Cornwallis Park and the Cornwallis task force

[someone123]

Some updates:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...ions-1.5658005

[someone123]

One highlight to me is the discussion of creating a civic museum. A potential use for the old library?

[JonHiseler]

Originally Posted by someone123

One highlight to me is the discussion of creating a civic museum. A potential use for the old library?

Possibly, but that building would surely need a lot of work to make it suitable for a museum and the storage of its collection. Would possibly be better off in a brand new building or an existing one that's not so old.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JonHiseler

Possibly, but that building would surely need a lot of work to make it suitable for a museum and the storage of its collection. Would possibly be better off in a brand new building or an existing one that's not so old.

Politely, I’d disagree. The old memorial library was built in 1951. As solidly constructed public buildings go it should barely be considered middle aged.

(The best city museum I’ve ever experienced—thoroughly contemporary and wonderfully curated—is Amsterdam’s, which is in a building constructed as the city’s first orphanage, in 1580.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Politely, I’d disagree. The old memorial library was built in 1951. As solidly constructed public buildings go it should barely be considered middle aged.

(The best city museum I’ve ever experienced—thoroughly contemporary and wonderfully curated—is Amsterdam’s, which is in a building constructed as the city’s first orphanage, in 1580.)

People in Halifax need to decide if they want to live in "low bid city" or not. I think the heritage and character value of the old library is complementary to a civic museum.

It could even be cheaper to reuse that building on its land, which may not be suitable for another purpose, than to use another site. Centrally located land is valuable.

I think Halifax could really use another building that showcases local history and provides a bit more indoor public space. For one thing, there's a lot in the city archives in Burnside that few people ever see.

[JonHiseler]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Politely, I’d disagree. The old memorial library was built in 1951. As solidly constructed public buildings go it should barely be considered middle aged.

(The best city museum I’ve ever experienced—thoroughly contemporary and wonderfully curated—is Amsterdam’s, which is in a building constructed as the city’s first orphanage, in 1580.)

The Memorial Library building, as nice as it may appear, has had more than its share of issues over the years. Talk of a new building for that branch of the library began only 20 years after it opened, and even with the expansion, within less than 15 years of it being completed, there were issues with the space being inadequate for the library's needs. Aside from its inability to properly function for its intended use, the structure itself has poor wiring, no sprinklers, windows that don't work, accessibility issues because of all the stairs and how small the elevator is, and most importantly for a museum, the building cannot be properly climate controlled as is.

The site has sat empty and unused for almost 6 years, which certainly hasn't helped things. There's also the big issue of it being built on a graveyard, which would open another can of worms regarding redevelopment of the site.

[someone123]

One thing that has changed is that it is empty now so renovating, maybe expanding the building significantly, is easier. I remember discussion of renovations before and one reason against it was they'd need to move twice.

[alps]

I would love to see a civic museum established. Especially in the old library. I was trying to figure out the current status of the building, and came across this 2018 report:

Dalhousie University together with HRM and the Province have considered a concept of shared occupation of the site for the School of Architecture, HRM municipal space and leasable commercial floor area. Redevelopment for university, municipal or commercial use would require that the Province remove current restrictions on the site.

An initial design concept developed by Dalhousie suggests an increase the building envelop from the current 40,000 square feet to approximately 85,000 square feet, incorporating the existing building façade and limiting the disturbance beyond the existing building footprint based the following assumptions

I wonder if Dalhousie is considering moving the architecture school altogether, or just looking for addition accommodation. I would have thought any shortfall in space should have been met by recent Sexton campus expansion (e.g. by moving the planning school out of the "H"/Medjuck building to the IDEA Building). Seems like bad planning.

Conceptual rendering from the report:



Disappointing that they appear to be proposing to demolish the big, high-ceiling room at the rear of the lot (used to have the staff counters, computers, and fiction section). There seems to be room to expand the building while keeping that defining element.

[IanWatson]

If anyone hasn't yet read the Cornwallis Taskforce report, I'd highly recommend it. I found the writing very accessible and learned a lot about a topic on which I had little knowledge.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JonHiseler

The Memorial Library building, as nice as it may appear, has had more than its share of issues over the years. Talk of a new building for that branch of the library began only 20 years after it opened, and even with the expansion, within less than 15 years of it being completed, there were issues with the space being inadequate for the library's needs. Aside from its inability to properly function for its intended use, the structure itself has poor wiring, no sprinklers, windows that don't work, accessibility issues because of all the stairs and how small the elevator is, and most importantly for a museum, the building cannot be properly climate controlled as is.

The site has sat empty and unused for almost 6 years, which certainly hasn't helped things. There's also the big issue of it being built on a graveyard, which would open another can of worms regarding redevelopment of the site.

Sure, but buildings can be rewired, sprinklers can be added, windows can be replaced. These are not significant impediments, they're renovations, and I doubt they'd be more costly than building new building (a good new building, that is). The only real issue is the accessibility problem, but I'm sure solutions can be found.

Again to use the Amsterdam example, I imagine that an orphanage built in 1580 required some retrofitting to be climate-controlled for a museum. I imagine the same is true of the vast number of 17th, 18th, and 19th century buildings used as libraries and museums around the world.

This isn't just a Halifax thing of course; we have this cognitive dissonance as a country between valuing heritage, but then treating any building that isn't virtually brand new as irredeemably aged. It's especially galling in a supposedly historic city, though.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

If anyone hasn't yet read the Cornwallis Taskforce report, I'd highly recommend it. I found the writing very accessible and learned a lot about a topic on which I had little knowledge.

I would suggest that what you learned was that the committee produced a masterpiece of dissembling, bowdlerized, deceptive writing that made it read like a factual account when it only gave credence to one subset of the facts.

I would offer the counterpoints that The Herald, to its credit, published from those whose own fact-finding was utterly sloughed off by the committee, presumably because those facts did not fit their predetermined narrative.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/op...ctions-476248/

I would also recommend this document from 2013, which finds that the claim in the report that the statue was in fact based on a picture of Cornwallis' brother was in itself a false statement. It also provides one of the better perspectives I have read on the larger Cornwallis question, not the sound-bites that some like to propagate:

https://t.co/5qeyH4PyBN?amp=1

A plebiscite on the question in this fall's municipal election would be interesting.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I would offer the counterpoints that The Herald, to its credit, published from those whose own fact-finding was utterly sloughed off by the committee, presumably because those facts did not fit their predetermined narrative.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/op...ctions-476248/

It's ironic that the writer's letter includes the following quote and was published a mere two weeks before the holiday that literally does this:

"However, the report makes no effort to recommend ways in which HRM’s non-Indigenous residents should acknowledge and celebrate the founding of the British settlement (and the naming of Halifax) in 1749 by 2,500-plus settlers"

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

It's ironic that the writer's letter includes the following quote and was published a mere two weeks before the holiday that literally does this:

"However, the report makes no effort to recommend ways in which HRM’s non-Indigenous residents should acknowledge and celebrate the founding of the British settlement (and the naming of Halifax) in 1749 by 2,500-plus settlers"

I took that to mean that Natal Day will soon be declared offensive, and that the report should have wandered into recommendations for that issue just like they made recommendations for naming of a street for a church that happens to be on it at the moment.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

... just like they made recommendations for naming of a street for a church that happens to be on it at the moment.

Honestly. Like, it doesn't take much critical thought to consider the damage done to many many many groups of people in the name of organized religion over the years, or to recognize that the names of churches may change and this particular name has not been such for very long.

[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.

[Dartguard]

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.

How True 123. Chief Paul has been a clever boy exploiting the abysmal lack of Knowledge of Atlantic Canadian history. I have often wondered why Chief Paul has never railed against his ancestors former Allies that inadvertently killed Hundreds of Mic Mac in 1746 after the disastrous French Invasion fleet of Duc tocville. What Chief Paul and company never acknowledge is that the Mic Mac chose sides in a World War of the time and lost. Conquered if you will but oh my is that term not allowed.

Cornwallis's infamous 50 Guinea prize per Mic Mac scalp was an abject failure with officially ONE prize awarded. Cornwallis meanwhile lost close to 50 Settlers to horrific torturous death, dismemberment, Rape and slavery. But Shhh we are not allowed to talk about that.

Imagine the culture shock of a Cockney native of East London trying to defend themselves against Olympic caliber Warriors that knew the territory.
Yup Cockneys are only a danger to themselves on a drunken Saturday night.

I am not a Progressive but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Select two weeks ago.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Dartguard

Cornwallis's infamous 50 Guinea prize per Mic Mac scalp was an abject failure with officially ONE prize awarded. Cornwallis meanwhile lost close to 50 Settlers to horrific torturous death, dismemberment, Rape and slavery. But Shhh we are not allowed to talk about that.

To me the biggest detail that is missed is how Cornwallis signed the peace treaty in 1752. This was an explicit goal from 1749. Yet it's common to read that his goal was genocide. The attempted genocide claim does not fit the historic facts. It is a bit like saying that the United States attempted genocide of Japan briefly in August 1945 before having a change of heart and signing a peace treaty. Not all war is genocide.

I am also suspicious of all the attention paid to 1749-1752 when a treaty was signed and life moved on from 1752-2020. At what point are old grievances left in the past? I believe there is a lot of room for constructive change all around Canada when it comes to indigenous issues and there are good things happening around NS too. Long-dead figures like Cornwallis are not very relevant to any of that.

[Dartguard]

At what point are old grievances left in the past? I believe there is a lot of room for constructive change all around Canada when it comes to indigenous issues and there are good things happening around NS too. Long-dead figures like Cornwallis are not very relevant to any of that.[/QUOTE]

Good points Someone. Its an interesting situation here in N.S. with our Modern Indigenous experience. The Membertou Reservation in Sydney has become an exemplary example of Native Canadians choosing a different, very positive path. Years ago a nephew of the Chief came back from a five year stint with a Bay Street Law Firm with a brand new idea. He convinced his Uncle to change the administrative and governance practices to the 9002 standard to unequivocally professionalize the Bands future.

The Reserve has blossomed. Houses on the Reserve are like any other Middle class neighborhood except they are built with 3/4 Inch Plywood sheathing. NOBODY builds with quality like that anymore. There is a variety of world class services and business's on the reserve including a Hampton Inn that I stay at when I am in Sydney for Business

Membertou should be the future for Indigenous Canada.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

It's ironic that the writer's letter includes the following quote and was published a mere two weeks before the holiday that literally does this:

"However, the report makes no effort to recommend ways in which HRM’s non-Indigenous residents should acknowledge and celebrate the founding of the British settlement (and the naming of Halifax) in 1749 by 2,500-plus settlers"

With all due respect, Natal Day, although based on the premise of celebrating "Halifax's birthday", is basically a generic 'civic holiday' with little-to-nothing to do with actually celebrating the history of Halifax. Basically a 'day off' with a parade and a few events, none of which attempt to celebrate any kind of settlement history (not that you would ever attempt to do that now, at risk of being publicly shamed).

[OldDartmouthMark]

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.

Well stated.

Regarding the anti-Churchill crowd, I really wish some of them would pick up a book and read a little history. Perhaps then they would realize that he is part of the reason that they have the freedoms they enjoy to this day. Things are never as binary and simple as some groups would like to have us believe.