every time someone is offended.

[JHikka]

With Montreal renaming Amherst Street how long do towns like Amherst, Nova Scotia last with their current names? It still confuses me how there's seemingly no dialogue over cities and towns named after people like Amherst/Moncton.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

That's not the same thing though. Jeffery Amherst tried to exterminate what was already here. He was a general who led wars for his country.

And he helped conquer Canada, which became part of his country thanks to him; him and people like him (the British military) are the reason modern Canada is what it is. That's why our Canadian forebears judged it was the right thing to do to name streets and towns after him.

De Champlain and Cartier were both explorers who actually found, explored and defined what is now our country.

And took possession of it for France (even though it was already populated with natives), which is nowadays a foreign power even though Canada traces some of its roots to it. These people are apples to apples.

Can you imagine an Armenian person living and walking on streets named after members of the Ottoman Empire who tried to exterminate their ancestors? Or an Adolf Hitler park in Germany? Because that's the same for First Nations here. Just doesn't make sense to give any public recognition to bad historical figures. Even on the pretext of "history".

I can imagine Québécois walking on streets named after British military or royalty, yes. I can imagine Québécois paying cash using green bills with British royalty on them. I can also imaging people of Anglo-Saxon descent walking on streets named after Norman monarchs who killed their ancestors and conquered them through violence. etc.

Such things are actually not unusual. Many places on Earth were conquered at some point or another, and people who nowadays live in relative peace had ancestors who were killing each other.

If you're native, our ancestors (from my mom's side) were killing each other at some point.
If you're Anglo, our ancestors (from my mom's side) were ALSO killing each other at some point.

What's the big difference? If I can forgive #2 because it's 2017, why not also #1?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

That's not the same thing though. Jeffery Amherst tried to exterminate what was already here.
...
Can you imagine an Armenian person living and walking on streets named after members of the Ottoman Empire who tried to exterminate their ancestors? Or an Adolf Hitler park in Germany? Because that's the same for First Nations here. Just doesn't make sense to give any public recognition to bad historical figures. Even on the pretext of "history".

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

...That isn't the kind of historical importance you want to highlight publicly. See what they're doing with Gen. Robert Lee in the U.S.

The mission Ville Marie was founded in 1642, which is also considered the start year of the French-Iroquois wars. The stated goal of this war (aka Beaver wars) was to dislodge the Iroquois from traditional lands where they held a strangled hold on the trading of pelts by forcing other groups (e.g. Hurons) to trade only with them. Related, one of the stated goals of the mission was to establish a French settlement in the area known as Hochelaga as part of the eradication of the Iroquois from the island. Over the years there are many examples of the French settlers (martyrs) killing hundreds of Iroquois in the defence of Ville-Marie (e.g. Dollard Des Ormeaux).

Living in Montreal you are of course aware of this. As such, will you be leading the formal name of Montreal to Hochelaga out of respect to the traditional Iroquois land it is built on and the oppression extended by the French settlers to the indigenous people? As you said in your post, I can't imagine what it is like for a First Nations person to say the name of the city that lead to the extermination of so many of their people.

[shreddog]

^^ Obviously I am not serious about the name change, but the name "Montreal" does represent extermination to many Iroquois.

Not sure where to draw the line, but wow that slope is slippery.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by shreddog

The mission Ville Marie was founded in 1642, which is also considered the start year of the French-Iroquois wars. The stated goal of this war (aka Beaver wars) was to dislodge the Iroquois from traditional lands where they held a strangled hold on the trading of pelts by forcing other groups (e.g. Hurons) to trade only with them. Related, one of the stated goals of the mission was to establish a French settlement in the area known as Hochelaga as part of the eradication of the Iroquois from the island. Over the years there are many examples of the French settlers (martyrs) killing hundreds of Iroquois in the defence of Ville-Marie (e.g. Dollard Des Ormeaux).

Living in Montreal you are of course aware of this. As such, will you be leading the formal name of Montreal to Hochelaga out of respect to the traditional Iroquois land it is built on and the oppression extended by the French settlers to the indigenous people? As you said in your post, I can't imagine what it is like for a First Nations person to say the name of the city that lead to the extermination of so many of their people.

Your point is? I'm glad to see you know your history

Originally Posted by lio45

And he helped conquer Canada, which became part of his country thanks to him; him and people like him (the British military) are the reason modern Canada is what it is. That's why our Canadian forebears judged it was the right thing to do to name streets and towns after him.



And took possession of it for France (even though it was already populated with natives), which is nowadays a foreign power even though Canada traces some of its roots to it. These people are apples to apples.




I can imagine Québécois walking on streets named after British military or royalty, yes. I can imagine Québécois paying cash using green bills with British royalty on them. I can also imaging people of Anglo-Saxon descent walking on streets named after Norman monarchs who killed their ancestors and conquered them through violence. etc.

Such things are actually not unusual. Many places on Earth were conquered at some point or another, and people who nowadays live in relative peace had ancestors who were killing each other.

If you're native, our ancestors (from my mom's side) were killing each other at some point.
If you're Anglo, our ancestors (from my mom's side) were ALSO killing each other at some point.

What's the big difference? If I can forgive #2 because it's 2017, why not also #1?

I was talking about a particular person organizing mass murders of certain ethnic groups and this turned into a "well the british killed the french and vice-versa" thing. You just don't get the genocide aspect of my point of view it seems.

You two seem to believe my opinion is to remove Amherst's name everywhere in Canada or any bad historical figure's name for that matter. What I simply said was that in the case of Montreal honoring the First Nations, removing Amherst's name was the right thing to do.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I was talking about a particular person organizing mass murders of certain ethnic groups and this turned into a "well the british killed the french and vice-versa" thing. You just don't get the genocide aspect of my point of view it seems.

250+ years ago it was pretty normal to try to mass-kill your enemies if that's what made holding your possessions easier and safer. Amherst wasn't particularly evil just for fun, it's what made military, strategic, and political sense.

FWIW, Lord Durham attempted to erase us as well (in a way not unlike residential schools, when you think about it), yet there's a street named after him in Sherbrooke, QC - incidentally, right next to Amherst Street, again in the totally Anglo part of the city at the time those streets were opened - and there's also a town named after him in the Townships area of Quebec.

If I thought like you I would obviously demand this street be renamed, but actually it's the opposite, I would fight for it to retain its original name because that's part of history. I'd even say it's part of the spirit of that neighborhood, since both the architecture and street names are a dead giveaway it was built by the Anglo elite of this city. I would definitely not wish for either to change - the neighborhood is among the nicest in the entire Townships.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shreddog

^^ Obviously I am not serious about the name change, but the name "Montreal" does represent extermination to many Iroquois.

Not sure where to draw the line, but wow that slope is slippery.

Correct, either Mary's Town or Mount Royal are names that represent a foreign-and-deadly religion or a foreign-and-deadly king, from a native's perspective. Both are unacceptable.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by lio45

250+ years ago it was pretty normal to try to mass-kill your enemies if that's what made holding your possessions easier and safer. Amherst wasn't particularly evil just for fun, it's what made military, strategic, and political sense.

FWIW, Lord Durham attempted to erase us as well (in a way not unlike residential schools, when you think about it), yet there's a street named after him in Sherbrooke, QC - incidentally, right next to Amherst Street, again in the totally Anglo part of the city at the time those streets were opened - and there's also a town named after him in the Townships area of Quebec.

If I thought like you I would obviously demand this street be renamed, but actually it's the opposite, I would fight for it to retain its original name because that's part of history. I'd even say it's part of the spirit of that neighborhood, since both the architecture and street names are a dead giveaway it was built by the Anglo elite of this city. I would definitely not wish for either to change - the neighborhood is among the nicest in the entire Townships.

Lol ok if you believe I'm some kind of nimby... I was just stating my opinion, one that many people share and that the city of Montreal and most First Nations share as well. Not that every bad historical name must be changed at all cost. As we say in french, c'est du cas par cas.

You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't believe your "everybody tried to mass-kill their enemies back then" argument. I don't think Acadians were such a big enemy, same for First Nations (who were given smallpox-contaminated blankets on orders of Jeffery Amherst). It's not like they were killed fighting a war. This is pure planned ethnic annihilation.

I mean, you could then pretty much justify any genocide by stating "they were feeling threatened, that's what made sense back then". And that's just plain incorrect.

Originally Posted by lio45

Correct, either Mary's Town or Mount Royal are names that represent a foreign-and-deadly religion or a foreign-and-deadly king, from a native's perspective. Both are unacceptable.

You know that's not what I'm saying. Thanks for extrapolating everything though...

[optimusREIM]

That last part ^ I mean of course we know what you're saying the problem is that logically in order to justify one action you'd have to justify renaming towns like Montreal or what have you. Literally any place that isn't indigenous would have to get renamed in order not to offend.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

That last part ^ I mean of course we know what you're saying the problem is that logically in order to justify one action you'd have to justify renaming towns like Montreal or what have you. Literally any place that isn't indigenous would have to get renamed in order not to offend.

I think it's worse when it's a single individual (Amherst in this case) that has something to do with cruel acts rather than just the name of a place. I don't think hearing the name Montreal irritates First Nations as much as hearing the name Amherst...There's a personification aspect in the whole thing.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I think it's worse when it's a single individual (Amherst in this case) that has something to do with cruel acts rather than just the name of a place. I don't think hearing the name Montreal irritates First Nations as much as hearing the name Amherst...There's a personification aspect in the whole thing.

Dollard personally KILLED more Iroquois than just about any other individual - well if the stories are to be believed.

As such, I expect that you will be leading the charge to rename the ville this weekend.

And by the way, isn't it incredibly presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of First Nation people? I personally know many FN's who hate the fact that European settlers exterminated their ancestors and built cities on the bones of their forefathers. For them cities like Winnipeg, Toronto and Ottawa are bad enough using indigenous names, but places like Montreal and Halifax really pisses them off.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Dollard personally KILLED more Iroquois than just about any other individual - well if the stories are to be believed.

As such, I expect that you will be leading the charge to rename the ville this weekend.

And by the way, isn't it incredibly presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of First Nation people? I personally know many FN's who hate the fact that European settlers exterminated their ancestors and built cities on the bones of their forefathers. For them cities like Winnipeg, Toronto and Ottawa are bad enough using indigenous names, but places like Montreal and Halifax really pisses them off.

I'm just gonna say, arrogance really doesn't serve you well. I'm not leading the charge on anything this weekend.

I don't think it's presumptuous at all as I'm not speaking on their behalf. You should know that this isn't the only time a First Nations leader (who is usually speaking in the name of his people) is protesting Amherst in this country:

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/lo...t--p-e-i-.html

His name sparked controversy on the other side of the border too:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/2...as-mascot.html

I do believe it's a pandora's box that shouldn't be opened and that it's very difficult to draw the line. Like I said, Montreal's name change was justified IMO, on a day where the city was commemorating First Nations. Doesn't mean the name Amherst should be removed everywhere. Or else it never stops. Some people like to extrapolate though.

[kool maudit]

It's a funny period in a civilisation's history when people get squeamish and guilty about the initial conquest but aren't about to actually, you know, give it back*. All sorts of funny little back and forths.

(* Because you can't. Those men are all dead and everything is different now. But imagine us gamely boarding planes to wherever our 23andMes tell us** to while the descendants of the Iroquois Confederacy set up shop atop PVM. The historians would talk about that one for some time.)

(** and then getting placed in holding camps indefinitely because most of our origin-points are still trying to hold back Juncker's Eritrean 'Syrians' never mind the off-puttingly selfless us.)

[JM5]

Genocide is normal. HORRIBLE but normal. People need to accept the dark side of human nature - we are just animals doing what's in the best interest of our genes. This is why all philosophies and political systems eventually break down: they never consider the full gamut of human behaviour inherent in nature. Western society today tries to cast a very wide net - a global net. It doesn't consider that people are the apex species and we don't need to come together in shared beliefs to fight off vicious lions. Our threat is ourselves - people we label the "others".

The only thing we can do is choose to live in a society with people who share our values and exclude those that disagree too much so they can form their own societies or join one where they fit in better. This is divisive but it's how humans have adapted to live over evolutionary time.

150 years ago, we had the birth of the nation state. These political entities tried to codify tribal belief systems (tribalism) into a set of written laws. They elevated the folklore of the dominant group to the level of national mythology and suppressed (assimilated) minorities. This was a highly successful process but the codification of tribal beliefs makes them rigid and un-evolving. This was never the case in traditional societies where beliefs of the past were often modified and replaced.

After the horrors of WW2, the prevailing school of though in the West brought nation states and their legitimacy into question, releasing a pandora's box of ethnic and cultural identities. The process is now coming to a head - we are living in interesting times indeed. Let's admit that nationalism has a serious problem in a world of weapons of mass destruction where genocide is easier than ever, but let's also admit that as humans we are bound by our nature and thrive in smaller groups of like minded individuals. We will need to forge a way forward that recognises that we are all equal and no societies or belief systems are "better" than others but we also have a right to create "safe spaces" where our own can thrive and most of our personal social interactions and relationships can take place.

Not sure how this is going to work.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Cornwallis statue was a minor issue for decades, going back at least to the 1980's if not earlier.
...
Now in our post-Charlottesville, Nazi-infested world, we have people who threatened to tear the statue down, there was a group of "pro-Western-Civilization" counter-protesters, the Cornwallis statue gets national news coverage, and there is a sense of urgency to the whole issue.
...
The difference is dramatic, even though it's just a statue and at the end of the day it has no material effect on anybody.

FWIW, it appears that the statue has been removed and may be located in a museum somewhere.
CBC

Removal of controversial Cornwallis statue underway at Halifax park

A city crew has set up scaffolding and is beginning the work to remove the controversial statue of Edward Cornwallis from the Halifax park that also bears his name.

Halifax regional council voted 12-4 Tuesday to remove the bronze monument commemorating Cornwallis, the military officer who founded Halifax in 1749.

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.

Brendan Elliott, a spokesperson for the city, said the statue may be removed today, but it could take longer. Both the statue and the stone pedestal on which it stands will be placed in storage.
...

[MonctonRad]

Halifax regional council voted 12-4 Tuesday to remove the bronze monument commemorating Cornwallis, the military officer who founded Halifax in 1749

Cowards.

Now even city officials refuse to stand up to mob mentality.

Cornwallis needs to be viewed in historical context. Father LeLoutre's War was underway and Micmac warriors were harassing the small settlement of Halifax. They and their Acadian allies could have overrun Halifax. His directive (although objectionable) was understandable given the historical circumstances.

Was this directive any different than the firebombing of Dresden in WW2? The latter was in many ways a far more serious transgression of the rules of warfare, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, with no real military objective other than terrorizing the German population.

Cornwallis was the founder of Halifax. He needs to be recognized as such (warts and all). His statue should be replaced on it's pedestal perhaps with a historical plaque explaining the context of his historical actions. Let the people who read the plaque form their own opinions regarding the worth of this man (not a ragtag group of SJWs and Indian activists).

[JM5]

Originally Posted by shreddog

FWIW, it appears that the statue has been removed and may be located in a museum somewhere.
CBC

Just another brand of ideology running roughshod over people's beliefs and culture in the name of progress. Laughably believing it can overcome human nature through brainwashing and just-so stories. Just like the commies of old, their days are numbered.