Sir John's Public House to be renamed

[Verum]

So people are upset because a business made a business decision to drop the name of a somewhat contentious historical figure, and you are upset with them? They want to increase their revenue, which is harmed because some people have negative feelings about their name and association with Sir John A. Macdonald, and so they changed their name. That is consumerism in action and if enough people feel strongly that the name should have been preserved, they will go elsewhere and the business decision will have proven to be a poor one.

I don't understand what part of that is problematic. Are you upset that some people don't venerate Sir John A. Macdonald as you do? Are you upset that a business chose to execute in a profit focused manner? What is the problem?

Nobody is trying to rewrite history, nobody is pretending that Sir John A. Macdonald wasn't the first Prime Minister, nobody is taking away his legacy. All that is happening is a business is trying to better meet the wants of its customers by being sensitive to their feelings.

Are you kidding me. Do you seriously think that anyone stopped going to that pub because of the name? They stand to lose far more business because of their stupid, publicity seeking stunt.

Stopped going, possibly not, but didn't go in the first place, probably. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and you could be right, it might have been a poor business decision, as I suggested it could be, but it's still up to the owner of the business to decide what name they want for their business. It's not like they are doing something to directly hurt or discriminate against someone, though it seems that they offended a few by engaging in a branding exercise.

[Urbane]

Stopped going, possibly not, but didn't go in the first place, probably. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and you could be right, it might have been a poor business decision, as I suggested it could be, but it's still up to the owner of the business to decide what name they want for their business. It's not like they are doing something to directly hurt or discriminate against someone, though it seems that they offended a few by engaging in a branding exercise.

You're sure that the owner is "just deciding" or do you think it's possible that he's feeling pressured to do something that he really would have preferred not to do? I know that he's putting a good face on it by saying that he's trying to be inclusive yada yada yada but he named his business for a reason. Sir John A. Macdonald was our first prime minister and the central architect of confederation. So I'll say it again: Some people are missing context and perspective.

[Merry]

Trying to rewrite history by obliterating all the stuff we don't agree with (or are ashamed of) is both foolish and wrong. Because those who don't remember history, are destined to repeat it.

It's also important for us to remember that life is never pure black and white, but many shades of grey. And that people are rarely all good, or all bad, but a sprinkling of both characteristics. These days we tend to oversimplify everything, and expect our heroes to be perfect in every way, and our villains to be completely without any humanity or goodness. But that's not the reality, and deep down we all know it.

[Urbane]

Trying to rewrite history by obliterating all the stuff we don't agree with (or are ashamed of) is both foolish and wrong. Because those who don't remember history, are destined to repeat it.

It's also important for us to remember that life is never pure black and white, but many shades of grey. And that people are rarely all good, or all bad, but a sprinkling of both characteristics. These days we tend to oversimplify everything, and expect our heroes to be perfect in every way, and our villains to be completely without any humanity or goodness. But that's not the reality, and deep down we all know it.

Excellent post! You've summed it up well Merry!

[Verum]

Stopped going, possibly not, but didn't go in the first place, probably. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion, and you could be right, it might have been a poor business decision, as I suggested it could be, but it's still up to the owner of the business to decide what name they want for their business. It's not like they are doing something to directly hurt or discriminate against someone, though it seems that they offended a few by engaging in a branding exercise.

You're sure that the owner is "just deciding" or do you think it's possible that he's feeling pressured to do something that he really would have preferred not to do? I know that he's putting a good face on it by saying that he's trying to be inclusive yada yada yada but he named his business for a reason. Sir John A. Macdonald was our first prime minister and the central architect of confederation. So I'll say it again: Some people are missing context and perspective.

I have no doubt that he made a business decision, pressured or otherwise is irrelevant, it's about making money. I am very well aware who Sir John A. Macdonald was and I personally feel it is a bit silly to get upset if a place is named after him, but I both support the business in its right to change its name and the right of those opposed to the original name to feel and protest as they have. I also support your right to be annoyed at the change, and you can boycott it all you wish. That said, it's simply not destroying our history, the fact is the books and records still exist. Nobody can take Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy away from him, nobody can remove the fact that he was our first PM, even if his name disappeared from all of the buildings and monuments currently referencing him.

I find the reaction to this news to be completely over the top. All that changed was the name of one pub! Nobody was harmed, nobody was forced to do anything, and nobody was separated from their loved ones. How is it even remotely newsworthy?

[Verum]

Trying to rewrite history by obliterating all the stuff we don't agree with (or are ashamed of) is both foolish and wrong. Because those who don't remember history, are destined to repeat it.

It's also important for us to remember that life is never pure black and white, but many shades of grey. And that people are rarely all good, or all bad, but a sprinkling of both characteristics. These days we tend to oversimplify everything, and expect our heroes to be perfect in every way, and our villains to be completely without any humanity or goodness. But that's not the reality, and deep down we all know it.

Beyond the fact that we are continually writing and refining our understanding of history, I generally agree. But this simply is not rewriting history at all. No historical facts have been changed and nobody is looking to change them.
I'm also not sure I agree that we expect greater levels of perfection in our heroes today, just that we no longer gloss over the fact that most of our historical heroes are villains to others and that those others have a voice worthy of being heard too.

[Urbane]

I have no doubt that he made a business decision, pressured or otherwise is irrelevant, it's about making money. I am very well aware who Sir John A. Macdonald was and I personally feel it is a bit silly to get upset if a place is named after him, but I both support the business in its right to change its name and the right of those opposed to the original name to feel and protest as they have. I also support your right to be annoyed at the change, and you can boycott it all you wish. That said, it's simply not destroying our history, the fact is the books and records still exist. Nobody can take Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy away from him, nobody can remove the fact that he was our first PM, even if his name disappeared from all of the buildings and monuments currently referencing him.

I find the reaction to this news to be completely over the top. All that changed was the name of one pub! Nobody was harmed, nobody was forced to do anything, and nobody was separated from their loved ones. How is it even remotely newsworthy?

Of course a business decision was made. The owner was pressured and responded by doing what he felt he had to do. You don't find the pressure or the decision "over the top" but rather it's the reaction. Trivialize the issue if you want but some of us don't like the trend. And it is a trend because while this thread may be about one business changing its name you'd have to live in a cave if you hadn't noticed a North American trend toward pressuring businesses and governments into removing the names of historical figures from buildings or monuments. I agree with Merry. She summed up my thoughts very well so for now I'll leave it at that!

[Leifer]

Hey why stop there with this PC madness?
Wasn't the country's name taken from Huron-Iroquois language (Kanata)??
Cultural appropriation!!

Can't wait for FN to start picketing Parliament for a name change for the whole damn country.
I bet our limp-wristed Prime Minister is ready with White Out and checkbook.

We could change it to "Europeans Just Visiting".

[GordonH]

Here is my choice for the new name:
As the PC turns

lol

[rustled]

Trying to rewrite history by obliterating all the stuff we don't agree with (or are ashamed of) is both foolish and wrong. Because those who don't remember history, are destined to repeat it.

It's also important for us to remember that life is never pure black and white, but many shades of grey. And that people are rarely all good, or all bad, but a sprinkling of both characteristics. These days we tend to oversimplify everything, and expect our heroes to be perfect in every way, and our villains to be completely without any humanity or goodness. But that's not the reality, and deep down we all know it.

As I understand it, under Sir John A MacDonald our First Nations had the right to vote (and a Liberal PM who later took that right away.)

It's interesting to me that so much of the public is so willing to fixate on one single part of the picture in passing judgement on someone instrumental in our history, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge anything that brings context into the equation.

And it's also interesting to me that when any entity seems to have capitulated when the public displays this kind of willful ignorance, we're told it shouldn't matter, that it is of no consequence.

Apparently, our country's not far behind in the race to the bottom.

[d0nb]

Virtue signalling is so unattractive.

The Washington Times - Friday, October 27, 2017
Stephen Dinan wrote:

George Washington was one of the founding members of Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, buying pew No. 5 when the church opened in 1773 and attending for more than two decades whenever he rode north from Mount Vernon to do business in town.

This weekend, the church announced it was pulling down a memorial plaque to its onetime vestryman and the country’s first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become so controversial that they are chasing away would-be parishioners.

[Queen K]

Hey why stop there with this PC madness?
Wasn't the country's name taken from Huron-Iroquois language (Kanata)??
Cultural appropriation!!

Can't wait for FN to start picketing Parliament for a name change for the whole damn country.
I bet our limp-wristed Prime Minister is ready with White Out and checkbook.

We could change it to "Europeans Just Visiting".

Do the Huron-Iroquois have a word denoting, "Lousy Immigration Policy" and we could adopt that word instead?

[dirtybiker]

Prime Minister is ready with White Out

OK, that's just gone too far..

Now I'm offended !!

[Verum]

I have no doubt that he made a business decision, pressured or otherwise is irrelevant, it's about making money. I am very well aware who Sir John A. Macdonald was and I personally feel it is a bit silly to get upset if a place is named after him, but I both support the business in its right to change its name and the right of those opposed to the original name to feel and protest as they have. I also support your right to be annoyed at the change, and you can boycott it all you wish. That said, it's simply not destroying our history, the fact is the books and records still exist. Nobody can take Sir John A. Macdonald's legacy away from him, nobody can remove the fact that he was our first PM, even if his name disappeared from all of the buildings and monuments currently referencing him.

I find the reaction to this news to be completely over the top. All that changed was the name of one pub! Nobody was harmed, nobody was forced to do anything, and nobody was separated from their loved ones. How is it even remotely newsworthy?

Of course a business decision was made. The owner was pressured and responded by doing what he felt he had to do. You don't find the pressure or the decision "over the top" but rather it's the reaction. Trivialize the issue if you want but some of us don't like the trend. And it is a trend because while this thread may be about one business changing its name you'd have to live in a cave if you hadn't noticed a North American trend toward pressuring businesses and governments into removing the names of historical figures from buildings or monuments. I agree with Merry. She summed up my thoughts very well so for now I'll leave it at that!

I never said that the pressure wasn't over the top, in fact, I did point out that I think it was silly.

Anyway, what about the trend? History isn't being modified. Nobody is denying the past as if it didn't happen and no amount of appeals to claims of history being rewritten will change that. That we are actually getting a better understanding of history from the exposure that this brings is a good thing. I am sure you are well aware that not all Canadians have a good grasp on our history. Some didn't and sadly still don't know about Sir John A. Macdonald's involvement in residential schools and this might actually encourage them to find out more about him, both good and bad. Surely having a better grasp on history, and not the pathetically biased one most of us were taught in school, but actual history, is a good thing.

But, I have no doubt that it's not actual historical revisionism that people are really complaining about, but more that their culture is being eroded as the dominant culture in society. The fact is that the heroes of one culture in Canada include a significant number of the villains of another and thus the celebration of one side's heroes is a celebration of the other side's villains. We need to embrace seeing things from both sides before we pass judgement on the appropriateness of these actions. Neither side is dominated by evil people, neither is dominated by idiots, and neither have the right to impose their culture, wholesale on the society of we all live in. Personally, as already stated, I think that this case was a bit silly, but that doesn't mean that all these cases are.

By the way, and to state what is extremely obvious to some, and rather not to others, the nature of culture is to change. If, like me you are over 30, yours is almost certainly already on the way out. The next generation will make their own and as we get older, it will feel less and less like our own until at some point in the future we either embrace the changing culture or feel like foreigners in our own land. And that's just because of the youth and ignoring the emergence of other cultures from the shadows where they feel that they have been kept. I find it easier to just accept that the core values of my cultural beliefs are worth fighting for and generally shared by all significant cultural groups in Canada, but things such as who deserves a statue, or what our flag looks like, etc. are really just not that important, or at least that's my take on it.

[Urbane]

Putting history in the proper context . . .

Although they were laying the groundwork for one of the world’s most tolerant nations, the Canadians of 1867 largely took white supremacy for granted. Blacks were barred from staying in Toronto hotels. The average British Columbian saw Asians as a threat to racial purity. And almost everybody was fine with the expectation that the native way of life would soon be extinct.

On Sir John A. Macdonald’s 200th birthday, the country’s founding prime minister has no shortage of critics to deem him a racist, a colonizer and a misogynist. They’re right on all counts, but the man who founded Canada was the product of an age that made Archie Bunker look like Mohandas Gandhi.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/sur ... -back-then

To add a bit more context, this time from an example south of the border, here's a bit about Abraham Lincoln:

More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States.
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... ln-racist/