Figures From History

Sir John A. Vs. the Vandals Redux

John Robson
September 25, 2018
Our self-appointed cultural guardians have once again targeted a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Charlottetown. To them, Canada’s first Prime Minister fails to meet today’s pristine moral standards and so must be sent down the memory-hole. John Robson thinks Canadians need the confident humility that comes of knowing flawed people can still be giants.
Figures From History

Sir John A. Vs. the Vandals Redux

John Robson
September 25, 2018
Our self-appointed cultural guardians have once again targeted a statue of Sir John A. Macdonald in Charlottetown. To them, Canada’s first Prime Minister fails to meet today’s pristine moral standards and so must be sent down the memory-hole. John Robson thinks Canadians need the confident humility that comes of knowing flawed people can still be giants.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

There’s a Soviet-era joke about three exiles in the Siberian gulag. One says, “I criticized Comrade Popov when he was a rising star.” The second says, “I praised Comrade Popov when his star was falling.” The third says, “I’m Sir John A. Macdonald.”

No, sorry. Actually he says, “I’m Popov.”

It has not been the tradition in Canada to erase people from history when we discover they have failings, because we realized they weren’t perfect to begin with. We left it to those who considered themselves to be without defects, like Communists, to erect statues to their superhuman predecessors, and then topple them as needed for ideological purification. In Canada, we flawed humans have put flawed heroes, and some bums, on pedestals in order to learn from history, rather than erase it.

Not any more.

In 2009, well before Sir John A. Macdonald was carted off to a Victoria warehouse and the City of Kingston scheduled public consultations on how to “reinterpret” local memorials of the father of our country as a no-good rat, before Hector Langevin’s name was peeled off the façade of the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa, and before bronzed Lord Cornwallis was felled in Halifax, a planned recreation of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was cancelled because it was too painful to admit… what? That parliamentary self-government and individual rights had triumphed over obtuse and extortionate absolutism?

No. That New France was not perfect. Five years earlier the Americans had cheerfully reenacted George Washington’s humiliating 1754 defeat at Fort Necessity. But when then-Quebec Premier Jean Charest was invited to the planned recreation of the great 1759 battle between the armies of Wolfe and Montcalm, he could not even bear the thought of it. “It’s not enough 250 years to do that,” he tsked. “Maybe at 300 years or 350, or maybe never.”

Never? That’s roughly the schedule for the Chinese politburo to face Mao’s true legacy. So instead of hundreds of weekend redcoats and bluecoats assembling on the Plains of Abraham in 2009, a bunch of poets gathered there for a celebration of the survival of the Quebecois nation. At which it evidently wasn’t too soon to read out the 1970 FLQ manifesto because, former premier Bernard Landry said, “There is nothing dishonourable in looking history straight in the eye.”

Excusez moi. But in the face of such hypocrisy I must insist that there is something dishonourable in erasing and rewriting it.

Today the impulse to purify history comes particularly from Canadians of indigenous descent, fueled by a counterfeit conviction that their own history is pristine. For all his imperfections, from excessive drinking to elasticity of principle, Sir John A. is being bundled into the memory hole on a flatbed truck essentially because of complaints by First Nations activists about residential schools, the weaponization of food against the Prairie tribes, and disparaging references to “savage” culture.

Macdonald and his contemporaries were not free from sin on these matters. But his views, and actions, have been egregiously exaggerated and misrepresented; for his time he was a model of liberal enlightenment. The key question is whether those now casting stones, or uncasting statues, are really without sin. Otherwise there’s no telling who will one day follow Macdonald into socially engineered oblivion… including their ancestors.

xScenes from the removal of Sir John A. Macdonald’s statue from outside Victoria City Hall.

Modern aboriginal lobbyists certainly cherish the skills of modernity, from literacy to advanced technology, that Sir John A. was determined they must acquire so as not to have the modern world pass by, or over them. And the sanitized version of an aboriginal Garden of Eden free of war, ethnic cleansing, slavery, or cannibalism before the white serpents invaded is a fraud.

To say so is not to excuse aggression, lies or false dealing. It is to say when we erect statues in this country they are to men and women, not gods. Not for us the deification of false idols like Stalin or Mao who will lead us all to a future where, Trotsky once claimed, “Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical…. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.”

I will not dwell on the pathos of this same kind of utopian nonsense resulting in smelting Macdonald while burnishing monuments to the racist eugenicist Emily Murphy. Instead I will follow Trotsky with John Ralston Saul who nearly two decades ago said, “for better and for worse, we do not erase. Only ideological dictatorships erase.”

A major part of the glory of the West, and its strength, is self-criticism. In ancient Egypt regime change was habitually accompanied by chiseling predecessors off the very pillars. In England they kept Bad King John’s tomb, and his nickname, as an eternal reminder and warning against subsequent tyrants.

In the United States, it won’t do to pretend that statues of Confederate generals are not about slavery or that Dixie is just a tune. But I would not remove the monuments to Confederate soldiers at Gettysburg who, like the Highlanders at Culloden, deserved a better cause than that for which they fought so bravely.

I would even keep a statue of Stalin somewhere, to remind us how it invariably ends for falsifiers of history who keep erecting tin gods on tyrannical foundations until the entire squalid enterprise comes tumbling down. And to remind us how this genuine genocidal killer was supported by many Western intellectuals blinded by hatred of their own culture.

In his farewell letter, the late Senator John McCain said Americans “never hide from history. We make history.” If Canadians are to stop hiding from history and start making it again, we need the confident humility that comes of knowing flawed people can be giants.

Upon removing Macdonald’s statue, Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps said, “So John A. Macdonald, in this case, was a great man. We live in one of the greatest countries in the world, without question. And he was also the architect of the Indian Residential School system. So we need to find a way to both commemorate history and reconcile with history.” Amen to that. But wrapping the Old Chieftain in a tarp and hiding him in a warehouse is not such a way. Nor is lying about it.

My National Post colleague John Ivison, vainly objecting to renaming Langevin Block, quoted poet Maya Angelou: “History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived. But, if faced with courage, it need not be lived again.”

The hardest part of facing history is accepting that just as the greatest men and women of the past had flaws, so do we. Tearing down Macdonald is an attempt to tower over him. But new peaks are not rising here. It is a revolt of political pygmies who imagine they are giants.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Too Clever by Half: Why Ottawa’s Clarity Act Helps Neither Side in Alberta’s Separation Debate

The House of Commons once had an effective law in front of it that laid out clear steps to assure that any provincial referendum on independence would be democratic and any negotiations after a “Yes” vote would be fair. But it wasn’t the current Clarity Act – it was a bill put forward by the Opposition Reform Party in 1996, and the Liberal government chose to ignore it. Instead, it passed its own legislation designed to crush support for any subsequent secession movement. In Part II of their series on what the Clarity Act means to today’s debate over Alberta’s future, George Koch and Jim Mason delve into the Act’s origin story and explain why it’s so blatantly stacked in favour of Ottawa – and how that could inflame separatist sentiment and undermine the federalist cause.

Canada’s Other Productivity Crisis: The Daily Irritants That Slow Us Down and Sap Our Spirit

Multi-factor verification. Customer surveys. SMS alerts. Endless online check-ins. Technology was supposed to free up our time for better things. Instead, it has created endless obstacles to getting anything done. Plus there’s the constant impact of government regulations and questionable safety measures that further rob us of our valuable time. Peter Shawn Taylor looks at the absurd and annoying ways that 21st-century life ties us up and grinds us down. While some examples seem faintly comical, taken together they comprise what Taylor argues is a micro-productivity crisis of national proportions that is no laughing matter.

A Mess and Minefield: Ottawa’s Clarity Act on Provincial Separation is Anything but Clear

Proponents of independence for Alberta seem to believe the federal Clarity Act provides a sure pathway to secession should they win a referendum vote. But as Jim Mason and George Koch explain, the Act is less pathway than political minefield. It demands a clear question with a clear majority vote – but offers no criteria for either. It provides no instructions on how separation negotiations should proceed, but it does allow other provinces, Indigenous groups and others to intervene. And it assigns virtually all decision-making to Ottawa. It is, Mason and Koch find in the first of this two-part series, a formula not for resolution but deadlock, virtually certain to frustrate any constitutional effort to secede. Almost like it was designed that way.

More from this author

Hot Ticket: My Role in the (Coming) Downfall of Speed Cameras

“La révolution est dans la rue,” as the excitable French like to say. The same holds true in placid Canada. After receiving four photo radar tickets for going just slightly over the speed limit in Ottawa, John Robson declares the current proliferation of automated speed cameras to be a revolution in how Canada’s streets are policed, and an outrageous violation of the principles of fundamental justice. Robson is not alone in his outrage. While Ontario cities eagerly embrace these cash-hungry Robocops – one municipality expects to issue at least one ticket per year to every local driver – the masses are pushing back. In Alberta, for example, the “photo radar cash cow” is already on its way to the slaughterhouse. Robson’s denunciation of speed camera tyranny offers a manifesto for drivers everywhere.

Mob Rule on Pipelines and Grizzly Hunting

There was a time in “the true North strong and free” you could follow your dreams as long as you didn’t hurt other people. Then came “social licence” and suddenly, from energy pipelines to the B.C. grizzly bear hunt, things got banned for being unpopular, a.k.a. “socially unacceptable”. That ominous change sets Canada on the well-worn path to the tyranny of the majority, writes John Robson.

Mr. Trudeau’s Photo Album

Why is it that those who most vehemently proclaim their own virtue are inevitably those who have some nasty skeletons rattling around in the closet? Take our virtue-signalling PM and his recently unearthed penchant for dressing in blackface, the ne plus ultra of progressive sins. Covering one’s face in black paint isn’t illegal, of course, but it is an affront to contemporary mores. To unpack the distinction between law and morality, John Robson looks at Lord Devlin’s 1965 book, The Enforcement of Morals. Robson makes clear that breaking the law may be one thing, but offending the moral code of the age can extract an even greater price.