Macdonald statue debate distracting from reconciliation

Aug 17, 2018 | Blog, Governance | 2 comments

Reflecting on the fallout of the removal of the John A. Macdonald statue from the steps of Victoria City Hall, I was reminded of a comment made to me by my incredibly insightful, historian mother that the complex relationships with Indigenous people in Canada has evolved over more than 150 years and that reconciliation is not going to happen overnight.

She shared this advice after one of my many challenging days balancing the mixed heritage that makes me who I am. It is good advice for leaders as we work to advance reconciliation.

There has been a lot said about the decision. The commentary is reflective of the range and variety of opinions and feelings from the diverse voices in our society. No doubt the decision to remove the statue was controversial. How it rolled out fuelled the fires of discontent.

No simple solutions!

There are no easy, overnight fixes that will erase the trauma of our ugly history. Leaders who seek to reconcile with simple solutions – whisking symbols of the past away in the early morning hours – miss an opportunity to have the long, difficult discussions that are necessary for actual reconciliation.

Macdonald’s time was one of astronomical power imbalance, fueled by colonialism, racism and white supremacy. These elements still exist in our institutions and society today. Our leaders who are now in a position of power to advance reconciliation must do so by ensuring there is an open, respectful process in place. We have a responsibility to tell our history in a truthful, self-reflective way.

This process did not create a discussion of the thoughts and feelings of the people who still suffer the negative impacts of Macdonald’s residential school policy, and I count myself as one. Instead, residents of Victoria stood nose-to-nose shouting each other down, calling each other names and further polarizing the debate.

What about Trutch Street or the name “Victoria” itself?

The reality is that reminders of our painful colonial history are everywhere. They are on city street names like Trutch, named for our second Lieutenant Governor Joseph A. Trutch, who robbed Indigenous people of the land that had been previously allocated to them, and the city itself is named after the Queen who served at the head of the British colonial empire at its most powerful and oppressive height. Renaming and adding Indigenous names, as  in the case of Haida Gwaii, can serve as a meaningful and productive way of advancing reconciliation, but only if it leads to thoughtful conversation about how we can move forward.

My concern is the backlash created by the way this statue removal was done. It has turned the action into a divisive flashpoint. Suddenly, citizens must choose whether they support the statue’s removal or not. Suddenly, that is the focus of the conversation. It should be the pain and suffering caused by the legacy of residential schools, and what those with political power in our time can do to reconcile it.

I am proud that a commitment to implement UNDRIP and the calls-to-action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) are foundational pieces of our Confidence and Supply Agreement with the B.C. NDP.

Investing in language revitalization and repatriation

Initiatives to advance reconciliation, like funding for Indigenous languages education, are now underway. The TRC calls for better education about the history of residential schools in the K-12 curriculum. These kinds of policies will ensure Indigenous perspectives and a truthful conversation about our history will be centrally present in the education of the next generation.

Another important piece of work I am encouraging the provincial government to undertake alongside the language revitalization is repatriation. Many of my ancestors and items of cultural significance are now “artifacts” in museums around the world. Returning those items, as well as a commitment from all levels of government to protect sites from future disturbance, are real acts of reconciliation.

As my wise counsel advised, our current situation has taken more than a century and a half to develop. There are no quick, overnight solutions. We must commit to the long-term, difficult discussions, and accept the discomfort and pain that it will cause.

 

Photo credit: “Victoria City Hall” by “Scazon” licensed under “CC by 2.0“.

2 Comments

  1. Joanne Thibault

    Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver referred me to your article in response to the concern I raised about him disparaging the request and process followed by the City Family to recuse the statue of Sir John A Macdonald until a way to present the honoree in the full measure of his legacy could be determined.

    Mr. Weaver referred to the effort as “boneheaded”. To me, this smacks of the absolute arrogance of the non-Indigenous colonizer sitting in judgement of those coming forward with a request for reconciliation that simply asked for a better presentation than a representation of a Prime Minister as if his crimes against Indigenous people were not significant enough to give equal exposure to.

    In a world where there is no systemic prejudice it would make perfect sense to ask for concurrence first, confident that we are all decent human beings extending courtesies to each other. In turn, we would empathize with the request of our neighbors and we would of course concur, while also saying, you didn’t need to ask!

    Sadly, the reality is that there is scant empathy for Indigenous citizens and woefully little respect for anything they ask for. Proof of this systemic prejudice is readily available;

    1. As Mayor Lisa Helps said, there was likely no more consultation about putting the statue up in 1982 as for the process (legal and in full keeping with Council direction) to have the statue recused (not “torn down” as so many reported and alleged). I ask then, what is the basis for demanding more consultation in this instance?

    2. On the very same day, Council ratified placing a commemorative plaque for another historic figure, at the request of a citizen group, without any wider consultation. I ask then, why was the Indigenous community bound to a greater requirement for consultation than this other non-Indigenous citizen group?

    Can you answer those questions, as it seems that Mr. Weaver cannot.

    Once again, in this entire matter, there has been a knee-jerk leap to blame the victim. The expectation leading to so much venom is that the City Family didn’t come cap in hat asking for permission to do something about the statue. That is what the backlash is all about if we are being honest about it.

    Sir John A Macdonald’s legacy of hatred and prejudice against Indigenous people is very much alive and well in Victoria, and it is entirely wrong to blame Indigenous people for that reality.

    Reply
    • Adam Olsen

      Hello Joanne.
      Thank you for your comment and I am sorry that I have not been able to respond sooner as I have been on the road!
      I have had the opportunity to connect with both Mayor Helps and Chief Sam (Songhees) over a cup of coffee to discuss this issue further and I am appreciative of the conversation.
      The City Family, with representation of Victoria Council, Songhees and Esquimalt membership and leaders, should be acknowledged for the important and difficult work that they have done to advance the relationship between the City and First Nation communities. As a former District Councillor in Central Saanich I can confirm that there is nothing easy about these relationships and there is a lot of work to be done.
      As a mixed-heritage person, with both Coast Salish and European background, I realized from a very young age that reconciliation is a personal journey. Some will crawl, some will walk, some will run and some will skip. The big, scary part of this journey is that many will not even start, and those that do will quickly realize that it is difficult to understand where it starts and perhaps impossible to know how long this journey is, and what it involves.
      In my opinion, any way we look at it, it is necessary.
      Something else I have learned along the way is that no one can reconcile my past, or our past, on my behalf. That is my choice and my work and only I can do it for me. Frankly, that goes for everyone.
      As I shared with the Chief and Mayor, I am troubled by a process which circumvents the difficult discussions with the public. Elected leaders cannot reconcile on behalf of their constituents. I believe it is our job to create a safe, compassionate and loving space for our constituents to take that journey if they choose. In addition, we should encourage all of our constituents to take that journey. But, I don’t believe we advance by offering to take that journey for them.
      So, when the City Family’s work is characterized as “difficult” I am not in the least bit surprised. But, in my opinion, just because they have overcome difficulty at a leadership level, it does not mean that their constituents have done anything and so as I see it there is more work to do. Perhaps, some of the most difficult work, the public work.
      As it is described in the documentation creating the City Family,
      – “reconciliation is the way forward; it is the process, not the outcome. Reconciliation is how, not what.”
      – “in the spirit of Reconciliation, we will craft a process that will create and use relationships as a foundation for our work together.” (This should include relationships with the broader public.)
      Further the documentation quotes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action,
      – “Reconciliation is a process of healing of relationships that requires public truth sharing, apology and commemoration that acknowledge and redress past harms.”
      – “Reconciliation requires political will, joint leadership, trust building, accountability, transparency, as well as a substantial investment of resources.”
      – “Reconciliation requires sustained public education and dialogue, including youth engagement, about the history and legacy of residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal rights, as well as the historical and contemporary contributions of Aboriginal people to Canadian society.”

      In my opinion, the process of removing the statue with very little, or no, public awareness, engagement and consultation broke the spirit of these documents and created a situation of unnecessary tension, when there was an opportunity to bring the public in to the conversation.
      Finally, I don’t know that there is a perfect process and it is likely to be messy. But, as community leaders (and members) we have to commit to creating the best environment we can to bring people together, not further divide them.
      In my conversation with the Chief and Mayor, I believe there was agreement that we cannot go back on what has happened, but we can learn from it. We can try out a different process in the future and always strive to create a safer more loving society in the face of incredible difficulty of our past and the history of our country.

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This

Share this post with your friends!