[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

One thing I have noticed is the Cornwallis story tends to be retold in a simplistic way that elides many facts that don't fit the narrative. For example the raids conducted by the Mikmaq tend not to be mentioned nor do people tend to mention which specific bands the British fought against or how many scalps were collected (I don't know the answer to this, but in those days the terrain was vast and the reach of British authorities limited). When I've read about it (I have no particular skin in the game one way or the other) I find a lot of basic information that is surprising given the media coverage. France's role and the shift in control of territory from colonial French to British authorities isn't typically mentioned.

Africville is similar. There are many valid complaints you could make about Africville or the rehousing but there is a lot of confusion out there especially in other parts of Canada. Many people seem to think that Africville was demolished by anti-black racists out of malice, or that all black people in Halifax lived in Africville or were chased away in 1960 or so. None of that is true. Mulgrave Park was a progressive development for its era that some residents of Africville and activists wanted at the time. This is particularly worrisome since we can't learn from the past if we think anything that didn't go to plan in the progressive 1960's failed because of evil racists. Lots of well-intentioned plans fail because the outcome cannot be known ahead of time. And many politically-driven plans are messy, with compromises and a range of motivations and goals. People whose only tool for understanding history is to pigeonhole historical figures into Good and Evil are unable to understand anything.

I worry that we are seeing more and more aggressive activism on these issues, with partisans feeling they are on the side of "good" (e.g. purge Cornwallis) when they are actually promoting an oversimplified and divisive view of history. I do not believe that our only options are to either worship everything historical figures like Cornwallis did or take down the statues, and I resent how vandals forced the city's hand. The process of planning the city's monuments should be run by elected officials and the public, not a tiny group of activists.

Churchill is similar yet the opposition to him is even sillier since he was so accomplished. He held many views that are considered inappropriate today but recognizing his historical importance does not mean that we endorse all of his views. Churchill is particularly ironic since so many anti-Churchill folks rant about Nazis. I am waiting for Churchill to be called a Nazi.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There were several raids by the Mi'kmaq people on the settlements in Nova Scotia and many of the settlers were violently murdered. It was a time of war, and Cornwallis's "genocide" was actually an act of war intending to protect the people for which he was responsible, but you will never hear that in public.

I'm sure that council is terrified about doing anything other than that which agrees with the narrative of the activists, lest they experience the wrath of those who are sure that the society which exists today is inherently evil and unfair. It's much easier for them to go with the flow than to make a stand for truth and balanced conversation.

That's not to say that we shouldn't push for reconciliation and improvement, as there have most assuredly been many wrongs done to indigenous society in the past couple of hundred years with many lives damaged or ruined. Many things need to be fixed, but with activism verging on extremism it's hard to know what actually needs to be fixed and how to fix it effectively.

IMHO, without context nobody will truly be able to appreciate where we have been and how far we've come, and without balanced conversation there will never be a true understanding by all parties involved, just simple demonization and implied guilt.

Where we go from here will certainly be a product of quality (or lack thereof) of conversations we are having today. At the moment it's hard to say whether there will ever be harmony for our entire society as we appear to be moving to a more divisive society rather than a connected and respectful one.

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.

With the case of Africville, yes there was a push by progressive activists in the 60s to relocate the residents to better housing because it was seen as a disgrace that people were living under those conditions. But at the same time, people were living under those conditions because of decisions of the city. For instance, they had no access to municipal services such as water and sanitation because the city refused to extend services to that community. They were living beside the municipal dump because the city chose to locate the dump there despite its effect on the nearby residents, etc. It's true that there was debate about the future of Africville including within the community itself and that the decision wasn't based on the city just trying to be mean. And yes it's also important to have a holistic view of history. But every aspect of the saga was influenced by racial bias so I don't know that people's impression is all that inaccurate.

I think nuance and complexity are very important if they're intended to help people have a more complete view of history and learn more accurate/complete lessons from it. But sometimes the call for nuance can be more about an attempt to muddy the waters and actually prevent clear lessons from being learned. It really depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how vulnerable the city councilllors would be to cancel culture. I'd guess it depends on the councillor. Municipal politics are grounded somewhat in that you talk directly to your constituents, something we need more of in society, although it's a lot of work. You are not completely beholden to ads and social media where you can easily be vilified and must share a very simple message.

They also have the ability to punt on the issue by collecting more feedback. The committee was, I'm guessing, very palatable to council because they didn't want to have to make a call. I doubt Cornwallis is high up on the list of priorities for councillors one way or the other; it's not a hill they want to die on (for most, their political career is the top priority; there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that since the voters decide when and when not to give them the boot!).

Cancel culture can be a big issue for someone who has one specific employer who has the power to arbitrarily drop you for reasons such as aversion to bad publicity or potential loss of customers and/or ad revenue. However, in the case of people condemning/campaigning against a politician hoping for them to lose re-election, I generally think of that as democracy rather than canceling. There have always been attack ads intended to vilify politicians.