General Updates and News

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

A neighbourhood is not necessarily bad just because it is high density, but that is what a lot of planners were arguing in the 50's and 60's. That was the point of view behind the 1950's clearances in Halifax.

Well, plus the fact that they were some of most filthy, run-down, dangerous slum areas of the city.

[Ziobrop]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

The description of the new group sounds good.

Although, I'm not sure Jane Jacobs needs to be deified -- she brought some very good urban design ideas, but she also has damaged things too. Part of her philosophical legacy is found in urban NIMBYism. She opposed height and density and arguably has some responsibility for present versions of it, including sprawl and skyrocketing property values and housing costs in most urban centers.

City building guru Jane Jacobs' legacy is high house prices and sprawl, says former Vancouver Mayor
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/vanco...ayor-1.3570609

Sounds like Halifax and Vancouver suffered similar fates from the 1970s onward. Except, we codified this philosophy in the Ramparts and Viewplane laws, which remain untouchable decades on. Thankfully, HRMxD has ameliorated this to some extent, but with The Doyle, we still see the problem. A skyscraper could have saved Maritime Life. Jacobs' would have opposed such a compromise.

And then there's the environmental factor:

Opinion Jane Jacobs got it wrong on density, says Harvard economist
http://citycaucus.com/2010/05/jane-j...ard-economist/


And:




A lot of this is heretical to contemporary planning thought. Jacobs is still deified and it is "widely accepted" that medium-density is the ideal and skyscrapers should be avoided for good planning. And yet, the housing costs continue to skyrocket...

The Idea of the group is not to Deitify Jane Jacobs. The name for the group was appropriated from AGBNY in Homage, but also because it better described what i wanted to accomplish then "Architectural Conservancy of Nova Scotia" or other such names.

so far i have a number of people who have given their names as being interested. To Incorporate, i require 5 directors - if you want to help found the group, please let me know.

also if you have ideas about how it should be organized, or work it should do, please let me know - Im attempting to form a true community group - Not a Peter Dictates organization - the more voices the better.

Until the group actually forms as an entity, im trying to keep it to interested parties. once iis established, then we can go out generally and gain members.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, plus the fact that they were some of most filthy, run-down, dangerous slum areas of the city.

You could say the same thing about the Falkland/Maynard area here, or SoHo in NYC, or Mile End in Montreal, to cite just a few examples.

That article also isn't saying Jacobs was wrong, but that cities have changed since her day. The basic principles of Jacobs-esque urbanism are sound, but the return to the city movement has wrought population and affordability pressures, which mean we need to be more flexible with regards to density than many of the Jacobs-era activists are used to.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The vote was close, but IMHO the right decision was made:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...ote-in-halifax

[OldDartmouthMark]

More on the Steele Auto issue:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1...alifax-council

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The vote was close, but IMHO the right decision was made:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...ote-in-halifax

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to help our reputation as a City "plagued by White Supremacy".

https://twitter.com/vicecanada/statu...32903786020865

VICE clickbait!

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to help our reputation as a City "plagued by White Supremacy".

https://twitter.com/vicecanada/statu...32903786020865

VICE clickbait!

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm...

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm...

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

FWIW, I should say that I think that Vice tweet is ludicrous.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

FWIW, I should say that I think that Vice tweet is ludicrous.

I figured that you did. But still... it's out there.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is the Cornwallis issue a race issue? If that's the case, then the whole settlement of North America by the Europeans was an act of racism.

I don't know where to start in qualifying the actions done by several countries during acts of war and conquering of territories over 250 years ago...
Exploratory? maybe.
Greed? likely.
Racism? Hmmm...

At what point do we just accept history as history, right or wrong, and look to creating a better future? There are a lot more things happening in the here and now that need our energy and compassion. Let's move on.

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

But is that what we are actually doing? Are we elevating and honouring the man, or are we recognizing the founding of our city?

If it is felt that we are honouring the man, then as mentioned before, keep the statue there but insert a narrative of accurate historical information to keep it in perspective. Include a timeline of all attrocities done by all parties that led to Halifax being what it is today. That's not glorifying the man, it's telling the people that the city that they are enjoying today did not become this way easily. It was a nasty, difficult time, and one horrible act led to another - but we are past that now. We are a better society now than we were in the 1700s. We can all attempt to live in harmony and make the world a better place. But, we need to understand what got us here so future generations can realize how bad things can get if we don't -all- continue to work together to keep it this way.

If having the statue elevated bothers people, then take the stand out from under it. Keep it at eye level and flank it with placards offering the story to those who want to educate themselves.

It's our history, and sugar-coating it or erasing remnants of it so as to not offend anyone is not doing anybody any favours.

We cannot erase the fact that two foreign countries were at war back in the 1700s, trying to take control of a land that was already inhabited, and its people - it's real and it's ugly, but I don't think it means that changing the name of Cornwallis Street, or George's Island, or Halifax, or Nova Scotia or whatever... is the what needs to happen to improve things. Let's educate, not eradicate.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

But this is happening in the here and now, especially that statue. As a society, do we still want to elevate and honour, with public statuary, someone like Cornwallis? Or do we want to put his story in the history books and take down a statue that represents hate and violence to a lot of Haligonians?

Then those Haligonians are misinformed. He founded the city as a British colonialist, for all that means both good and bad. If he had not done what he was sent here to do there would be no Halifax as we know it. It is a very complex issue that cannot be condensed into a tweet or a TV news sound bite. There was much brutality on all sides. That's the way it was back then. Depending upon who is telling the tale there are a number of very different versions of the truth. Given that it happened 266 years ago there are no eyewitnesses and few reliable accounts. You can look up things like the Dartmouth Massacre to see the type of actions that led to his supposed crimes. It is not so much revisionist history as much as a dumbing down of it that currently afflicts us. Progressives and the left, perpetually plagued by white guilt, see such symbols of the past as threatening to their vision of utopia and so want them scrubbed. It is beyond ludicrous.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Then those Haligonians are misinformed. He founded the city as a British colonialist, for all that means both good and bad. If he had not done what he was sent here to do there would be no Halifax as we know it. It is a very complex issue that cannot be condensed into a tweet or a TV news sound bite. There was much brutality on all sides. That's the way it was back then. Depending upon who is telling the tale there are a number of very different versions of the truth. Given that it happened 266 years ago there are no eyewitnesses and few reliable accounts. You can look up things like the Dartmouth Massacre to see the type of actions that led to his supposed crimes. It is not so much revisionist history as much as a dumbing down of it that currently afflicts us. Progressives and the left, perpetually plagued by white guilt, see such symbols of the past as threatening to their vision of utopia and so want them scrubbed. It is beyond ludicrous.

Please do not even remotely try to speak for me. I am a progressive and a left of centre person and I do not agree with the current fad of tearing down/erasing history. Or sanitizing it. This is not in the tradition of progressivism or the left at all but a recent phenomenon imposed for the most part by over zealous Genx/Millennials who want everything to be just-so in case it sets off some ridiculous trigger in them. History is messy and murderous and ripping down statues and renaming parks does absolutely nothing to mitigate anything. This bizarre social hysteria is happening all across North America with Student Councils and University kids. Cornwallis founded the city whether people like it or not. Get over it kiddies.

[lawsond]

Whoopsie. I see that this was not in fact, generated by some hormonally elevated Student Council Committee. But my point remains the same. I essentially agree with Keith P. on that point. But Mr. P. seriously, you have no idea what contributions the Mik'Maq have made? The entire province of Nova Scotia is their contribution. They were the custodians before Europeans arrived. And since we have no intention of giving it back, a statue here or there is not out of line........at the very, very least.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But is that what we are actually doing? Are we elevating and honouring the man, or are we recognizing the founding of our city?

If it is felt that we are honouring the man, then as mentioned before, keep the statue there but insert a narrative of accurate historical information to keep it in perspective. Include a timeline of all attrocities done by all parties that led to Halifax being what it is today. That's not glorifying the man, it's telling the people that the city that they are enjoying today did not become this way easily. It was a nasty, difficult time, and one horrible act led to another - but we are past that now. We are a better society now than we were in the 1700s. We can all attempt to live in harmony and make the world a better place. But, we need to understand what got us here so future generations can realize how bad things can get if we don't -all- continue to work together to keep it this way.

If having the statue elevated bothers people, then take the stand out from under it. Keep it at eye level and flank it with placards offering the story to those who want to educate themselves.

It's our history, and sugar-coating it or erasing remnants of it so as to not offend anyone is not doing anybody any favours.

We cannot erase the fact that two foreign countries were at war back in the 1700s, trying to take control of a land that was already inhabited, and its people - it's real and it's ugly, but I don't think it means that changing the name of Cornwallis Street, or George's Island, or Halifax, or Nova Scotia or whatever... is the what needs to happen to improve things. Let's educate, not eradicate.

There's a statue of the guy elevated on a pedestal in the middle of a park named after him. Cripes, yes, it's an implicit honour. And the statue hasn't been there since Cornwallis' day, either, it was out there in 1931 because some CN Rail bigwigs thought it would be a good idea.

I agree that we should educate, not eradicate. But the motion before council this week was basically to do the former, and it was shut down because people were afraid it meant the latter.

[pblaauw]

Originally Posted by lawsond

Whoopsie. I see that this was not in fact, generated by some hormonally elevated Student Council Committee. But my point remains the same. I essentially agree with Keith P. on that point. But Mr. P. seriously, you have no idea what contributions the Mik'Maq have made? The entire province of Nova Scotia is their contribution. They were the custodians before Europeans arrived. And since we have no intention of giving it back, a statue here or there is not out of line........at the very, very least.

a) "Contributions" are usually/always given willingly.

b) They weren't custodians. They were inhabitants. Residents. It was there HOME.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

There's a statue of the guy elevated on a pedestal in the middle of a park named after him. Cripes, yes, it's an implicit honour. And the statue hasn't been there since Cornwallis' day, either, it was out there in 1931 because some CN Rail bigwigs thought it would be a good idea.

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

I'm sorry, that is far too long for a Twitter post, so it will not be tolerated.



Seriously, you have it exactly correct. Sadly, the SJW brigade does not want to hear it and the majority of people who support the true intent of the Mason motion (i.e. scrubbing) are not likely to want to bother understanding the history.

One suspects that if the motion came from someone other than MasonWatts that it would have had a much better chance of success.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Isn't that also interesting history though? It would be a positive change to put up some interpretive material explaining the history of the founding of the city and the construction of the park. Maybe some statues of Mi'kmaq and Acadian figures from the period could be added as well, and the park could tell the story of Father LeLoutre's War. The proposals around getting rid of the statue or removing the Cornwallis name all strike me as being very negative; I suspect a lot of the outraged people can't articulate a positive vision of how the history should be presented because they have at best a very limited understanding of it.

My take on this is that Cornwallis lived so long ago that it is a bit far-fetched to treat this as a raw social issue, and that like it or not he did orchestrate the successful founding of the city and is a key historical figure that's about as worthy of commemoration as anybody else. The notion of Cornwallis as a kind of mid-18th century Hitler figure really falls apart when you read the history and get a sense of what the period was like. The Mi'kmaq actually started the scalping and murdering and there were repeated peace talks that fell through; Cornwallis' root offence seems to be that he may have violated a 1726 treaty while under somebody else's orders.

As an aside, the Mi'kmaq played a role in settling and raiding Newfoundland, with the help of newly-introduced European technology (at least small sailing ships if not also firearms), killing and displacing the Beothuk who actually did go extinct (today you can find close Mi'kmaq descendants on the island but not Beothuk descendants). Are Mi'kmaq leaders from the 17th and 18th centuries guilty of participating in genocide? I don't think a question like that makes much sense; such judgements are so disconnected from their true historical contexts that they are meaningless.

Thank you. Very well stated.

[Nor'easter]

The news articles on the Cornwallis issue continuously insist that the bounty was issued on the scalps of Mi'kmaq men, women and children. Is there any evidence that the proclamation specifically included women and children, or that a bounty was indeed paid for the scalp of a woman or child?

From what I understand the following is the excerpt from the council meeting minutes:

“That, in their opinion, to declare war formally against the Micmac Indians would be a manner to own them a free and independent people, whereas they ought to be treated as so many Banditti Ruffians, or Rebels, to His Majesty's Government.

“That, in order to secure the Province from further attempts of the Indians, some effectual methods should be taken to pursue them to their haunts, and show them that because of such actions, they shall not be secure within the Province.

“That, a Company of Volunteers, not exceeding fifty men, be immediately raised in the Settlement to scour the wood all around the Town.

“That, a Company of one hundred men be raised in New England to join with Gorham's during the winter, and go over the whole Province....

“That, a reward of ten Guineas be granted for every Indian Micmac taken, or killed."

And the following was proclaimed by Cornwallis the next day:

"Whereas, notwithstanding the gracious offers of friendship and protection made in His Majesty's Names by us to the Indians inhabiting this Province, The Micmacs have of late in a most treacherous manner taken 20 of His Majesty's Subjects prisoners at Canso, and carried off a sloop belonging to Boston, and a boat from this Settlement and at Chinecto basely and under pretence of friendship and commerce. Attempted to seize two English Sloops and murder their crews and actually killed severals, and on Saturday the 30th of September, a body of these savages fell upon some men cutting wood and without arms near the saw mill and barbarously killed four and carried one away.

"For, those cause we by and with the advice and consent of His Majesty's Council, do hereby authorize and command all Officers Civil and Military, and all His Majesty's Subjects or others to annoy, distress, take or destroy the Savage commonly called Micmac, wherever they are found, and all as such as aiding and assisting them, give further by and with the consent and advice of His Majesty's Council, do promise a reward of ten Guineas for every Indian Micmac taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such Savage taken or his scalp if killed to the Officer Commanding."

I see no mention of women or children specifically. It would seem that proponents of this plan to expunge our city of anything "Cornwallis" are writing their own narrative of history to suit their agenda, unless there is evidence to the contrary.