Review of Canadian History & Emphasis of Canadian Military Heritage

[jollyjacktar]

While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect. 

 

[McG]

Last I checked most the new ranks and insignia from our past was being brought back by the Regs, not the PRes.

... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.

In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.

Langevin, Ryerson, Cornwallis: Is our past unfit for the present?
Peter Shawn Taylor
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jul. 15, 2017 8:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Jul. 17, 2017 5:04AM EDT

Hector-Louis Langevin is gone. So too, Matthew Baillie Begbie. And Edward Cornwallis, Jeffery Amherst and Egerton Ryerson may be living on borrowed time. These once-esteemed Canadian historical figures have either had their names and likenesses ripped from the firmament or are in immediate danger thereof, because of conflict between historical facts and current sensitivities.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau removed Mr. Langevin’s name from the building that houses his office in Ottawa last month because some claim he was an architect of Canada’s notorious residential school system. A statue of Mr. Begbie, the first chief justice of British Columbia, was hoisted out of the lobby of the Law Society of British Columbia earlier this year because he sentenced six Indigenous chiefs to death in 1864. The legacies of Mr. Cornwallis, Mr. Amherst and Mr. Ryerson are similarly threatened by allegations they were mortal enemies of Indigenous peoples or associated with residential schools.

While clearly growing in fashion, the rename or remove movement is troublesomely ad hoc – decisions appear based solely on political calculation and the heat generated by social media. In Halifax, for example, a Facebook campaign calls on supporters to “peacefully remove” a prominent statue of Mr. Cornwallis, the city’s founder, in guerrilla fashion.

But with nearly every major Canadian historical figure somehow implicated in our country’s often-shameful treatment of Indigenous peoples, we need a better way to decide which parts of our past are truly unfit for present-day consumption. Consider the Witt test.

Yale University has long wrestled with similar complaints about Calhoun College, named for benefactor John C. Calhoun, a U.S. senator from South Carolina and outspoken proponent of slavery during the pre-Civil War era. Last year, Yale asked historian John Fabian Witt to resolve the controversy. His response was a unique series of questions meant to gauge the validity of renaming demands. It’s a first stab at a coherent, standardized system for settling commemoration disputes, and other U.S. institutions have quickly grasped its significance. Last month, the University of Mississippi employed Prof. Witt’s test in removing some controversial names from its campus, while letting other remain. In the absence of anything similar in Canada, we should adopt the Witt test to settle our own namesake dilemmas.

Prof. Witt begins with the overarching principle that name changes should be considered “exceptional events” and not frivolous or political acts. “Renaming has often reflected excessive confidence in moral orthodoxies,” he observes, pointing with caution to the Soviet Union. Then again, not every urge to rename is Orwellian: post-Apartheid South Africa or post-Nazi West Germany, for example.

To decide what deserves to be removed and what should stay, the Witt test applies four questions, modified here for domestic use, that weigh the actions and time periods of commemorated individuals.

• First: Is the principal legacy of the namesake fundamentally at odds with Canadian values? This requires a broad understanding of the life’s work of the individual in question.
  
• Second: Was the relevant principal legacy significantly contested during the namesake’s lifetime? Isolated statements or actions considered controversial today may have been conventional wisdom at the time. Context matters.
  
• Third: At the time of the naming, was the namesake honoured for reasons fundamentally at odds with Canadian values? Why was this person commemorated?
  
• Finally: Does the building play a substantial role in forming community? The more prominent the edifice, the greater the casefor retaining names of historical significance, Prof. Witt says.

Using the Witt test, Yale announced in February the removal of Mr. Calhoun’s name. White supremacy, it concluded, was his principal legacy. Mr. Calhoun claimed slavery was “a positive good” and that the Declaration of Independence erred in stating all men are created equal. For this, he was criticized in his own time and today.

Applying these same standards to Mr. Langevin, however, yields a different result. As an important French-Catholic Conservative federalist in the Confederation era, Mr. Langevin’s principal legacy was building a bicultural Canada, something once considered a great virtue in this country. This is why his name was placed on an important building in Ottawa. Though his name is today often paired with residential schools, Mr. Langevin was primarily involved with constructing the buildings, not championing the policies. The infamous speech he gave in Parliament on the subject was actually parroting what his boss – Sir John A. Macdonald – had said days earlier. While his comments are grating to modern ears, he was merely repeating widely accepted views from his time. The Witt test exonerates Mr. Langevin.

The legacies of Mr. Begbie, Mr. Ryerson, Mr. Cornwallis and the rest of Canada’s historically accused deserve a fair trial as well.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/

 

[dimsum]

While I do remember a Red Ensign flying outside my home in Medicine Hat as a kid, my Canadian flag and the flag I've served under overseas is the Maple Leaf.  I don't think there's a great clamour to turn back time to old symbols with most folks today, especially First Nations people whom seem to be particularly sensitive at the moment and pissed off.  The remaining generations that do remember the Ensign are dwindling quickly and will be mostly gone in the not too far distant future,  the youth today aren't interested, I expect.

I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I doubt there would be appetite to change from the Maple Leaf - that is one of the most recognizable symbols of Canada.

Agreed. 

My Dad flew the Red Ensign at the house as it was the flag he fought and served under during and after the Second War.  It stayed in his den after his death and was still there last time I saw home years later.  I totally understand his personal connection with the flag.

 

[daftandbarmy]

... or maybe in was a few reservists who, being class A, lobbied directly to the politicians and had a decision imposed when the army internally had said we don't want it.  You seem to have heard a different story than others.

In any case, the country seems to be in the throws of removing/stripping anything that honours significant historical figures who may have done anything that does not fully measure-up by ethical standards of today.  So we probably need some sort of metric by which to decide if stripping a name or removing a statue is really an appropriate course of action.  The Globe and Mail has published about one such system developed in Yale.  It might be something for decision makers to take a look at.https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/langevin-ryerson-cornwallis-is-our-past-unfit-for-the-present/article35692106/

Welcome to 1984:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it: in Newspeak, "doublethink." (1.3.18)

 

[Monsoon]

A little more than a year later, and it still looks like you are right.

In other news, looks like someone is attaching their CAF credentials (limited as they may be) to a political suggestion for the restoration of the Red Ensign as an official flag (though now subordinate to the National Flag).  Does the PRes put everyone through a course on pining for symbols of our colonial youth?http://nationalpost.com/opinion/beyond-the-duck-the-maple-leaf-flag-embodies-canadas-national-amnesia/wcm/956a04c2-7442-478e-b9b4-b0ba384271a4

Halfway off-topic, but: I'm fairly certain the fact that he edits a moderately prominent Canadian history review is the bona fide he's relying on to publish opinions about historical symbols. Yes, he joined the CAF late in life. He's a genuinely accomplished guy of the sort we should be doing a lot more to attract.

 

[Loachman]

The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas and Daesh blew up Palmyra because of religious intolerance.

We are committing the same thing, on a smaller and less spectacular scale, because of historical intolerance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect many of the famous Native chiefs could not withstand an honest assessment under the Witt test either. But it seems the most reasonable way to proceed.

 

[a_majoor]

I'll go the irish monastery route, and collect old history books so when the pendulum swings back there will be references to build from. Not exactly sure what the cutoff date should be, but probably no later than the mid 1970s for the most part, predating the start of Political Correctness and the rise of Cultural Marxism.