You can't erase history (which is why it has to go)...

The discussion that is happening around Holding Court on Main Street Picton is one that this community, this province and this country needs to have. There is a misconception that history is a static and firm thing. We are “erasing history” by removing a statue that was placed in 2015 (ironically the same year as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released their 94 Calls to Action - timing is everything, and I don’t think that this decision to put up the statue really “read the room” so to speak). To argue that history is erased by removing a statue erroneously presupposes that statues teach history. What we have to get to the bottom of is what is the true purpose of erecting a statue. Is it to teach history, or to glorify individuals? Think about who we erect statues of in public spaces and why we put them up in the first place. Is your personal understanding of history constructed from a tour of statues? If we look deeper at all of the arguments and all of the reasons being shared in this forum, it is clear that the purpose of the statue is veneration and glorification, not the teaching of history. For those who say put a plaque up for people to read, survey your neighbours and find out how many take time to read plaques attached to statues in public spaces.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls for building “capacity for intercultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect” (TRC 7). Before reconciliation, there must be truth. Whether you are Indigenous or a settler, or a newly minted Canadian citizen, we are all treaty people. The treaties are not just historical documents, but living documents. The policies espoused by Canada since confederation can still be felt. Those policies have rippled throughout history. As Chief Justice, now Senator, Murray Sinclair said, “It’s education that got us into this mess, and it’s education that will get us out.” We need to learn history, not glorify complicated individuals.

There have been a lot of half truths and misinformation shared on this public forum. The assertion has been made that the atrocities people “claim” JAM made have no scholarly documentation, and that people have “never seen a single well-documented article or report that even attempts to summarize Macdonald’s so-called “evil doings.”” This statement in an important debate such as this is dangerous. Not only because it is false, but mostly because it is misleading and muddies the waters at a time when we need clarity. Visit the University of British Columbia’s Indigenous Foundations page for several well researched and well sourced articles and papers on Sir John A and his/Canada’s colonial history (https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/), or the Indigenous Corporate Training Inc (https://www.ictinc.ca), or read Bob Joseph’s 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act. The Indian Act was enacted by the Liberals, but has Sir John A’s fingerprints all over it, especially since the Indian Act combined policies put in place under John A’s leadership and before Confederation. Another great source is Clearing the Plains by James Daschuk, which is left out of some suggested reading lists. All of these sources should not be taken as proof themselves, but the plethora of sources listed in the notes, works cited and bibliographies provides further scholarly and academic research giving us a better look at the whole picture of Sir John A. If you’re not the reading type, listen to “The Secret Life of Canada” podcast and their episodes on Sir John A, statues and the RCMP. Although they admit themselves (the hosts) to not being historians, they consult with and learn from historians to construct each episode. There are a lot of well put together resources to enhance and develop your overall view of Sir John A and Canadian history.

There is no legitimate scholarship from today that would attempt to refute these facts. Claiming residential schools came after Sir John A or was not put in place as national policy under his leadership neglects the policies and statements made by the man himself. His actions lead to cultural annihilation and genocide. Those are well documented facts. But that’s not what we are debating here.

We are not here for a history lesson or to debate history. We are led back to the original conundrum - do statues teach history? What is their purpose? Would the removal of a five year old statue erase Sir John A from our collective memory? No. Of course it wouldn’t. Statues are not created to teach the fullness of history or add to the narrative. They are created to venerate and glorify. There are a lot of things wrong with glorifying JAM in the way that we have downtown Picton. But this statue reinforces a colonial narrative that is alive and well in “Loyalist Country” (I say as a person who has direct roots to the Loyalist settlers arriving post American War of Indepence and I am a lifelong resident of the area). Referring to this area as Loyalist Country is not a defence, it is part of the narrative that has to change.

The statue needs to move. If we talk about statues in context, then no one can deny that it should be at the courthouse, possibly well curated and put in appropriate context. It should not be where it is downtown Picton.

The narrative of this country is not the one that most people were taught in school. The more we learn the more we have to respond to what we learn. As many have said before, you can’t erase history, and that is what happens when we continue to venerate politicians such as Sir John A in these prominent positions and places.