k10ery said:
Well I like the general philosophy. Indians on top of the plinth, white folks looking up adoringly from below ...

But Brant got a good deal from the British government, which Tecumseh surely did not. (Brant also has a statue in Brantford and another in Ottawa, come to think of it.) And I think Brant was almost surely one of the largest slave owners in the history of Ontario! Bit of mixed messaging there.
Click to expand...

Tecumseh was killed in battle, so yeah he didn't get a lot. LOL As for Brant and slaves, well we're going back to the 18th century here, it was probably fairly common practice? It wasn't abolished within British North America until 1833. We do have to have perspective when judging societal values from previous less informed ages according to our values today.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
True, but then again, our actions in this age must also reflect our values today.

AoD
Click to expand...

Yes, but we do run the risk of falling into a trap of anachronistic and cultural bias if we judge based on today...

It's an interesting historical problem though isn't it? Do actions/beliefs judged as negative today cancel positive past achievements? If we look closely at any historical 'hero' we'd probably find something considered unethical or inappropriate today. Thomas Jefferson held slaves too, for example. I think it comes down to considering the ethical norms of the time, i.e. is it reasonable to expect the individual to have known better or acted better? There's always context too, i.e. Joseph Brant was a hero and statesman in BNA but a ruthless enemy warrior in the United States.
 
Tewder said:
Yes, but we do run the risk of falling into a trap of anachronistic and cultural bias if we judge based on today...

It's an interesting historical problem though isn't it? Do actions/beliefs judged as negative today cancel positive past achievements? If we look closely at any historical 'hero' we'd probably find something considered unethical or inappropriate today. Thomas Jefferson held slaves too, for example. I think it comes down to considering the ethical norms of the time, i.e. is it reasonable to expect the individual to have known better or acted better? There's always context too, i.e. Joseph Brant was a hero and statesman in BNA but a ruthless enemy warrior in the United States.
Click to expand...

After a year in Barbados, I'd say that 100% of Bajans would disagree with your notion of context. If you wanted to honour someone for their heroic acts but detail their slave ownership, maybe you could strike a balance, but I'd say you'd be reaching.

My cousin edits geographical / historical articles for the Canadian Encyclopedia. She says that the biggest problem is trying to get the original article writers to revisit their history of a region to add additional First Nations content. They are almost invariably resistant to 'messin' with their baby' just to add... context. The word comes up a LOT, apparently.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top