The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

3. The City of Halifax's removal of a statue of Edward Cornwallis

I think it is interesting to look at this one, isolated because I am familiar with Halifax and Cornwallis, in light of the broader iconoclastic trend.

I think mere opposition to removing the statue has more to do with fear of iconoclasm as a particular human energy than with anything else. Halifax has not been the sort of place that might gather any meaningful degree of civic veneration behind Edward Cornwallis for some time. In effect, the energies that carved the monument and gave it pride of place have long since vanished.

Opposing its toppling, then, has more to do with a more watery belief in civic continuity or stability than it does with the honouring of Cornwallis. Is that energy sufficient to maintain the statue's presence? It was for so long as the absence of an opposing energy allowed the inertia of the previous, Cornwallis-honouring energy to persist.

The toppling of the statue was as meaningful and accurate a gauge of sentiment as was its erection. While we might be used to the persistence of "silent majorities" at the ballot box, they count for nothing in these extra-political situations. There was no degree of pro-Cornwallis sentiment equal in strength to the anti-Cornwallis sentiment; there was only inertia and fear.

The iconoclasm isn't that interesting. It is only useful insofar as it demonstrates societal change to the apolitical or diffident. What is interesting are the new monuments, e.g. the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. This is an interesting building as it represents a kind of monument to a contemporary doctrine. What qualities does it have? To me, it appears vague, gigantic, hopeful and depersonalized. An airport terminal disassembled and reconstructed as a ziggurat honouring a legal construct.

It is a much more accurate statement of who and where we are than was Cornwallis.

[Corndogger]

This is perfect!

"Generic Anti-Racism Pundit - Audition Tape" by Lindsay Shepherd

• Video Link

[p_xavier]

The new hires at my workplace in the last year were 52% minorities. The way its achieved is with pool of capable candidates with tough requirements and not single hires. The systemic racism can easily be removed with such approach.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

The new hires at my workplace in the last year were 52% minorities. The way its achieved is with pool of capable candidates with tough requirements and not single hires. The systemic racism can easily be removed with such approach.

Public sector or private? The concept is not new, but I didn't think the private sector had got there yet.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Public sector or private? The concept is not new, but I didn't think the private sector had got there yet.

Parapublic. Hydro-Québec does single hires and it's 99.9% caucasians. Plus at my work there's no rainbows, diversity is key dogma like in the Federal Public service, just we want the best candidates.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

"You don't find much wokery in France." Anglo identitarianism is the legacy of Puritanism.

https://youtu.be/dSLZHnpt-RQ?t=1694

"Have you ever been to Ottawa? Ottawa is totally fascinating." Didn't see that coming.

https://youtu.be/dSLZHnpt-RQ?t=1962

That was interesting to watch.

One thing I noticed is how jovial the conversation is. Now, in spite of the age difference all three of these guys are pretty much on the same side.

But I find you can still see the distance of the UK here, and perhaps a bit of its proximity to continental Europe as well.

In the US even birds of a political feather in an echo chamber wouldn't be so jovial, and there would be a lot more anger and sneering at woke people. Even when they joke and laugh it's noticeably nastier. In their minds, they're in the fight of their lives.

Someone like Jordan Peterson perfectly reflects how Canadians are in the middle. He's not often jovial like the Brits were, but his tone is more somber as opposed to hysterical like the Americans often are.

[kool maudit]

The UK is more wholly on board with the new order than the US, though. I think the "bemused don" patina is a little bit of tradition and a lot of cope. At this point the UK is a vehicle for global capital and nothing else, while the US still retains elements of its national mythos.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The UK is more wholly on board with the new order than the US, though. I think the "bemused don" patina is a little bit of tradition and a lot of cope. At this point the UK is a vehicle for global capital and nothing else, while the US still retains elements of its national mythos.

Yes there is definitely a British thing about being (or seeming to be) "above it all".

They also have much more of a consensus about what Britain "was", "is" or should be going forward, when compared to Americans.

That takes a lot of the edge off of discussions, I'd imagine.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

The toppling of the statue was as meaningful and accurate a gauge of sentiment as was its erection. While we might be used to the persistence of "silent majorities" at the ballot box, they count for nothing in these extra-political situations. .

This is very true of the current context, though it's almost certain that the silent majority and the ballot box will have their say eventually.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They also have much more of a consensus about what Britain "was", "is" or should be going forward, when compared to Americans.

I'm not sure very many Britons would tell you there is consensus about what their nation is or will be, going forward. I mean, it's not even decided whether Scotland, England, Wales, and NI are provinces, countries, or something else. And of course Brexit, NI republicanism, and Scottish separatism, and then English North-South tensions related to class division. If anything I would categorise the UK as a roiling pot of dozens of different identities and viewpoints held together by pragmatism, the all consuming desire for order (which we share), as well as the great social leveller of the pub.

Britain's abiding desire for order, which we share or even take further here, perhaps tones down the levels of rhetoric and violence amongst the populace. America, conversely, was founded in armed rebellion and collectively has no qualms about upsetting polite social norms in protest or defence of status quo. All of that's helped along by the hyperpartisan, omnipresent politics as well as the decline of the media there, two issues neither Canada nor Britain experience to any degree like the Americans.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by savevp

I'm not sure very many Britons would tell you there is consensus about what their nation is or will be, going forward. I mean, it's not even decided whether Scotland, England, Wales, and NI are provinces, countries, or something else. And of course Brexit, NI republicanism, and Scottish separatism, and then English North-South tensions related to class division. If anything I would categorise the UK as a roiling pot of dozens of different identities and viewpoints held together by pragmatism, the all consuming desire for order (which we share), as well as the great social leveller of the pub.

Britain's abiding desire for order, which we share or even take further here, perhaps tones down the levels of rhetoric and violence amongst the populace. America, conversely, was founded in armed rebellion and collectively has no qualms about upsetting polite social norms in protest or defence of status quo. All of that's helped along by the hyperpartisan, omnipresent politics as well as the decline of the media there, two issues neither Canada nor Britain experience to any degree like the Americans.

Yeah, after I posted I realized I formulated that rather awkwardly.

While you're right about future direction, I do think that there is more consensus about what the UK *is* as a society. If you look at the whole 1619 debate in the U.S., I don't think anything analogous would be possible in the UK.

It seems like Americans can't even agree on where they've been and come from!

(Canada, in this sense, is a bit like the U.S., though it's far less acrimonious a debate - for the moment at least.)

[dreambrother808]

The US remains the world’s cultural boiling pot. From all of the drama, extremes, and volatility there arises movements which have global effect. This can happen elsewhere but the US is still the beating, experimental heart.

From a detached, top-down, cerebral position this is unnerving or seemingly chaotic, but that is the nature of the heart, after all.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

I think it is interesting to look at this one, isolated because I am familiar with Halifax and Cornwallis, in light of the broader iconoclastic trend.

I think mere opposition to removing the statue has more to do with fear of iconoclasm as a particular human energy than with anything else. Halifax has not been the sort of place that might gather any meaningful degree of civic veneration behind Edward Cornwallis for some time. In effect, the energies that carved the monument and gave it pride of place have long since vanished.

Opposing its toppling, then, has more to do with a more watery belief in civic continuity or stability than it does with the honouring of Cornwallis. Is that energy sufficient to maintain the statue's presence? It was for so long as the absence of an opposing energy allowed the inertia of the previous, Cornwallis-honouring energy to persist.

The toppling of the statue was as meaningful and accurate a gauge of sentiment as was its erection. While we might be used to the persistence of "silent majorities" at the ballot box, they count for nothing in these extra-political situations. There was no degree of pro-Cornwallis sentiment equal in strength to the anti-Cornwallis sentiment; there was only inertia and fear.

The iconoclasm isn't that interesting. It is only useful insofar as it demonstrates societal change to the apolitical or diffident. What is interesting are the new monuments, e.g. the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. This is an interesting building as it represents a kind of monument to a contemporary doctrine. What qualities does it have? To me, it appears vague, gigantic, hopeful and depersonalized. An airport terminal disassembled and reconstructed as a ziggurat honouring a legal construct.

It is a much more accurate statement of who and where we are than was Cornwallis.

I love this. It makes me think of how fear of toppling a statue is symbolic of fearing human nature or fear of the new. The imagination becomes anemic and detached from the life force. The change is interpreted as barbarism, rather than other possible images like tilling fields or rebirth.

We are lucky to live in times when the agitating force of revolution is so bloodless, for some at least.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This is very true of the current context, though it's almost certain that the silent majority and the ballot box will have their say eventually.

The Cornwallis statue was originally built as part of a CN railway hotel development in the 1920's. Supposedly the developers (who were probably Montreal-based) were surprised that there were few monuments dedicated to the founders of the area, and they wanted a theme for visitors. In my experience people in Nova Scotia are extremely unsentimental about their own history even though they tend to be a bit more aware of it than most Canadians.

Cornwallis was the governor of Nova Scotia for a couple of years and also led the initial settlement expedition for Halifax. Halifax was a planned capital for Nova Scotia, like Ottawa or Brasilia but developed in the 1740's (the old capital was Annapolis Royal). Cornwallis was governor during Father Le Loutre's War, which began in 1749 (there was near-constant war during this period), and after some colonists were scalped he declared a bounty on Mi'kmaq scalps. The British and Mi'kmaq signed a peace and friendship treaty in 1752.

Every few years people used to deface the statue somehow and the city would clean it up. A few years ago a group of maybe 10-20 people formed and said they would destroy the statue or would refuse to leave until it was taken down.

The city has since put the statue in storage and there's some kind of committee dedicated to deciding what to do with it and with the park.

The situation isn't resolved yet, it happened due to an insignificant number of people, and there never was much public love of Cornwallis or support for putting up a statue of him.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The Cornwallis statue was originally built as part of a CN railway hotel development in the 1920's. Supposedly the developers (who were probably Montreal-based) were surprised that there were few monuments dedicated to the founders of the area, and they wanted a theme for visitors. In my experience people in Nova Scotia are extremely unsentimental about their own history even though they tend to be a bit more aware of it than most Canadians.

Cornwallis was the governor of Nova Scotia for a couple of years and also led the initial settlement expedition for Halifax. Halifax was a planned capital for Nova Scotia, like Ottawa or Brasilia but developed in the 1740's (the old capital was Annapolis Royal). Cornwallis was governor during Father Le Loutre's War, which began in 1749, and after some colonists were scalped he declared a bounty on Mi'kmaq scalps. The British and Mi'kmaq signed a peace and friendship treaty in 1752.

Every few years people used to deface the statue somehow and the city would clean it up. A few years ago a group of maybe 10-20 people formed and said they would destroy the statue or would refuse to leave until it was taken down.

The city has since put the statue in storage and there's some kind of committee dedicated to deciding what to do with it and with the park.

The situation isn't resolved yet, it happened due to an insignificant number of people, and there never was much public love of Cornwallis or support for putting up a statue of him.

I should clarify that I don't think that Cornwallis will be an election issue - ever - in Halifax, Nova Scotia or Canada.

But the general spirit that leads to this sort of thing might be. Either that, or probably even more likely is simply that people will run and get elected who are pretty much indifferent and unsympathetic to such matters, and react to them with a pffft.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I should clarify that I don't think that Cornwallis will be an election issue - ever - in Halifax, Nova Scotia or Canada.

But the general spirit that leads to this sort of thing might be. Either that, or probably even more likely is simply that people will run and get elected who are pretty much indifferent and unsympathetic to such matters, and react to them with a pffft.

The question is why the 10-20 people who show up in masks around the statue get to decide what happens, and how much that will be tolerated.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

The question is why the 10-20 people who show up in masks around the statue get to decide what happens, and how much that will be tolerated.

And *that* could actually be an election issue of sorts.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And *that* could actually be an election issue of sorts.

It's also worth pointing out that any group can put up a statue. For example there's a relatively new Lebanese immigrant statue, one dedicated to women volunteers, etc. The biggest statue depicting a humanoid figure in NS is probably the Millbrook statue of Glooscap which is about 15 m tall (Glooscap is a mythological "first human"). I don't think these groups would want these statues to be subject to mob approval.

Unsurprisingly the newer statues tend to be more abstract. A lot of them are fictional human figures who represent a group, which avoids the issue of somebody turning up incriminating historical material.

I wonder if anybody is going to get upset about the Boer War statues and their "white guy in a helmet with a rifle" motif. That is very non-PC but the victims aren't local. I think it would be a loss to wipe out all of the Boer War monuments and then forget it happened. My thoughts about Cornwallis are similar. I don't think there is a real risk that he will somehow be revered and that will cause people to approve of scalping again, but there is a risk of the whole early colonial period being forgotten.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

What is interesting are the new monuments, e.g. the Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. This is an interesting building as it represents a kind of monument to a contemporary doctrine. What qualities does it have? To me, it appears vague, gigantic, hopeful and depersonalized. An airport terminal disassembled and reconstructed as a ziggurat honouring a legal construct.

It is a much more accurate statement of who and where we are than was Cornwallis.

The unwillingness on the part of some (probably mostly in Winnipeg) to acknowledge how profoundly and stupidly ugly the building is serves as an apt signifier of our age of the unshod emperor as well.

[Acajack]

Another argument related to Cornwallis-type issues is that the democratic process (be it municipal, provincial or federal) is so rotten and inaccessible that voices like those of the statue's opponents can never be heard and are always ignored.

So allegedly they have no other choice but to attack the statue.

I don't actually think that's true, and if you want a statue taken down you can lobby elected officials to do just that, vote for people who want that done, or run for office yourself.

If none of that works then that means that either most people want to keep the statue, or at least don't feel that strongly about removing it.

Part of living in a democratic society is also accepting that you don't always get your way, especially if most people don't agree with you.