• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ontario teachers’ union wants John A. Macdonald schools renamed

I hate to break it to you, man, but it's human nature. Maybe it's happening faster than normal now, because we are all so connected, so societal decisions can take place more rapidly, in terms of what is and is not acceptable right now, but if you think this is a new phenomenon, why aren't we burning witches at the stake? Why don't have gladiators in arenas killing each other for our enjoyment? Why are women allowed to vote? Why are we about to legalize pot? Things are acceptable (or unacceptable) until enough people think they are not. That's literally all it takes, that's literally all it's ever took.

Maybe it's Sir John A's time, maybe it's not, but eventually it will be. The Romans made excellent statues...which are mostly dust now...and a lot of those masterpieces were destroyed because they were offensive to what came after the Roman Empire. Nothing is permanent. I'm not going to get my blood pressure up because some guy that died a hundred or more years ago with a problematic history *might* have his name removed from schools. More important stuff to worry about, as I said. :)

This is the slippery slope of erasing the Canadian history and identity. These kind of people would want influences of Roman society removed because they had slaves and that might offend someone. They are erasing and rewriting history to suit them regardless of the actual facts.

Is ISIS right to destroy history because values and opinions changed?
 
This is the slippery slope of erasing the Canadian history and identity. These kind of people would want influences of Roman society removed because they had slaves and that might offend someone. They are erasing and rewriting history to suit them regardless of the actual facts.

Is ISIS right to destroy history because values and opinions changed?

I dunno...was any of it right? Depends on who you ask, I guess... Ultimately the majority dictates what is "right", and "right" has changed a million times throughout the ages. But, we still have this history of the Romans, despite the fact that their statues were ripped down... Should not the slippery slope have led to them being utterly forgotten a couple thousand years later? Doesn't look like it works that way to me.....
 
This is the slippery slope of erasing the Canadian history and identity. These kind of people would want influences of Roman society removed because they had slaves and that might offend someone. They are erasing and rewriting history to suit them regardless of the actual facts.

Is ISIS right to destroy history because values and opinions changed?

History is not being destroyed

A name on a school is not history. The person behind the name is, knowing why the person was or was not important enough to have a school named after them is.

As for Canadian identity, it has changed dramatically over the years. Just from the early 70s until know. My 10 year old self coming from Calgary in 1982 to Calgary in 2017 would see a dramatic change in Canadian identity. Our history has not changed. Our knowledge of it has. I doubt 15 % of the population would have known about the residential schools in 1982 and the horrible issues regarding them. Now I expect the majority do. From Lester B Pearson's time as PM and after Canadian identity has been changing all the time. It will continue to change.

The name on a building is not going to change that
 
I dunno...was any of it right? Depends on who you ask, I guess... Ultimately the majority dictates what is "right", and "right" has changed a million times throughout the ages. But, we still have this history of the Romans, despite the fact that their statues were ripped down... Should not the slippery slope have led to them being utterly forgotten a couple thousand years later? Doesn't look like it works that way to me.....

It doe snot change the meaning or the motivation of the symbolism. Should we tear down the Colosseum in Rome because it represents slavery? What these people want is to change facts, they want to paint someone as a genocidal maniac all because someone might find a name offensive. These people are crazy and should not be encouraged.
 
History is not being destroyed

A name on a school is not history. The person behind the name is, knowing why the person was or was not important enough to have a school named after them is.

As for Canadian identity, it has changed dramatically over the years. Just from the early 70s until know. My 10 year old self coming from Calgary in 1982 to Calgary in 2017 would see a dramatic change in Canadian identity. Our history has not changed. Our knowledge of it has. I doubt 15 % of the population would have known about the residential schools in 1982 and the horrible issues regarding them. Now I expect the majority do. From Lester B Pearson's time as PM and after Canadian identity has been changing all the time. It will continue to change.

The name on a building is not going to change that

Like I said, it is a slippery slope. They want to change history, why we should change history because someone is offended by it? They want him painted as a genocidal maniac. John A McDonald created the Canadian identity, without him there would be no Canadians.
 
Last edited:
It doe snot change the meaning or the motivation of the symbolism. Should we tear down the Colosseum in Rome because it represents slavery? What these people want is to change facts, they want to paint someone as a genocidal maniac all because someone might find a name offensive. These people are crazy and should not be encouraged.

Are you actually comparing white letters on the side of a school to the colosseum? hehe... Ok, fine, I'll go there with you. In my opinion, if the majority of Italian people think it should be torn down, it would be an architectural loss for sure, but ultimately it's up to them. And if the majority of Canadians decide that the schools should have a different name, it's up to them.

All that said, I don't think this will actually happen....another reason why I think the angst is unnecessary. But, if the majority of us want it, we get it, that's how it works.
 
Like I said, it is a slippery slope. They want to change history, why we should change history because someone is offended by it? John A McDonald created the Canadian identity, without him there would be no Canadians.

What history is being changed?

The name of a school, to a new name? Do you think they will not talk of John A McDonald in school history books? That they will never mention the first PM of Canada in the history books, that the line where his name should be is blank?

He created a Canadian identity, one that is vastly different to the Canadian identity of today. The Canadian identity of his time would not include asian, indians, and barely included the french.
 
What history is being changed?

The name of a school, to a new name? Do you think they will not talk of John A McDonald in school history books? That they will never mention the first PM of Canada in the history books, that the line where his name should be is blank?

He created a Canadian identity, one that is vastly different to the Canadian identity of today. The Canadian identity of his time would not include asian, indians, and barely included the french.

Did you even read the article? They said they want it removed because he was the architect of a genocide, which is quite simply false. They want to change history.
 
Are you actually comparing white letters on the side of a school to the colosseum? hehe... Ok, fine, I'll go there with you. In my opinion, if the majority of Italian people think it should be torn down, it would be an architectural loss for sure, but ultimately it's up to them. And if the majority of Canadians decide that the schools should have a different name, it's up to them.

All that said, I don't think this will actually happen....another reason why I think the angst is unnecessary. But, if the majority of us want it, we get it, that's how it works.

They want to change history, that is point I am making. They want him painted as the architect of a genocide which is just a lie so they can justify being offended.
 
They want to change history, that is point I am making. They want him painted as the architect of a genocide which is just a lie so they can justify being offended.

So, let's put it to the test, calmly, and examine the facts. If the facts point to the traditionally understood history, it won't be changed. If they point to what these people are suggesting, then we need to get it right.
 
So, let's put it to the test, calmly, and examine the facts. If the facts point to the traditionally understood history, it won't be changed. If they point to what these people are suggesting, then we need to get it right.

The fact is he is not some grand architect of a Native genocide, he just continued the status quo because that is what what was supported at the time. They seem to think that because he didn't challenge the prominent thinking of the time mean s he must have wanted genocide. Was it wrong by today's standards? Yes. Does that make him some genocidal maniac? No. He is not Voerword, he did not spend his entire political career trying to figure out how to segregate and discriminate against non-Whites.

Does it also somehow makes his contribution to what Canada has become moot or unacceptable, no.
 
Last edited:
Did you even read the article? They said they want it removed because he was the architect of a genocide, which is quite simply false. They want to change history.

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#International_law

If we were to apply international law from today, to what occurred to the various first nations of Canada, at least two of the 5 aspects of genocide are met

e) Forcible transfer of children to another group

and

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;

As the goal was to forcibly integrate Indians into a at the time Canadian lifestyle, the destruction of Indians as ethnic group was part of the goal.

That is not changing history, it was one of the political goals of Canada at the time.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#International_law

If we were to apply international law from today, to what occurred to the various first nations of Canada, at least two of the 5 aspects of genocide are met

e) Forcible transfer of children to another group

and

(b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;

As the goal was to forcibly integrate Indians into a at the time Canadian lifestyle, the destruction of Indians as ethnic group was part of the goal.

That is not changing history, it was one of the political goals of Canada at the time.

Like I said above. The fact is he is not some grand architect of a Native genocide, he just continued the status quo because that is what what was supported at the time. They seem to think that because he didn't challenge the prominent thinking of the time means he must have wanted genocide. Was it wrong by today's standards? Yes. Does that make him some genocidal maniac? No. He is not Voerword, he did not spend his entire political career trying to figure out how to segregate and discriminate against non-Whites because they are lesser humans.

Does it also somehow makes his contribution to what Canada has become moot or unacceptable, no. We as a country acknowledge that it was wrong, does that mean McDonald carries the blame for it, no.
 
Like I said above. The fact is he is not some grand architect of a Native genocide, he just continued the status quo because that is what what was supported at the time. They seem to think that because he didn't challenge the prominent thinking of the time means he must have wanted genocide. Was it wrong by today's standards? Yes. Does that make him some genocidal maniac? No. He is not Voerword, he did not spend his entire political career trying to figure out how to segregate and discriminate against non-Whites because they are lesser humans.

Does it also somehow makes his contribution to what Canada has become moot or unacceptable, no.

Did he stop any of the programs which would be considered genocidal? No, he continued with them. No one said he was a genocidal maniac. It still does not change that he oversaw as PM what would be considered genocidal programs towards first nations.

That it was not millions of people, does not matter.

What he did for Canada, in the founding of it, is not in doubt he made a large contribution to the founding of this nation. But what should not be erased from history, the negative side of his past.

The removal of his name from all the schools in Ontario would be idiotic. I can see if schools on reserves wanted to change the name as being very understandable however
 
What history is being changed?

The name of a school, to a new name?
You are ignoring the reason behind the change and why it was named what it was in the first place. The entire point of this 'movement' is to delegitimize historical figures and remove them from the public sphere. When you open a new school and name it Franklin D Roosevelt Elementary School, for example, you don't pluck that particular name out of the air. You choose it because of the man or woman achieved some level of greatness and stature. To turn around 30 years later and seek to remove the name and replace it with another, requires an explanation as to why such a thing should be done. Those in favor of such name changes and statute destruction have decided to focus on the weaknesses or flaws of the individual rather than his strengths. Roosevelt the great president becomes overshadowed by Roosevelt the war criminal who firebombed cities like Dresden and sent Japanese americans to internment camps. It isn't changing history, but changing our historical perspective based upon the phony outrage of agenda driven malcontents.

It more nihilism and decadence than it is culture building or progress and feeding into only paves the way for the next micro-outrage by the shrill voices on the left.
 
Did he stop any of the programs which would be considered genocidal? No, he continued with them. No one said he was a genocidal maniac. It still does not change that he oversaw as PM what would be considered genocidal programs towards first nations.

That it was not millions of people, does not matter.

What he did for Canada, in the founding of it, is not in doubt he made a large contribution to the founding of this nation. But what should not be erased from history, the negative side of his past.

The removal of his name from all the schools in Ontario would be idiotic. I can see if schools on reserves wanted to change the name as being very understandable however

So did all of them up until Chretien, does that make all prime minsters before Chretien a genocidal maniac? I am not disagreeing with your last statement. But I do not think painting him as a an architect of a genocide or a genocidal maniac is remotely accurate.
 
So did all of them up until Chretien, does that make all prime minsters before Chretien a genocidal maniac? I am not disagreeing with your last statement. But I do not think painting him as a an architect of a genocide or a genocidal maniac is remotely accurate.


The definition of genocide is what it is. At least based on the international law definition.

Based on that definition Canada's treatment of First Nations could count as genocide.

Here are some of his quotes

“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


"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

Sir, We are looking anxiously for your report as to Indian titles both within Manitoba and without; and as to the best means of extinguishing [terminating] the Indian titles in the valley of Saskatchewan. Would you kindly give us your views on that point, officially and unofficially? We should take immediate steps to extinguish the Indian titles somewhere in the Fertile Belt in the valley of Saskatchewan, and open it for settlement. There will otherwise be an influx of squatters who will seize upon the most eligible positions and greatly disturb the symmetry [organization] of future surveys. 1870 (a letter)

https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/10-quotes-john-a.-macdonald-made-about-first-nations

The first quote alone meets condition E of genocide
 
The definition of genocide is what it is. At least based on the international law definition.

Based on that definition Canada's treatment of First Nations could count as genocide.

Here are some of his quotes



https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/10-quotes-john-a.-macdonald-made-about-first-nations

The first quote alone meets condition E of genocide

I am not debating that fact but I am arguing it does not make every prime minster before Chretien a genocidal maniac, including McDonald. He was continuing British policy laid before and considered a perfectly rational course of action.
 
I am not debating that fact but I am arguing it does not make every prime minster before Chretien a genocidal maniac, including McDonald.

Never said it does.

You are taking things to far. All genocides do not have to include a maniac. Just the plan to get rid of a ethnic/cultural/religious group. It can include millions of victims or just a few thousand

To ignore it, is to erase history. To call anything other than a government plan to get rid of Indians is to ignore history.

It does not change the fact that residential schools were a genocidal project either
 
Never said it does.

You are taking things to far. All genocides do not have to include a maniac. Just the plan to get rid of a ethnic/cultural/religious group. It can include millions of victims or just a few thousand

To ignore it, is to erase history. To call anything other than a government plan to get rid of Indians is to ignore history.

It does not change the fact that residential schools were a genocidal project either

I am not debating that there was genocide going on. But painting McDonald, which is what this whole decision is based around and what ultimately what the thread is about is painting McDonald as the architect of an Indian genocide.
 
Did he stop any of the programs which would be considered genocidal? No, he continued with them. No one said he was a genocidal maniac. It still does not change that he oversaw as PM what would be considered genocidal programs towards first nations.

That it was not millions of people, does not matter.

What he did for Canada, in the founding of it, is not in doubt he made a large contribution to the founding of this nation. But what should not be erased from history, the negative side of his past.

The removal of his name from all the schools in Ontario would be idiotic. I can see if schools on reserves wanted to change the name as being very understandable however

If you look at the past is it really negative though? The Europeans played the same game as the natives, kill each other for territory. The natives just lost miserably. To this day they still exist, live subsidized by the country, and are allowed to have a pity party about it. How many of the tribes did their ancestors kill get the same treatment? I'd prefer to look at realistic history, which is that the European conquest of North America by those time's standards wasn't unethical unless only natives have the ethical right to commit genocide/mass killings of other native tribes for land.
 
If you look at the past is it really negative though? The Europeans played the same game as the natives, kill each other for territory. The natives just lost miserably. To this day they still exist, live subsidized by the country, and are allowed to have a pity party about it. How many of the tribes did their ancestors kill get the same treatment? I'd prefer to look at realistic history, which is that the European conquest of North America by those time's standards wasn't unethical unless only natives have the ethical right to commit genocide/mass killings of other native tribes for land.

Why do we call the Armenian Genocide, the mass movement of people, along with the death involved from starvation was common at the time? The UK created concentration camps in the Boer War killing quite a few women and children through disease? Why was it important to the Canadian government about 70-80 years after to call it a genocide?

We can play moral relativity games and say, the Canadian treatment of Indians, in comparison to the treatment of African American slaves was not as bad, and yes that would be correct.
We can also say that the various Indian tribes engaged in warfare with each other, and yes that is true. All of that is part of history.
But so is the actual treatment of Indians by the Canadian government. Are you suggesting that it is not taught.

History is history. Sometimes things in history can be horrible, but not as horrible as something else in history, but it does not mean it should be forgotten

As a christian, as I believe you are I would have to ask one question

Is good and evil relative based on the time one lived in?
 
I don't know enough about the guy to judge him. All I know is it shouldn't be up to the teachers' union. It should be up to the parents who send their kids there.
 
I don't know enough about the guy to judge him. All I know is it shouldn't be up to the teachers' union. It should be up to the parents who send their kids there.

The biggest negative was the decision to set up what was called residential schools. in which Indian childern were taken from their families and put into schools hundreds of miles away.

The children in those schools faced physical and sexual abuse at very high rates. I believe 30% of native children were forced to go to them
 
Back
Top Bottom