First Nations in Canada

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It doesn't matter what I or anybody else says - we'll just get the runaround dogwhistle regardless. There's not much point trying to discuss these things here because there's no actual interest in genuine discussion.

What you define as a lack of interest in genuine discussion is really just disagreement. The discussions don't proceed to your liking because they get stalled by questioning things that you assume should be axiomatic.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

What you define as a lack of interest in genuine discussion is really just disagreement. The discussions don't proceed to your liking because they get stalled by questioning things that you assume should be axiomatic.

I've mentioned before that on these political and values issues on SSP there is a strong longing for unanimity and consensus.

The expectation I think is that due to this forum's urban focus, there shouldn't be any discord on matters such as whether trans women should have access to battered women's shelters alongside biological women who've been raped, or that no one can ever be racist against white people.

City lovers may disagree on whether a building is suitable for its location, or whether LRT vs. heavy rail metro is the best option for a given corridor.

But they're not supposed to disagree on the fundamental values of the "polis".

There exists an idealized vision that if you're in any way an urbanite, there is a minimum suite of views you're expected to have, and a threshold that shan't be crossed.

Expectations of this nature are probably why this place is so conflictual.

[dleung]

Liojack/Rousseau goes onto a thread about 215 dead indigenous children, immediately starts whining about statues like every BLM thread, acts victimized by the word "settler", jokes about needing reparations as part-Norse descendants for Thule oppression circa 1000 BCE, then asks "why can't we have healthy debate??"

[urbandreamer]

I think it's natural to defend one's own people. Most of the institutions we take for granted now in Canada were founded by English, French and Scottish immigrants 200-400 years ago. Egerton Ryerson was a decent man, guided by his training in Europe and his interactions with the Mississaugas. The fact the university did nothing first is the real controversy. My mother in particular is upset with what happened last weekend - she was friends with both Egerton's grandson and great grandson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanle...A9haut_Ryerson

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

I think it's natural to defend one's own people. Most of the institutions we take for granted now in Canada were founded by English, French and Scottish immigrants 200-400 years ago. Egerton Ryerson was a decent man, guided by his training in Europe and his interactions with the Mississaugas. The fact the university did nothing first is the real controversy. My mother in particular is upset with what happened last weekend - she was friends with both Egerton's grandson and great grandson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanle...A9haut_Ryerson

Yes it is hard-wired into our brains to be ethnocentric, to empathize most with those perceived to be our fellow kin. The challenge of the modern world has been to expand ourselves beyond that more basic, but also necessary and often beautiful human trait. We survived and became the species we are today because we were able to focus on those kinship bonds, but those bonds were also what divided us and caused great harm.

[urbandreamer]

Not always divided. Some English and Scots who moved to India and Pakistan intermarried and become part of the country's history; same goes for the many Persian businessmen in India eg Tata. I have this phrase I use "10-1": For every ten people who immigrate, 1 fully integrates and intermarries. I think the modern world - frequent, affordable and fast transportation, smartphones - Google translate, etc - has made it easier for us not to integrate. I think of my own experience in Montreal: although my French was limited, I worked with many Quebecois. Twenty years ago most of us didn't have cell phones so on breaks/lunch we'd all socialize together, mostly segregated between smokers and nonsmokers. I learned about spreading butter/margarine on pizza! Some of the friendliest people were hardcore separatists. Today it's become very segregated in lunch rooms with our heads buried in our own social networks on our phones; often newer immigrants spend their entire breaks video chatting with their family "back home."

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by dleung

Liojack/Rousseau goes onto a thread about 215 dead indigenous children, immediately starts whining about statues like every BLM thread, acts victimized by the word "settler", jokes about needing reparations as part-Norse descendants for Thule oppression circa 1000 BCE, then asks "why can't we have healthy debate??"

Yes, some debates are tiring based on the importance of what is being discussed and the lack of appropriate respect paid to that by some participants. No one wants to argue with Drunk Uncle ad nauseam.

It does come down to differences of opinion but we all pick and choose who we find worthy of our effort. You don’t discuss politics with a toddler. The guy blaring out religious condemnation on a street corner is usually best ignored. These are extreme examples but the concept is similar.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

Not always divided. Some English and Scots who moved to India and Pakistan intermarried and become part of the country's history; same goes for the many Persian businessmen in India eg Tata. I have this phrase I use "10-1": For every ten people who immigrate, 1 fully integrates and intermarries.

Yes, we have always been capable of forging new kinship ties.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Reflecting on statues of "important people"... are they really that important?

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, which probably started sometime in 2017, when the statue of Edward Cornwallis in Halifax became a contentious issue. I won't go into the history of Cornwallis, because that information is easily found on the net. The statue was installed in the 1930s by CNR, along with some funding from the provincial and municipal governments. I want to discuss it on a more personal level, from the perspective of a non-indigenous person.

Being a lifetime Halifax resident, I was first put off by the protests and the basis of the First Nations peoples' contention that the statue should be removed because Cornwallis had put a bounty on the scalps of Mi'kmaw people (back in the mid 1700s). In my studies of history, I had read that Cornwallis' bounty was a reaction to the killing of English men (who were clearing land in Dartmouth) by Mi'kmaws who were basically recruited by the French military to attack the English fortifications. Info at link.

My reaction at the time was that they were attempting to revise history by attempting to provide only part of the story of Cornwallis' proclamation, and thus demanding the removal of his statue. Eventually, I started asking myself: "what is history?".

IMHO, history is typically an account written after the event, based on written and spoken stories, and other forms of information, documented to be accessed later. Whose documentation? Usually the victorious party, and/or the party who had the means to record and retain information in some sort of document. Parts of the story that weren't documented will never be known.

Why is this important? In this case, events that happened 270-ish years ago can have historical documentation that purposely portrays one side as being 'right' and the other side as being 'wrong'. Regardless, they were tumultuous times, and with all their ugliness they make up what we call Canada today.

With all that in mind, I started wondering why it would be considered important to keep a statue of some guy who is credited with founding Halifax all those years ago. After all, he was just some English military guy doing his job with all the ugliness attached to it. In reality, he was just a cog in England's war with France to see who could conquer another land yet unclaimed by a European country (both of which who used, abused, and displaced the indigenous people who lived here before their arrivals). What value is there in commemorating one person who played a role in history, when the building of Halifax (and Canada) to what it is today is such a complex history of good deeds and bad deeds, positive events and atrocities, etc etc?

What value is there in having a statue that brings about pain to part of our population, specifically our indigenous peoples? Can we as a society be better than that?

Through all this, my personal conclusion was that the only fair and logical action is to remove the statue, and stop commemorating a time when there was war between invaders, and horrific consequences for the indigenous - and attempt to move forward as a society.

To that point, Halifax has started the process:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7933829/c...iendship-park/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...paul-1.6058513

Architectural proposal:
https://fathomstudio.ca/our-work/cornwallis-park

I think the only way to move forward and to evolve as a society - as a Canada that is the best form of itself for all of its people - is to think about things like this... statues for example. IMHO we need to stop digging our heels in to defend what we think is sacred, and start to look at things from others' points of view. (Why do we need statues of people anyway?)

At least this is what I'm trying to do. Others' experiences will most certainly differ from mine...

[MonctonRad]

Very thoughtful post Mark

There's a lot to think about there.

History is written by the victors, and the full story is never really known, but I do think that we should continue to honour famous or influential people, and one way to do so is with a statue.

Political or military figures can be controversial, and perhaps great care should be taken in deciding how these people are commemorated.

Other people who make substantial contributions however are non controversial. I doubt anyone would deface Terry Fox's statue near Thunder Bay for example.

I don't see any reason why we cant continue to erect statues to heroes, philosophers, scientists or humanitarians. Maybe even the odd politician could be considered too.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by rousseau

What you define as a lack of interest in genuine discussion is really just disagreement. The discussions don't proceed to your liking because they get stalled by questioning things that you assume should be axiomatic.

No, it's a wilful desire to whatabout and defer away from the actual topic because it's not something they either agree with or are uncomfortable with. Instead of discussing exhumed Indigenous bodies and why that's an issue let's instead discuss Norse settlements. Instead of discussing BLM and why it exists let's discuss vandalism by blacks. Instead of discussing white domestic terrorists let's talk about literally anything else. It's a pretty obvious pattern.

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

History is written by the victors, and the full story is never really known, but I do think that we should continue to honour famous or influential people, and one way to do so is with a statue.

Political or military figures can be controversial, and perhaps great care should be taken in deciding how these people are commemorated.

If you go down this path then your definition of famous or influential is going to 1) mean different things to different people, and 2) change over time. Your statue might make sense in 1950 but it won't in 2000 or 2050. And that's if it doesn't divide people when it goes up. If someone was influential enough surely their work and influence would be visible enough to not require a giant statue of their being imposing somewhere. There's a saying about being rich: the people that talk the loudest about being rich probably aren't. Influential people are similar.

Originally Posted by dleung

Liojack/Rousseau goes onto a thread about 215 dead indigenous children, immediately starts whining about statues like every BLM thread, acts victimized by the word "settler", jokes about needing reparations as part-Norse descendants for Thule oppression circa 1000 BCE, then asks "why can't we have healthy debate??"

Somehow I must also be a victim, but how?? It's not fair that everyone else can be a victim but me!

[lio45]

^ Are you serious? "How??" That's a ridiculously easy question. My people (and Acajack's) were totally genocided by the Anglos. Some aspects of the cultural genocide are even still going on to this day. No need to look hard for reasons to be a victim at all.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

^ Are you serious? "How??" That's a ridiculously easy question. My people (and Acajack's) were totally genocided by the Anglos. Some aspects of the cultural genocide are even still going on to this day. No need to look hard for reasons to be a victim at all.

What is cultural genocide?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Reflecting on statues of "important people"... are they really that important?

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, which probably started sometime in 2017, when the statue of Edward Cornwallis in Halifax became a contentious issue. I won't go into the history of Cornwallis, because that information is easily found on the net. The statue was installed in the 1930s by CNR, along with some funding from the provincial and municipal governments. I want to discuss it on a more personal level, from the perspective of a non-indigenous person.

Being a lifetime Halifax resident, I was first put off by the protests and the basis of the First Nations peoples' contention that the statue should be removed because Cornwallis had put a bounty on the scalps of Mi'kmaw people (back in the mid 1700s). In my studies of history, I had read that Cornwallis' bounty was a reaction to the killing of English men (who were clearing land in Dartmouth) by Mi'kmaws who were basically recruited by the French military to attack the English fortifications. Info at link.

My reaction at the time was that they were attempting to revise history by attempting to provide only part of the story of Cornwallis' proclamation, and thus demanding the removal of his statue. Eventually, I started asking myself: "what is history?".

IMHO, history is typically an account written after the event, based on written and spoken stories, and other forms of information, documented to be accessed later. Whose documentation? Usually the victorious party, and/or the party who had the means to record and retain information in some sort of document. Parts of the story that weren't documented will never be known.

Why is this important? In this case, events that happened 270-ish years ago can have historical documentation that purposely portrays one side as being 'right' and the other side as being 'wrong'. Regardless, they were tumultuous times, and with all their ugliness they make up what we call Canada today.

With all that in mind, I started wondering why it would be considered important to keep a statue of some guy who is credited with founding Halifax all those years ago. After all, he was just some English military guy doing his job with all the ugliness attached to it. In reality, he was just a cog in England's war with France to see who could conquer another land yet unclaimed by a European country (both of which who used, abused, and displaced the indigenous people who lived here before their arrivals). What value is there in commemorating one person who played a role in history, when the building of Halifax (and Canada) to what it is today is such a complex history of good deeds and bad deeds, positive events and atrocities, etc etc?

What value is there in having a statue that brings about pain to part of our population, specifically our indigenous peoples? Can we as a society be better than that?

Through all this, my personal conclusion was that the only fair and logical action is to remove the statue, and stop commemorating a time when there was war between invaders, and horrific consequences for the indigenous - and attempt to move forward as a society.

To that point, Halifax has started the process:
https://globalnews.ca/news/7933829/c...iendship-park/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...paul-1.6058513

Architectural proposal:
https://fathomstudio.ca/our-work/cornwallis-park

I think the only way to move forward and to evolve as a society - as a Canada that is the best form of itself for all of its people - is to think about things like this... statues for example. IMHO we need to stop digging our heels in to defend what we think is sacred, and start to look at things from others' points of view. (Why do we need statues of people anyway?)

At least this is what I'm trying to do. Others' experiences will most certainly differ from mine...

really good post. Many excellent points worth pondering.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

If you go down this path then your definition of famous or influential is going to 1) mean different things to different people, and 2) change over time. Your statue might make sense in 1950 but it won't in 2000 or 2050. And that's if it doesn't divide people when it goes up. If someone was influential enough surely their work and influence would be visible enough to not require a giant statue of their being imposing somewhere.

So, Terry Fox shouldn't get a statue then...…..

[dleung]

Totally cool with statues going up, but some here seem to think they're sacred once erected and must continue to be honoured in our public spaces because "history". If those who are honoured in the past for being exemplary for their time no longer meet today's standard, their statues should go in a museum rather than continue to be honoured. Mr Ryerson isn't a villain; he's just a product of a time and way of thinking that we no longer uphold.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by dleung

Totally cool with statues going up, but some here seem to think they're sacred once erected and must continue to be honoured in our public spaces because "history". If those who are honoured in the past for being exemplary for their time no longer meet today's standard, their statues should go in a museum rather than continue to be honoured. Mr Ryerson isn't a villain; he's just a product of a time and way of thinking that we no longer uphold.

I have no problem with a statue getting "retired" if it is no longer felt representative or relevant - just so long as it is not a mob which is making this decision. Mobs are inherently violent and undemocratic.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What is cultural genocide?

I'm sure you don't actually need to ask that, but just in case, cultural genocide is, as we all know, stuff like the inability to order a 7up on an Air Canada flight and all the rest of these things.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by lio45

^ Are you serious? "How??" That's a ridiculously easy question. My people (and Acajack's) were totally genocided by the Anglos. Some aspects of the cultural genocide are even still going on to this day. No need to look hard for reasons to be a victim at all.

All very true, and it seems that that has unleashed some strong emotions.

So why is there such a difficulty empathizing with the struggles of other groups?

You can’t use your victimization to invalidate the victimization of others. It doesn’t work that way.

[MolsonExport]

tragic. I had to sit my kids down one night, and tell them about that very serious issue and the horrors that it entailed. My daughter started sobbing when he heard that the flight attendant had the temerity to answer Michel Thibodeau's request for a 7-up in English. My son felt that the $12K compensation received by Mr Thibodeau was grossly inadequate: "He should have got 100 times more, at least!".

Around my house, it is always Sept-haut