Treating Canada's past as disposable is wrong
Absolutism has replaced reasoned argument, says Michael Kaczorowski.
Perhaps the first real history books I ever read in high school were historian Donald Creighton's two-volume biography of Sir John A. Macdonald: The Young Politician, The Old Chieftain. These works evoke the great drama behind Confederation and celebrate the life of a remarkable political figure who, more than any other, made Canada possible.
There is a significant difference, of course, between history and hagiography. The latter concerns the lives of saints, not imperfect men. It is important to remind ourselves of this distinction in the light of recent events.
The discovery of the unmarked graves of children in Kamloops, B.C., along with the enduring tragic legacy of the residential school system, has revived debate about how we present history and historical figures in this country. Such debate is both healthy and a tribute to our democratic society.
Yet even in democracies, thoughtful debate and perspective can become casualties in a time of judgment. Macdonald's legacy is a case in point. It seemingly matters little that Macdonald led efforts to create an independent nation in the face of British indifference and American hostility. Or that he did so while battling alcoholism and family tragedy. This more rounded portrait is far different from the caricature.
Yes, Macdonald was a man of his time — for good and ill. But if responsibility for the residential school system and its legacy lies solely with him, does that absolve all those who came later and did not act? If we condemn all those of the past who lack our present-day sensibilities, who will be spared?
Treating history as disposable is wrong. And seeking to address past mistakes by erasing that past teaches us nothing. This is even more true when violence masquerades as “principle,” as in the recent “beheading” of an Egerton Ryerson statue in Toronto.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report did not call for removal of monuments. Indeed, commission chair Justice Murray Sinclair has said genuine reconciliation is not about tearing down statues or renaming schools, but seeking a proper balance in telling this country's history. This wise, constructive perspective seems to have been lost. Scrawling graffiti on a Roman Catholic Church is intimidation, not a path to reconciliation.
We live in a time where absolutist positions have replaced reasoned argument, where there is no tolerance for seeking common ground. Differing views are often met with outright hostility, and debate replaced by a kind of imposed orthodoxy. Reasoning, context and perspective are not valued. This is not a healthy way to build understanding.
On his last day in the House of Commons in June 1984, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said no government can rewrite history. Instead, “it is our purpose to be just in our time.” After the terrible revelations of recent weeks, and more likely to come, I genuinely hope that amid the pain and sorrow, there is an opportunity for all of us — Indigenous and non-indigenous — to commit ourselves to an approach to reconciliation based on being “just in our time,” as citizens and as peoples.