[Midtown Urbanist]

I would say that the physical street named Dundas has more cultural importance to Toronto and Torontonians than the man the street was named after, whose been dead for near two centuries and whom the vast majority of Torontonians haven't heard of. Since Toronto was founded, we have spent two hundred years building our own history on our own streets independent from those that came before it, and it is something that should not be so easily cast away.

I'm unconvinced that renaming Dundas does anything to rectify past injustices, support the unprivileged, or is even the end-point for the proponents of the name change. It does serve to spend tax dollars frivolously, cause undue disruption, remove a piece of Toronto history and cultural heritage, and create a completely unnecessary and highly toxic debate based on what has been shown to be questionable historical grounding.

What is even hoped to be accomplished through the renaming exercise anyway? To deny the fact that we are a colony-state? To sweep our history under the rug and call it a day? Truth and reconciliation is not supposed to be deny and cover it up under the guise of "Trillium Avenue East" or "Lavender Boulevard".

 

[afransen]

In other words, Dundas Street is named after itself, and not the man. No one remembers the man.

 

[Northern Light]

You are literally arguing a street name has to maintain its status quo and you're lecturing on what's progress?

You're misrepresenting what's being said............he did not literally argue a street name has to be maintained.

He has argued, as have others, that this street name isn't worth changing...............which is quite different.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I would say that the physical street named Dundas has more cultural importance to Toronto and Torontonians than the man the street was named after, whose been dead for near two centuries and whom the vast majority of Torontonians haven't heard of. Since Toronto was founded, we have spent two hundred years building our own history on our own streets independent from those that came before it, and it is something that should not be so easily cast away.

Indeed, can you imagine people making demands that London, UK change its name because the Romans were violent, conquering slave owners.

 

[zang]

Indeed, can you imagine people making demands that London, UK change its name because the Romans were violent, conquering slave owners.

London wasn't named after a person.

 

[afransen]

Alexandria? It was named after a brutal warlord.

 

[zang]

Alexandria? It was named after a brutal warlord.

If people there want to change the name of their city, it's not my place to tell them they can't.

 

[lenaitch]

How about the city start small and see how it goes. I suggest Brant St.(between Richmond and Adelaide west of Spadina). Although I couldn't find any reference that it is named after Joseph Brant, let's make the connection. He was Mohawk, owned several slaves and warred against and displaced other first nations. Then there is Brantford, Joseph Brant Hospital and a couple of those pesky statues.

Then perhaps consider Tecumseh St. a few blocks west.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I suggest Brant St.(between Richmond and Adelaide west of Spadina). Although I couldn't find any reference that it is named after Joseph Brant, let's make the connection. He was Mohawk, owned several slaves and warred against and displaced other first nations. Then perhaps consider Tecumseh St. a few blocks west.

Nice try. Don’t you know that tobacco is an evil corporatist blight upon humanity, unless it’s native tobacco, then it’s sacred and above reproach. Revising names to erase native slave owners is not the narrative the city and sjw class is seeking.

 

[zang]

Nice try. Don’t you know that tobacco is an evil corporatist blight upon humanity, unless it’s native tobacco, then it’s sacred and above reproach. Revising names to erase native slave owners is not the narrative the city and sjw class is seeking.

No. Let’s please remove the honours of having something named after you from all slave owners, regardless of race, creed or religion.

 

[zang]

How about the city start small and see how it goes. I suggest Brant St.(between Richmond and Adelaide west of Spadina). Although I couldn't find any reference that it is named after Joseph Brant, let's make the connection. He was Mohawk, owned several slaves and warred against and displaced other first nations. Then there is Brantford, Joseph Brant Hospital and a couple of those pesky statues.

Then perhaps consider Tecumseh St. a few blocks west.

I know you feel like this is some kind of “gotcha”, but I completely agree. Stop naming sh!t after a$$holes.

 

[Northern Light]

I know you feel like this is some kind of “gotcha”, but I completely agree. Stop naming sh!t after a$$holes.

Why do you keep insisting on telling others what they think and how they feel? That's not good debating form.
Stick to what other people actually type, the real facts, the evidence in support of same.

****

Further, did you notice anyone advocating naming anything else for Dundas or any of the other names mentioned?
Right, we all agree on how to handle naming things on a go-forward basis.
The discussion is about RE-naming things.

The point there again, is not that anyone is defending the status quo per se; its a question of asking what material benefit anyone might get, and what material benefit those same people or others may lose given
the allocation of considerable resources this entails.

 

[zang]

Nice try. Don’t you know that tobacco is an evil corporatist blight upon humanity, unless it’s native tobacco, then it’s sacred and above reproach. Revising names to erase native slave owners is not the narrative the city and sjw class is seeking.

In retrospect, what the hell is this?

Who mentioned tobacco? Why did you decide to bring it up, then apply a false double standard?

 

[zang]

The point there again, is not that anyone is defending the status quo per se; its a question of asking what material benefit anyone might get, and what material benefit those same people or others may lose given the allocation of considerable resources this entails.

You personally may be asking that, but there've been plenty claims of "erasing history", or slippery slope arguments about how many names need to be changed, and comments claiming "he wasn't really that bad". If that's not an attempt to defend the status quo, I don't know what is.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I know you feel like this is some kind of “gotcha”, but I completely agree. Stop naming sh!t after a$$holes.

Let's start with this park...

From link. After all, he was only a one-term backbencher from 1995 to 1999 in the Mike Harris government.