General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Cornwallis Park:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1362...of-founder-who-put-bounty-on-aboriginals

I know it's a sensitive issue, but I wonder how much it will cost if it goes through? Also, will it set up a precedent whereby other name changes will have to occur based on deeds that were done in the 1700s by the founders of Halifax/Nova Scotia/Canada?

Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

Interesting passage in the article though, describing how having statues and named places without being explicit about the bad is itself a form of rewriting history.

I wonder how many circular arguments one gets to have before you just get too dizzy to continue?

[mleblanc]

Why try to rewrite history? A quick google of Edward Cornwallis says that the Mi'kmaq paid the French for British scalps in retaliation of the founding of Halifax He is an important person in our history

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Rewriting history in the name of political correctness is a ridiculous endeavor. I find the proposed action hugely offensive.

Some people find a monument to genocide in a public park offensive. So it goes.

No one wants to rewrite history; the idea is to tell it more fully. I don't think we should run around scrubbing Cornwallis' name off of everything, simply because we should preserve that in our history which we find abhorrent. To scrub clean our history is dangerous.

But in this case, the dude is literally on a pedestal, in the middle of a downtown park named for him.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Here's an opinion piece from the CBC by the author who was quoted in the Herald article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-debate-1.3368733

It's an interesting conversation that raises some questions:
- Is removing a statue of him and changing names that honoured him the same as rewriting history?
- Would Haligonians be better off learning the complete story of their city's history rather than simply removing some reminders of it?
- Is it even being respectful to the Mi’kmaq people to not keep the story alive on how their ancestors were treated when Halifax was founded.

It's difficult for me to get my head around it, looking at it from the point of view of today's society. Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Canada were established on what would today be considered an act of war. Even worse, two warring European nations (England and France) both invaded the Mi’kmaq's land and used the Mi’kmaq people as pawns while battling each other to see who would be the one to control and inhabit the Mi’kmaq's territory.

Pretty screwed up by today's standards, but it was the environment in which Halifax/NS/Canada were "founded". There were other acts which put it in perspective as more of a war situation, such as the raids in Dartmouth from 1749 - 1751.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Dartmouth_%281749%29

So yes, it's all very ugly, but I don't think that sanitizing previously sanitized history is the right way to go about it. We all should know what really happened, to the best of our knowledge (historians will acknowledge that historical records in themselves can often be one-sided and inaccurate), rather than to hide it and pretend it didn't.

Whether they remove the statue and rename everything or not, I think it's important to keep the story alive. I firmly believe that those who refuse to learn history are the ones most likely to repeat it.

[Ziobrop]

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

[Nor'easter]

I think it is safe to say the principal reason that Cornwallis (and his council) made the decision to place a bounty on the Mi'kmaq was to ensure the survival of the recently established town of Halifax, as was his charge.

Regardless of whether or not the methods used were acceptable, and whether or not they are judged by today's standards or the standards of yore, it cannot be denied that they produced success--Halifax continues to exist.

I feel that to condemn Cornwallis for his bounty and not condemn the British Empire for ordering Cornwallis to establish the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory should be considered a hypocrisy. They knew full well the consequences and agreed that, if measures of peace were not effective that force should be used.

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?

Perhaps we should replace the statue with an ivory tower...

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

I think it is safe to say the principal reason that Cornwallis (and his council) made the decision to place a bounty on the Mi'kmaq was to ensure the survival of the recently established town of Halifax, as was his charge.

Regardless of whether or not the methods used were acceptable, and whether or not they are judged by today's standards or the standards of yore, it cannot be denied that they produced success--Halifax continues to exist.

I feel that to condemn Cornwallis for his bounty and not condemn the British Empire for ordering Cornwallis to establish the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory should be considered a hypocrisy. They knew full well the consequences and agreed that, if measures of peace were not effective that force should be used.

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?

Perhaps we should replace the statue with an ivory tower...

Cornwallis was considered to be a particularly nasty fellow even in his day. that said, he is 1. the founder of our city. 2. previous generations felt he was worthy of a statue in a park (both constructed as part of the Train station hotel complex) 3. if we remove one aspect of british colonialism, should we also not remove the parker welsford monument (to those who fought for the empire in crimea) or the Boar war monument on the north grounds of province house...

the better approcjh might be to move cornwallis from the center of the path, to the side, and insert a Mi'kmaq monument opposite, suggesting both cultures are now more equal

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

But then, would not the condemnation the British Empire for establishing the town of Halifax in Mi'kmaq territory while one is living in Halifax and enjoying the rewards of this condemnable action also be a hypocrisy in and of itself?

No, I don't think so. There's nowhere you can go in the world, probably, which was not established by some kind of war or violence.

We can condemn the means by which this society was created (colonialism, violence, war) without condemning the present-day incarnation of the society.

But that means the present-day society should seek to fully understand its complicated past. We should remember, but not glorify, men like Cornwallis.

[JET]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

I will await the arrival of new deities

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

No, I don't think so. There's nowhere you can go in the world, probably, which was not established by some kind of war or violence.

We can condemn the means by which this society was created (colonialism, violence, war) without condemning the present-day incarnation of the society.

But that means the present-day society should seek to fully understand its complicated past. We should remember, but not glorify, men like Cornwallis.

"Men like Cornwallis" were also found on the other side of this battle, yet some want to build monuments to them now. I fail to understand why.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

Great, so long as any clowns involved with Heritage/STV leadership are banned from leadership positions. This can't be another vessel for NIMBYs to oppose every single development in the city.

Also should emphasize working with developers, not opposing them.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

Cornwallis was considered to be a particularly nasty fellow even in his day. that said, he is 1. the founder of our city. 2. previous generations felt he was worthy of a statue in a park (both constructed as part of the Train station hotel complex) 3. if we remove one aspect of british colonialism, should we also not remove the parker welsford monument (to those who fought for the empire in crimea) or the Boar war monument on the north grounds of province house...

the better approcjh might be to move cornwallis from the center of the path, to the side, and insert a Mi'kmaq monument opposite, suggesting both cultures are now more equal

I like this solution. The point isn't to forget history, but to promote understanding and reconciliation. Put the statute to the side and give it some context. And erect a proper statute to the Mi'kmaq and their essential contributions to the Province and its culture.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I like this solution. The point isn't to forget history, but to promote understanding and reconciliation. Put the statute to the side and give it some context. And erect a proper statute to the Mi'kmaq and their essential contributions to the Province and its culture.

Forgive me for asking, but what might those contributions be? I am sincerely curious.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Forgive me for asking, but what might those contributions be? I am sincerely curious.

Putting aside some of the colonial conflicts, early trade between settlers and Mi'kmaq people helped sustain early European settlements through out the Province.

While that trade influenced Mi'kmaq social/political/economic perspective, European traders were likewise influence by Mi'kmaq practices and the practices of Metis, who embodied this cultural interaction.

They've also positively influenced our laws -- see aboriginal rights recognized in our Charter of Rights, a key provision that makes us a model for reconciliation within a diverse population and country. Gabriel Sylliboy, the first Mi'kmaq elected as Grand Chief in 1919, fought for treaty recognition in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

More recently, the Donald Marshall case, and the injustices therein, led to Nova Scotia to be a leader on important aboriginal and criminal justice policy reforms.

Moreover, over 150 Mi'kmaq fought in WWI, 250+ in WWII, and 60+ in the Korean War.

There's more, but that's a start.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Great, so long as any clowns involved with Heritage/STV leadership are banned from leadership positions. This can't be another vessel for NIMBYs to oppose every single development in the city.

Also should emphasize working with developers, not opposing them.

My understanding is that the idea is to create a heritage (and overall architectural excellence) advocacy group that isn't encumbered with all that NIMBY baggage.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Here's an opinion piece from the CBC by the author who was quoted in the Herald article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/edward-cornwallis-statue-debate-1.3368733

It would be interesting if more interpretive material were added to Cornwallis Park to explain the backstory, good and bad, much like the deportation statues that were installed around the region. The park could tell the general story of the city's founding. The Cornwallis statue should stay. Like it or not, it's an important part of the city's history. It's bizarre that the author pointed out that the Cornwallis statue "dominates", erm, Cornwallis Park, and that it should go somewhere that "makes sense". If we didn't have people making a big deal out of it a lot of people in the city and province would barely know that Cornwallis Park exists. His suggestion to relocate the statue to the Citadel would probably result in more attention, not less.

I'm guessing most people here understand this but the Hitler comparisons and focus on the bounty on natives are based on a selective reading of history stripped of all inconvenient context. North America in the mid-18th century was an unstable and violent place. Cornwallis was a product of his time and there are similar native and French figures. There's a darker side to virtually any public figure.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

It would be interesting if more interpretive material were added to Cornwallis Park to explain the backstory, good and bad, much like the deportation statues that were installed around the region. The park could tell the general story of the city's founding. The Cornwallis statue should stay. Like it or not, it's an important part of the city's history. It's bizarre that the author pointed out that the Cornwallis statue "dominates", erm, Cornwallis Park, and that it should go somewhere that "makes sense". If we didn't have people making a big deal out of it a lot of people in the city and province would barely know that Cornwallis Park exists. His suggestion to relocate the statue to the Citadel would probably result in more attention, not less.

Tattrie is one of the worst revisionists around and has been beating the drum on this issue for a while. Because he works for the CBC as a reporter he gets air time to help advance his slanted point of view as fact. This is just yet another example of how CBC is allowed to get away with pushing a biased agenda with use of our tax dollars as fuel. The guy should never be allowed to comment on the issue while wearing his CBC hat. He should not be employed by CBC, period.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Ziobrop

There has been much talk of the need for a new heritage group in Halifax.

http://agbans.ca/

Originally Posted by JET

I will await the arrival of new deities

Originally Posted by Drybrain

My understanding is that the idea is to create a heritage (and overall architectural excellence) advocacy group that isn't encumbered with all that NIMBY baggage.

The description of the new group sounds good.

Although, I'm not sure Jane Jacobs needs to be deified -- she brought some very good urban design ideas, but she also has damaged things too. Part of her philosophical legacy is found in urban NIMBYism. She opposed height and density and arguably has some responsibility for present versions of it, including sprawl and skyrocketing property values and housing costs in most urban centers.

City building guru Jane Jacobs' legacy is high house prices and sprawl, says former Vancouver Mayor
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/vancouver...wl-says-former-vancouver-mayor-1.3570609

Sounds like Halifax and Vancouver suffered similar fates from the 1970s onward. Except, we codified this philosophy in the Ramparts and Viewplane laws, which remain untouchable decades on. Thankfully, HRMxD has ameliorated this to some extent, but with The Doyle, we still see the problem. A skyscraper could have saved Maritime Life. Jacobs' would have opposed such a compromise.

And then there's the environmental factor:

Opinion Jane Jacobs got it wrong on density, says Harvard economist
http://citycaucus.com/2010/05/jane-jacobs-got-it-wrong-on-density-says-harvard-economist/

What Glaeser points out is that the resistance to higher density development – a trend that caught on like a virus in the 1970s – led to housing scarcity and therefore significantly higher prices. Jacobs’ ideas heavily influenced the mandates of City governments beginning in the 1970s. It’s said (and a senior City engineer confirmed this to me) that there wasn’t a single residential highrise built within Vancouver city limits between the early ’70s to the end of the following decade!

It’s no wonder we saw an explosion in the cost of real estate after Expo 86 – there simply wasn’t enough of it to meet demand from baby boomers moving into the market. If you need a symptom of sprawl and high housing costs in Vancouver today, ask yourself what more housing choice could have done to mitigate this over the past 25 years.

And:

Jacobs feared high densities because she thought that they would lead to too little diversity, but there are good reasons to think that she get things backward. Restricting new construction and keeping buildings artificially low means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices and cities that are increasingly affordable only to the prosperous.

In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. In Nashville, the city-suburb carbon gap due to driving is more than three tons. After all, density is the defining characteristic of cities. All that closeness means that people need to travel shorter distances, and that shows up clearly in the data…

The policy prescription that follows from this is that environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

A lot of this is heretical to contemporary planning thought. Jacobs is still deified and it is "widely accepted" that medium-density is the ideal and skyscrapers should be avoided for good planning. And yet, the housing costs continue to skyrocket...

[someone123]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

She opposed height and density and arguably has some responsibility for present versions of it, including sprawl and skyrocketing property values and housing costs in most urban centers.

Well, I think a lot of her writing was really a response to the large-scale slum clearing, road building, and housing projects of the 50's and 60's, and most people today would agree that those didn't turn out very well. A lot of her points are easily misapplied in a modern context.

Jane Jacobs was not anti-density; she advocated for much higher density than city planners of her day did. Greenwich Village, her example of a good neighbourhood, has 30,000 people per square kilometre. One of her major arguments was that city planners of the day made the mistake of conflating high density and overcrowding; overcrowding is bad but it depends on infrastructure. A neighbourhood is not necessarily bad just because it is high density, but that is what a lot of planners were arguing in the 50's and 60's. That was the point of view behind the 1950's clearances in Halifax.