Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Should we rename/remove problematic representations of historical figures…
Should we rename/remove problematic representations of historical figures from the landscape?
DUNDAS STREET RENAMEING
Opponent (Stagg)
According to Stagg, destroying monuments may be detrimental since it eliminates the capacity to teach society about historical persons' difficulties. The belief that history's positive and terrible sides should be shared rather than buried because it reminds us of inequity.
Proponent (Newton)
According to Newton, street names matter because they talk about our values, and they portray how we look as a country. So we need to educate people about things like this and change the name of the street.
I agree with Newton, I think it's important that we change the name of the street because it does reflect the wrongdoings of Dundas. Even though what Dundas did was in the past, we should not be "memorializing" him because of his unethical ways. I think Ron Stagg is missing the point, he doesnt actually care about Dundas's past, he is only worried about showing history
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
(Opponent) Renaming the University is the best way to ensure people don't remember the wrongdoings of people that were said to be good
(Proponent) It could also lead the students that are in that university have a loss because it will take a while for jobs to figure out the name change. so, keeping the name could be the ideal solution for the student's sake.
I can't choose a side for this situation. The students should hold a vote and see what they think would be the best.
UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR
(Opponent) The name change and cutting off ties was a good thing to improve the relationship of the university and indigenous community.
(Proponent) The name change was forced and happened only because of the recent uncovering's of the mass grave sites
I think the name change was a good thing just done at the wrong time, maybe they should have waited or done it earlier.
QUEENS UNIVERSITY
Proponent (Hill)
Hill Believes that we should keep it to support Diversity.
Opponent (Dean)
The Dean of Queens University believes that "Sir John A Macdonald's Name should be removed because of his past
Personally, I agree with the name change, this is because i don't support wrong doings no matter who it is or how long ago it happened.
MUNK DEBATE
Opponent (Will)
According to Will, many historical figures were previously slave owners, however they can't be judged on crimes they did in today's era because times are different. Many historical figures were also portrayed as good when in reality they were racist, sexist and more, but were given a clean slate in history.
Proponent (Cornell)
According to Cornell, Historical figures can be judged in today's era, Cornell claims that there are people from the past who represented today's principles and who should be honoured rather than the corrupt characters. Harriet Tubman, for example.
I have to agree with Cornell, I would rather honour a genuinely good person then a bad person. Although times have changed, ethics have not and people should always face the consequences of there actions.
CHURCH VANDILISM
This is most definitely not the right way to handle things, this is violence, and it is a crime. You can't defeat crime with crime. It was more an act of revenge and hate rather than trying to find social justice.
I agree that the mass unmarked graves were a very tragic and horrific thing that has happened but burning down churches is not the answer.
My final thoughts are that most of these changes such as the names, statue removals and etc. happened only because of the mass graves that were uncovered. It is actually sickening because indigenous people have been unfairly treated for an exceptionally long time and residential schools have not been considered evil until now. It's sad that it takes so long to bring actual change and that too because a tragedy was uncovered. I'm glad that its finally happening but it all just feels so forced.