National Victims of Communism Memorial | Completed

[lrt's friend]

Sorry, can you explain to me why a monument to somebody else's atrocities is relevant to Canada? I come from the school of thought that it's easier to point the finger at other people's crimes than to critically self-examine your own crimes.

I don't think they should be building any monument at all, or at least we should be doing so much more sparingly than we are. I don't care if it's a monument to the victims of communism or fascism or the holocaust or anything. As we've seen time and time again in this city, they end up not contributing anything to the city or to public understanding or appreciation, they don't serve as an attraction, and they just end up being empty posturing. But if we must build these hideous things, then it would have a lot more moral weight if we instead focused on the crimes committed by our own government *in our name* before we turn our attention to the crimes committed by foreign governments on foreign lands.

Show me a monument to Indian Residential Schools, the last of which only closed down in 1997, to the depopulation of Indigenous peoples, to the MS St. Louis, to the Chinese rail workers and to LGBTQ Canadians. Those should be the higher priority if we must build these things.

Canada is a country of immigrants therefore many are connected to these atrocities. The point is to not forget what has happened in the past so we remind ourselves and the world not to repeat such things. The sad thing is that they continue to be repeated in the middle east and likely elsewhere in the future. This is the negative side of human nature. So, solemn memorials are important just as our war memorials are important. What is the difference between our Canadian war veterans and those who are more recent immigrants that tie in with other atrocities?

We also know about Holocaust deniers and fewer people really know the extent of what was happening in Communist countries. I certainly did not know some of the things that I learned in Poland in 2015.

Yes, we need other memorials as well, but these things tend not to happen until a certain period of time passes. With indigineous peoples, we are still in the process of reconciliation. The wounds are still fresh, and likely it will take time to devise a proper memorial. Likewise with the LGTBQ community and others.

This is also about politics, which tend to give priority to some things over others. Somebody will oppose everything, but it is no excuse to use that to allow nothing to be memorialized. This is the risk.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Canada is a country of immigrants therefore many are connected to these atrocities. The point is to not forget what has happened in the past so we remind ourselves and the world not to repeat such things. The sad thing is that they continue to be repeated in the middle east and likely elsewhere in the future. This is the negative side of human nature. So, solemn memorials are important just as our war memorials are important. What is the difference between our Canadian war veterans and those who are more recent immigrants that tie in with other atrocities?

We also know about Holocaust deniers and fewer people really know the extent of what was happening in Communist countries. I certainly did not know some of the things that I learned in Poland in 2015.

Yes, we need other memorials as well, but these things tend not to happen until a certain period of time passes. With indigineous peoples, we are still in the process of reconciliation. The wounds are still fresh, and likely it will take time to devise a proper memorial. Likewise with the LGTBQ community and others.

This is also about politics, which tend to give priority to some things over others. Somebody will oppose everything, but it is no excuse to use that to allow nothing to be memorialized. This is the risk.

I personally think it's a bit naive to believe that a solemn monument to the Holocaust will help fight Holocaust denialism. But if that's what you believe then I suppose that's your business. I think you could litter Ottawa with Holocaust memorials on every block and I doubt you'd get many skinheads and neonazis and other deniers to see the error of their ways. I personally think education would probably be more effective.

But let's put that aside. Let's grant you that all these people really needed to see the error of their ways was to gaze upon a monument that told them that killing people is bad. Even if we grant you this, don't you think it's grotesquely hypocritical that we're building monuments to other countries' crimes against their peoples while we're unwilling to shine a spotlight on our own crimes based on the excuse that "The wounds are still fresh"? Wouldn't that be the best time to do it, while the issue is still live and relevant? Hell there are indigenous people today my age (mid-30s) who were there. Hell I've met some of them.

I don't think the argument that "the wounds are still fresh" is quite as strong an argument as you think it is. If anything, I think it's an even stronger argument that our priorities are out of wack and we should be re-prioritizing in favour of crimes our own government has committed rather than the crimes of foreign governments.

I'm not a religious person but I would remind people of the original biblical definition of hypocrisy from the book of Matthew (7:5)

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I personally think it's a bit naive to believe that a solemn monument to the Holocaust will help fight Holocaust denialism. But if that's what you believe then I suppose that's your business. I think you could litter Ottawa with Holocaust memorials on every block and I doubt you'd get many skinheads and neonazis and other deniers to see the error of their ways. I personally think education would probably be more effective.

But let's put that aside. Let's grant you that all these people really needed to see the error of their ways was to gaze upon a monument that told them that killing people is bad. Even if we grant you this, don't you think it's grotesquely hypocritical that we're building monuments to other countries' crimes against their peoples while we're unwilling to shine a spotlight on our own crimes based on the excuse that "The wounds are still fresh"? Wouldn't that be the best time to do it, while the issue is still live and relevant? Hell there are indigenous people today my age (mid-30s) who were there. Hell I've met some of them.

I don't think the argument that "the wounds are still fresh" is quite as strong an argument as you think it is. If anything, I think it's an even stronger argument that our priorities are out of wack and we should be re-prioritizing in favour of crimes our own government has committed rather than the crimes of foreign governments.

I'm not a religious person but I would remind people of the original biblical definition of hypocrisy from the book of Matthew (7:5)

At this point, action is more important than spending time building memorials. I have absolutely no problem with building those memorials. What I said is correct. The wounds are fresh, therefore, more tangible action needs to be the priority. The end point of reconciliation will be a memorial but we have not reached that stage.

Regarding the Holocaust and Communism memorials, I am of no illusion that they will cause extremists to rethink their positions. However, there is something to be said about having official monuments that reflect Canadian values. We are accepting many immigrants from countries where opinions about such events may differ considerably. These monuments make a very visible statement about what this society represents to newcomers. Hopefully, that will sink in so that old country values will be modified to be in better keeping with Canadian values. This is no different from the statement that the National War Memorial makes. Canada accepted many German immigrants after the war and I am sure that this memorial also made a statement to those immigrants that older German values associated with the Nazis and the Kaisers was not acceptable in Canadian society. Of course, what we teach in school and offer in the media is also part of it, but monuments are very visible and very symbolic. We should be very careful about making such monuments so small as to be invisible. There are some of these around the city.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Sorry, can you explain to me why a monument to somebody else's atrocities is relevant to Canada? I come from the school of thought that it's easier to point the finger at other people's crimes than to critically self-examine your own crimes.

I don't think they should be building any monument at all, or at least we should be doing so much more sparingly than we are. I don't care if it's a monument to the victims of communism or fascism or the holocaust or anything. As we've seen time and time again in this city, they end up not contributing anything to the city or to public understanding or appreciation, they don't serve as an attraction, and they just end up being empty posturing. But if we must build these hideous things, then it would have a lot more moral weight if we instead focused on the crimes committed by our own government *in our name* before we turn our attention to the crimes committed by foreign governments on foreign lands.

Show me a monument to Indian Residential Schools, the last of which only closed down in 1997, to the depopulation of Indigenous peoples, to the MS St. Louis, to the Chinese rail workers and to LGBTQ Canadians. Those should be the higher priority if we must build these things.



I literally don't know a single adult who has never heard of any of those things. If there are educated adults who don't know about those things, don't you think investing in education might be a better way of fixing that?



The principal arguments I'm seeing in this thread are arguments from an urban design perspective, which is valid considering this an urban discussion forum. I'm not seeing any arguments against this because people are pro-starving Ukrainians. Sorry, I stopped reading your comment after there. I don't believe you're arguing in good faith.

This shows why we need this memorial. The comparison to residential schools to the holocaust or Totalitarian Communism is almost silly. There are huge numbers of champagne socialists who think what we did to native people mostly out of benevolent if misguided intentions is comparable to what happened under Stalin or Mao. Actually a lot think we are a patriarchal tyranny when it is hard to point to a better society that has ever existed in history. Sure work to do but lets call a spade a spade.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This shows why we need this memorial. The comparison to residential schools to the holocaust or Totalitarian Communism is almost silly. There are huge numbers of champagne socialists who think what we did to native people mostly out of benevolent if misguided intentions is comparable to what happened under Stalin or Mao. Actually a lot think we are a patriarchal tyranny when it is hard to point to a better society that has ever existed in history. Sure work to do but lets call a spade a spade.

what "canada" and the US did to the Indigenous people's who are here is much worse than anything Stalin or Mao did, yes. how is this even controversial?

- there is actual written evidence of JAM and the government wanting to starve Indigenous peoples, there is none for Stalin wanting to do the same.
- Canada had a policy of trying to "get the native out of the native" (genocide according top the UN), where as the USSR gave nations their own republics and rights to language and culture (this is the only reason my family's language, Lithuanian, still exists)
- all people in the USSR had much better quality of life than the vast majority of Indigneous people in Canada, even today. there wans't boil water advisories, massive addictions issues because of intergenerational trauma, or massive differences in health outcomes between them and other peoples

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by headhorse

what "canada" and the US did to the Indigenous people's who are here is much worse than anything Stalin or Mao did, yes. how is this even controversial?

- there is actual written evidence of JAM and the government wanting to starve Indigenous peoples, there is none for Stalin wanting to do the same.
- Canada had a policy of trying to "get the native out of the native" (genocide according top the UN), where as the USSR gave nations their own republics and rights to language and culture (this is the only reason my family's language, Lithuanian, still exists)
- all people in the USSR had much better quality of life than the vast majority of Indigneous people in Canada, even today. there wans't boil water advisories, massive addictions issues because of intergenerational trauma, or massive differences in health outcomes between them and other peoples

I really think you do not understand the brutality of Stalin/Mao eras.

The vast majority of indigenous deaths were the result of disease. European contact was all that it took. We cannot assess blame by simple contact.

Nomadic indigenous society was inevitably going to end as it has everywhere in the world except in the most remote locations.

There are many reasons to complain about how indigenous society was treated but millions were not killed by acts of war and repression.

[CityTech]

Most of the British Empire's conduct, generally speaking, was good intentions with misguided methods. From that old school British imperial point of view, the residential schools were a good thing because they brought natives into all the benefits of modern life by assimilating them into the culture. Obviously it wasn't a good thing, it destroyed people's lives and such, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hitler just wanted to kill people.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by headhorse

what "canada" and the US did to the Indigenous people's who are here is much worse than anything Stalin or Mao did, yes. how is this even controversial?

- there is actual written evidence of JAM and the government wanting to starve Indigenous peoples, there is none for Stalin wanting to do the same.
- Canada had a policy of trying to "get the native out of the native" (genocide according top the UN), where as the USSR gave nations their own republics and rights to language and culture (this is the only reason my family's language, Lithuanian, still exists)
- all people in the USSR had much better quality of life than the vast majority of Indigneous people in Canada, even today. there wans't boil water advisories, massive addictions issues because of intergenerational trauma, or massive differences in health outcomes between them and other peoples

Funny that you say that given that under Soviet occupation, the Baltic states were being overrun by Russian immigrants to the point where the continued survival of their cultures were threatened.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Most of the British Empire's conduct, generally speaking, was good intentions with misguided methods. From that old school British imperial point of view, the residential schools were a good thing because they brought natives into all the benefits of modern life by assimilating them into the culture. Obviously it wasn't a good thing, it destroyed people's lives and such, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hitler just wanted to kill people.

Sometimes we judge residential schools of decades ago by today's standards. But what were all schools of that era like? We have all heard about left handed children being forced to write with their right hands. There was all sorts of corporal punishment. There was probably all kinds of abuse that nobody spoke about. And so on. Some schools were better than others.

The changes from nomadic life to civilization were going to be difficult but they were also inevitable.

[headhorse]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Funny that you say that given that under Soviet occupation, the Baltic states were being overrun by Russian immigrants to the point where the continued survival of their cultures were threatened.

“Overrun by immigrants” is racist speak. my family was happy to welcome others into their communities, unlike certain “heroes” the forest brothers

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Funny that you say that given that under Soviet occupation, the Baltic states were being overrun by Russian immigrants to the point where the continued survival of their cultures were threatened.

I know a Lithuanian family who were on the run from both the Russians and the Nazis for years during the war. They came to Canada to escape the European insanity of ongoing culture clashes that led to war after war. My own family, who were Prussian came to Canada to escape military service during earlier European wars.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Most of the British Empire's conduct, generally speaking, was good intentions with misguided methods. From that old school British imperial point of view, the residential schools were a good thing because they brought natives into all the benefits of modern life by assimilating them into the culture. Obviously it wasn't a good thing, it destroyed people's lives and such, but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Hitler just wanted to kill people.

Hitler's concept of Lebensraum that led to the Holocaust was heavily influenced by the American ideology of Manifest Destiny which marginalized native peoples.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by headhorse

what "canada" and the US did to the Indigenous people's who are here is much worse than anything Stalin or Mao did, yes. how is this even controversial?

- there is actual written evidence of JAM and the government wanting to starve Indigenous peoples, there is none for Stalin wanting to do the same.
- Canada had a policy of trying to "get the native out of the native" (genocide according top the UN), where as the USSR gave nations their own republics and rights to language and culture (this is the only reason my family's language, Lithuanian, still exists)
- all people in the USSR had much better quality of life than the vast majority of Indigneous people in Canada, even today. there wans't boil water advisories, massive addictions issues because of intergenerational trauma, or massive differences in health outcomes between them and other peoples

Again proving my point. It is way beyond controversial your assertion is ridiculous.

Funny you praise USSR. If they had better outcomes it was because of more paternalism not less.They had a method for improving the lives of their indigenous people. It's called residential schools. They (well Russia) still have them and proudly show them off.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I really think you do not understand the brutality of Stalin/Mao eras.

The vast majority of indigenous deaths were the result of disease. European contact was all that it took. We cannot assess blame by simple contact.

Nomadic indigenous society was inevitably going to end as it has everywhere in the world except in the most remote locations.

There are many reasons to complain about how indigenous society was treated but millions were not killed by acts of war and repression.

You are correct in saying that millions of natives were not killed. But you are conveniently ignoring the number of living people who have gone through hell because of our government's policies. It was not our colonial masters who implemented many of these policies. We have stolen their land, and given them the most remote and often unsustainable plots of land. We have destroyed their language, their mentors to raise functional families and to get a proper education. We fund their education and health system at a lower amount per capita than off reserve Canadians. We my or may not have killed the missing and indigenous women and girls, but we don't know because we didn't properly investigate many of the crimes. We need to correct these problems as you state, but we also need to educate the population, current and future about our tarnished history.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Most of the British Empire's conduct, generally speaking, was good intentions with misguided methods.

Oh dear. You very very badly need to read your history books. Between the 18th and 20th centuries, the British government knowingly caused a holocaust of between 25 and 50 million people on the Indian subcontinent alone by, among other things, forcing them to export food during some of the worst famines in recorded history. This wasn't "misguided methods", this was active wanton malice and indifference and there's historical documentation to prove it. Indeed talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”

I do find it ironic that the same people who are wont to bring up the government-exacerbated famine of the Holodomor in Ukraine don't seem to have much historical knowledge about the government-caused/exacerbated famine that was caused by our own head of state, especially considering the circumstances of both atrocities are extremely similar.

Also, and not for nothing but the Irish and South Africans would like to have a word with you if you think the British were mostly good intentioned.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This shows why we need this memorial. The comparison to residential schools to the holocaust or Totalitarian Communism is almost silly. There are huge numbers of champagne socialists who think what we did to native people mostly out of benevolent if misguided intentions is comparable to what happened under Stalin or Mao. Actually a lot think we are a patriarchal tyranny when it is hard to point to a better society that has ever existed in history. Sure work to do but lets call a spade a spade.

You either didn't read what I wrote or you have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I wrote. I'd be happy to engage with you on those topics if that's what you like, but in any case, the argument I made wasn't based on an equivalency between anything. Indeed the argument I made was explicitly REJECTING such notions.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

However, there is something to be said about having official monuments that reflect Canadian values. We are accepting many immigrants from countries where opinions about such events may differ considerably. These monuments make a very visible statement about what this society represents to newcomers. Hopefully, that will sink in so that old country values will be modified to be in better keeping with Canadian values.

I'm not sure if that can even be described as a dog whistle; that's a foghorn. I see we're going full masks off today.

Maybe it's just the anti-authoritarian in me but I tend to think things work better when the state derives its values from the people, not the other way around. Call me old fashioned.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

Oh dear. You very very badly need to read your history books. Between the 18th and 20th centuries, the British government knowingly caused a holocaust of between 25 and 50 million people on the Indian subcontinent alone by, among other things, forcing them to export food during some of the worst famines in recorded history. This wasn't "misguided methods", this was active wanton malice and indifference and there's historical documentation to prove it. Indeed talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”

I do find it ironic that the same people who are wont to bring up the government-exacerbated famine of the Holodomor in Ukraine don't seem to have much historical knowledge about the government-caused/exacerbated famine that was caused by our own head of state, especially considering the circumstances of both atrocities are extremely similar.

Also, and not for nothing but the Irish and South Africans would like to have a word with you if you think the British were mostly good intentioned.

I think a reasonable case could me made for a commemoration of the Bengal Famine. Although exporting food and/or cash crops while people are starving has been the policy of many countries throughout history, including the Republic of India.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

You either didn't read what I wrote or you have poor reading comprehension or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I wrote. I'd be happy to engage with you on those topics if that's what you like, but in any case, the argument I made wasn't based on an equivalency between anything. Indeed the argument I made was explicitly REJECTING such notions.

I don't think I was quoting you but headhorse. I re-read your comments and it seems reasonable.

Was Communism one of the worst things to happen this century?
Is this relevant to Canada?
Is this an appropriate location and design for a memorial honouring it.

I say yes 100% to the first two. Some here disagree. The third is probably mute at this point as it has been decided but is a legitimate question.

[acottawa]

I think that broke monuments in Ottawa was the peacekeeping monument. It is massively oversized compared to its historical importance. Before peacekeeping, most monuments (except war, which indirectly or directly involved pretty much 100% of the country's population) were statue-sized, after that, too many monuments are oversized. I think the VoC could have been a few life-sized statues, arranged in front of some sort of display explanatory display, and I think that is true of many of the recently-built monuments.