Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

In the US, it seems like on social issues groups exaggerate the others' positions and adopt a touch more extreme reaction, which results in a little more of an extreme reaction from the other side, until eventually you have people that think borders are an outdated concept arguing with people who actually identify as Nazis. .

This is a brilliant way to frame it!

[Capsicum]

Regarding the removal of John A. MacDonald statues and perception of historical figures more broadly, is there any country besides Canada that is equally or even more critical of its founding figures and less reverent of the "fathers" of one's nation?

In the US, the talk is about Confederate statues, but that's the losing side of the Civil War. You occasionally hear about discussions about how the American Founding Fathers owned slaves but generally, they are still revered and held in high esteem in spite of this, with the historical figure still respected even if people will gloss over the unsavoury parts like that -- I mean look at the musical Hamilton -- so it's not quite the same as with the Canadian case and John A. MacDonald. Churchill in Britain has also been critiqued by anti-colonial activists for his racism (attitude and treatment of non-white colonials, like British Indians), but it has not detracted from his celebration as a hero in the UK.

Also regarding protesting Canada Day (and the Aboriginal issue and Canada 150), I can see similarities with Australia and Aboriginal activists, but Australia I think has still a stronger national identity, even if like Canada, native people are more likely the subject of national "guilt" (in the US, there's that and slavery). Other countries seem to not have problems celebrating the idea of the "founding" or "founders" of a nation, separate from the idea of critiquing settler colonialism.

[Acajack]

I am primarily of Acadian origin. I speak French natively and I know the culture pretty well as it is the culture of both my parents and of the majority of my extended family. Even if I haven't lived anywhere "Acadian" in many years. Charles Lawrence was responsible for an initiative to aimed to "get rid" of the people who represent perhaps 80% of the people I am descended from.

And yet I don't identify with this mindset:

https://this.org/2017/12/01/forgetting-charles-lawrence/

It's also not a big deal to me that lots of other stuff is named for the other architects of the Grand Dérangement, like Murray, Winslow and of course Monc(k)ton for whom the largest city in New Brunswick and the largest Acadian university anywhere are named.

As someone else said - I'd rather Acadians look forward, without forgetting the past. But without being obsessed by it.

I understand how people like Tyler LeBlanc feel. But he doesn't speak for me or most of my family. (At least I hope not.)

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Regarding the removal of John A. MacDonald statues and perception of historical figures more broadly, is there any country besides Canada that is equally or even more critical of its founding figures and less reverent of the "fathers" of one's nation?

In the US, the talk is about Confederate statues, but that's the losing side of the Civil War. You occasionally hear about discussions about how the American Founding Fathers owned slaves but generally, they are still revered and held in high esteem in spite of this, with the historical figure still respected even if people will gloss over the unsavoury parts like that -- I mean look at the musical Hamilton -- so it's not quite the same as with the Canadian case and John A. MacDonald. Churchill in Britain has also been critiqued by anti-colonial activists for his racism (attitude and treatment of non-white colonials, like British Indians), but it has not detracted from his celebration as a hero in the UK.

Also regarding protesting Canada Day (and the Aboriginal issue and Canada 150), I can see similarities with Australia and Aboriginal activists, but Australia I think has still a stronger national identity, even if like Canada, native people are more likely the subject of national "guilt" (in the US, there's that and slavery). Other countries seem to not have problems celebrating the idea of the "founding" or "founders" of a nation, separate from the idea of critiquing settler colonialism.

Yeah I think whatever causes Canada's sense of patriotism/nationalism to be lower likely leads us to more easily be critical of our past (and current) practices.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Regarding the removal of John A. MacDonald statues and perception of historical figures more broadly, is there any country besides Canada that is equally or even more critical of its founding figures and less reverent of the "fathers" of one's nation?

In the US, the talk is about Confederate statues, but that's the losing side of the Civil War. You occasionally hear about discussions about how the American Founding Fathers owned slaves but generally, they are still revered and held in high esteem in spite of this, with the historical figure still respected even if people will gloss over the unsavoury parts like that -- I mean look at the musical Hamilton -- so it's not quite the same as with the Canadian case and John A. MacDonald. Churchill in Britain has also been critiqued by anti-colonial activists for his racism (attitude and treatment of non-white colonials, like British Indians), but it has not detracted from his celebration as a hero in the UK.

Also regarding protesting Canada Day (and the Aboriginal issue and Canada 150), I can see similarities with Australia and Aboriginal activists, but Australia I think has still a stronger national identity, even if like Canada, native people are more likely the subject of national "guilt" (in the US, there's that and slavery). Other countries seem to not have problems celebrating the idea of the "founding" or "founders" of a nation, separate from the idea of critiquing settler colonialism.

Most modern states which were formerly colonial states were created by liberation from their colonial powers. Therefore, the "founding fathers" of most modern African, Asian and American states are actually those persons involved with the independence movements in the 1950s and 60s. Canada is rather unique in that there was no independence movement and the "founding fathers" are still our 19th century colonizers.

[lrt's friend]

Anyway, to tie this back to John A. McDonald, I think the removal of the statue and other similar gestures will be welcomed by some and antagonize others, and turn reconciliation into a more combative affair. And I do understand why his statue may be problematic. However the "you are wrong it needs to go" strategy may create an equal amount of blow-back as support.

Sir John A was imperfect as we all are. Overall, he created this country and bound it together from coast to coast. Most of us will agree that this was a good thing. Think of what the alteratives could have been? So, he deserves wide recognition for building this country.


The indigenous peoples and certain 'enlightened' non-indigenous peoples should not be trying to remove that recognition.


By all means, add context and recognize that certain decision were not perfect. This is where it should end.


The indigenous peoples would do themselves a big favour by working with everybody to build a better society for themselves and everybody else.


If you cannot pass a statue of Sir John A. without being grossly offended, this a problem that you have brought upon yourself. Sir John A., his compatriots and all people directly affected by his decisions are all long dead.


It is time to get over it and spend your energies on more positive things.


Maybe we need more statues of indigenous peoples as part of reconciliation.

[Capsicum]

Regarding borders as outdated concept -- generally do strongly pro-immigrant individuals generally argue for looser or dissolved borders -- perhaps something more like those between the EU?

Or do they argue for not the dissolution of borders, but trying to fit more and more outsiders into the "us" within the border (while keeping the border distinct). Canad's not like the US, where the physical-ness of the border is particularly a big talking point (unlike the US-Mexico border with a physical wall, where the sheer "physical-ness" of it is prominent).

After all, the US-Canada border is probably one of the lowest hanging fruit (or easiest from cultural/political point of view to do away with), but few Canadians seem to want to start there and do an EU-style US merger. In fact many want to have refugees into Canada over the US (regarding the Safe Third Country agreement) and many want to turn the "them" (the refugees and immigrants) into the "us", especially if it distinguishes "us" from the states (eg. Torontonians who brag that they're more tolerant and multicultural than London or NYC).

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Most modern states which were formerly colonial states were created by liberation from their colonial powers. Therefore, the "founding fathers" of most modern African, Asian and American states are actually those persons involved with the independence movements in the 1950s and 60s. Canada is rather unique in that there was no independence movement and the "founding fathers" are still our 19th century colonizers.

But Americans' founding fathers are also 18th century colonizers (I have less experience with Aussies and NZers in terms of talking about how they view their "founding fathers") -- their independence movement was the colonizers seeing the mother country as being too restrictive and controlling and thus starting to see themselves as colonials rather than colonizers (unlike the African or Asian case where it was really the natives against the colonizers).

Yet Americans are still (as a whole) so proud of their founding fathers (criticism does come about from mostly the slavery issue, less directly about colonialism with the natives but that's still in the conversation occasionally). Even left wing Americans celebrate their founders as the musical Hamilton attests to.

[isaidso]

Does this debate have anything to do with the decision to replace MacDonald on the $10 bill with Viola Desmond? If it does, they found a somewhat sneaky way of avoiding controversy.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Regarding borders as outdated concept -- generally do strongly pro-immigrant individuals generally argue for looser or dissolved borders -- perhaps something more like those between the EU?

Or do they argue for not the dissolution of borders, but trying to fit more and more outsiders into the "us" within the border (while keeping the border distinct). Canad's not like the US, where the physical-ness of the border is particularly a big talking point (unlike the US-Mexico border with a physical wall, where the sheer "physical-ness" of it is prominent).

After all, the US-Canada border is probably one of the lowest hanging fruit (or easiest from cultural/political point of view to do away with), but few Canadians seem to want to start there and do an EU-style US merger. In fact many want to have refugees into Canada over the US (regarding the Safe Third Country agreement) and many want to turn the "them" (the refugees and immigrants) into the "us", especially if it distinguishes "us" from the states (eg. Torontonians who brag that they're more tolerant and multicultural than London or NYC).

I honestly don't think that the "open borders" crowd has really thought this through in any way, shape or form.

It's more like a you say goodbye I say hello, you stay stop, I say go type of opposition and reaction to the *other* side's policies.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Most modern states which were formerly colonial states were created by liberation from their colonial powers. Therefore, the "founding fathers" of most modern African, Asian and American states are actually those persons involved with the independence movements in the 1950s and 60s. Canada is rather unique in that there was no independence movement and the "founding fathers" are still our 19th century colonizers.

There was a big difference. The 19th century colonizers represent the 'founding fathers' of the current country. The colonizers of Asian and African countries were always a minority, therefore those that brought about independence were re-establishing the dominance of the majority culture. Canada established its independence without revolution, which was a much less traumatic way of moving forward. Canada's founding was very civilized yet we might consider this inferior?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But Americans' founding fathers are also 18th century colonizers (I have less experience with Aussies and NZers in terms of talking about how they view their "founding fathers") -- their independence movement was the colonizers seeing the mother country as being too restrictive and controlling and thus starting to see themselves as colonials rather than colonizers (unlike the African or Asian case where it was really the natives against the colonizers).

Yet Americans are still (as a whole) so proud of their founding fathers (criticism does come about from mostly the slavery issue, less directly about colonialism with the natives but that's still in the conversation occasionally). Even left wing Americans celebrate their founders as the musical Hamilton attests to.

I thought Pavlov/Reesonov's point was interesting but this is also thought-provoking.

When you think about it a true revolt against the "colonial powers" in what become the United States would have involved the native population of the territory taking power.

Latin America, for its part, was a bit more complicated.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am primarily of Acadian origin. I speak French natively and I know the culture pretty well as it is the culture of both my parents and of the majority of my extended family. Even if I haven't lived anywhere "Acadian" in many years. Charles Lawrence was responsible for an initiative to aimed to "get rid" of the people who represent perhaps 80% of the people I am descended from.

And yet I don't identify with this mindset:

https://this.org/2017/12/01/forgetting-charles-lawrence/

It's also not a big deal to me that lots of other stuff is named for the other architects of the Grand Dérangement, like Murray, Winslow and of course Monc(k)ton for whom the largest city in New Brunswick and the largest Acadian university anywhere are named.

As someone else said - I'd rather Acadians look forward, without forgetting the past. But without being obsessed by it.

I understand how people like Tyler LeBlanc feel. But he doesn't speak for me or most of my family. (At least I hope not.)

I find it interesting that he says he only found out he was Acadian two years ago. I don't really have an opinion on how that affects his current beliefs, but it caught my attention.

I can relate to both your and his perspectives. Though I am several generations past it, the holodomor rests in the Ukrainian conscience, including my own. But prior to 2014, I freely went went back and forth between calling myself and my customs Ukrainian or Russian. I also have no desire to dance on Stalin's grave at any point in the future.

But I avoided the holodomor exhibit when I went to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg, and I don't think I'd be emotionless walking past a statue of Stalin in Ukraine either.

[Capsicum]

I've wondered about how South Africa views it's "founding fathers" -- it's kind of like the other African and Asian countries in some ways but also like the "settler" countries like the US and Canada in other ways.

Or what about Latin America? Again, not quite like the African and Asian case where it's clear that the founders are trying to kick out the colonizers and more like the US/Canadian/Aussie case where the founders could be seen as colonizers, but then do Latin Americans of all roots identify with the Spanish/Portuguese colonizers (even Indigenous and African slave-descended?). The Latin American case is also complicated by the fact that Latin Americans tried to fight against interference by European powers (and then later, struggled to avoid interference by the US) and so is like US and the struggle against Britain in some ways, but there's also a struggle for indigenous/black equality.

Regarding whose the colonizer and whose the colonized, things really get complicated when you bring up stuff like white settlers conquered by later white settlers, as in the case of Quebecois, Acadians, Afrikaners etc., or when non-native minorities and native people forge a common ground based on oppression by white settlers (eg. black and native alliances, but then there are cases where their interests historically did not align -- like the African American Buffalo soldiers in the US who fought against the native population -- are they "settlers?" Or some Native groups that owned slaves) or even when the most recent non-white immigrants (eg. African and Asian refugees) claim to be similar to American/Canadian people of color who are a "colonized people" like either long-standing minorities like African Americans or Native Americans, Native Hawaiians) based on US/Western intervention in their homelands (eg. Vietnamese refugees from the Vietnam war or Iraqi refugees from the Iraq war).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

I've wondered about how South Africa views it's "founding fathers" -- it's kind of like the other African and Asian countries in some ways but also like the "settler" countries like the US and Canada in other ways.
).

I was surprised to find out that South Africa's prestige gold coin is still called the KrugerRand.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Regarding borders as outdated concept -- generally do strongly pro-immigrant individuals generally argue for looser or dissolved borders -- perhaps something more like those between the EU?

Or do they argue for not the dissolution of borders, but trying to fit more and more outsiders into the "us" within the border (while keeping the border distinct). Canad's not like the US, where the physical-ness of the border is particularly a big talking point (unlike the US-Mexico border with a physical wall, where the sheer "physical-ness" of it is prominent).

After all, the US-Canada border is probably one of the lowest hanging fruit (or easiest from cultural/political point of view to do away with), but few Canadians seem to want to start there and do an EU-style US merger. In fact many want to have refugees into Canada over the US (regarding the Safe Third Country agreement) and many want to turn the "them" (the refugees and immigrants) into the "us", especially if it distinguishes "us" from the states (eg. Torontonians who brag that they're more tolerant and multicultural than London or NYC).

There is certainly a spectrum of people's openness to migration, with some people just supporting continued immigration and acceptance, while others support full on elimination of borders. We have a couple posters like that on SSP actually, and you can find people arguing in favour of it online too. Now I would never claim that this is in any way a dominant or even socially acceptable position, but it exists, and I think this is a result of escalating opposing rhetoric rather than a thought-out worldview that would still exist if there weren't Nazis on the other side.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Yeah it's a very complex topic overall. I'm very much familiar with that type of outlook and struggle to fully grasp it myself. As in, I get the push for greater recognition of people's diversity, but there are just so many drawbacks to the strategies being employed.

Well on some level it was about as objectively wrong as it gets and not murky or debatable. You might debate whether or not discrimination exists or what effect it has. But it is just wrong to say that group X has been prevented from achieving outcome Y when they have been doing so for over a decade, at this point to the exclusion of people from other groups.

There were no "brakes" applied whatsoever to the rhetoric about discrimination. There was strong social pressure to conform and support the opinions being expressed, no matter how extreme. This dynamic creates a negative feedback loop.

If you're in the discriminated group you can make wilder and wilder claims without being challenged, and the most immediate outcome is that your group will get more stuff, even if you blow past the "fairness" point where what you get is proportional to the size of your group.

The psychology of victimhood is such that people can easily feel hard done by when they are receiving huge and disproportionate advantages. A self-serving view of the world comes naturally to humans. Even the person born with a silver spoon in their mouth will think most about the headwinds they had to overcome to be successful.

Like MonctonRad suggested, people are not idiots. They know when they cannot win, and they stop participating. In the context of nonprofits and the like this causes a hollowing out. This can be disastrous for small minorities who cannot afford to push away allies that make up 90% of their total potential support.

I don't think there is any way out of this as long as the pillars of this situation remain. The pillars are feelings of victim-group identity, the overvaluation of subjective experience, and the existence of informal social structures with the power to punish individuals.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well on some level it was about as objectively wrong as it gets and not murky or debatable. You might debate whether or not discrimination exists or what effect it has. But it is just wrong to say that group X has been prevented from achieving outcome Y when they have been doing so for over a decade, at this point to the exclusion of people from other groups.

There were no "brakes" applied whatsoever to the rhetoric about discrimination. There was strong social pressure to conform and support the opinions being expressed, no matter how extreme. This dynamic creates a negative feedback loop.

If you're in the discriminated group you can make wilder and wilder claims without being challenged, and the most immediate outcome is that your group will get more stuff, even if you blow past the "fairness" point where what you get is proportional to the size of your group.

The psychology of victimhood is such that people can easily feel hard done by when they are receiving huge and disproportionate advantages. A self-serving view of the world comes naturally to humans. Even the person born with a silver spoon in their mouth will think most about the headwinds they had to overcome to be successful.

Like MonctonRad suggested, people are not idiots. They know when they cannot win, and they stop participating. In the context of nonprofits and the like this causes a hollowing out. This can be disastrous for small minorities who cannot afford to push away allies that make up 90% of their total potential support.

I don't think there is any way out of this as long as the pillars of this situation remain. The pillars are feelings of victim-group identity, the overvaluation of subjective experience, and the existence of informal social structures that punish individuals.

I agree with your point that the current zeitgeist is the acceptance of minority grievances as an unquestioned absolute. But I will say that just because one black guy becomes US President doesn't mean there aren't some unique (but still surmountable) challenges that black people face in their lives.

This is going in a different direction now, but I feel that class is really the more significant barrier. A middle class black woman is much more likely to succeed in her career, relationships, etc. than a white guy who grew up in poverty.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

but then do Latin Americans of all roots identify with the Spanish/Portuguese colonizers (even Indigenous and African slave-descended?). The Latin American case is also complicated by the fact that Latin Americans tried to fight against interference by European powers (and then later, struggled to avoid interference by the US) and so is like US and the struggle against Britain in some ways, but there's also a struggle for indigenous/black equality.
.

I believe the heroes of Latin American history are somewhat less predominantly Spanish than those of the U.S. are predominantly British. Yes, Simon Bolivar was 100% Spanish IIRC but other biggies like O'Higgins and Belgrano had various origins. There is even some debate about whether José de San Martin, officially Spanish in origins, was in fact a mestizo.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Sir John A was imperfect as we all are. Overall, he created this country and bound it together from coast to coast. Most of us will agree that this was a good thing. Think of what the alteratives could have been? So, he deserves wide recognition for building this country.


The indigenous peoples and certain 'enlightened' non-indigenous peoples should not be trying to remove that recognition.


By all means, add context and recognize that certain decision were not perfect. This is where it should end.


The indigenous peoples would do themselves a big favour by working with everybody to build a better society for themselves and everybody else.


If you cannot pass a statue of Sir John A. without being grossly offended, this a problem that you have brought upon yourself. Sir John A., his compatriots and all people directly affected by his decisions are all long dead.


It is time to get over it and spend your energies on more positive things.


Maybe we need more statues of indigenous peoples as part of reconciliation.

I don't agree with the rest of your post, but I think the bolded is a great idea.

Originally Posted by Capsicum

But Americans' founding fathers are also 18th century colonizers (I have less experience with Aussies and NZers in terms of talking about how they view their "founding fathers") -- their independence movement was the colonizers seeing the mother country as being too restrictive and controlling and thus starting to see themselves as colonials rather than colonizers (unlike the African or Asian case where it was really the natives against the colonizers).

Yet Americans are still (as a whole) so proud of their founding fathers (criticism does come about from mostly the slavery issue, less directly about colonialism with the natives but that's still in the conversation occasionally). Even left wing Americans celebrate their founders as the musical Hamilton attests to.

I certainly agree that American and Canadian approaches to the idea of "founding fathers" is very different. I personally think that the Canadian approach is significantly better. As but one example, Canada's "living tree" theory of constitutional interpretation is (in my view) much more effective than American "originalism".

Also, the Canadian Crown's relationship with Canada's first nations peoples was very different from the relationship between the American federal government and American indigenous peoples (at least my feeble understanding of it). The Canadian Crown undertook to be responsible for the well-being of first nations people since at least the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canadian law now recognizes a that the Canadian Crown owes a type of "fiduciary duty" to first nations peoples.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There was a big difference. The 19th century colonizers represent the 'founding fathers' of the current country. The colonizers of Asian and African countries were always a minority, therefore those that brought about independence were re-establishing the dominance of the majority culture. Canada established its independence without revolution, which was a much less traumatic way of moving forward. Canada's founding was very civilized yet we might consider this inferior?

Who said it was inferior? Its just different (and therefore creates different challenges).