RECONCILIATION AND ICONOCLASM

An issue which I have been pondering the past several months is reconciliation in general and specifically the place of iconoclasm in it. There have been , in my opinion, a number of reasoned articles on the topic recently. Most are written by white, males but dismissing them for that reason is argumentum ad hominem. But, I would like to hear more from the other side.

Recently, The Whig Standard had an editorial by Brian Crowley which I thought was cogent concerning the removal of JA Macdonald's statue in Victoria. He opines that reconciliation requires a focus on the future and echoes the TRC Calls to Action in suggesting that new interpretive material could accompany JAM statues and named buildings; and that new monuments celebrating indigenous leaders and groups be erected.

I also recommend to you an article in the Sat 17 Aug G&M by John Dann, "Hiding a statue from view won't change our history."‎ John Dann is the sculptor of the JA Macdonald statue removed from Victoria city hall

His argument wasn't one of an artist's angst but simple and reasoned. I particularly liked his point that such actions are needlessly polarizing and not at all conducive to discussion or understanding of different points of view‎. A similar point was made by Senator, Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. I support these views.

The dangers of a polarized society are all too obvious to our South.

Dann's article is available on line. Removing my statue of John A. Macdonald from view is not going to change our history - The Globe and Mail

About a year ago, I read an article reporting on a format developed by a USA university for considering historical figures in order to determine whether their statues and building names should continue. I understand that it is in wide use in the USA but I have been unable to find it again. As I recall the model weighs the entire work of the historical person in question.