I have trouble getting worked up about statue destruction because, being literate and capable of reading history, I understand that "history" and "statues" are distinct concepts, and the loss of one does not mean loss of the other.

Doesn't mean I am particularly "for" wholesale vandalism of public monuments or anything. But if you don't understand that unqualified defense of late 19th-early 20thC statuary is implicitly about freezing public memory in an era of white supremacy, I don't know what to tell you.

Canada has created a prosperous & multicultural society which welcomes people from around the world. But it's also built on a history of land dispossession, racism and genocide. Working out what to honour or not honour out of that history is genuinely hard.

If we want an inclusive Canada, we need to use public space to honour the people who today's Canadians admire. Which is why it is so disappointing to see folks like @ErinOTooleMP making the defence of 19th century statues a wedge issue.

It's not a good way to *have* a serious conversation. But I think what the US experience shows us is that it's by far the most effective way to start one. https://twitter.com/colbycosh/status/1299876627912880128?s=20

I suspect many people share the concerns re: destruction of property. But understand that the position folks like @ErinOTooleMP et al is v. different: i) statues = history, ii) statues cannot be touched and therefore iii) the status of some fairly nasty ppl cannot be questioned

Basically there is a #teamthosedarnkids and a #teamsirjohnaisdope. The latter would like to claim the former as endorsing its positions even though I suspect many do not.