Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
I think the issue people take with these sorts of arguments - "It was just a time of war" or "Both sides did stuff" - is that one side was basically an invading/occupying force and the other wasn't. People often joke about how "Everyone except the First Nations are all immigrants" as a kind of comeback against anti-immigration rhetoric. But in reality, immigration involves people relocating into a new territory and into an existing society with the consent of the current occupants, subjecting themselves to the existing laws and social establishment. People who don't meet one of these two prerequisites (consent/deferral to existing authority) are normally referred to as either illegal immigrants or as invaders. If a group of people unilaterally decides to move into a new region and sets up its own rules and claims its own territory while disregarding the authority of the current inhabitants thus leading to conflict and ultimately war, we don't normally "both sides" it.
|
I don't think it's that simple. As others have pointed out, the relationship of the Mi'kmaq people in the Nova Scotia situation was more complex than that. Yes I agree with you that the concept of invasion holds true here, but by the time the massacre and order for 'genocide' occurred in the 1749-51 timeframe, France had managed to have the Mi'kmaqs siding with them and carrying out their bidding against the English settlements. So invasion had already been a done deal - they were just choosing which invaders to fight for. This is why I consider it to be an act of war, not some overused vernacular as you appear to be suggesting.
Additionally, it is well understood that society of 270 years ago was quite different than today. Acts that would have been considered as typical back then would be completely unacceptable today (in Canada, anyhow), and therefore discussing them in the same context as if they happened 20 or 50 years ago really has no meaning.
Full disclosure is that I don't really give a damn about the statue of Cornwallis. It was there for my entire life up to a couple of years ago, and I've probably looked at it once or twice. If they want to take it out of there as a sign of goodwill, then so be it. I do, however, disagree with the way it was handled, as other posters have described. Nothing more to say about it, other than if it makes people feel better, then I'm all for it, but I would prefer it was done with less superlatives, and more historical fact.