Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Here in Metro Vancouver, the FN bands are collectively sitting on maybe a tens of billions of dollars of real estate. They have a very active economic development team and they rake in cash. They built a giant outlet mall, messing with years of regional planning, and clogging the main artery to Vancouver Island with traffic.

It seems like an ad hoc system that is prone to corruption. There are some bands that have lucrative deals like this and others that don't. It's unclear how much of the money filters down to average band members. Supposedly one of the benefits for the Squamish Nation is you don't have to pay payroll taxes for native employees working at Park Royal. Does this mean that the H&M employees make a few more dollars an hour, or is it just more profit farther up?

Can the system of "nations" and the Indian Act ever work out well? There seems to be an incentive for bands to make the life of their members look as bad as possible and ask for reparation. There seems to be a temptation to skim money that goes to your band if you're in charge, and claims of sovereignty can be used to avoid oversight. It reminds me of the dysfunctional dynamics between major countries and tin-pot dictators. But I don't really know enough about the situation to pass judgement on it.

I have a feeling most Canadians are in the same boat. Not knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion about a very complicated system.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

But would a time "when First Nations' stats and outcomes bear some relationship to those of the population at large" be recognized as reconciliation? Because it seems to me is it's a question of their sovereignty, which we have permanently infringed on. Even if every remote community was on the power grid and had potable water, the dominance of the Canadian state would remain. We could have quotas in government for indigenous members the same way we do for regional representation. But if things like our first Prime Minister being commemorated are an issue, I think this goes much deeper than just societal equality.

I don't think it's an "either/or" issue. However, if we are somehow "reconciled" in a future where First Nations remain at the bottom of every statistical chart, where kids off themselves with alarming regularity, where Third World housing conditions persist, etc, etc, etc, it would seem like a "fail" to me. Or perhaps the same "fail" in a shiny new wrapping.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here's a mental exercise for you.

What if all of the goodies of modern Canadian society were available to the Québécois, but in exchange for them they'd basically have to become Anglo-Canadians?

It would be an attractive option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wished.

FYI, speaking of that... this is from today's paper:

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...ion-de-la-mort

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

FYI, speaking of that... this is from today's paper:

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...ion-de-la-mort

Kind of related to the "erosion risk" I brought up in this old post:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...3&postcount=22

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Sigh. Firstly, this issue has been raised by the teachers' union, not the "holier than thou school boards". As far as I know, no school board has taken any action in response to the union's request.

Secondly, as has already been pointed out in this thread, this is a straw man. No one is advocating for a white-washing of history. Most of the school boards have policies which restrict the naming of schools to commemorating people whose contributions to society are "renowned and valued across Canada" (to borrow from the Toronto school board's policy. Is MacDonald renowned across all of Canada? That seems a legitimate question.

No one is suggesting that Canadian students should not be taught about MacDonald. Indeed, hopefully this debate offers new, alternative perspectives on MacDonald's tenure as Prime Minister.

Huh what? You don't think Canada's first PM and Father of Confederation is "renowned and valued across Canada"

Anyway, I'm pleased to see Trudeau has said Macdonald's name won't be coming off any federal buildings.

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a quagmire of epic proportions for which a solution is impossible. If we are going to be truly honest.

Every single modern PM knew this was a serious problem but none of them chose to open the can of worms like JT has.

Is this a courageous righteous move or a foolish and dangerous one?

Time to rename Montreal's airport.

[rousseau]

Further to what I sense the general status quo is among the educated classes away from the extremes: my father, a lifelong NDP supporter and pacifist who started recycling and composting in the 1970s when it was a bizarre thing to have to explain to your neighbours; a man who taught, among other things, First Nations history to First Nations kids at a couple of high schools in the general vicinity of Six Nations for almost thirty years; in other words, a compassionate person with solid lefty credentials of the sort that predate the malaise of our current identity politics-driven SJW cohort, is of the opinion that the push to take Sir John A's name off of public buildings is complete nonsense.

Has he drifted slightly starboard in his retirement in the way that older folks tend to? Maybe a tiny bit, but he's still a passionate advocate for social justice, volunteering his time all over the place for reputable and worthy causes to help the poor and less fortunate. Without, I might add, obsessing over the labels of identity. He spends his time driving Syrian immigrants to doctor's appointments while their spouses are at work, or teaching kids in less fortunate neighbourhoods how to tend community gardens, etc.

He's a good egg with a solid grasp of the history and issues. I admire him a lot. And I don't think he's an outlier.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

You seem to have a lot insight into the inner workings of University administration. Its curious that you suggest that that "knee-jerk firings" are regularly taking place. I can't think of any examples. Firing a tenured professor in Canada, especially for the politics his or her academic work, is nearly impossible. For example, I've never heard any rumblings that the University of Toronto ever considered firing Jordan Peterson. I actually think that Canadian Universities, as providers of education to the masses, are fairly insulated from "customer complaint" or negative press pressures.

Which ideas took their place in the marketplace by force?

Also, if you think that someone is making a stupid argument, it is incumbent upon you to persuasively demonstrate, with your own argument, why it is dumb. Similarly, if someone labels you or your ideas "racist", it is incumbent upon you to persuasively argue that your ideas are not, in fact, racist (or, if you are so inclined, to issue a Statement of Claim alleging defamation [but that is not a palatable option in the vast majority of cases]). Not sure what other options you, or any of us, have.

I'm certainly guessing you have attended university, you carry yourself as such. However, you haven't noticed how inherently liberal universities have always been? And how modern liberalism has taken on identity and potentially victim based politics?

I was quite surprised how liberal universities were when I was a student many moons ago, and today students are far more vocal and assertive in their political interests... the sentiment out there is one that seeks collective agreement through ostracizing dissenters. Safe spaces and trigger warnings are no longer unusual. Look at the chaos caused by Jordan Petersen, and yes, the possibly hundreds of calls for his firing. His refusal to step down, despite huge efforts from students and staff, doesn't make this problem go away. Still, it's made everyone forget about Israel apartheid weeks.

My point isn't exclusively dealing with JUST firings or resignations either, but how mob mentality is "forcing" academia to react, and how people follow the mob. Whether resignations or shutting down events/disccussions/debate, etc, it fuels what I consider a problem... many trying to link themselves to an identity based anchor in their personal politics and use their own "safety" as an outward aggression against free speech or civil discourse.

Freedom of Speech and academic freedom are not really that protected anymore. Andrew Potter of McGill recklessly criticized Quebec... although maybe he's not entirely wrong... and he "resigned". The university did not hide the fact that there was huge outward political pressure. The difference between McGill and U of T is that U of T couldn't convince Peterson to do the same.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...er-resignation

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/w...job-at-mcgill/

Or a Men's issues awareness group in Ryerson being grinded out by angered dissenters, despite having many female members and dealing with very real male matters, like a much higher suicide rate than women.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/free-s...eech-1.4058994


Linked in that article (this stuff isn't hard to find), an Alberta pro-life group faced a huge security tab and declined to host their event. Again, putting political difference to them aside, consider the convenience... The university could not protect their free speech or freedom of religion and the mob's potential aggression alone would have cost them over $17k, which of course a student group has. Even though the university opposes the mob's behaviour

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-tab-1.3459413

This in response to that, and the general concern surrounding free speech in universities:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...wn-free-speech

Wilfriid Laurier had to shut down another pro-life event, and McGill newspapers (they can't help themselves) have refused to print articles supporting Israel.

The Globe and Macleans have the following to say:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opi...beandmail.com&

http://www.macleans.ca/education/uni...speech-report/

While there have been some, but not many, resignations/firings, it's obviously worse down south. A Yale dean was forced to step down after a tasteless Yelp review. The Dean of Claremont McKenna College resigned after some poorly chosen words intended to indicate an effort to be MORE inclusive, and was met with hunger strikes. Hunger strikes. A professor at a Washington State College was berated (and his resignation demanded) for not participating in a "whites day of absence", and of course was called a racist by his colleagues (who were also trying to avoid being overrun by students). Never mind Berekely and the resignations following any Milo Yiannopoulous event on campuses (yes Milo is crazy).

You may say straw man, but I'm playing weatherman. I woiuldn't be surprised if a small storm brews in canada. We do not have the same problems as the US, but we're soft on infringements from one group onto another's. I've spent a fair amount of time in the states since the election and they don't talk about trump any more than we do... their behaviours aren't exclusive from ours all the time

That's why I, although I admittedly lean libertarian, have a big problem with the links above and of course how many on this board or in normal life claim it doesn't exist. Forced resignations do exist, and professors also know to shut up and keep their jobs. Furthermore, universities clearly have done less than necessary to protect individuals and individual concerns, even rights. In the atmosphere depicted above, which doesn't apply to all universities, you can gather why some professors have incentive to keep quiet as well.

To your last point: Of course it's incumbent for me to aptly demonstrate my opinion, if it's contrarian, rather than just shut someone down. Problem is society today shows an increased tendency to accuse and then shut down, rather than exchange and listen.

Since I'm a reasonable person, it would take a lot for another reasonable person to accuse me of something like racism, but perhaps less for a moron to do so (especially given an increased focus on identity based liberal politics). A moron willing to throw around such a dangerous and slanderous accusation will likely not allow, nor entertain any reasonable counterargument. This is an increasingly popular tactic these days. My tendency is to stand up for myself, but it is no more my duty to demonstrate my lack of racism than it is his or her duty to shut their mouth in the first place. Those mindless accusations are damaging to anyone's social or professional value, even if they are proven wrong.

An example would be that I could say I disagree with how Black Lives Matter operates, and that can very quickly turn into an accusation from a stupid person. Similarly, you can imagine the trouble a professor or corporate professional would run into should they have a public issue with BLM.

There still is freedom on campuses, just less of it.

Originally Posted by Reesonov

No, that would be absurd. But if, for example, there was a significant and objectively reasonable resentment of a historical figure from one area or community in Canada, that would appear to disqualify someone. I don't think that is a crazy policy.

Not a bad policy, but I doubt our ability to come to consensus outside of the beaver and Wayne Gretzky
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...3&postcount=22[/QUOTE]

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Freedom of Speech and academic freedom are not really that protected anymore. Andrew Potter of McGill recklessly criticized Quebec... although maybe he's not entirely wrong... and he "resigned". The university did not hide the fact that there was huge outward political pressure.

I was going to bring up this example myself.

I thought Potter's views were full of shit, but him losing his job over that????

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Was there much public outrage about his resignation? I don't recall much if any.

It's frightening to me that this sort of thing is largely accepted in Canada. Is that really the sort of country we want to be i.e. one that doesn't protect freedom of speech in any real way?

Rather than focusing so much of our attention south of the border, we need to start asking ourselves some very difficult questions.

[blacktrojan3921]

Goodness, seems the alt-right and SJW's around the forums are coming out in droves on this topic.

As for my two thoughts, I find it funny that the First Nations people are somehow being lumped into this, considering the fact that the primary instigator of this controversy was the Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario, a god damn labor union.

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Goodness, seems the alt-right and SJW's around the forums are coming out in droves on this topic.

As for my two thoughts, I find it funny that the First Nations people are somehow being lumped into this, considering the fact that the primary instigator of this controversy was the Elementary Teacher's Federation of Ontario, a god damn labor union.

I personally find it very troubling that we can throw around labels like alt right and sjw on a board that has had pretty reasonable discussion for the most part. This is all politics of division and is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems to begin with.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by rousseau

current identity politics-driven SJW cohort

Got it in one. Who you are gives you a greater voice. MLK is rolling in his grave.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I personally find it very troubling that we can throw around labels like alt right and sjw on a board that has had pretty reasonable discussion for the most part. This is all politics of division and is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems to begin with.

So we put our heads in the sand, pretend they don't exist, all the while giving them even more power.

[Acajack]

The sad thing is that a disproportionate share of the stuff that many of us (rousseau included I suppose) cherish about modern western society we owe to the progressive left. And yet so many of us are now highly critical of its most visible contemporary incarnation - the SJW set, for lack of a better term.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The sad thing is that a disproportionate share of the stuff that many of us (rousseau included I suppose) cherish about modern western society we owe to the progressive left. And yet so many of us are now highly critical of its most visible contemporary incarnation - the SJW set, for lack of a better term.

The pendulum always swings too far both ways. Methinks the shenanigans of the SJWs will make the pendulum begin to swing the other way very soon.........

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The sad thing is that a disproportionate share of the stuff that many of us (rousseau included I suppose) cherish about modern western society we owe to the progressive left. And yet so many of us are now highly critical of its most visible contemporary incarnation - the SJW set, for lack of a better term.

This seems a bit nostalgic to me. Hiw many radical bad ideas from the 20th century "progressive left" were proposed but died on the vine (leaving us with those cherished ideas that survived)? My sense is that there were many (centrally planned economy, anyone?)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The pendulum always swings too far both ways. Methinks the shenanigans of the SJWs will make the pendulum begin to swing the other way very soon.........

Keeping in mind that, if so, the fulcrum of that pendulum has shifted far to the "left" of where it was just a few decades ago.

[Xelebes]

My only complaint with the what-we-call "SJW" is that settling on identity politics as what this exercise appears to be is for the most part idle work. It's putting the slow-rolling issue at the forefront so as to avoid accomplishing things that have quicker turnaround. You can do the identity work and accomplish the goals, but it is extremely tedious when it seems to be the only goal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

This seems a bit nostalgic to me. Hiw many radical bad ideas from the 20th century "progressive left" were proposed but died on the vine (leaving us with those cherished ideas that survived)? My sense is that there were many (centrally planned economy, anyone?)

I was thinking only of the western democracies. The idea of a centrally planned economy has generally never had more than small fringe support within the organized left in the western world.