Questions are important

I have more questions than answers: 

Is there a suitable compromise between those who want the statue removed and those that want it to remain? 

Should there be a compromise? 

Does taking down a statue erase or re-write history? 

Are Sir John’s accomplishments and actions not preserved in archives, books, and articles across the country and online? 

Is history much larger than a statue? 

Does a simple statue without explanation of the deeds of the person inherently reduce the history by focusing attention on an idol rather than the important details of historical events and actions? 

What is more important, visual representations of historical figures or the ways we learn about history? 

When we want to learn about history, do we visit a statue? If not, how does removing it endanger history?

When we want to learn about history, do we read books, visit archives, or learn online?

What does a statue represent?

What are alternative options to taking down the statue? 

Should controversial statues include plaques that explain the nuances of the history?

Can we use technology to create “virtual statues” that are more flexible, and include nuanced history?

How should history manifest in our parks and streets? 

Does history change over time? Is history constantly re-written as we learn?

What constitutes adequate consultation on an issue like this? 

How should we be engaging about this issue? 

What do the future community input sessions look like? 

What will future “public engagement events” look like? 

Has the city reached out to Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee communities nearby for input on issues that relate to their traditional land?

What can we learn from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action?