Many historic figures held offensive views
Notions society now finds repugnant were often progressive in their day
Strip Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s name from the Montreal airport, tear down the Famous 5 statues, expunge William Lyon Mackenzie King’s name from everything — including his face from our $50 bill — and remove from every school or building the name of Tommy Douglas.
That would be the logical, though wrong, outcome if a recent trend is allowed to take its course in Canada.
On June 21, National Aboriginal Day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Langevin Block — named after one of Canada’s founding fathers, Hector-Louis Langevin — would now be called the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office.
Why the change? Because Langevin was one of the proponents of the residential school system, which has wrought such pain and ongoing social upheaval upon Canada’s Indigenous people.
One week later, the target became Ryerson University. Aboriginal students and the students’ union want to change the name of the 69-year-old educational facility because its namesake, Egerton Ryerson, is widely credited with pioneering public education in Ontario and for being the catalyst behind shaping residential school policy for Indigenous children.
There is no question residential schools did incalculable damage to Indigenous culture and individuals and most Canadians feel great sorrow about that, but there is little proof that either Langevin or Ryerson intended to do harm to Canada’s First Nations. Indeed, the irony behind this is both men would have been considered progressives in their day with benevolent intentions.
Whose name should be next on Canada’s erasable blackboard of history? In his youth, Pierre Trudeau held anti-Semitic views and even wrote anti-Semitic plays. Later on, however, he would be the first prime minister to appoint Jewish MPs to cabinet. Does one act cancel out the other? Should the name of Montreal’s airport now be changed?
Before he entered politics and became premier of Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas — who is one of Canada’s most beloved figures for ushering in Medicare — wrote his Master’s thesis in 1933 called: The Problems of the Subnormal Family. It is horrific to read. After studying 12 poor women and their families, Douglas recommended sterilization (eugenics) for the most “subnormal,” as well as requiring all couples seeking marriage to first undergo a mandatory process to determine whether they were morally and mentally fit.
Douglas eventually derided such ideas and when a bill to legalize eugenics was presented during his time as premier, he rejected it. Douglas redeemed himself in that area, but what of the following quote about LGBTQ people: “If ever we needed in this country to adopt a new attitude toward homosexuality, this is the time. Instead of treating it as a crime, and driving it underground, we ought to recognize it for what it is: it’s a mental illness, it’s a psychiatric condition which ought to be treated sympathetically by psychiatrists and social workers.”
Douglas was progressive in his thoughts on both eugenics and LGBTQ issues at the time, but now his views would make him unelectable.
Some of the Famous 5 women, who successfully fought to have Canadian women declared persons in 1929, also were in favour of sterilizing those deemed “mentally defective.” Their views also changed over time. Nellie McClung eventually advocated for Asians and South Asians to gain the right to vote and she celebrated in 1947 when they won that right.
What of the Canadian prime ministers Arthur Meighen, Robert Borden and Mackenzie King who fought so hard to prevent Canadian women from obtaining personhood? Should women demand that their portraits be removed from Parliament Hill? Or should Canadians recognize that historic figures — like all of us — are flawed and must be viewed through the lens of the time in which they lived?
Time will tell what Canadians decide. However, if our history is erased, does that mean we will one day be condemned to repeat it?