General Updates and News

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by someone123

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.

I suspect that's true, but I also suspect that most of the pro-statue proponents also have a very limited understanding of history themselves, that doesn't extend much beyond high school history and popular conceptions (and misconceptions). The majority of the pro-statue arguments boil down to the simplistic idea that to do remove it would be to "scrub away" history.

As for it not being raw because it was 300 years ago, well, the ramifications of 300 years ago are still being felt today in Indigenous communities. Higher mortality, suicide rates, drug abuse, violence, poverty, etc, all directly linked, through the generations, back to colonization.

I don't understand how people can make the "it was 300 years ago" argument. In many ways, it's right now.

Originally Posted by someone123

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.
I think it's very important to remember the atrocities and wrongdoing on both sides of the conflicts from which Canada was born.

I think this understates Cornwallis' crimes, but fundamentally it's true: shit was complicated. So why do we want to shut down a public discussion over it in favour of the very simplistic status quo situation?

Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

As for it not being raw because it was 300 years ago, well, the ramifications of 300 years ago are still being felt today in Indigenous communities. Higher mortality, suicide rates, drug abuse, violence, poverty, etc, all directly linked, through the generations, back to colonization.

You surely are not blaming Cornwallis for that? Those problems, real as they are, in many instances are self-inflicted thanks to a desire to live in a way that no longer exists. Again, nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

See above. Us colonial descendants spend many billions a year to support the system that the native people claim they want to maintain, yet the deplorable conditions still exist. Something is fundamentally wrong with the system. I make no claim to understand what would fix it. But when I see that much public money going to seemingly no good end I have to question why.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

I suspect much of the reason was due to it coming from Mason. He has made it clear that he wants the name and all other references removed. That is his only objective. To try to put up a smokescreen by saying all he wanted was a discussion was a facade that many other council members saw through. Keep in mind that there has been a pretty consistent anti-MasonWatts bloc on Council for a while now. If the motion had come from someone else who truthfully actually just wanted to have a discussion and did not have a hidden agenda it might have stood a chance.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

So why do we want to shut down a public discussion over it in favour of the very simplistic status quo situation?

Is it not those who want to remove all traces of this man that want to shut down public discussion? Has public discussion actually been shut down?

Yes, it's important to understand the atrocities on both sides of Canada's originating conflicts. But there's no getting around the fact that the society we live in today was predominantly created by the invading force in that conflict, and the descendants of the subjugated peoples are still living with that, in what remains for them a colonial state, in which virtually every single yardstick of quality of life is worse for them. I don't know why this is so difficult for Canadians to deal with. It's not about "white guilt" (I don't feel guilty, because I'm not culpable). It's about an honest accounting of history.

Again, all of these arguments for or against Mason's motion seem to fixate on whether we should rename everything or not, and that's not the motion was about. It was about just talking about this shit, and we rejected it.

Again, has the discussion stopped? I don't believe so. The fact that we are having this online discussion right now is evidence that the discussion is very much alive. I suspect that it will continue for a long time.

The larger issue you're talking about confounds me a little. There's no debating that the "subjugated peoples" were certainly negatively affected by colonialism. One doesn't have to look very far to find evidence and stories on how First Nations people have been mistreated and abused throughout our history (one doesn't even need 'high school history' to understand this). That's not up for debate, it's fact.

However, today, in 2016, everybody should have the opportunity to strive forward and be vital in today's society. In fact, a large percentage of Canada's population do not have descendants that lived in Canada in the 1700s. Many of them emigrated to Canada with nothing, yet many have overcome severe strife in their home country, cultural and racial prejudice, language barriers, etc. (in their new country), to become successful and vital in our current Canadian society. They don't ask for anything but an opportunity to have a good life and to be able to support their families.

I can't help but wonder if we (the government and citizens of Canada) should now be doing more than just apologizing for the misdeeds of the founders of our country, and find a way to help the First Nations people escape all the negativity of their current and past situations, to help them work into today's society more fluidly. Reservation life does not seem to be treating their people very well, and they deserve to have the same quality of life that all other Canadians are able to work hard and strive for.

Yet, the best we can offer is to remove statues and change names...

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Is it not those who want to remove all traces of this man that want to shut down public discussion? Has public discussion actually been shut down?

Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis. The discussion hasn't stopped, but it's back to being informal now, hashed out in internet forums and the like. The motion would have formalized it and had us taken some action.

My thinking is that if such a substantial number of Indigenous Canadians are saying this is an issue for them, who are we to tell them "no, it's old news, don't worry about it." Why do we have a right to dictate what is and is not a matter of concern?

Sheesh.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis. The discussion hasn't stopped, but it's back to being informal now, hashed out in internet forums and the like. The motion would have formalized it and had us taken some action.

My thinking is that if such a substantial number of Indigenous Canadians are saying this is an issue for them, who are we to tell them "no, it's old news, don't worry about it." Why do we have a right to dictate what is and is not a matter of concern?

Sheesh.

The item for council:

http://www.halifax.ca/council/agenda...60510ca171.pdf

The wording seems a little wishy-washy and definitely leaves some room for interpretation, but there's no doubt that the underlying theme is a movement to remove and rename. But... whatever.

I get where you're coming from in general, but hesitate a little on the point that if an issue is found offensive to any group that does not recognize the entire story and related context, that the wishes of the group must be adhered to regardless. That doesn't seem very fair either.

Again, the discussion hasn't ended. The vote was close, and I'm sure that the issue will be raised again. There will be an election resulting in some change in council and the opportunity to revisit it will come.

In the meantime, I'm sure if the majority of the citizens of Halifax want change, they will pressure their council members to revisit the issue and affect change. That's how it's supposed to work, as I understand.

My encouragement for you is to keep it alive - have the discussions among your friends, family, coworkers. Write an 'Opinion' piece for the Herald. There have been a number of them done already, one more couldn't hurt (I found this one particularly interesting). Get the word out there and organize like-minded individuals to come together for the cause - educate the public above their high-school level of historical knowledge. How about taking it to the provincial or federal level? The discussions don't have to die because of one council vote.

FWIW, it wouldn't pain me greatly if the statue were to be removed. The physical statue isn't the issue for me - I can't tell you when was the last time I've actually walked up to see it in person. What has my attention is the way that history is being treated.

Let the discussion continue, but let it be an open discussion that doesn't start with an agenda. If the final result of the open discussion is that the statue is removed, then so be it. If it means that we change Halifax's name to Kjipuktuk, then so be it, as long as it is what the majority of citizens agree that it is the right thing to do. But let the discussion include the broader issues of our First Nations people - it's a huge issue that isn't going to be solved easily, and it certainly won't be solved by a group of city councilors voting on a statue... errrr... voting on whether to have a discussion about a statue.

[eastcoastal]

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.

well articulated

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Again, the motion was not about removing all traces of the man. It was about engaging the public in a discussion, after which would follow some action, regarding how to commemorate Cornwallis.

I have a hard time buying this based on the way Waye Mason and media have been running with the issue, the way the issue has been framed, and the classic internet-style outrage that has grown up around it. Why do all of the Cornwallis references specifically need to be dealt with right now? How is an abstract debate around the merits of Cornwallis as a person going to produce good results as far as parks and monuments around the city are concerned?

Cornwallis Park is being updated soon. I think it would be reasonable to evaluate the statue and come up with ideas for what people want in the park. That's a practical debate aimed at improving part of the city. The debate around Cornwallis as a figure on the other hand is abstract and political, and once it's open it will probably just result in empty pandering that scores political points but does not improve the reality on the ground in any way.

In the same way there have been lots of discussions around aboriginal rights across Canada. Part of Shannon Park is getting returned to Millbrook for example and there has been talk of setting up a new Mi'kmaq assembly building in Halifax. For that matter there was a settlement over the residential school issue (which tangibly affected people who are still alive today). How does the Cornwallis statue stack up to these as a factor in the quality of life of Mi'kmaq people alive today? Realistically, it has no material impact.

[Ziobrop]

Lots of people cite Cornwallis as a racist. I don't think he was. He was pretty despicable to all those who opposed him. In 1745 he was sent to put down the Jacobian Risingin the Scottish Highlands. Cornwallis's campaign was later described as one of unrestrained violence. Cornwallis ordered his men to chase off livestock, destroy crops and food stores. Cornwallis's soldiers used rape and mass murder to intimidate Jacobites from further rebellion.

he then came and founded Halifax in 1749. He negotiated a treaty with the Wabanaki Confederacy, however they did not include the Mi'kmaq in Nova scotia who opposed the settlement, and attacked attempting to force the british out. This Was the origins of Cornwallis' Scalping Proclamation - where he put a bounty on the Mi'kmaq. This appears to have been largely unsuccessful, as he was forced to raise the bounty in 1751, and even then, only one scalp was turned in in the 4 months following. The french also paied the Mi'kmaq for british scalps.

anyone who claims Cornwallis wasn't a bad person is ignorant and wrong. He most definitely was.

Im fine with the statue, and things named after the founder of Halifax. I would not be against a second statue commemorating the other side of the conflict.

[OldDartmouthMark]

The discussion continues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...eate-1.3578604

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

The discussion continues:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...eate-1.3578604

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

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?

Records of the scalpings at the hands of paid militia members “are quite sickening,” Paul said.

“Some of the first victims were a group of pregnant Mi’kmaq women who they disemboweled and, of course, killed the children.”

Source

It's not clear if women and children were "meant" to be targeted specifically as per proclamation, but the evidence is that they were. Whether this can be blamed directly on Cornwallis, or whether it was overzealous militia is not really clear to me. Ultimately I do think it's a conversation worth having and I agree that adding more information/monuments to tell a fuller story would be more beneficial than removing the statue. Cornwallis (and other figures from that era) can be commemorated without being seen as role-models.

Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.

[lawsond]

Originally Posted by pblaauw

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

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

Yeah I get that. There was a question of what the the original inhabitants had or have contributed to the province. I was pointing out the "the province" was theirs so that is a pretty huge "contribution" notwithstanding anything else they may have given/ given up. Of course it was and is still their home. So I am agreeing with you.

[Nor'easter]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Source

It's not clear if women and children were "meant" to be targeted specifically as per proclamation, but the evidence is that they were. Whether this can be blamed directly on Cornwallis, or whether it was overzealous militia is not really clear to me. Ultimately I do think it's a conversation worth having and I agree that adding more information/monuments to tell a fuller story would be more beneficial than removing the statue. Cornwallis (and other figures from that era) can be commemorated without being seen as role-models.

Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.

Interesting, although anything from Dan Paul is hardly impartial. I wonder where he got that information from.

Besides the whole "women and children" thing, the fact that "scalping" in general falls into every anti-Cornwallis narrative is a bit sensationalist, attempting to evoke a sense of terror in the listener. They make it sound like Cornwallis asked his people to run around and rip the scalps off living children, when in fact you would be paid your 10 guineas just the same for delivering a live captive.

I suspect the truth is more mundane: a small scale "war" that couldn't be called a war, so an army couldn't be assembled and paid, so instead to raise men for his cause he issued a bounty. A means to prove kills was required, and scalps are the natural choice. Since the Mi'kmaq were also accepting bounties from the French at the time for English kills, this whole episode seems quite routine for the day. I am sure events of a similar scale in the last 500 years have not even been recorded, let alone condemned a few centuries later.

And that's what bothers me most about this: if it's not clear, then why do people like Dan Paul and what seems like most CBC reports describe these events with the conviction of eye witnesses?

If we do indeed provide more historical information at the site and the words "scalps of women and children" find themselves onto the plaques and panels (without substantiation) I will be pretty disappointed.

[JET]

"Then again I'm not of Mi'kmaq, Acadian, or English-colonial descent, so in many ways this isn't really my battle.[/QUOTE]

------------------------------

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

The age old position has often been to stand by, because it is not our battle;
sadly so

[JET]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know if there is a job description for the poet laureate position (and I really don't know why we even have one) but it seems all who have held the position have been constant critics of the city and its citizens. Very odd.

That's a gross overgeneralization; is it mostly the recent appointees that you have issue with? Do you think that they should only provide positive poetry, rather than reflect the reality of our city?

http://www.halifax.ca/culture/Public...etLaureate.php

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by JET

That's a gross overgeneralization; is it mostly the recent appointees that you have issue with? Do you think that they should only provide positive poetry, rather than reflect the reality of our city?

http://www.halifax.ca/culture/Public...etLaureate.php

From the link:

What is a Poet Laureate?

The Halifax Regional Municipality defines the Poet Laureate as a resident poet or spoken word artist who has achieved excellence amongst their peers and whose work is of relevance to the citizens of the region. The Poet Laureate is an advocate for literary arts and reflects the life of the municipality through their work. As an advocate for poetry, language and the arts, the Poet Laureate attends events across the region to promote and attract people to the literary world.

From that, my opinion is that this work "is of relevance to the citizens of the region".

[FuzzyWuz]

We don't have to erase Cornwallis to fix things IMO. Just update things like Cornwallis park to add context. Rename it something like Foundation Park and place lots of information about the history of the place before, during, and since the founding of Halifax. That way we can acknowledge the fact that he founded the garrison but also include the horrible stuff he and his superiors did to anyone who got in their way.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by Nor'easter

Interesting, although anything from Dan Paul is hardly impartial. I wonder where he got that information from.

Besides the whole "women and children" thing, the fact that "scalping" in general falls into every anti-Cornwallis narrative is a bit sensationalist, attempting to evoke a sense of terror in the listener. They make it sound like Cornwallis asked his people to run around and rip the scalps off living children, when in fact you would be paid your 10 guineas just the same for delivering a live captive.

I suspect the truth is more mundane: a small scale "war" that couldn't be called a war, so an army couldn't be assembled and paid, so instead to raise men for his cause he issued a bounty. A means to prove kills was required, and scalps are the natural choice. Since the Mi'kmaq were also accepting bounties from the French at the time for English kills, this whole episode seems quite routine for the day. I am sure events of a similar scale in the last 500 years have not even been recorded, let alone condemned a few centuries later.

And that's what bothers me most about this: if it's not clear, then why do people like Dan Paul and what seems like most CBC reports describe these events with the conviction of eye witnesses?

If we do indeed provide more historical information at the site and the words "scalps of women and children" find themselves onto the plaques and panels (without substantiation) I will be pretty disappointed.

Outstanding post!

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

From the link:

From that, my opinion is that this work "is of relevance to the citizens of the region".

I see "an advocate for poetry, language and the arts", not for every social justice cause that comes along. I think they need to have their role explained to them. A succession of El Jones wannabes will do nothing except to discredit the position.

[cormiermax]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...aint-1.3580675