Read on Twitter
Consider the following: Scheer speaks for about five minutes, but doesn't actually say anything good Sir John A actually did. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/scheer-other-conservative-mps-met-by-protesters-at-john-a-macdonald-rally-in-regina-1.5091422#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=kYBpKcl
There's a lot of platitudes about "politicians coming together" and Canada being a great country and whatnot.
But surely if John A's legacy is so remarkable, we'd be able to convey a full-throated defence of him beyond "well, uh, confederation!"
...Right?
But surely if John A's legacy is so remarkable, we'd be able to convey a full-throated defence of him beyond "well, uh, confederation!"
...Right?
The whole idea that we need to revere the man is some very modern revisionism. This 1947 Maclean's feature (with language of the time, fyi) tackles MacDonald without much sympathy for the man. https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1947/7/1/the-great-and-gay-john-a
Someone posited to me recently: Justin Trudeau is the most corrupt prime minister we've ever had.
I had a good laugh at that. John A. MacDonald awarded railway rights to a Quebec rail tycoon in exchange for about $100,000 in campaign contributions.
I had a good laugh at that. John A. MacDonald awarded railway rights to a Quebec rail tycoon in exchange for about $100,000 in campaign contributions.
It strikes me as so bizarre that the damn statue's most ardent defenders chastise the mob for wanting to destroy history, when they themselves don't seem to have a great grasp of it.
It seems to me that the defence of the statue shares a lot with the statue itself: It is a pretty symbol, not the reckoning with history that we're constantly told it is.
Look at the plaques underneath these statues. They're like a Wikipedia entry, after the subject's publicist has got hold of it.
If I may keep harping: My point is not that MacDonald had no redeeming qualities or no achievements.
But his defenders are accusing the unruly mob of being anti-democratic, of hating the country itself, and of wanting to erase history.
But his defenders are accusing the unruly mob of being anti-democratic, of hating the country itself, and of wanting to erase history.
From where I sit, it seems the unruly mob has a clear list of grievances: He hated the French; he led the crackdown on the Northwest rebellion and the execution of Louis Riel; and ordered the determination of Indigenous people.
For his boosters, the response seems to be "yes, but, confederation." https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/crowley-sir-john-a-macdonald-an-underrated-statesman
Which, fair enough, confederation! But the defences of MacDonald appear to be particularly wistful paintings of the prime minister as a Hegelian world historical figure. And he's...just not that.
