Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

For what its worth, I've recently read some material on Sir John A that I wouldn't have read without the current debate (and I live in Kingston and am bombarded daily with Sir John A statutes and plaques).

Yeah, but, you're Reesonov!

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This virtually unavoidable reality is often vehemently denied.

The assurance with which they fully believe that the kids and grandkids of pretty devout Muslims from Pakistan, Catholics from the Philippines, Sikhs from India, etc., are all going to magically become Judy Rebicks, Naomi Kleins and Olivia Chows just by virtue of having grown up in Canada*, is nothing short of astonishing.

*In a society where the ambient openness to religious "quirks" is on the rise as opposed to on the decline.

I'm not friends with many of the religious new Canadians. I can't really speak for or even about these people based on a total lack of experience.

Most of the 1st generation people that I know are relatively non-devout (as you would expect), so the source of social conservatism is not rooted in religion.

From these people - and from me, admittedly - I think the main backlash in the future will be against a victimization mentality.

Whether correct or not, many of the people I know have been sold a narrative of the virtues of personal responsibility, and making the right choices in life. Structural causes of poverty and hardship are usually downplayed.

To bring this conversation full circle to the original topic - and if I may be blunt - Aboriginal advocates usually attribute 100% of the challenges they face today to structural causes. Assuming even a shred of personal responsibility for sky-high suicide rates, drug abuse problems and one of the most dismal socio-economic records of any group in the developed world usually doesn't come into the picture.

Now, I'm revealing my bias, but this is not about my bias; this is about the number of people in the immigrant community who may think along similar lines, and the realization that this group will only become more powerful and will be a force that Aboriginal advocates will have to contend with. Whether they're right or wrong, this mentality is not going to cut a lot of ice with new immigrants. First Nations advocacy groups may find that their political capital could actually dwindle in the future.

Like almost everybody else here, I don't want FN people to be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, but if they don't want to change their bargaining approach (which is totally up to them), I fear their opportunity to see meaningful action using their current methods only has about 10 years of shelf life left. My opinion is that they can't afford to fight battles like renaming schools, and they can't afford to walk out of the MMIW inquiry. If they think they're going to get a better deal by waiting, they may have to wait a very long time.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah, but, you're Reesonov!

You've discovered the fatal flaw in all of my arguments.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm not friends with many of the religious new Canadians. I can't really speak for or even about these people based on a total lack of experience.

Most of the 1st generation people that I know are relatively non-devout (as you would expect), so the source of social conservatism is not rooted in religion.

From these people - and from me, admittedly - I think the main backlash in the future will be against a victimization mentality.

Whether correct or not, many of the people I know have been sold a narrative of the virtues of personal responsibility, and making the right choices in life. Structural causes of poverty and hardship are usually downplayed.

To bring this conversation full circle to the original topic - and if I may be blunt - Aboriginal advocates usually attribute 100% of the challenges they face today to structural causes. Assuming even a shred of personal responsibility for sky-high suicide rates, drug abuse problems and one of the most dismal socio-economic records of any group in the developed world usually doesn't come into the picture.

Now, I'm revealing my bias, but this is not about my bias; this is about the number of people in the immigrant community who may think along similar lines, and the realization that this group will only become more powerful and will be a force that Aboriginal advocates will have to contend with. Whether they're right or wrong, this mentality is not going to cut a lot of ice with new immigrants. First Nations advocacy groups may find that their political capital could actually dwindle in the future.

Like almost everybody else here, I don't want FN people to be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, but if they don't want to change their bargaining approach (which is totally up to them), I fear their opportunity to see meaningful action using their current methods only has about 10 years of shelf life left. My opinion is that they can't afford to fight battles like renaming schools, and they can't afford to walk out of the MMIW inquiry. If they think they're going to get a better deal by waiting, they may have to wait a very long time.

Do you really think that immigrants and, let's say 2nd generation Canadians (close enough to still be strongly influenced by the 'old country values') will yield that much influence over the debate anytime soon?

I could obviously be mistaken, but it seems to me that the Justin Trudeau pro-reconciliation school of thought is closer to the mainstream than a strongly individualist, you-are-the-master-of-your-own-destiny perspective that you're talking about. Perhaps the mainstream doesn't hold to that quite to the same extent as M. Trudeau, and people might disagree over how far the state should go to rectify it, but there is still a pretty strong sense that Indigenous people have collectively received a raw deal.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

I can appreciate that position. I wonder if this would be an interesting compromise: instead of renaming schools or removing statutes of MacDonald's likeness, we erect plaques in front of each discussing difficult or problematic aspects of his history and legacy. It would acknowledge the historical perspectives of francophones, first nations, and metis, might renew interest in our history, and would still honour MacDonald as our first prime minister.

I mean sure, for statues, but then do we have to add them to schools? Do we include fine print on $10 bills? Do we include these plaques for all people we commemorate? Everyone has flaws after all. If not, how do we determine which flaws are bad enough to note, and which ones aren't?

If we're getting into this on a macro level, personally I think some sort of commemoration of a person is not a full-scale endorsement of their entire life, but rather the major contribution they made. Macdonald was instrumental in building all of Canada; Robert E. Lee wanted to continue to enslave black people.

Of course, Macdonald's position in history is severely tainted by his role in colonization, but again, this is true of all our early figures. The issue is that while that history may be difficult for Natives, it's important to us colonizers who now do have an attachment and sense of home to this land and our history with it. Finding the right line between these two interests is the hardest part of reconciliation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Do you really think that immigrants and, let's say 2nd generation Canadians (close enough to still be strongly influenced by the 'old country values') will yield that much influence over the debate anytime soon?

I could obviously be mistaken, but it seems to me that the Justin Trudeau pro-reconciliation school of thought is closer to the mainstream than a strongly individualist, you-are-the-master-of-your-own-destiny perspective that you're talking about. Perhaps the mainstream doesn't hold to that quite to the same extent as M. Trudeau, and people might disagree over how far the state should go to rectify it, but there is still a pretty strong sense that Indigenous people have collectively received a raw deal.

I get that, but I think that an important element of Hipster Duck's theory is the near-total absence of a feeling of guilt (on the part of the kids of immigrants) with respect to that acknowledged raw deal (for aboriginal people).

I think he's right that this represents a departure from the traditional (often recessive, it's true) guilt for that that is felt by British and French origin Canadians.

The impact of this may not be immediately apparent, but consider that truly making amends with aboriginal nations, if indeed it does happen, will represent a tremendous leap. There will be real "costs" to this for all of us. Costs that we will feel.

We'll feel it a gazillion times more than gay rights/marriage. My guess is that the average Canadian will even feel it a lot more than they felt the move to (gasp! ) official bilingualism back in the day.

Us making such a leap is much more likely when a feeling of guilt and responsibility is present. And conversely is far less likely when most people just think it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 but don't feel their ancestors played a role in making the mess.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

If we're getting into this on a macro level, personally I think some sort of commemoration of a person is not a full-scale endorsement of their entire life, but rather the major contribution they made. Macdonald was instrumental in building all of Canada; Robert E. Lee wanted to continue to enslave black people.

Well said. This is it, precisely.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Us making such a leap is much more likely when a feeling of guilt and responsibility is present. And conversely is far less likely when most people just think it 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 but don't feel their ancestors played a role in making the mess.

I agree. But I think "guilt" is still the dominant feeling and will be for quite some time. Successive generations will likely come to see things from that dominant Canadian viewpoint.

I'm the child of an immigrant (and a generation removed from an immigrant on the other side) and I certainly am aware of and acknowledge the need for some form of reconciliation.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by esquire

I agree. But I think "guilt" is still the dominant feeling and will be for quite some time. Successive generations will likely come to see things from that dominant Canadian viewpoint.

I'm the child of an immigrant (and a generation removed from an immigrant on the other side) and I certainly am aware of and acknowledge the need for some form of reconciliation.

I'm an immigrant, though I did move here young. I can't say I feel any guilt, but rather just acknowledge the many wrongs that were committed by Canada's government and now see the righting of those wrongs as a problem to be solved. In other words, my interest in reconciliation comes from sympathy and a desire for resolved conflict, not guilt.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Adolf Hitler was a Bayern Munich supporter.

Wait a minute...

Pope Benedict XVI is a Bayern Munich supporter too!

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I always had my suspicions about Pope Benedict........

Deutschland uber alles.

Although you may just be making a fun whimsical illustration, Bayern Munich actually had a Jewish president during Hitler's rise, and thus was known derogatorily as the JJudenklub (Jew club) by Nazis, who instead supported local rivals 1860 Munich.

Some notable jewish history at Bayern, and the club is quite proud of it nowadays.

Originally Posted by Reesonov

This is a straw man though. No one is proposing that Sir John A MacDonald's existence be stricken from the history books. People are only proposing that he not be commemorated in school names because it is inconsistent with school board policies regarding school naming. This isn't about white-washing history. In fact, if anything, this debate might renew interest in our history and understanding how we got to where we are today.

Yes, but normal every day dumbasses use these straw men, and take miles when given inches, and continually slide public awareness of any matters at hand further along. So you have to be prepared for them.

Maybe academics recognize straw men, but even academics seem to cave to SJWs readily and willingly, potentially ushering in whatever straw man's next step the SJWs aspire towards.

This current debate may not have a single effect on Sir John A in history... until it does. Can we confidently say that perception of him, or interpretation of his positive impact on Canada won't change?

I remember thinking this world couldn't get any dumber 5 years ago, and boy was I wrong.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

This current debate may not have a single effect on Sir John A in history... until it does. Can we confidently say that perception of him, or interpretation of his positive impact on Canada won't change?

No, in fact, I can confidently say that, in a free society like Canada, perception of MacDonald, and all other historical figures, will and should change as we, as a society, constantly and inescapably reconsider history from our similarly constantly and inescapably changing perspectives. Absent the sort of state control over media and academia that one might find somewhere like China, this is inevitable.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I agree. But I think "guilt" is still the dominant feeling and will be for quite some time. Successive generations will likely come to see things from that dominant Canadian viewpoint.

I'm the child of an immigrant (and a generation removed from an immigrant on the other side) and I certainly am aware of and acknowledge the need for some form of reconciliation.

I'd wager that at least part of that latent guilty sentiment comes from living in a society largely dominated by the descendents of people who were there when the worst of the oppression of aboriginals occurred.

As the share of oppressor-descendents (for lack of a better term) in the population decreases, it's basically inevitable that the collective guilt index will decrease as well.

I don't think it will happen overnight of course, but it will gradually fade.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

No, in fact, I can confidently say that, in a free society like Canada, perception of MacDonald, and all other historical figures, will and should change as we, as a society, constantly and inescapably reconsider history from our similarly constantly and inescapably changing perspectives. Absent the sort of state control over media and academia that one might find somewhere like China, this is inevitable.

What's interesting about Macdonald's image is that even before this it wasn't that glorified. For those people who even have an opinion about him, he's usually remembered as a drunkard who was a bit gruff, but who got the job done.

He's not at all viewed in glamorous heroic terms like George Washington or Simon Bolivar.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

No, in fact, I can confidently say that, in a free society like Canada, perception of MacDonald, and all other historical figures, will and should change as we, as a society, constantly and inescapably reconsider history from our similarly constantly and inescapably changing perspectives. Absent the sort of state control over media and academia that one might find somewhere like China, this is inevitable.

And will it naturally evolve due to consistent discussion, exploration of ideas, or will it hit a huge speed bump when a good chunk of society caves to SJW's?

We live in a time of appeasement, particular loud, nonsensical interest groups. As academics and institutions continue to indulge these babies, the collective will start to believe what is being appeased.

Is this the process you envision, as our perspectives ebb and flow? I'm not so sure.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

And will it naturally evolve due to consistent discussion, exploration of ideas, or will it hit a huge speed bump when a good chunk of society caves to SJW's?

We live in a time of appeasement, particular loud, nonsensical interest groups. As academics and institutions continue to indulge these babies, the collective will start to believe what is being appeased.

Is this the process you envision, as our perspectives ebb and flow? I'm not so sure.

Pretty much exactly what I envision, just without the silly name-calling. Like it or not, the people and ideas that you disagree with are part of the "discussion" and "exploration of ideas" that you refer to. You can't just dismiss them by calling them "SJW"s and speed bumps. Marketplace of ideas, and all of that.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd wager that at least part of that latent guilty sentiment comes from living in a society largely dominated by the descendents of people who were there when the worst of the oppression of aboriginals occurred.

As the share of oppressor-descendents (for lack of a better term) in the population decreases, it's basically inevitable that the collective guilt index will decrease as well.

I don't think it will happen overnight of course, but it will gradually fade.

I'm not that sure that it will... the issue is that there are people that have been oppressed, and there is a large cohort of people who could be said to be indirect beneficiaries of that regardless of whether their forebears arrived here in 1615 or 1977.

For instance, Manitoba is a pretty immigrant-heavy society and there is still pretty widespread agreement that reconciliation is an important thing, even if there is a lack of agreement as to the specific form that reconciliation should take.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What's interesting about Macdonald's image is that even before this it wasn't that glorified. For those people who even have an opinion about him, he's usually remembered as a drunkard who was a bit gruff, but who got the job done.

He's not at all viewed in glamorous heroic terms like George Washington or Simon Bolivar.

In some ways, I've always thought that this makes him the perfect poster child for this imperfect, sometimes drunken country of ours. I suppose it would work better if he had been more polite though.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm not friends with many of the religious new Canadians. I can't really speak for or even about these people based on a total lack of experience.

Most of the 1st generation people that I know are relatively non-devout (as you would expect), so the source of social conservatism is not rooted in religion.

From these people - and from me, admittedly - I think the main backlash in the future will be against a victimization mentality.

Whether correct or not, many of the people I know have been sold a narrative of the virtues of personal responsibility, and making the right choices in life. Structural causes of poverty and hardship are usually downplayed.

To bring this conversation full circle to the original topic - and if I may be blunt - Aboriginal advocates usually attribute 100% of the challenges they face today to structural causes. Assuming even a shred of personal responsibility for sky-high suicide rates, drug abuse problems and one of the most dismal socio-economic records of any group in the developed world usually doesn't come into the picture.

Now, I'm revealing my bias, but this is not about my bias; this is about the number of people in the immigrant community who may think along similar lines, and the realization that this group will only become more powerful and will be a force that Aboriginal advocates will have to contend with. Whether they're right or wrong, this mentality is not going to cut a lot of ice with new immigrants. First Nations advocacy groups may find that their political capital could actually dwindle in the future.

Like almost everybody else here, I don't want FN people to be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, but if they don't want to change their bargaining approach (which is totally up to them), I fear their opportunity to see meaningful action using their current methods only has about 10 years of shelf life left. My opinion is that they can't afford to fight battles like renaming schools, and they can't afford to walk out of the MMIW inquiry. If they think they're going to get a better deal by waiting, they may have to wait a very long time.

Good analysis. It's hard to have White Man's Guilt if you're not a white man.

Why should a new Canadian from Haiti or Hong Kong feel responsible for something that happened before they arrived.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

He's not at all viewed in glamorous heroic terms like George Washington or Simon Bolivar.

This is an important point. The country to our South literally has a giant mountain with its historic leaders faces blasted into the side of it for all of eternity. We have nothing even remotely similar in Canada to speak of in regards to our idolization of our past leaders.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

I'm not that sure that it will... the issue is that there are people that have been oppressed, and there is a large cohort of people who could be said to be indirect beneficiaries of that regardless of whether their forebears arrived here in 1615 or 1977.

For instance, Manitoba is a pretty immigrant-heavy society and there is still pretty widespread agreement that reconciliation is an important thing, even if there is a lack of agreement as to the specific form that reconciliation should take.

There are already signs that it is starting to fade. In my entourage, lots of immigrants and their kids feel differently about this than I do. (Keep in mind too that francophone Canadians of old establishment often have a different take as well - we're far more likely to have aboriginal blood than even old stock British Canadians.)

Several posters on this forum have also said they are sympathetic but feel no guilt.