3 ms·

I think that if accepting the truth of what actually happened is viewed by you as being "bludgeon[ed] into accepting blame for the actions of others" is a probl

I think that if accepting the truth of what actually happened is viewed by you as being "bludgeon[ed] into accepting blame for the actions of others" is a problem with how you personalize the actions of others in the past that you view as part of your identity group as opposed to an attempt to blame you personally. If I quote John A Macdonald saying ".. refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation to reduce the expense" and then quote Mackenzie's response that he's not starving them enough - how is that offensive to you personally? It seems like it could only hurt you if you believe that you are on the "team" of the governments of that day - why would you think that? Let's all be on the team of justice and fairness and not take personal offense at the ignorance of the leaders of the past (or the present for that matter)!

core-questions 6y ago
> a problem with how you personalize the actions of others in the past that you view as part of your identity group as opposed to an attempt to blame you personally. I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that it needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it implies any requirement of action. I can accept what happened without accepting that it is okay for it to be used as a method of attacking my identity group, none of the living population of which have committed such acts. The fact that the deaths of these people will be brought up for hundreds of years with no path to redemption on the part of my identity group is a problem. What I take from this is that there is to be no "burying the hatchet", so to speak; that my children will also be blamed for this with the same severity that I am, as will my grandchildren, as will people in the year 2300. It will NEVER stop being a bone of contention as long as it continues to have narrative power to attack my group; it will never stop having this power until it is simply denied its power and shrugged off as the actions of another century. > If I quote John A Macdonald saying ".. refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation to reduce the expense" and then quote Mackenzie's response that he's not starving them enough - how is that offensive to you personally? It is offensive to me personally because quotes like this are not part of the mere study of history, but are brought up specifically to be used as a justification to literally behead the statues of the founders of my country. These statues, like all public art and memorials, are supposed to stand as historical artifacts and truths regardless of the actions these people committed. This justification to tear down statues in turn becomes one of the many steps on the road towards overthrowing my country and my culture entirely. One look at what is happening in the USA today is all it should take to make it clear that this is just the means to an end: once every statue is removed it will be on to the museums, and they're already working on the textbooks. > Let's all be on the team of justice and fairness As long as the old-stock, historical Canadian nation gets a seat at the table and gets to be represented for what it is, that's fine; I want justice as much as the next person. In fact, I am of the belief that we've got just about the best justice system in the world here, and I only want to see it improve. It is clear to me that for this to work, the improvement needs to come in a form that doesn't demonize White Canadians as genocidal people, or as inheriting the sin of genocide, as though we came across the nation and murdered everyone we saw with impunity. Such a thing could not be further from the truth.
- JamisonM 6y ago
  > I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that it needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it implies any requirement of action. Apply this logic to me walking up to you on the street and beating you and stealing all your money and two days later saying, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your parents when you were an infant and then you as an adult approach me about this and I say, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your grandparents when your father was an child and then you as an adult approach me about this and I say, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Without worrying about why I might have done those things above when I did them or just how much responsibility I might have for the actions, the various mitigation or explanations, that an injustice occurred and that consideration should be given to righting it seems trivial to acknowledge. Just consideration, it doesn't even cost anything!

core-questions 6y ago

> a problem with how you personalize the actions of others in the past that you view as part of your identity group as opposed to an attempt to blame you personally. I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that it needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it implies any requirement of action. I can accept what happened without accepting that it is okay for it to be used as a method of attacking my identity group, none of the living population of which have committed such acts. The fact that the deaths of these people will be brought up for hundreds of years with no path to redemption on the part of my identity group is a problem. What I take from this is that there is to be no "burying the hatchet", so to speak; that my children will also be blamed for this with the same severity that I am, as will my grandchildren, as will people in the year 2300. It will NEVER stop being a bone of contention as long as it continues to have narrative power to attack my group; it will never stop having this power until it is simply denied its power and shrugged off as the actions of another century. > If I quote John A Macdonald saying ".. refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation to reduce the expense" and then quote Mackenzie's response that he's not starving them enough - how is that offensive to you personally? It is offensive to me personally because quotes like this are not part of the mere study of history, but are brought up specifically to be used as a justification to literally behead the statues of the founders of my country. These statues, like all public art and memorials, are supposed to stand as historical artifacts and truths regardless of the actions these people committed. This justification to tear down statues in turn becomes one of the many steps on the road towards overthrowing my country and my culture entirely. One look at what is happening in the USA today is all it should take to make it clear that this is just the means to an end: once every statue is removed it will be on to the museums, and they're already working on the textbooks. > Let's all be on the team of justice and fairness As long as the old-stock, historical Canadian nation gets a seat at the table and gets to be represented for what it is, that's fine; I want justice as much as the next person. In fact, I am of the belief that we've got just about the best justice system in the world here, and I only want to see it improve. It is clear to me that for this to work, the improvement needs to come in a form that doesn't demonize White Canadians as genocidal people, or as inheriting the sin of genocide, as though we came across the nation and murdered everyone we saw with impunity. Such a thing could not be further from the truth.

JamisonM 6y ago
> I can accept what happened, from the historical record, while denying that it needs to have massive historical relevance to current events, or that it implies any requirement of action. Apply this logic to me walking up to you on the street and beating you and stealing all your money and two days later saying, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your parents when you were an infant and then you as an adult approach me about this and I say, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Likewise apply this logic to me seizing all the property of your grandparents when your father was an child and then you as an adult approach me about this and I say, "I acknowledge what happened, but I don't think it is relevant to today or implies any requirement of action to remedy." Without worrying about why I might have done those things above when I did them or just how much responsibility I might have for the actions, the various mitigation or explanations, that an injustice occurred and that consideration should be given to righting it seems trivial to acknowledge. Just consideration, it doesn't even cost anything!