Object lesson

History is complicated. It is awash in contradictory and competing versions of events. Mostly written by the victors. What are we to make of these contradictions? Whose story are we to believe? Are we equipped to make these judgements? As a community? As individuals?

Our community heard from an academic late last month, arguing that we have done a poor job teaching history and social studies in Canadian classrooms. And that our resulting ignorance leaves us ill-equipped to observe commemorations of Sir John A. Macdonald. Therefore, the sculpture of Macdonald as a young lawyer, situated on Main Street, must be hidden from public view. This, in summary, is the strange and disjointed argument posed by an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba.

It is also astonishingly sweeping in scope. For were this reasoning adopted as the basis for policy, it seems a lot of statues, plaques and street and school names would disappear from the landscape. It is hard to conceive of any commemorative icon or symbol surviving the test of undisputed glory or unblemished triumph.

In his zeal to rail against “the whitewashing of Canadian history” in the classroom, the young professor urges us to hide away a community-commissioned statue until he is assured we all understand that Macdonald was a “complicated figure.”

There is plenty to unpack here.

Sean Carleton teaches in the history department at the University of Manitoba. He was invited to offer his comments, via Zoom, late last month to the working committee considering the fate of Holding Court, a lifesized sculpture of Macdonald arguing a case before the court in Picton.

The sculpture was commissioned and funded by a community group interested in commemorating the history of this place. It was created by the acclaimed sculptor Ruth Abernethy. Holding Court was presented to the municipality on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Canada’s founding as a nation.

Macdonald was a complicated figure. His legacy is under renewed scrutiny and is being re-examined, particularly in the context of historical and lingering existential challenges faced by Indigenous folks in Canada. Broadening our understanding and exploring a richer context of this nation’s formation is healthy and productive. It is unquestionably an important and worthy exercise.

The U of M professor has an interesting take. Carleton decries the lack of critical examination historical figures receive in our classrooms. It amounts, in his view, to the whitewashing and the ‘deliberate lionizing’ of a complicated figure—a figure Carleton acknowledges played a pivotal role in building a nation. He contends that in history and social studies classrooms, Macdonald’s transgressions are ignored.

That seems a stretch, but even if we were to concede that Canadian classrooms are lacking in nuance and complex notions, it is a breathtaking leap from the professor’s argument to his verdict on the fate of the statue in Picton. Carleton’s rage at the frailty with which we teach history and social studies in Canada is a debatable academic opinion. His contention, however, that the remedy for pedagogical neglect is to obliterate statues from the public space is absurd.

How would this work in a Carleton-informed community? Does he propose a national awareness test to assess our historical knowledge and critical thinking abilities? Must we eliminate all statues, plaques and replace hundreds of street and school names until we have achieved a sufficient grasp of the nuance of our nation’s story to satisfy this U of M history teacher? Or does he possess some objective measure of community insight to determine when we can remove these veils protecting us from our own ignorance? Or must we delete all such commemorations? Naming streets after colours? Schools by numbers?

Professor Carleton has a decidedly low opinion of average Canadians. Sadly we are, in his assessment, the product of an unenlightened and deliberately obtuse education system. We lack the wherewithal to understand the complexity of the characters that have endured in our historical memory. So much so that we ought not to display them in public. A prophylactic against the wrong ideas. It would be frightening if it were not so ludicrous.

Carleton’s most promising argument is that better education about our country’s history is necessary to build a better relationship with Indigenous people. Personally, I find this a superficial view—a thin proxy for substantive action to address matters of equality of justice, health and education in some Indigenous communities.

But contrary to Carleton’s view, I am confident that Canadians are open-minded and open-hearted enough to consider any and all potential ways to improve the lives of our Indigenous neighbours. I believe most folks see adding context and nuance to our historical record as a good thing. Most folks welcome a more nuanced debate and understanding. To the extent this moves the dial toward a better relationship, it is worth thinking about. It is, however, entirely unclear how our enlightenment requires the obliteration of Macdonald’s statue on Main Street in Picton.

The professor acknowledges that Macdonald is a pivotal character in the history of the formation of this nation and, therefore, what it has become. But what he fears is that this fact, absent a fuller context, in the minds of the unwashed is damaging and corrosive to others among us. That the emblems of our stunted historical development need to be deleted until we are smarter.

It is an interesting idea. But so are a lot of other dangerous notions.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca