#20: Healthy
Communities accurately represent their past.
True
Stories
![](images/divider.gif)
|
Across the
country and across the world, there is a movement to take a
more critical look at our heroes from the past. At a local level, when
we set out to celebrate our history, our founding fathers, our notable
citizens, we need to make sure that we are accurately represent both
the people involved and the effect they had.
In Brandon we have at least two streets named after people widely known
for their fraudulent activities relating to railways and real estate.
One of them was an unrepentant veteran of the Confederate Army. On a
lighter note we have a bridge named after a respected Canadian
explorer who never set foot here.
Fortunately we don’t have many statues.
If our goal is to help citizens understand their country, statues don’t
help.
There are two themes at play in the efforts to defend the whole concept
of statues and commemoration.
One line of argument is that by removing a statue we are “erasing
history”.
Another line of argument is that various misdeeds shouldn’t be viewed
through the lens of today’s values – everybody was racist, everybody
was on board with the colonialism and brutality that is part of the
legacy of some of our “heroes”.
The simple answer is that the premise for each argument is factually
untrue. Period. In the case of the erasing history argument, once
we realize that statues are not history, then the second argument, the
“everybody was doing it argument”, becomes irrelevant - but still very
interesting and worthy of study. It might have merit except for the
fact that we often don’t actually know that “everybody was doing it”.
We were told that by the people who were doing it. The truth is
that there were always people who knew better. There were always two
sides to each issue. They put up statues for the side that won at the
time.
To pick another example close to home, if Peter Nygard really is guilty
of the crimes for which he stands accused, I’m sure his victims aren’t
too happy with an “everybody was doing it excuse”. There has always
been sexual abuse. It has always been wrong. It was wrong in 1800. It
is wrong now. The difference is that in 1800 the power structures
supported it. That doesn’t mean everyone agreed. The same is true for
racism and financial crimes.
Statues vs History
Statues are more likely to create history than they are to explain it.
In fact it is the statues and other various forms of commemoration that
create and perpetuate false history. It has taken
historians decades to try and counter myth making involved in the
ridiculous notion that Columbus discovered America. Or that Iraq was
behind the 9/11 attack.
Statues, like other forms of commemoration, are erected for a purpose.
That purpose is often to perpetuate and reinforce a point of view. That
the particular point of view might possibly be wrong should be
self-evident.
In the Southern United States, Statues of Confederate war heroes were
placed to counter any thought
the public might have that their war had been wrong, and that civil
rights for blacks might be worth considering. They appeared when
advocates for civil rights began to gain some attention.
War Memorials that sprang up across the prairies in the early – mid
1920’s also helped reassure people that their war was good and
necessary. They didn’t appear until events such as the Winnipeg
General Strike signaled unrest.
Across Canada the “Highways of Heroes” idea, and a general renewed
interest in veterans, was a direct result of Canadian involvement in
Afghanistan and the fact that many of us opposed it.
Statues aren’t history. They are marketing. Statues erase
history. That is their purpose.
**And even if statutes were history – we keep re-writing history as new
facts emerge – often facts that where intentionally ignored – so we
should be continually be updating statues. Hard to do with bronze – but
nothing like engraving a myth in granite to make it last.
They were just products of their times….
No they weren’t. They were the leaders of their times. They wrote the
history. That history was often as misleading as the statues.
If we are going to judge people by the standard of the times, the first
thing we have to do is know our history. If we think everyone was
a racist in 1885, where are we getting that impression? A cursory look
at even our school history books will offer plenty of evidence that, of
course, millions of people opposed slavery long before the US Civil
War. Many Canadians, including the Leader of the Opposition in
Parliament, opposed the judicially irresponsible conviction and
execution of Louis Riel. Many Canadians, including some officials in
government, were quite vocal about the injustice and brutality evident
in the concept and design of Residential Schools very early on. The
list goes on. There were always people who, even by today’s
standards, were on the right side of the issue of the day, people who
knew better. Even if “everybody was doing it” was a valid
excuse, it simply wasn’t always true. The fact that sixty or seventy
percent of adults in several US states support Donald Trump doesn’t
make them right - today or in the future.
Of course racism was common, to the point of seeming normal. And
leaders who used it as a political weapon had popular
support. Is it really that different today?
There is a big difference between the average Nova Scotian colonist
being a racist and Cornwallis, the agent of a Colonial Power, using,
and in fact, manufacturing racist sentiment, to advocate for the
extermination of a people in order to facilitate the appropriation of a
territory. Racism, and the perpetuation of the thought that the
objects of oppression were inferior, evil, and dangerous etc. was the
weapon of the power structures.
And here is where I think it gets sensitive. Sometimes tearing down a
statue touches a nerve. It seems to call into question the whole
concept of colonization, the inherent right of our white, Northern
European, Christian, forbearers to “claim” the territory we now call
home.
There is a battle going on here. It is about who we are now.
I’m afraid that the efforts to “save” the statues” aren’t about
history, or even about the past. It’s about today. So whether we
are in South Africa, Alabama, or Saskatchewan, we need to realize that
when it comes to “Truth and Reconciliation” we have to start with
“Truth”.
Truth is a bit too complicated to put on a statue. Slogans are easy.
Sir John A. MacDonald provides an interesting example.
For many Canadians, it seemed unthinkable to question any part of his
role in the westward expansion of Canada. Only recently have
historians begun to see it for what it was, the colonization of another
people. That isn’t to say that Sir John isn’t a very important figure
in Canadian history and that his many contributions should be
ignored. The point is that statues of him don’t contribute to an
understanding of his role. We figured out some time ago that
memorizing the names of the provinces didn’t really help kids
understand geography or history. Making sure we all know that he
was the “Father of Confederation” doesn’t help us understand the
process and the impact.
Does this mean we should tear down all statues that are contentious in
any way?
I
believe we would lose nothing by destroying them, but that's a debate we should
continue to have.
The best idea I've seen is to move them to a
museum-like setting where they can be presented in an accurate context.
|