I really didn’t want to write about this topic, and yet we’re swarming with stories and thinkpieces about it, so in the interest of that, I’ll say a few words, however clumsy and inexpert. On the subject of Sir John A. Macdonald and the current vogue of removing his name from things, I find myself annoyed by so much of it. Part of it is because the sudden rush to start doing this smacks of the me-tooism that so often plagues our political discourse, especially on the left or “progressive” side of things. Having a discussion about Macdonald and his role in the cultural genocide of Indigenous people is not the same thing as removing Confederate monuments in the United States, and yet there is a kind of equivalency being proffered, including by a number of self-righteous activists. They’re different conversations, and trying to equate them does nobody any favours.

Second, Macdonald is a complex figure on pretty much every level. While there has been increasing agitation in his role in promulgating residential schools, or the much-repeated quote about reducing food aid to starving First Nations on the prairies following the collapse of buffalo herd populations, all of that all of this ignores context. While people keep insisting that Macdonald was the architect of genocide, any reading of history that I’ve done is that Macdonald was trying to prevent it, having seen what happened south of the border. The problem is that there was little conception as to how to go about doing it, and there was a great deal of political opposition to his doing do, when there were a great many voices who would have preferred that they starve. That Macdonald mitigated these calls and actually did deliver food aid (which was something that governments were certainly not in the business of in the 1800s), and tried to come up with plans to get them to transition to farming once they couldn’t hunt bison any longer (which didn’t take), and to give them the vote in order to involve them in the political life and decision-making of the country despite that they didn’t own land and would otherwise not eligible under the existing electoral laws of the time (leading to howls that he was giving them “special” rights, which subsequent Liberal governments stripped) – it all should mean something. Yes, what we recognise now as being cultural genocide was an attempt at staving off actual physical genocide. It’s why Macdonald created the Northwest Mounted Police – to ensure that there were orderly treaties rather than the mass slaughter done by the Americans in order to clear lands for settlement. We know this now as the violence of colonisation, while it was trying to do this without the loss of life in the United States is a complicating factor.

So yeah, Macdonald is complex, and you can’t just mark him down in the column of “racist promoter of genocide” and leave it at that, which is why we need conversations about history, but most of what passes for it over social media, between the woke voices crying genocide and their opponents decrying the erasure of history, is not a proper conversation. It also requires a recognition that history is an evolving process, and that adding voices to the narrative isn’t erasing it – it’s adding to it, even if it makes the picture more complicated (not that I’m seeing a desire for nuance on either side). And we’re going to have a lot more conversations about this going forward, if this guide of problematic figures is anything to go by. But given the state of the debate right now, I don’t have high hopes that it’ll be constructive in the immediate term.

Good reads:

• Here is another fact-check about the proposed tax changes and the impact it’ll have on doctors. Spoiler: It won’t affect the vast majority of them.
• Liberal MP Emmanuel Dubourg says that he’s seeing misleading information targeted to Haitians in the US over social media channels.
• The decision to go ahead with acquiring “interim” Super Hornets could depend on a trade ruling next month regarding Boeing’s complaint against Bombardier.
• The processing of settlements for residential school survivors has tripled in cost, in part by underestimation of numbers, in part because of bureaucracy.
• The union representing diplomats says that Trudeau’s decision to double the salary of the consul general in San Francisco will affect future salary negotiations.
• Here’s a great read about being trans in the Canadian Forces, and why it’s a career that attracts so many trans people.
• Here’s an interesting look at Indigenous communities who aren’t living up to their own UNDRIP obligations as the government slowly works to implement them.
• Here’s a thoughtful look at the Great Recession, and the relationship between it, austerity politics and household debt that Canada has to be acutely aware of.
• The Conservatives aren’t saying if Rebel Media booths will be banned from their future conventions and events.
• Niki Ashton is backtracking on her comments about religious freedom in Quebec.
• Andrew MacDougall looks at the difficulty of the government balancing the problem of irregular arrivals with their Open Canada™ branding.
• Chantal Hébert suspects that the fight for religious rights, particularly in Quebec, will bog down the remainder of the NDP leadership race.
• Chris Selley blasts the NDP for refusing to condemn the rank discrimination of the kinds of niquab bans that Quebec is proposing.
• Andrew Coyne offers the soberest analysis to date of the current spike in irregular arrivals of asylum seekers.

Odds and ends:

The new US Ambassador to Canada, Kelly Knight Craft, will start the job in October.