Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[kwoldtimer]

Is it seriously suggested that status quo is an option wrt the state of aboriginal Canadians? I agree that the current jibber-jabber about statues seems unlikely to take us to a happy place, but speak to me again when First Nations' stats and outcomes bear some relationship to those of the population at large.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

What are some other examples of nations whose culture shifted in such a way as to make their founder publicly unpalatable (without revolution)?

Perhaps that is our problem. Canada is one of the few colonial states not to undergo a period of post-colonial revolution.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is it seriously suggested that status quo is an option wrt the state of aboriginal Canadians? I agree that the current jibber-jabber about statues seems unlikely to take us to a happy place, but speak to me again when First Nations' stats and outcomes bear some relationship to those of the population at large.

It's not my preferred option but I honestly believe that it is for some people. Including some in positions of power. Though this might be untenable now - it may well be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

But certainly patchwork of band-aid solutions is (was?) within the realm of possibility.

I mean, that's how we did things for how long?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not my preferred option but I honestly believe that it is for some people. Including some in positions of power. Though this might be untenable now - it may well be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

But certainly patchwork of band-aid solutions is (was?) within the realm of possibility.

I mean, that's how we did things for how long?

Indeed, I don't think you'd have to dig all that deep to find a constituency that would prefer full-on assimilation. However, as I've mentioned before, there is a fundamental change taking place (for reasons that go far beyond the PM and even beyond Canada's borders) and, wherever it takes us, there is no going back. If anything, the pace of change is picking up, istm, (that relates, in part, to the current government) notwithstanding the complaints within the indigenous community of lack of progress. We are still, however, at fairly early days.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

Pretty much exactly what I envision, just without the silly name-calling. Like it or not, the people and ideas that you disagree with are part of the "discussion" and "exploration of ideas" that you refer to. You can't just dismiss them by calling them "SJW"s and speed bumps. Marketplace of ideas, and all of that.

Yes and no...

That was an extension of my original point and that of others, how you give an inch and suddenly the mindless masses take half the country.

That's one of the problems with academia right now... because hooting and hollering (and tweeting) is the method of discourse selected by the upset, and that corporations and organizations (such as unis) have collectively decided that negative press is worse than anything (which results in knee-jerk firing of anyone who does not appease the upset), we have a lot of indulged, permanently offended SJW's.

Yes, they are part of the marketplkace of ideas, but many took their place by force, not discussion, by outrage, not education, etc... that's very hard to respect. There is a thin line between acknowledging what they are upset about, because that has to be addressed, without validating every dumb f*cking thing they want, or worse HOW they go about it.

There is a negative connotation with "SJW", but compared to whatever gets thrown at capitalists or rightwingers (ie "nazi", "racist" usually), it's mild.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Good analysis. It's hard to have White Man's Guilt if you're not a white man.

Why should a new Canadian from Haiti or Hong Kong feel responsible for something that happened before they arrived.

Or a white immigrant whether from a poor area of tension-filled ukraine, or someone from a nice part of Sweden.

There are a lot of nationalities, triumphs and struggels within "white", and a of people forget that many of these white people a) have come from a shitty place also, and know what struggle is, or b) just got here.

Originally Posted by JM5

Ideas that ask people to voluntarily give up what they worked hard for in order to help those who they perceive as less fortunate (or as having lost out in the competition of life) are requesting a form of charity. Charity will only work until the people making the sacrifices value what they gain more (feeling of fulfillment, respect, gratefulness) than what they lose. Once these people perceive that the "less fortunate" are taking advantage of the situation or that the sacrifices have become mandatory, their charity will come to a sudden halt.

I mean this as a warning. Altruism is most developed in humans but has been shown to be present in many complex animals. It has very clear limits.

And the stupidest part of it all is the ideology that continues to put individuals into boxes of victimhood and privilege, making the resentment between groups more and more pronounced. Intergroup conflict should be minimized in a multicultural setting, instead of encouraged and propagated. Identity politics MUST end, precisely because we are so diverse. We need a common set of beliefs to rally around before we tear each other apart.

This won't be a dialing down, like the 80's were. This is shaping up to be a full paradigm shift.

And to add, that nothing makes these "charitable" people more upset when others act entitled to, rather than grateful for, their "charity". These days, the general feeling out there is an entitlement to someone elses tax dollars.

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?

I know you're being tongue in cheek, but I'll bite!

Hilariously foolish!

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Yes and no...

That was an extension of my original point and that of others, how you give an inch and suddenly the mindless masses take half the country.

That's one of the problems with academia right now... because hooting and hollering (and tweeting) is the method of discourse selected by the upset, and that corporations and organizations (such as unis) have collectively decided that negative press is worse than anything (which results in knee-jerk firing of anyone who does not appease the upset), we have a lot of indulged, permanently offended SJW's.

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.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Yes, they are part of the marketplkace of ideas, but many took their place by force, not discussion, by outrage, not education, etc... that's very hard to respect. There is a thin line between acknowledging what they are upset about, because that has to be addressed, without validating every dumb f*cking thing they want, or worse HOW they go about it.

There is a negative connotation with "SJW", but compared to whatever gets thrown at capitalists or rightwingers (ie "nazi", "racist" usually), it's mild.

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.

[someone123]

I find it more than a little suspicious that this issue got a lot of traction after Charlottesville and related events.

The mostly terrible Canadian media like to lazily import American issues, whether or not they make much sense here, and capitalize off of the great synergy they get from all of the Canadians who mindlessly watch American media, are hazy on the differences between the two countries, and are ignorant of how these messages are manipulated for political gain. It is sad.

Not too long ago a bunch of people mentioned to me in person that there would be a Nazi protest in Vancouver. Then there was a "counter-protest" of 10,000 or more people. I am not sure any of them actually saw a Nazi. Somebody said maybe there were some Nazis who were escorted away by the police. It was like they were talking about Bigfoot or the Crichton Leprechaun.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by someone123

I find it more than a little suspicious that this issue got a lot of traction after Charlottesville and related events.

The mostly terrible Canadian media like to lazily import American issues, whether or not they make much sense here, and capitalize off of the great synergy they get from all of the Canadians who mindlessly watch American media, are hazy on the differences between the two countries, and are ignorant of how these messages are manipulated for political gain. It is sad.

100% this. Anytime there is a hot button social issue in the US, the Canadian media jumps on it to find "the Canadian angle".

The Black Lives Matter controversy, with police being banned from Pride parades (as SHH said, they even banned the police from marching in St. John's, one of the cities with possibly the least racial strife on the continent FFS) is perhaps the most obvious such example from the last couple years. BLM made total sense in the US, but some of the reaction in Canada was verging on absurd.

[kwoldtimer]

One could note, however, that the Cornwallis statue thing and the Langevin Block thing both predated Charlottesville, as did media comment identifying MacDonald more closely with residential schools than Langevin.

At the end of the day, does it make any difference?

[esquire]

^ Kind of... it seems like a bit of an artificial issue when few care until the local media gets excited by what's happening south of the border and they do their best to turn it into a thing.

[someone123]

The Cornwallis statue was a minor issue for decades, going back at least to the 1980's if not earlier. Occasionally local media would write stories about it and the tone was usually "here are some not-so-great aspects of the history of Cornwallis that you might not know" (the "anti-Cornwallis" historian who was the primary commentator on this did not advocate for the removal or destruction of the statue; he also had a nontrivial understanding of the history). Occasionally there would be graffiti on the statue. There are no particular sense of urgency to any of this. There might have been some kind of municipal committee assigned to decide what to do with the statue. They never decided to do anything.

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. There are probably people 4,000 km away from the Cornwallis statue who now hold the strong opinion that it needs to be destroyed for the good of the aboriginal population. 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.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is it seriously suggested that status quo is an option wrt the state of aboriginal Canadians? I agree that the current jibber-jabber about statues seems unlikely to take us to a happy place, but speak to me again when First Nations' stats and outcomes bear some relationship to those of the population at large.

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.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is it seriously suggested that status quo is an option wrt the state of aboriginal Canadians? I agree that the current jibber-jabber about statues seems unlikely to take us to a happy place, but speak to me again when First Nations' stats and outcomes bear some relationship to those of the population at large.

A SSPer from Manitoba personally familiar with northern reserves made a good point a year or so ago on this forum... as long as these people want to continue to live on their (very remote) ancestral lands, it's going to be impossible for their stats and outcomes to be anywhere near those of people who live where the economic opportunities are.

For example, I'm highly educated and I also "benefit from white privilege", but if I insisted on living alone in the woods of Northern Quebec because that's what I prefer - there was a story a while ago in the newspaper about a young guy who left Montreal and his career to do just that, he hunts with a bow and eat roots and berries - my personal GDP output would be absolutely pathetic compared to Canada's average GDP per capita, but that would not be fixable unless you drag my ass back to civilization kicking and screaming.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Indeed, I don't think you'd have to dig all that deep to find a constituency that would prefer full-on assimilation. However, as I've mentioned before, there is a fundamental change taking place (for reasons that go far beyond the PM and even beyond Canada's borders) and, wherever it takes us, there is no going back. If anything, the pace of change is picking up, istm, (that relates, in part, to the current government) notwithstanding the complaints within the indigenous community of lack of progress. We are still, however, at fairly early days.

It doesn't have to be full-on assimilation. Canada hasn't really pursued that option in quite some time.

It could just be that a government that takes stock of the impossibility of the whole situation might simply decide to go back to the band-aid approach, with punctual damage control to simply keep the lid on the boiling pot.

Even some occasional outbreaks if you add them all up might end up being far less costly (not just financially) than actually finding a true solution. The latter being a totally open-ended proposition, let's be honest.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Occasionally there would be graffiti on the statue.

It's happened to Sherbrooke's war memorial too (they always get cleaned up promptly).

(For the record, that very recognizable downtown war memorial is the symbol of Sherbrooke the same way the Château Frontenac is the symbol of Quebec City and the CN Tower is the symbol of Toronto.)

There are probably people 4,000 km away from the Cornwallis statue who now hold the strong opinion that it needs to be destroyed for the good of the aboriginal population.

A good compromise would be to carefully remove it with the understanding that if the aboriginal population of the country in 5 or 10 years is not doing markedly better than pre-removal it's getting reinstalled permanently for perpetuity now that it's been demonstrated unharmful. On the other hand, if the aboriginal population does meet the previously set threshold for whatever the without-Cornwallis-statue-aboriginal-GDP-per-capita was deemed to be a reasonable expectation, it's staying away and gets irretrievably donated to a museum.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It could just be that a government that takes stock of the impossibility of the whole situation might simply decide to go back to the band-aid approach, with punctual damage control to simply keep the lid on the boiling pot.

Even some occasional outbreaks if you add them all up might end up being far less costly (not just financially) than actually finding a true solution. The latter being a totally open-ended proposition, let's be honest.

I think we're basically stuck with the status quo because nowadays it's become impossible to make major changes without upsetting someone somewhere and nobody has the courage to do it.

On a related note, I've always thought that we would not be performing anywhere near this well if these projects hadn't been greenlighted half a century ago, back when it was still socially and environmentally acceptable to break an egg or two for the sake of making an omelet in the long term.

Ideally, there would be one aboriginal province and that's where the culture could continue to survive in modernity. The time for doing that has passed, though.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

A SSPer from Manitoba personally familiar with northern reserves made a good point a year or so ago on this forum... as long as these people want to continue to live on their (very remote) ancestral lands, it's going to be impossible for their stats and outcomes to be anywhere near those of people who live where the economic opportunities are.

For example, I'm highly educated and I also "benefit from white privilege", but if I insisted on living alone in the woods of Northern Quebec because that's what I prefer - there was a story a while ago in the newspaper about a young guy who left Montreal and his career to do just that, he hunts with a bow and eat roots and berries - my personal GDP output would be absolutely pathetic compared to Canada's average GDP per capita, but that would not be fixable unless you drag my ass back to civilization kicking and screaming.

I think this is a valid argument but one rebuttal to it is that natives were pushed onto marginal lands in the past through direct violence and forced resettlement schemes. Before Europeans, most of the natives lived in the same places where Canadians in general tend to live today, and had a different lifestyle that was often based around farming and fishing rather than subsistence hunting alone.

On top of this there are a lot of obvious modern changes that demand some kind of adaptation. The availability of drugs is one example. The genie can't be put back in the bottle when it comes to life on reserves.

In the end a "hands off" approach after centuries of marginalization isn't fair or morally acceptable and it's not likely to be successful. Personally, I think an optimal approach to these issues is likely to be very messy and complicated, and will have to be negotiated piecemeal. There is no silver bullet. It is a lot like race relations in the US.

[lrt's friend]

Let's face it, assimilation is mostly complete anyways. Not so different than the Scottish clans. We can place blame on all kinds of people, but this was inevitable regardless of the existence of Residential schools. We cannot realistically return to the tribal system of the 18th century. It is incompatible with 21st century society worldwide.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think this is a valid argument but one rebuttal to it is that natives were pushed onto marginal lands in the past through a bunch of resettlement schemes. Before Europeans, most of the natives lived in the same places where Canadians in general tend to live today, and had a different lifestyle that was often based around farming and fishing rather than subsistence hunting alone.

But living in the same places where most Canadians live today is an option that's fully available to them, on the same terms as anyone else, if they wish. I'm pretty sure I recall freeweed on SSP (departed, now) pointing out he would have qualified for native status and handouts, and the best choice he made in his life was to live outside a reserve. Now he earns a good living, pays taxes, owns a piece of Calgary (I think), just as any normal upper-middle-class Canadian would do in their own city.

You can't hope to combine non-assimilation + special status and vast collective lands + equal economic opportunity. It can't work. We have to pick and choose, and there will be people who won't like it, whatever is chosen.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

- there was a story a while ago in the newspaper about a young guy who left Montreal and his career to do just that, he hunts with a bow and eat roots and berries -

I read that article in the Journal de Montréal as well.