Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[bless-u]

Originally Posted by someone123

In the Cornwallis case I think a lot of people imagine a "white guy" arriving in a pristine area inhabited by natives and subjugating them. Whether or not you like Cornwallis, this isn't a very accurate way to think about what happened.

Nova Scotia had already been colonized for 150 years when Cornwallis came, and the British had already nominally controlled Nova Scotia for 40 years. The Mi'kmaq had already been converted to Catholicism by missionaries who came starting around 1600, and they generally got along with the French settlers and authorities. They were French allies that got weapons from colonial French authorities and were encouraged to fight in the conflict between England and France. England and France were constantly fighting and attacking different towns. There weren't really good guys and bad guys, and there were a lot of poor settlers and villagers on every side who were randomly killed or had all of their possessions destroyed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This context of everyone randomly attacking everyone else whenever possible was the one in which Cornwallis placed a bounty on Mi'kmaq scalps.

Doing battles between Britain, France and the numerous indigenous groups was the main theme of the Colonial period in North America. In the case of Nova Scotia, from what I understand, France seemed to have an upper hand by arriving early in 1604, and had some kind of alignment with the Wabanaki Confederacy which included Mi'kmag.

When Cornwallis started the Father Le Loutre's War in 1749 in order to establish British territory in Nova Scotia, Mi'kmag was a willing and equally ferocious participants, and an ally of French military, which made them the legitimate enemy of Britain. It was just one of those all-out battles in which armies from all sides ordered to have their opponents eliminated in all sort of ways. There was no right or wrong in wars, only winning and losing, blood was spilt and soldiers died.

Cornwallis was a key figure in that battle, and he did what was necessary trying to win for his King and country, though he didn't succeed and left Nova Scotia in 1752 before it was over. He as a historical figure and his action during the battle shouldn't be vilified in the context of history the same way Mi'kmag shouldn't be vilified for defending themselves by killing British soldiers in equally gruesome manner. They were all willing participants engaged in a military conflict. Nothing more and nothing less.

[bless-u]

I fully understand why some groups in in our society feel victimized by the European Colonialism even after more than one and a half century later, and I truly sympathize. However, no one can turn back the clock and alter history. It's just something we, as a country, have to live with, accept and move on. We can try to make things better to certain extent, but shaming historical figures and attempting to eliminate the part of history which we on longer feel comfortable with aren't the right approach. There are always two sides of a story, and both sides deserve respect. Removing statues in parks and erasing names of key founding members of our country in high schools and universities seem a bit drastic, to say the least. There's got to be a better way than this.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The French word "chef" at the time meant "head" as in the top part of your body. This evolved into "chef" and later "chief" to mean a leader who heads up something.

In modern French it's more often used in combination with another word, as in "couvre-chef" which is kind of a poetic way of referring to a hat or a cap.

I wouldn't expect the average Québécois to be able to get the expression "opiner du chef", but that would be another example of the older sense in a modern context.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I wouldn't expect the average Québécois to be able to get the expression "opiner du chef", but that would be another example of the older sense in a modern context.

Fais gaffe!

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by JM5

The leaders of our and many other Western nations believe in progressive ideology which is simply the idea that people can change for the "better". They have a pretty utopian and therefore impossible definition of "better" stemming purely from sociology and therefore taking no account of biology whatsoever.

I don't know that it is utopian. I think it is just an extension of our current values.

A lot of societies see the past as a collection of incomplete, flawed versions of themselves. In Canada, for example, even people who are somewhat sympathetic regarding the early European settlers see them as lamentably ignorant regarding modern norms on intercultural exchange and violence.

The past is a foreign country. An educated man of the medieval period would likely not, if transported here, instantly convert to a modern way of conceptualising violence. Not only would he see us as not grasping the true nature and significance of death (as his cosmology would include an immortal soul), but he would also see us as something very close to barbarous in our paucity of ritual.

To medieval man, life was an interesting stage, or staging-point, and violence a dramatic instrument. This man would be casual about death (that's how it would look from the outside, anyway) in a way we are not (Hegel considered fear of violent death to be the primary marker of the bourgeois), and that is why his time was as it was.

It's hard to really put yourself in the mind of another. This is why it was funny on the Simpsons when Homer thought "to find Flanders, you have to think like Flanders" and immediately segued into "I'm a big stupid idiot who always wears the same lame sweater...". This is a comic version of how we actually do conceive of others.

It takes a lot of effort to move past this sort of thing. But did the Aztecs really wake up on festival day thinking "time to watch a boy have his heart ripped out because I hate life and people and am an asshole"? Of course not. They had their own worldview, one in which this made a kind of sense.

It's the same with our own past, and in fact with huge chunks of our present too. It doesn't mean we can't condemn the ideas we find reprehensible, but it means that before doing so we should attempt to see them as they appear from the inside.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I don't know that it is utopian. I think it is just an extension of our current values.

A lot of societies see the past as a collection of incomplete, flawed versions of themselves. In Canada, for example, even people who are somewhat sympathetic regarding the early European settlers see them as lamentably ignorant regarding modern norms on intercultural exchange and violence.

The past is a foreign country. An educated man of the medieval period would likely not, if transported here, instantly convert to a modern way of conceptualising violence. Not only would he see us as not grasping the true nature and significance of death (as his cosmology would include an immortal soul), but he would also see us as something very close to barbarous in our paucity of ritual.

To medieval man, life was an interesting stage, or staging-point, and violence a dramatic instrument. This man would be casual about death (that's how it would look from the outside, anyway) in a way we are not (Hegel considered fear of violent death to be the primary marker of the bourgeois), and that is why his time was as it was.

It's hard to really put yourself in the mind of another. This is why it was funny on the Simpsons when Homer thought "to find Flanders, you have to think like Flanders" and immediately segued into "I'm a big stupid idiot who always wears the same lame sweater...". This is a comic version of how we actually do conceive of others.

It takes a lot of effort to move past this sort of thing. But did the Aztecs really wake up on festival day thinking "time to watch a boy have his heart ripped out because I hate life and people and am an asshole"? Of course not. They had their own worldview, one in which this made a kind of sense.

It's the same with our own past, and in fact with huge chunks of our present too. It doesn't mean we can't condemn the ideas we find reprehensible, but it means that before doing so we should attempt to see them as they appear from the inside.

Interesting take on things, but I would disagree with some of it. I think people have always had a natural instinctive fear of their own violent death, but those with little to lose tend to use violence as a means to an end more than those with more to lose, hence the tendency of the bourgeois to find it repugnant. This stems from the scale of violence. If punching someone to steal their silver coin would get you a week of food and shelter, you would take the risk of getting punched yourself and having it taken by someone else in turn. Unfortunately, violence tends to escalate and punches turn into stabbings as the first puncher arms themselves against suffering a similar fate. The life of the poor is violent because it's just worth the risk and with experience they grow more confident in several ways: knowing good targets and when they have a high likelihood of success as well as dangerous targets. Having skill in fighting and an understanding of their own physical abilities and limitations. Knowing verbal and other techniques of intimidation as well as means of de-escalation. All of these allow them to use violence as a finely tuned tool for their own benefit. Of course, there is always unpredictability which leads to unfortunate outcomes.

In the past, the bourgeois might pay a small fine they could easily afford if convicted of a minor crime of violence, but they simply have no need or desire to commit such crimes because the unpredictable is always there and any risk is too great if you're already safe and secure. They never gained the experience and confidence of the gangster, and this created a real divide in society. This divide is non-polar, it's a spectrum with the most insecure having on average the highest propensity for violence and the most well off having the least. I'm speaking strictly in terms of the use of violence to commit property crimes such as robbery. Sexual violence, such as rape may not match this profile well.

Today, progressives believe that people can be cured of their violent tendencies because we are a well off society. They like to think that gangsters and crime are just an aberration that will go away if everybody becomes more open minded, accepting of differences and stops discriminating. The problem is that we are also a society with soaring levels of inequality, which has been shown to be much more correlated with high crime stats than being a poor society (which makes sense because people care about their RELATIVE status in their own society, not their ABSOLUTE one compared to people 50, 100 or 10,000 years ago or in another poorer country).

[kool maudit]

Interesting read. I think, though, that societies can differ on things even as the human constraints remain.

For instance, violent death is always frightening and sex is always pleasurable. Those things are constants because of what we are. But they can be weighted, contextualised, and incentivised/disincentivised differently, and I don't think poverty/affluence is the only axis along which this occurs.

That's what I meant above, not that medieval people didn't care if they were hanged or not. It is not that we fear violent death and they didn't as much as it is that they saw it as an intrinsic, though fearful, part of the human drama whereas we see it as something that is almost unnatural if and when it occurs.

But your post remains food for thought, certainly.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Interesting read. I think, though, that societies can differ on things even as the human constraints remain.

For instance, violent death is always frightening and sex is always pleasurable. Those things are constants because of what we are. But they can be weighted, contextualised, and incentivised/disincentivised differently, and I don't think poverty/affluence is the only axis along which this occurs.
That's what I meant above, not that medieval people didn't care if they were hanged or not. It is not that we fear violent death and they didn't as much as it is that they saw it as an intrinsic, though fearful, part of the human drama whereas we see it as something that is almost unnatural if and when it occurs.

But your post remains food for thought, certainly.

Agreed, and as to your previous post, I do see progressive thinking as a natural outgrowth of our society. It was a real solution to a real problem: the problem being the reality of diversity coupled with real discrimination. Progressive thinking carried the day, institutional discrimination has ended and people have been educated to be more accepting of differences.

At some point however, the ideology evolved. It used to promote equality, commonality and societal cohesion through understanding. It now promotes special rights, differentiation between groups and societal fragmentation. To me it seems like this came about because of the reality that creating equal opportunities did not result in equal outcomes to which progressives sought answers in postmodern philosophy: the outcomes and goals themselves are mere social constructs which are biased. Contrast this to biological reality: people are reluctant/unwilling to give up their social constructs because this is the social habitat to which they have adapted for hundreds or even thousands of years. Progressives are asking people to give up a real evolutionary advantage in favour of others. It's akin to giving up your home, hard earned savings and comforts to others who progressives label rightly or wrongly as disadvantaged. It is simply nonsensical, because if you did, it would simply be you who becomes disadvantaged, with no guarantee that you will receive the same benefits.

[kool maudit]

I agree with you on the genesis and trajectory of progressive policy. I think it is also a very natural fit for a secularised post-Christian people.

[Acajack]

If we were able to travel forward in time we'd probably be shocked at what the people who will follow us will think of our morality, and what they find barbarous about us. (I am sure they'll have plenty of material to work with.)

I am not 100% sure of this but I think there is a good chance they'll find our treatment of animals (any maybe even the fact that we eat them) extremely barbarous. Today's kings of BBQ and celebrity chefs may be as reviled as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot are today. It's a definite possibility.

We'll also likely be looked upon very harshly for our unwillingness to find a lasting solution to the global problem of hunger. Especially since a solution is definitely within our grasp, but we're collectively unwilling to sacrifice even a smidgen of comfort or even forgo version 7 of the latest gadget and settle for version 6, in order to prevent millions from dying from malnutrition or starvation every year.

I think that our overall treatment of the poor, especially children and the elderly, will be shocking to people in the future.

A bunch of things we do that are today considered mundane but have ecological impacts will likely be viewed by them as serious reprehensible "environmental crimes".

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If we were able to travel forward in time we'd probably be shocked at what the people who will follow us will think of our morality, and what they find barbarous about us....

I think that out continued and wide spread consumption of Baby Carrots will be our most defining immorality.





FWIW, about 5 years ago I actually meet someone (extreme vegan-enviro) who actually believed baby carrots were "killed" by immersion in bleach and that we were barbaric to eat them. True story!

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Ta mère me paie pour être ton ami.

I knew it!

[CountryMike]

The whole Cornwallis and Macdonald issue recently has made me think of this episode of The Simpsons...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TmzpwVfZY

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I knew it!

At least I come clean about my insincerity.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I knew it!

I've been meaning to let him know I liked his current sig, which I happen to feel doesn't apply to everybody... not to people like me or you, at least

(I may be wrong there, but I'm betting I am not.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've been meaning to let him know I liked his current sig, which I happen to feel doesn't apply to everybody... not to people like me or you, at least

(I may be wrong there, but I'm betting I am not.)

For the record, it's a very common signature on teenager social media accounts here in Quebec. So I didn't invent it!

[lio45]

Originally Posted by shreddog

I think that out continued and wide spread consumption of Baby Carrots will be our most defining immorality.





FWIW, about 5 years ago I actually meet someone (extreme vegan-enviro) who actually believed baby carrots were "killed" by immersion in bleach and that we were barbaric to eat them. True story!

As you know I lived for 6 months in Bakersfield, CA. (There was a pretty exotic-to-me oil pump in my apartment building's yard; I recall mentioning that to you when we discussed oil.)

Those little carrots actually come from there (at least most of them). One of my university friends worked there (Bolthouse) as a side job. It was amusing later to find those packs back home at Quebec supermarkets and think maybe Seth handled some of those carrots at some point. Small world!

Anyway, I can at least confirm their workers are paid enough that some of them can get an higher education, for what that's worth.

Also, I can't help but wonder what that person was eating... if you seriously draw the line on the other side of carrots, I'm hoping you can at least find a worthy cause for that hunger strike of yours

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

As you know I lived for 6 months in Bakersfield, CA. (There was a pretty exotic-to-me oil pump in my apartment building's yard; I recall mentioning that to you when we discussed oil.)

Those little carrots actually come from there (at least most of them). One of my university friends worked there (Bolthouse) as a side job. It was amusing later to find those packs back home at Quebec supermarkets and think maybe Seth handled some of those carrots at some point. Small world!

Anyway, I can at least confirm their workers are paid enough that some of them can get an higher education, for what that's worth.

Also, I can't help but wonder what that person was eating... if you seriously draw the line on the other side of carrots, I'm hoping you can at least find a worthy cause for that hunger strike of yours

What's the ethical justification for not eating carrots? The plants have tiny nerve endings and feel pain when you pull them out of the ground?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

As you know I lived for 6 months in Bakersfield, CA. (

Bakersfield. Poncharello's partner Jon Baker on CHIPS was from Bakersfield.

The things I remember.

[niwell]

I have heard some complaints about baby carrots because they are kinda wasteful and overpriced (just regular carrots cut down to size), but certainly nothing *that* ridiculous!