Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?