Should we be renaming places and things in Ottawa-Gatineau?

[Acajack]

Some of the posts on here remind me of people in the workplace in lower level jobs who are always saying anyone (including themselves of course) could do the big boss's job. And that the big boss only lucked into it.

But anyone who has ever been around people with any kind of power knows there are reasons some people achieve it and some people don't. (Outside blatant cases of nepotism of course.)

I have never been one to venerate John A but to suggest he was a mediocre, bumbling idiot like Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador who just fell into these roles by sheer coincidence or default is absurd.

Just another example of altering the historical narrative to make it fit contemporary concerns.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Some of the posts on here remind me of people in the workplace in lower level jobs who are always saying anyone (including themselves of course) could do the big boss's job. And that the big boss only lucked into it.

But anyone who has ever been around people with any kind of power knows there are reasons some people achieve it and some people don't. (Outside blatant cases of nepotism of course.)

I have never been one to venerate John A but to suggest he was a mediocre, bumbling idiot like Richard Dreyfuss in Moon Over Parador who just fell into these roles by sheer coincidence or default is absurd.

Just another example of altering the historical narrative to make it fit contemporary concerns.

If you're referring to me, I think you should re-read what I wrote. I never claimed or even hinted that I could do a better job than anybody. I'm just a guy on the internet who happens to be interested in history. It's my opinion that MacDonald is toward the bottom of the barrel of world historical leaders. Thoroughly unimpressive from tip to taint and what little he has to show for his time in power is largely morally dubious.

I go you one further and say that I don't think it's possible to be a lover of history and be impressed with the man. He's so far from a Spartacus, a Margaret I of Denmark, a Toussaint L'Ouverture, a Georges Danton, or an Ernest Shackleton that it's an insult to genuinely great historical leaders like them to mention him in the same breath. If I cared for him at all, I'm sure I'd feel vicariously embarrassed for him at how poorly he'd do in any head-to-head comparison with these genuinely great historical leaders or their ilk.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Treason is a crime in every country.

I'd be curious to hear how you reconcile your assertion of his being a subject of the crown with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, a document with the force and weight of constitutional law. It seems to me impossible to believe the former without throwing out the latter.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I'd be curious to hear how you reconcile your assertion of his being a subject of the crown with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, a document with the force and weight of constitutional law. It seems to me impossible to believe the former without throwing out the latter.

The Royal Proclamation did not acquire constitutional status until the passage of the Constitution Act, 1982. Prior to that nobody would have considered a Royal Proclamation to be constitutional. A Royal Proclamation is like an order in council and most deal with routine matters. .

Also, nobody at the time would have considered Riel to be indigenous. The Riels were Irish immigrants to New France.

You might argue it was not treason because he was an American citizen, but he was on Canadian territory and the U.S. was not at war with Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

If you're referring to me, I think you should re-read what I wrote. I never claimed or even hinted that I could do a better job than anybody. I'm just a guy on the internet who happens to be interested in history. It's my opinion that MacDonald is toward the bottom of the barrel of world historical leaders. Thoroughly unimpressive from tip to taint and what little he has to show for his time in power is largely morally dubious.

I go you one further and say that I don't think it's possible to be a lover of history and be impressGed with the man. He's so far from a Spartacus, a Margaret I of Denmark, a Toussaint L'Ouverture, a Georges Danton, or an Ernest Shackleton that it's an insult to genuinely great historical leaders like them to mention him in the same breath. If I cared for him at all, I'm sure I'd feel vicariously embarrassed for him at how poorly he'd do in any head-to-head comparison with these genuinely great historical leaders or their ilk.

It's preposterous to suggest that Macdonald was a great world leader. Is this even a thing? He was mostly a deal-maker. But he's still a significant figure in this part of the world now known as Canada. Principally because he stepped up and did something that no one else did. Could others have done the same? Maybe. Ultimately though he's the one who did it, and not someone else.

Lest you think I am a John A fan, I am not really. I am not even sure that Confederation as constructed in 1867 was that good an idea when I look at it in retrospect with 2021 eyes.

Still, Macdonald was a major history-maker for Canada. This cannot be denied.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Another question worth asking, were indigenous people of the era treated any better in the US, Australia, Argentina, Brazil or Japan?

Whatabouting questions like this don't really serve any purpose to the discussion. Couldn't care less about what happens in other countries, especially in the past, and Canada is the country where we do have some level of control over policy measures as they relate to indigenous people.

Saying other countries did the same or worse as a crutch does not excuse our past and continued treatment of indigenous communities in this country.

[rondon]

Catholic schools boards should not operate in Canada, because the church committed plenty of crimes against humanity all over the world. Catholic church was involved in sephardic jews holocaust in Spain and Portugal. Just to name one crime. As of right now sexual abuse allegations against Catholic priests in the Philippines are on the rise even right now. Those guys do not want to be stopped.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by rondon

Catholic schools boards should not operate in Canada, because the church committed plenty of crimes against humanity all over the world. Catholic church was involved in sephardic jews holocaust in Spain and Portugal. Just to name one crime. As of right now sexual abuse allegations against Catholic priests in the Philippines are on the rise even right now. Those guys do not want to be stopped.

Catholic schools aren’t operated by the Catholic Church.

[Acajack]

I'd argue that *private* Catholic schools should be allowed to operate in Canada, given all of the other private religious schools we allow to operate here.

The real question is whether we should have Catholic schools funded by public dollars, when other religions are denied such public funding.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd argue that *private* Catholic schools should be allowed to operate in Canada, given all of the other private religious schools we allow to operate here.

The real question is whether we should have Catholic schools funded by public dollars, when other religions are denied such public funding.

I tend to agree, however, this is a constitutional issue that requires sufficient political will in Ontario. This has not existed, unlike in Quebec and Newfoundland that had sufficient consensus to pull this off.

I am very thankful that we did not elect a Conservative government that proposed to allow all sorts of religious schools funded by tax dollars about 10 years ago. This would have made society much more fractured.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Whatabouting questions like this don't really serve any purpose to the discussion. Couldn't care less about what happens in other countries, especially in the past, and Canada is the country where we do have some level of control over policy measures as they relate to indigenous people.

Saying other countries did the same or worse as a crutch does not excuse our past and continued treatment of indigenous communities in this country.

Comparison is an analytical tool used in nearly all fields of endeavour, including history and political science. The fact that the results of comparison is inconvenient for your narrative does not discredit its usefulness as a tool.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I tend to agree, however, this is a constitutional issue that requires sufficient political will in Ontario. This has not existed, unlike in Quebec and Newfoundland that had sufficient consensus to pull this off.

I.

Yeah I am aware of all of that.

It's still quite telling that there is no consensus to get rid of it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am very thankful that we did not elect a Conservative government that proposed to allow all sorts of religious schools funded by tax dollars about 10 years ago. This would have made society much more fractured.

It's a very weird (and dare I say, somewhat Canadian) trait to react to something that's indefensible and objectionable by extending it even more broadly to everyone, so that no one can bitch that they didn't get "theirs".

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yeah I am aware of all of that.

It's still quite telling that there is no consensus to get rid of it.

Ontario is roughly 1/3 catholic. There is an arithmetic problem.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Comparison is an analytical tool used in nearly all fields of endeavour, including history and political science. The fact that the results of comparison is inconvenient for your narrative does not discredit its usefulness as a tool.

It's actually been quite common throughout human history for the intellectual and academic milieu, for all its enlightenment, to still be subject to religious tenets that cannot really be questioned. (You had to be a real trailblazing iconoclast to go against the grain.)

Weird how today's social climate is feeling eerily like some of these bygone eras.

There is a quasi-religious fervour and intolerance in a lot of what we're hearing.

Ironic, innit?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ontario is roughly 1/3 catholic. There is an arithmetic problem.

Yes, though Quebec was probably over 80% (nominally) Catholic when it made the change.

Though obviously there were different socio-political imperatives at play in that case.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's a very weird (and dare I say, somewhat Canadian) trait to react to something that's indefensible and objectionable by extending it even more broadly to everyone, so that no one can bitch that they didn't get "theirs".

I think that’s a completely different beast. It’s more of an ideological move that would have allowed for a massive expansion of private education like what occurred in the US. It would have inevitably been at the expense of public education.

This all goes back to the bigger question of how and when we should change the constitutional bargain made by the founding peoples - Catholic-Protestant, French-English etc. Not a simple question. In the case of education, I think there have been benefits. The fact that we have choice in public education has helped ward off the type of privatization of education seen in the US.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think that’s a completely different beast. It’s more of an ideological move that would have allowed for a massive expansion of private education like what occurred in the US. It would have inevitably been at the expense of public education. I actually think that the fact that we have choice in public education has helped ward that off.

This all goes back to the bigger question of how and when we should change the constitutional bargain made by the founding peoples - Catholic-Protestant, French-English etc. Not a simple question. In the case of education, I think there have been benefits. The fact that we have choice in public education has helped ward off the type of privatization of education seen in the US.

I realize that.

Full disclosure: we aren't devout Catholics but if I were in Ontario I would probably send my kids to French Catholic school.

But to my broader point, consider how some people's reaction to the Sikhs and helmets debate is to make helmets optional for everyone.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I realize that.

Full disclosure: we aren't devout Catholics but if I were in Ontario I would probably send my kids to French Catholic school.

But to my broader point, consider how some people's reaction to the Sikhs and helmets debate is to make helmets optional for everyone.

Understood. As to the points made on the share of the population, I'd just add that a) minority protections in the Constitution can't be changed by a simple majority vote and b) it may not have been the case in Quebec, but in Ontario substantial numbers of non-Catholics attend Catholic schools.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yes, though Quebec was probably over 80% (nominally) Catholic when it made the change.

Though obviously there were different socio-political imperatives at play in that case.

But I think the difference is that in Quebec and Newfoundland protestants also had schools, so the question was one of everyone (or a large portion of the population) “giving up” their schools. In Ontario, only Catholics have taxpayer funded schools (as the Protestant boards had long been secular), so it is a matter of asking a privileged plurality to give up their schools.