Comments on: Remembering and Commemorating a Complicated Past

By: Tom Peace

Tom Peace — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:04:10 +0000

The movement is Halifax is interesting for a number of reasons. Perhaps most importantly because it draws attention to the issues Ian discussed, but also because it demonstrates successful ways of using history that fall outside of the more professional constraints most often associated with practicing history.

We posted a little bit about this a couple of weeks ago: http://activehistory.ca/2010/04/street-history/ but perhaps more importantly we also linked to Dan Paul’s petition to have the all-things Cornwallis re-named: http://www.petitiononline.com/01101749/petition.html.

By: Anna

Anna — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:35:57 +0000

There’s a strong movement in Halifax to have plaques up explaining the crimes of Cornwallis, and to rename several places, like the park and a local school.

I do think we should be revisiting several of these honours and discussing their significance and appropriateness, and discussing how to best talk about McClung’s racist, classist, and ableist arguments. I think part of the problem is we like to have Heroic Heroes in our history, rather than people who were complicated. Once we’ve bought into the idea that people are either saints or sinners, it becomes pretty much impossible to teach anything with nuance.

By: Johanna Schoen

Johanna Schoen — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:32:46 +0000

At a celebration to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the first eugenic sterilization law in the US, Daniel Kevles gave an address comparing the popularity of eugenics in the early 20th century to the popularity of the enviromental movement today. He didn’t mean to make a statement decrying the environmental movement, but wanted to draw attention of the popularity of eugenics among the general public and the movement’s impact on shaping public policy. I thought that this comparison was very apt — and always tell my students about it when I am trying to explain the eugenics movement. I think this comparison also helps us think further about the issue of how and when to honor public figures. I guess in my personal judgment the question would be, how much were individuals directly involved in the implementation and execution of policies we decry today. There are, as you point out, very important figures we would be unable to honor if support of eugenics were the reason we found such honor inappropriate. In the US, for instance, Margaret Sanger comes to mind.

Important issues and excellent post.

By: Jim Clifford

Jim Clifford — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:39:47 +0000

For those interested in this topic, I think Teresa Iacobelli’s post on government apologies from a few months ago might be worth reading: http://activehistory.ca/2010/02/acts-of-contrition-rethinking-the-purpose-and-effect-of-government-apologies/

By: Michael Cross

Michael Cross — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:22:39 +0000

This is a great post. It raises some of the fundamental questions in history teaching. I always have urged my students to understand first, judge later. But there issues where we all have gut reactions, eugenics being one. Another is Canada’s immigration policy- Chinese exclusion, the Creek Negroes excluded, the refusal to admit Jewish refugees, etc. Students have a reflex to condemn. Yet some will struggle to understand when we begin to talk about a country’s right to shape its culture vs basic humanitarianism.
Good stuff. I enjoy this site.