A simplistic approach

Broader picture reveals problems with renaming Fort Amherst

This opinion piece deals with those of Peter McKenna (August 17) and Tony Couture (August 21). My input on the Fort Amherst issue has been twopronged and consistent. Firstly, that most advocates of renaming were making false statements to support their case. Secondly, that I do not support the expunging of Amherst’s name. Mr. Couture has tacitly acknowledged my correctness in the first area: “(Lockerby) may be technically correct, as he distinguishes honest history from ideologically driven narrative…” I can assure him that I am correct, period. I might add that it is honest history that I’m interested in here, not ideologically driven narrative. The latter I leave to philosophers and political scientists.

Now, for the second matter. Messrs. McKenna and Couture have been at pains to demonstrate that Amherst had a strong dislike of Indigenous people in North America and used language in describing them that is today considered unacceptable. They could have saved themselves the trouble, since what they have discovered is well known to historians. But is that reason to change the name of Fort Amherst?

Germ warfare has been used since medieval times. During the Second World War, the co-discoverer of insulin, Sir Frederick Banting, proposed innovative ways of distributing pathogens, including aerial spraying and distribution through the mail. Banting (a Nobel laureate) is revered as a Canadian icon who made a major contribution to mankind. Because of his despicable proposal, should Banting’s name be stripped from three schools, a string of research centres, a fellowship and Banting House National Historic Site?

The name of Sir Hector-Louis Langevin, a Father of Confederation, was recently expunged from a government building in Ottawa as a result of claims from indigenous people that he was responsible for the residential school system. Subsequently, it has been determined by historians that it was Sir John A. Macdonald, as Prime Minister and Minister of Indian Affairs, who presented the concept of residential schools to the House of Commons in 1883. In so doing he remarked: “When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are savages; he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write, his habits, training and mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write.” Later, Langevin, as Minister of Public Works, made similar remarks and implemented the policy of his political master by announcing three schools. The views of Amherst and Macdonald reflected commonly-held views of their times; few of Macdonald’s parliamentary colleagues would have considered his remarks hateful, repugnant as they are in the context of today.

Macdonald’s name adorns buildings and statues in Ottawa and across the country, including Charlottetown, and he is often considered the primary founder of Canada. Are we to obliterate his name from these buildings and pull down statues? There is hypocrisy in getting rid of the “low-hanging fruit” and leaving the rest. Unless we are prepared to rename everything bearing the names of Banting, Macdonald and many more historical figures who impacted Canada, renaming Port-la-Joye / Fort Amherst National Historic Site would be piecemeal, facile, arbitrary and ad hoc. The recent Langevin episode has given historical renaming a bad name (pun intended), and demonstrates that historical renaming can indeed be a slippery slope.

Mr. McKenna stated that he has been in touch with certain Parks Canada experts, implying that they have enlightened him. Perhaps he and Mr. Couture could obtain further enlightenment from other Parks Canada experts who recommended to the federal government that Amherst’s name not be removed from Fort Amherst. I, for one, concur with the Parks Canada recommendation.

I shall now bow out of the Amherst debate, at least for the time being. If others wish to continue it, I trust that they get their facts straight; that they square their renaming advocacy with the broader picture (which I’ve only touched on here) in a consistent and coherent way; and that they attempt to bring historical context to bear. In Canada there are more sensible and effective, and less controversial and divisive, ways of pursuing reconciliation with First Nations peoples than renaming sites and buildings and tearing down statues — a simplistic approach to fix complex problems.

The views of Amherst and Macdonald reflected commonly-held views of their times.