Trying to Erase John A. Macdonald from History

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Now comes word that the Ontario government (under the leadership of Doug Ford ) is interested in acquiring the Macdonald statue from the City of Victoria.

City of Victoria has refused the request.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

City of Victoria has refused the request.

Any reasons given?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The notion of a rightful claim is inherently subjective and murky though. There were no agreed upon rules before modern times (and our current rules were arbitrarily imposed by our evil colonial overlords who implemented things like land title systems).

If somebody has a freakishly high % of Neanderthal DNA does that mean they have a rightful claim to land inhabited by the lower % Neanderthal DNA Europeans? If a country changes hands 5 times, who gets to stay there? Does it just depend on how far the records go back? How do we know that a native chief spoke for a given group of people or not or who agreed or disagreed? What about if an area was improved under different owners? Do the eventual rightful owners get the improvements too, or do they get some approximation of the original value?

The DNA question sounds far-fetched but it's actually pretty relevant. Some native bands are almost 100% people who lived there for thousands of years but those are mostly in distant areas where there is no real dispute over the territory. In the disputed areas the populations are generally mixed, and there are often windfalls that have nothing to do with the original native lifestyle (i.e. I should get $X per year revenue from a shopping mall because my grandfather was born in place Y).

I think the only sane interpretation of all of this is that we should try to come up with outcomes that broadly work well for the people alive today, rather than imposing expensive changes on people based on interpretations of history.

Here is a picture of an indigenous person:

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/andrew-t-delisle-sr-11a65265

Here is a picture of a non-indigenous person:

https://voir.ca/nouvelles/actualite-musi...u-petit-outremont-et-au-gesu-en-octobre/

[Acajack]

I find the wording of the plaque where the statue used to stand very unsatisfying.

Hopefully it was just thrown together quickly and is only temporary.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is a picture of an indigenous person ... Here is a picture of a non-indigenous person

I know some of my ancestors going back to when they first came to North America in the 1600's and 1700's but others are unknown. Some of them were adopted so the tree above them is a question mark. I haven't done one of those DNA tests but I would not be surprised if I ended up with some percentage of "Native American" DNA (or maybe a more specific category).

Likewise my family is 50/50 Anglophone/Francophone so I am not a big fan of people to hold a binary view of Canada (Quebec = French, all other provinces = English).

Identity politics as practiced often don't allow for this level of nuance. You are supposed to pick a tribe, or maybe a couple of mutually compatible tribes, and fight against the enemy tribes.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is common now in BC for public events to begin with an acknowledgement that everyone is on unceded native territory.

Same here - even though it's not unceded territory. The acknowledgement is also part of the morning announcements along with the national anthem in schools, and is often included in corporate events, film festivals, etc. It's usually something along the lines of "we'd like to acknowledge that we sit on the traditional lands of the Mississaugas of New Credit", which is kind of odd considering that the Mississaugas had only conquered the land from Iroquois about 180 years before they sold it to the British; and the Iroquois themselves had previously displaced the Huron people from the land.

[TorontoDrew]

I'm disgusted that Doug Ford's government reached out to Victoria to say it would find a new home for the statue here. It just proves they see themselves as a Trump Lite government catering to the 40% support they have of mostly white old men and uneducated red necks.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Aside from the baseline "not being discriminated against for who we are or what we are or how we are", there is no unanimity as to what immigrants want in terms of a welcome from Canada. There are as many views on this as there are immigrants.

A lot of what is on offer is just non-immigrant Canadians thinking that immigrants might like or need this or that.

Of course if something is offered people will take it. Similar to if you offer me a free beer I might take it even if I wasn't itching to drink a beer.

So sure, information ofnthe City of Edmonton's recycling program in Punjabi might get some uptake from the community if you put it out there. That doesn't necessarily mean the Sikh community in the city would have been unhappy without it.

You're right, it's not like it hurts anything. And in reference to my posting history that you're familiar with, I'm not at all opposed to these sorts of things.

I just find it strange how people who come up with these ideas take them very very seriously (at least the ones I know) as if not doing them is discriminatory or whatever. It might be appreciated by immigrants, but definitely at a different level of importance.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Any reasons given?

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/13/john-a-macdonald-statue-ontario-victoria_a_23501518/

Helps told HuffPost Canada in an email Monday that the city has "no intention of getting rid of the statue," and will have "a continued dialogue with the nations and the community as to the best place, way and context to place the statue that balances commemoration with reconciliation."

[ssiguy]

I really hate this revisionist history. People are products of their time including today. I guess this means that every statue of a PM before Trudeau is now on the wrecking ball list due to not being in support of same-sex marriage? First Nation's have manipulated their own history and narrative to somehow further their cause and try to put the citizens into a constant sense of guilt in order to do it. This ridiculously promoted notion of Indigenous people being a paragon of virtue until the big bad Europeans arrived is enough to make me want to toss my lunch.


The Indigenous were just as blood thirsty, war-like, sexist, and bigotted as any Europeans and were just as eager to take everyone else's land as the European were to take theirs. The first European explorers on the West Coast were surprised to find that 20% of the population were slaves Of course such facts are irrelevant when the collective guilt and federal funding is at risk. Oh no, Native atrocities are to be ignored all in the name of 'national reconcilliation'. Native leaders know that presenting facts will put their agenda at risk so just present a loving picture of peaceful Natives singing kumbuya as their pick daiseys, commune with the animals of the forest, and singing songs of joy and love 24/7 in their peaceful topia.


Truth be told, the thing that Native leaders know but will never admit to is that they were identical in most respects to their European foes and the only difference between the 2 is that Europeans had bigger toys.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

You're right, it's not like it hurts anything. And in reference to my posting history that you're familiar with, I'm not at all opposed to these sorts of things.

I just find it strange how people who come up with these ideas take them very very seriously (at least the ones I know) as if not doing them is discriminatory or whatever. It might be appreciated by immigrants, but definitely at a different level of importance.

In my experience a good chunk of the immigrant population actually comes here with the specific intent to integrate/assimilate and become totally "Canadian" (whatever that means).

Then, as they say, "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans". Other factors enter into it like an insertion into a largish community of their own origin, or it turns out that the "Canadian identity" they want to integrate to is highly elusive and ill-defined in the region where they have settled.

And so most people - even those who wanted to become uber-Canadians - end up with an identity that's a bit of a mash-up.

(Of course there is another factor which is that the word is out out there in the big wide world that Canada is a place where you can live pretty much as in the old country but with all of the perks of the new country. We're likely drawing a larger number of people for whom this is appealling than other western countries are, simply as a result of this reputation.)

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

City of Victoria has refused the request.

Victoria city council would rather hide the statue from view not just in Victoria but also anywhere else?

Reconciliation should not involve an unbalanced view of history and an unbalanced view of a historic figure.

This is no different from when former Ottawa Mayor Charlotte Whitton's name was disqualified for the naming of the city archives building because she may have expressed some antisemitic thought long before she was mayor.

[D-dog]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I'm disgusted that Doug Ford's government reached out to Victoria to say it would find a new home for the statue here. It just proves they see themselves as a Trump Lite government catering to the 40% support they have of mostly white old men and uneducated red necks.

You're obviously under 25! You think erasing history and catering to anyone who is offended the way to go? Should I take offence to being called an old white man? No need to answer btw, I could care less about your feelings on the subject as you have a very narrow view point when it comes to world. I bet you voted Liberal and enjoy getting taxed if you are even employed. It seems like the only group that can be made fun of anymore is the white man. Think I am exaggerating? Look at any commercial on TV now a days, only one being made fun of are white males.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is common now in BC for public events to begin with an acknowledgement that everyone is on unceded native territory.

The fact is that BC has been settled for over 150 years now and the people who moved here are not going to just pack up and go away. We are also told that we have to be welcoming to immigrants, and that things like the head tax were bad. I am not sure how you reconcile all of this. It is another case where identity politics yield a dead end. We can flagellate ourselves and argue over who is the biggest victim but that is not going to help anyone.

Another story that's been in the media lately in BC is the request to pardon some Chilcotin who were convicted of murder in the 1860's. I am not sure what the outcome was, but nobody disputes that the 5 convicted Chilcotin killed 15 road workers and engineers. The dispute is over whether it was a "war" or not, as if a war would somehow justify killing workers. To me it also seems like kind of a minor issue compared to, say, providing good housing, food, and water to the native people in Canada who are alive right now and don't have all of those necessities.

I got used to this in BC hearing it all the time, and it always made sense to me. If the land is unceded, then yeah, it's logical that we acknowledge the occupation and use of it.

But I remember being shocked when in Manitoba they made acknowledgments to being on Treaty 1 land. I thought, if there's a treaty, why do you have to mention it? And that's something I still don't really get.

Overall I agree that it doesn't mean a whole lot. I understand that it might feel good for both parties for it to be acknowledged, but like I said earlier, if you're not retreating as a state at the same time, what does it even mean? It's like if Israel made statements about being on Palestian land as they develop the West Bank.

The overall problem is that while Canada's reconciliation efforts are new, many Canadians are not. Many non-indigenous Canadians have very strong attachments to this land and to their culture too, and this will be ignored at reconciliation's peril. I know in relative terms there's a very clear native and non-native people, but for Canadian families that have been here for a few hundred years (and less), their legitimacy as inhabitants can't be questioned forever.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Victoria city council would rather hide the statue from view not just in Victoria but also anywhere else?

.

I thought of that too but I don't believe this is the reason for refusing to send it to Ontario.

[Urban recluse]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

I'm disgusted that Doug Ford's government reached out to Victoria to say it would find a new home for the statue here. It just proves they see themselves as a Trump Lite government catering to the 40% support they have of mostly white old men and uneducated red necks.

The dude's gotta sack. Good for him. Victoria city Councillors are a bunch of weak, kale-eating little bitches.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I really hate this revisionist history. People are product of their time including today. I guess this means that every statue of a PM before Trudeau is now on the wrecking ball list due to not being in support of same-sex marriage?

a. No one is proposing that the statute "face the wrecking ball". It is simply being moved to another, yet to be determined, location;

b. The statute is not being removed in order to "punish" Sir John A MacDonald for his crimes or misdeeds;

c. This is a false equivalence. Brian Mulroney's failure to amend the Marriage Act to include same sex marriages is not, in most people's view, of equal significance to Sir John A MacDonald's responsibility in the starvation of thousands of indigenous people. Therefore, a statute of Brian Mulroney erected in front of Toronto City Hall (shudder) is not likely to provoke the same sort of emotional reactions in gay people going to City Hall to pay their property tax bill as a statute of Sir John A MacDonald in front of Victoria City Hall.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

First Nation's have manipulated their own history and narrative to somehow further their cause and try to put the citizens into a constant sense of guilt in order to do it. This ridiculously promoted notion of Indigenous people being a paragon of virtueuntil the big bad Europeans arrived it enough to make me want to toss my lunch.

I fear that this is all in your head. Examples?

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Indigenous were just as blood thirsty, war-like, sexist, and bigotted as any Europeans and were just as eager to take everyone else's land as the European were to take theirs.The only difference between the Europeans and the Indigenous is the Europeans had bigger toys. Of course such facts are irrelevant when the collective guilt and federal funding is at risk. Oh no, Native atrocities are to be ignored all in the name of 'national reconcilliation'. Native leaders know that presenting facts will put their agenda at risk so just present a loving picture of peaceful Natives singing kumbuya as their pick daiseys, commune with the animals of the forest, and singing songs of joy and love 24/7 in their peaceful topia.

Again, I fear that this is all in your head. Reconciliation has nothing to do with comparing which society was the most warlike or who should feel guilty about what. Reconciliation, as I understand it, is about the future (in particular, it is about developing respectful and fair relations between Canada's First Nations and the federal, provincial, and municipal governments of Canada).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I really hate this revisionist history. People are products of their time including today. I guess this means that every statue of a PM before Trudeau is now on the wrecking ball list due to not being in support of same-sex marriage? First Nation's have manipulated their own history and narrative to somehow further their cause and try to put the citizens into a constant sense of guilt in order to do it. This ridiculously promoted notion of Indigenous people being a paragon of virtue until the big bad Europeans arrived is enough to make me want to toss my lunch.


The Indigenous were just as blood thirsty, war-like, sexist, and bigotted as any Europeans and were just as eager to take everyone else's land as the European were to take theirs. The first European explorers on the West Coast were surprised to find that 20% of the population were slaves Of course such facts are irrelevant when the collective guilt and federal funding is at risk. Oh no, Native atrocities are to be ignored all in the name of 'national reconcilliation'. Native leaders know that presenting facts will put their agenda at risk so just present a loving picture of peaceful Natives singing kumbuya as their pick daiseys, commune with the animals of the forest, and singing songs of joy and love 24/7 in their peaceful topia.


Truth be told, the thing that Native leaders know but will never admit to is that they were identical in most respects to their European foes and the only difference between the 2 is that Europeans had bigger toys.

We had a history lesson not so long ago about the local indigenous nations. The warring that went on between the various tribes was amazing. The Iroquois basically killed off the Hurons. Our local Algonquins took up residents in the back woods of Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec because the Ottawa River was a transport route for all tribes, often unfriendly, any of whom could have killed and pillaged the local tribes. History can be unkind. And we wonder why pioneers sometimes called indigenous people 'savages'? It was not entirely un-true and they were not that distant from the days of indigenous warfare. We are now much removed from those days so it hard to understand the realities of the 18th and 19th century.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I got used to this in BC hearing it all the time, and it always made sense to me. If the land is unceded, then yeah, it's logical that we acknowledge the occupation and use of it.

But I remember being shocked when in Manitoba they made acknowledgments to being on Treaty 1 land. I thought, if there's a treaty, why do you have to mention it? And that's something I still don't really get.

Overall I agree that it doesn't mean a whole lot. I understand that it might feel good for both parties for it to be acknowledged, but like I said earlier, if you're not retreating as a state at the same time, what does it even mean? It's like if Israel made statements about being on Palestian land as they develop the West Bank.

The overall problem is that while Canada's reconciliation efforts are new, many Canadians are not. Many non-indigenous Canadians have very strong attachments to this land and to their culture too, and this will be ignored at reconciliation's peril. I know in relative terms there's a very clear native and non-native people, but for Canadian families that have been here for a few hundred years (and less), their legitimacy as inhabitants can't be questioned forever.

Treaty 1 land isn't an acknowledgement that the land belongs to the aboriginals. Treaty 1 is the agreement and forfeiture of land from aboriginals to the "Crown" in exchange for reserve land, access to services and monies. When it is said that we are on Treaty 1 land, all that is being said is that this land was part of the transfer of land from aboriginal to the "Crown".

[lrt's friend]

Again, I fear that this is all in your head. Reconciliation has nothing to do with comparing which society was the most warlike or who should feel guilty about what. Reconciliation, as I understand it, is about the future (in particular, it is about developing respectful and fair relations between Canada's First Nations and the federal, provincial, and municipal governments of Canada).

If it is about the future, then why are 'parts' of past continually being brought up in the process? Those that are involved in removing names and statues are making it us versus them. Reconciliation should be about mutual respect. This does not accomplish it.