Rewriting history is not the solution to historical wrongs—writing a better future is
To the Expositor:
The August 23 edition of this paper featured a note from Jan McQuay (‘History can be looked at from more viewpoints than the victor’s,’ August 23, page 4). She makes a case for a history rewrite and since morality is absolute, todays views of what is moral and what is not apply to previous eras. Is morality absolute? Do all cultures agree? Are our present concepts of morality universal and timeless?
I would like to point out that philosophers since Socrates have argued that morality is or could be relative. Looking back at our history, it would seem that in some instances this might be the case. Here are some examples that argue the point.
Morality examines our interactions with other human beings but I wish to start with an incident that occurred in Toronto several years ago involving a man and a group or gaze of raccoons. The animals were ravaging a vegetable garden tended by Dong Nguyen. He proceeded to beat the offenders off with a shovel, an action that caught the attention of a neighbour who called the authorities to intervene. Nguyen was arrested and charged. It is an offence to harm raccoons in Toronto and apparently owning a shovel is also an offence as in this case it was classified as a dangerous weapon. In many parts of the world, a pest in any form that messes with food supply is fair game. This would seem logical as famine and starvation would result since alternate food supply might not be available. Whacking a raccoon with a shovel is OK and necessary in some cases but not an option in Toronto. A case for a relative approach to the matter of shovels and pests.
Next to the abuse of children, slavery is probably second in line on a list of actions that trigger outrage in most of the modern world. Has it always been so? The answer of course is no! Slavery has been around as long as mankind has. It is only in the last few hundred years that the practice has been condemned. Here is a quote from the late fourth century: “The primary cause of slavery, then, is sin … and this can only be by a judgment of God, in whom there is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to assign divers punishments according to the deserts of the sinners.” That was Augustine, that pillar of Roman Catholic theology. The question of slavery right or wrong would seem to depend on the period of history one is referring to. It is relative when looking back at our history.
In 2004 the CBC conducted a survey to determine who might be the “Greatest Canadian.” Tommy Douglas emerged as the choice by the people participating in the survey. In 1933, this same individual wrote a Master’s thesis in support of eugenics. He was not alone in his thinking as the idea had surprising support in academic circles and interestingly in the women suffrage movement. Anyone supporting the idea today would immediately be branded as a monster. Not much time has passed since 1933 but we have changed our minds about the morality of eugenics. Morality is this case seems to be relative.
The first Manitoulin Pride celebration occurred recently. Why just now and not 50 years ago? Why here and not Banda Aceh? Why here and not Riyadh? In May of this year, two young men were caned for gay sex in Banda Aceh for latest videos visit this website . The punishment was carried out in pubic and witnessed by a large crowd of people in support of the judgement. And what would happen in Riyadh for a similar act. Our moral position on the act of throwing gay people out of the windows of very high buildings is clear, it is shocking and revolting. A whole bunch of people over there don’t agree! Morality in this case would appear to be relative.
Jan McQuay is quite correct in her assessment of the treatment that Native people have endured in our history. Is the way forward one of calling out the misdeeds of historical figures and labelling them as racist or bullies etc. Do we all have to wear hair shirts, a remedy that fits with her approach?
An interesting article by Kristy Kirkup appeared in the National Post on Wednesday that was initiated by a teachers’ union motion calling for the removal of Sir John A. Macdonald’s name from schools. Sen. Murray Sinclair, mentioned at the end of the McQuay article, has said that: “Tearing down tributes to historical figures would be counterproductive to reconciliation efforts between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.” He also said, “The problem I have with the overall approach to tearing down statues and building is that it is counterproductive to reconciliation because it smacks of revenge or smacks of acts of anger, but in reality, what we are trying to do, is we are trying to create more balance in the relationship.”
Reconciliation is not helped by any of us ranting about Macdonald or any other historical figure. Some, perhaps most of these people, are widely admired and respected for what they have accomplished. Many of the same people are rightly criticized for some of their actions. Again, Sinclair makes the point that Macdonald clearly played a significant role in the establishment of Canada, but the establishment of the country also played a significant role in the destruction of Indigenous culture and societies. The point is that attacking Macdonald will result in a backlash from many Canadians who admire the man for the things that he got right. This is not the way forward. We need to expend our energy on productive activities. Again, Sinclair argues that rather than taking names off buildings, we ought to be looking for opportunities to put Indigenous names on buildings. Of course, this is just a symbolic thing and an easy thing. But it might be a start. On my many trips to Algonquin Park, the drive takes a route along the Amable du Fond river. Now there was an admirable individual, the river is well named.
Shane Desjardins
Mindemoya
