Dropping the first Prime Minister Name

[Symbonite]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/20 ... n-A-s-name

Like really? Where does it stop?

[bob vernon]

Let's just get it over with and take down the McDonald name and substitute the Trudeau name for it. Truly great Prime Ministers should be honored.

[Merry]

If we start going back through history and trying to erase all mention of any public figure who did some bad things, we'll end up with absolutely NOBODY except JC left. Because all human beings, without exception, have human failings which lead them to sometimes make very bad decisions.

But we shouldn't let those bad decisions allow us to forget the good things those people did. Yes, we need to remember the bad as well as the good, so that we can learn from the mistakes of others, but we shouldn't try to erase the memory of every Public figure who doesn't have a perfect record. Because that is setting an impossibly high standard - one which we couldn't meet ourselves.

There is an old saying about people who live in glass houses not throwing stones, and I think the teachers who supported this idea need to think on that for a while. Is their own record so unblemished that they can "throw stones" at the memory of others?

[spooker]

And Hannibal Lecter was a great neighbour who'd look after your pets when you went on vacation ...

Do we excuse someone for doing the wrong thing because they did enough to redeem themselves at the same time?

[techrtr]

Dumb, dumb, dumb. You can say something negative about just about any politician. Winston Churchill has his detractors. He was still a great leader and a great man. Pierre Elliot Trudeau let the Residential School Program continue into his tenure as PM. Maybe we should pull down his statues.

It's easy to find fault with what people did in the past, but that doesn't mean their intentions weren't good.

In the original article ridiculous things like "the starvation caused by the construction of the railway" are brought up. How on Earth did that cause starvation of nomadic hunters and gatherers? Most animals aren't bothered too much by 20 foot wide strip of rail bed. Does that mean that the original planners and builders of Canada's highway system are villains too?

I know a lot of elementary school teachers and to be honest, they're not the best educated or intelligent group of people I've ever met. Some of them need to get off their high horse.

[techrtr]

And Hannibal Lecter was a great neighbour who'd look after your pets when you went on vacation ...

Do we excuse someone for doing the wrong thing because they did enough to redeem themselves at the same time?

Hannibal Lector is a fictional character. John A. McDonald was the first leader of a brand new country born in a different era. If you can't see the difference, there's no point getting into a debate with you - might was well just talk to my dog.

[Merry]

And Hannibal Lecter was a great neighbour who'd look after your pets when you went on vacation ...

Do we excuse someone for doing the wrong thing because they did enough to redeem themselves at the same time?

No, we don't excuse them. But we don't reduce people down to only the things they did wrong either.

If those teachers don't want to glorify someone they don't feel deserves it then, when teaching history, they need to make sure that the bad things the public figure did are taught along with the good things. It's good for kids to learn that public figures, even the ones we consider heroes, are not all perfect.

It's also important for kids to learn that peoples attitudes about right and wrong have evolved throughout history, and continue to do so. And while they need to understand that much of what happened in the past would not be acceptable today, and likely shouldn't have been acceptable back then either, that the people who condoned some of those practices were not bad people according to the standards of their day.

Can you honestly name ONE historical figure that didn't do something bad, even though we revere them today for the good things they did? Particularly if we start judging those historical figures using todays standards.

For example, did you know that Abraham Lincoln didn't believe blacks should be treated the same as whites?

on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo ... ancipation

So, knowing that, would you now call for the removal of all statues honouring the man, or changing the name of any public buildings that memorialize his name? Would you allow that just because he held an opinion that, while morally repugnant today, was socially acceptable during the time period in which he lived? What about all the good Abraham Lincoln did? Should all that be tossed into the garbage bin of history, just because he said and did a few things we don't approve of?

Human beings are complex creatures, who do both good and bad things during their lifetimes. We need to remember both, so that we remember reality, rather than a distorted version of reality.

[Merry]

Here's a website that provides some surprising facts about a few popular historical figures:
http://listverse.com/2009/05/26/10-scan ... l-figures/

Do these scandalous revelations mean we should simply forget all the good these folks did, and erase them from our history books? Or does it mean we need to remember that they were human beings, with human failings. And that many of those we revere today, have some fairly murky facts in their past right along with the good stuff.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's unrealistic to think that human beings are either all good, or all bad. Because the majority, and probably all, are a little bit of both.

[The Green Barbarian]

Let's just get it over with and take down the McDonald name and substitute the Trudeau name for it. Truly great Prime Ministers should be honored.

These two sentences are mutually exclusive.

[maryjane48]

it isnt a question of erasing history its more facing up to the true history . tberes a reason why no schools in germany or israel are named after hitler . to first nations folks like macdonald are hitler . its that simple . *removed*

[Merry]

OK, but did you read the link I posted about the murky pasts of some other famous individuals?

Ghandi was a sexual pervert who liked to sleep naked with young girls. Does that mean that Indians should stop respecting his name and all the good he did for their country? After all, those young girls he slept with probably don't have much respect for him, and are likely offended every time they see something honouring his name. Or do their feelings not count, just because there aren't as many of them as there are In your example?

And what about the pretty awful things Lincoln said about blacks? Should we erase all memory of him from history as well?

But, if we do, where does it end? Because I'm fairly sure that if we dig deep enough we can find dirt on just about every historical figure you care to mention.

The point is that it's important to recognize that most of the folks we've memorialized over the years probably have a few skeletons in their closet. But that doesn't mean we should forget about the good they did. It simply means we should make sure that history records ALL the facts about a person, both good AND bad, and then make sure all those facts are passed on down the generations. Because if we do that, we'll then have an accurate record of our past, rather than a glorified one. And it will be more difficult for people to manipulate history to suit their own purposes.

[GordonH]

Politicians (people in the public spotlight) threw out history have said & done things that would not (or should not) happen today.
Just put these people in the proper context and move on.

off topic comment:
I remember as youngster watching Pierre Berton: The National Dream

[techrtr]

it isnt a question of erasing history its more facing up to the true history . tberes a reason why no schools in germany or israel are named after hitler . to first nations folks like macdonald are hitler . its that simple . *removed*

Oh brother, now that's just silly. Comparing John A. McDonald to Hitler is so asinine I don't know where to start. Even suggesting that is just ignorant beyond words.

[maryjane48]

what happened after mr genocide came to canada ?

In the spirit of reconciliation, we wanted to provide a perspective of Prime Minister John A. Macdonald that is often overlooked when the accolades are flowing. He was the architect of the Indian Act which launched the government of Canada on an ever increasingly and repressive series of Acts and policies directed towards the assimilation of the original inhabitants of this land now known as Canada. Residential schools, a cornerstone of the assimilation policy, was recently branded “cultural genocide” by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

When I fought to protect my land and my home, I was called a savage. When I neither understood nor welcomed his way of life, I was called lazy. When I tried to rule my people, I was stripped of my authority.” Chief Dan George, July 1, 1967

heres some quotes from your hero mr macdonald

When the school is on the reserve, the child lives with its parents, who are savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits and training mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly impressed upon myself, as head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men." 1879


savages ?

It is worthy of consideration whether legislative measures should not be adopted for the establishment of some kind of municipal system among such bands as are found sufficiently advanced to justify the experiment being tried. It is hoped that a system may be adopted which will have the effect of accustoming the Indians to the modes of government prevalent in the white communities surrounding them, and that it will thus tend to prepare them for earlier amalgamation with the general population of the country.” 1880

basicaly saying they better capitulate or else


we have been pampering and coaxing the Indians; that we must take a new course, we must vindicate the position of the white man, we must teach the Indians what law is; we must not pauperise them, as they say we have been doing.” 1885


they taught them about whitemans law alright

We have done all we could to put them on themselves; we have done all we could to make them work as agriculturists; we have done all we could, by the supply of cattle, agricultural implements and instruction, to change them from a nomadic to an agricultural life. We have had very considerable success; we have had infinitely more success during our short period, than the United States have had during twenty-five years. We have had a wonderful success; but still we have had the Indians; and then in these half-breeds, enticed by white men, the savage instinct was awakened; the desire of plunder -- aye, and, perhaps, the desire of scalping -- the savage idea of a warlike glory, which pervades the breast of most men, civilised or uncivilised, was aroused in them, and forgetting all the kindness that had been bestowed upon them, forgetting all the gifts that had been given to them, forgetting all that the Government, the white people and the Parliament of Canada had been doing for them, in trying to rescue them from barbarity; forgetting that we had given them reserves, the means to cultivate those reserves, and the means of education how to cultivate them -- forgetting all these things, they rose against us.” 1885

again savages and barbariens same type language hitler used to describe jews and anyone else he didnt like


We acquired the North-West country in 1870. Not a life was lost, not a blow was struck, not a pound nor a dollar was spent in warfare, in that long period that has since intervened. I have not hesitated to tell this House, again and again, that we could not always hope to maintain peace with the Indians; that the savage was still a savage, and that until he ceased to be savage, we were always in danger of a collision, in danger of war, in danger of an outbreak. I am only surprised that we have been able so long to maintain peace -- that from 1870 until 1885 not one single blow, not one single murder, not one single loss of life, has taken place.” 1885

he says savages are still savages nice guy he is


The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change.” 1887
sounds like the borg you must assimuilate . just a gentle soul having bad day ?


The third clause provides that celebrating the “Potlatch” is a misdemeanour. This Indian festival is debauchery of the worst kind, and the departmental officers and all clergymen unite in affirming that it is absolutely necessary to put this practice down.” 1894


put down like what ? a sick dog ? what did sir john mean with that one i wonder?

this from one the first directors of indian affaires note the words he uses that pop up in germany later

It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is being geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem." [emphasis added] 1910


the final solution to the savages as sir john so highly thought of first nations.
so you see they not much different except of the time in history .

[spooker]

Hannibal Lector is a fictional character. John A. McDonald was the first leader of a brand new country born in a different era. If you can't see the difference, there's no point getting into a debate with you - might was well just talk to my dog.

I realize that my points are not always as clear as I would like them to be ... fictional versus real is not the point, I could've just as easily used Dahmer who isn't fictional ...

...(subject change)...

Whenever I hear some say "we can't erase history" it really hits me as ironic ... history requires that we plaster someone's name on a building for them to be remembered? makes me worry that my grandfather has been forgotten because he didn't get his building

"Revering" someone by putting their name on an institution or by putting their statue up in a park that people walk by every day is much different than erasing their existence from the societal hive mind ... we should put up reminders for people that we want to hold up as shining examples of what we all should be doing in life ...

Teach that Macdonald was a leader who united the east and west into a confederation ... but don't whitewash what it took to accomplish that ... I wouldn't want anyone to think that those would be acceptable now even though the ruling class had no problem with it back then ...

Someone new to the country sees "John A. Macdonald" elementary and asks who that was and gets the simple answer of "he was the first prime minister" ... but as said before, he was more complex than that simple answer ...