The problem with calling for the removal of Sir John A’s statue is that it divides us into opposing camps. It is a zero-sum game where one side’s victory comes at the other side’s loss. This results in the worst outcome for all. This is important because prior to and during the debate that resulted in removing Sir John A’s statue, I witnessed many divisive acts and suggestions that could squander any unifying good will and replace it with a more hardened and polarized community.
Last Wednesday night Kingston City Council moved far too quickly. We didn’t consult enough stakeholders and the ask was framed as an either/or; as the winner takes all. The decision was made to take down Sir John A’s statue: 12 to 1.
I was the lone vote against removing the statue of Sir John A. I believe the statue should not have come down because it divides people roughly along settlers versus indigenous lines. It divides us when we should seek to advance reconciliation.
Many indigenous populations have been treated very badly. Some individuals may want some form of revenge. In two examples of this, council heard from a non-indigenous protester-allied delegation that we should replace Sir John A’s statue with an indigenous monument for 130 years. This would allegedly be “balance”. We also heard that we should not listen to Sir John A’s apologists; that we should focus entirely on indigenous voices. However, both these eye-for-an-eye suggestions are bad policy. Reconciliation does not mean switching one domination for another.
In the days leading up to the vote, I received many calls asking about my position. From those, I receive five veiled threats of violence. Three of those five came from people alleging to be part of the organized protest in City Park. Threats of violence tend to delegitimize the causes of those who make them. This group does not represent all indigenous voices.
During the delegations we heard from a Métis woman that tearing down the statue would lead to greater division and that there were many better things we could do such as providing better education, clean drinking water, and fixing broken child welfare systems.
Indigenous peoples have been making asks like these for generations and we have rarely listened till now. The discovery of many unmarked graves at a residential school has created the political will to do many things that had previously not been possible. This was an opportunity to choose an ask that was substantial. Strategically it makes better sense to have as many people on your side as possible. That does not happen when you alienate the majority population against the minority. Tactically, a symbolic ask is far less valuable than a substantive or system changing ask.
There could have been a thousand different asks of us that could have united us. For example, we heard from one indigenous presenter that indigenous children are still being taken away from their parents in a new modern way. Stopping this practice could resonate with anyone who has had children. This ask would have united us in common cause and this would have been real systemic change.
Another example, we heard from two presenters about the abysmal water condition on some reserves. Fixing this would have been another common cause that unites us and would be real substantive change.
There are many symbolic gestures we could make that unite us too. We start council with an indigenous prayer in an indigenous language. We have committed to naming the new bridge from an indigenous perspective. We could pass motions and resolutions on many symbolic points that we can all agree on. But tearing down a statue divides us because it takes away from those who wish to honour Sir John A as Canada’s first prime Minister in the traditional way. Statues on pedestals are the traditional way European culture has remembered important events. In my experience back packing through Europe, it was the statues and monuments that taught me what people in those countries thought was important. Statues are a cultural tradition that has value. To take that away from people is a disservice and a disrespect to their and my culture. Disrespecting another’s culture is not part of reconciliation.
It is through positive shared experiences that reconciliation and good relations develop. It is through common struggles and shared victories that reconciliation becomes real for people. Real reconciliation is much less likely too if one’s strategy and tactics are to play a zero-sum game where victory for one side comes at the expense of the other. Reconciliation is not about silencing the majority as pay back for past silencing. Reconciliation is not about payback or any other eye-for-an-eye policy. Reconciliation is about adding perspectives. Reconciliation is about moving forward together.