By Trevor R.J. Parsons
“Without history,” Jack Granatstein writes, “we as a nation cannot undertake any rational inquiry into the political, social, or moral issues of our society.”
The recent proposal by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario to rename any and all schools that bear the name of our first prime minister and one of the foremost Fathers of Confederation sent shivers down my spine, not only as a proud Canadian, but as a graduate student of history.
There are so many misconceptions and lies perpetuated by activists, commentators and people posing as historians. It is claimed Macdonald was the a sort of mastermind or “architect” of a genocide against First Nations and that not only was he racist, but more racist than his contemporaries.
Most advocates of such propositions are blinded by two ahistorical factors: emotion and presentism. Bear with me on this as just recently, while writing a history of local schools, I came across some unsavoury aspects of residential schools that have impacted people in the area that I live. Children at the Mohawk Institute were not merely subject to brutal beatings, but of having their “faces rubbed in excrement” or urine which was the punishment for bedwetting. (Milloy, A National Crime, 284)
It would be demonstrably sociopathic not to elicit the feeling of outrage, that a crime against decency and humanity had not been committed. The fact remains residential schools became places of horror and torment for the many thousands of children who were forced into them. But rubbing bodily fluids into the faces of children was not Macdonald’s vision or intention, and we cannot let ourselves be blinded by the magnitude of what would eventually happen to poor children.
It is an insult to rational thought to scapegoat Macdonald.
Sir John A. Macdonald is not the bogeyman that so many people are attempting to portray him as. He did not even write the Indian Act. In fact, he was not even prime minister when it was passed. That nefarious distinction goes to Alexander Mackenzie (Liberal), but Macdonald was prime minister when the act was amended to force children into residential schools. At this point, context and intent are imperative, not emotional presentism.
Assimilation is not the same thing as extermination. Macdonald’s version of assimilation was incorporating First Nations into Canadian society. His vision for the future of the Canadian west was not merely one where settlers reigned supreme, it was one where First Nations, with the assistance of the government, would be taught modern farming, given loans to develop infrastructure. It was not to leave them to stand idly by as Canada developed and industrialized.
Despite immense political pressure, Macdonald sought to protect First Nations, particularly reserves, from exploitation. He was adamant opposed to the attempt of white settlers to buy and own land in reserves, not because he wanted to segregate the two “races,” but to prevent the exploitation of one by another.
Had he not died in 1891, history would be very different as it has been noted that Macdonald was planning to enfranchise First Nations men (and unmarried non-Indigenous women, but that is a whole other issue) without forcing them to renounce their status or the loss of any privileges resulting from the Indian Act.
This is not to deny the gravity of residential schools or their impact on First Nations. Genocide requires, among many things, intent and there is no evidence to suggest this.
Now, before anybody decides to google Macdonald and cherry pick some unflattering comments he made, remember that context is key. The most famous quote attributed to Macdonald, that of “killing the Indian in the child,” is something he never said. It has been falsely attributed to him.
Residential schools became the site of truly odious crimes, but any rational individual who does their research will discover just how farcical the accusations of genocide are.
Another statement that has appeared quite a few times of late is that Macdonald was not only a racist, but more racist than his contemporaries. Again, the evidence for this is scant. By our standards, Macdonald and just about every single person during the 19th century, was racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc.
When it comes to race, North American and European societies became more racist as the 19th century progressed. Sir John was an advocate of an “Aryan” Canada. For Macdonald and most Anglo-Canadians, this meant a racialized worldview where Britons were superior to everybody else. But the Japanese also believed they were superior, while the Chinese believed they were superior, and, yes, First Nations also shared a racial world view where they were at the very top.
This Aryan Canada he envisaged and advocated also included freed African-American slaves and Jewish immigrants, who Macdonald openly welcomed with open arms. Asian immigrants were, however, subject to virulently racist legal restrictions (by our standards), but not only has the government shown remorse, apologized, and compensated victims (which is all they really can do), these episodes have been integrated into our public memory.
Two caveats that are not taught or mentioned in our curriculum are two very progressive ideas that Macdonald had for the late 1800s. The first is his support for woman’s suffrage 30+ years before it was granted. The second is that he was a keen environmentalist, who created the first nature reserve and national park.
The irony of this whole spectacle is that it shows just how much these very same teachers who voted to repudiate Macdonald have failed their students.
Instead of taking responsibility for these failures, and demanding a history curriculum not subject to the whims of activists tainted by emotion rather than logical and rational thought, they chose to enter the political fray and sacrifice Macdonald on the altar of political correctness.
Historian Niall Ferguson has said that “history is not politically correct” and as a result, “many on the left struggle with its findings.” I don’t think there is a truer statement in regards to this whole issue.
Erasing Macdonald is just a symptom of a larger problem. All of the data suggests we are living in the most historically illiterate generation and I have no doubt it will only get worse as time goes by. I would gladly debate Macdonald’s legacy, but this activist, pseudo-intellectual, social justice pandering needs to end.
In Ontario, only one Canadian history course is mandatory in high schools and it only covers Canada since 1914. It is mandatory for students to attend English for the entirety of high school. They are exposed to more Shakespeare than Canadian history! The result is that most students who graduate today have no real knowledge of our history. They see only the perverted distortions that happen to make their way into the news.
While we are on the subject, let’s address some other figures.
Since when do we judge historical figures by a single act? Edward Cornwallis’ whole military career and his role in founding one our great cities is derailed by a single act? We could deride just about anybody by cherry-picking a single instance and making it the entirety of their legacy. Without context or nuance, just about anybody can be made into a monster unworthy of positive public recognition. Off the top of my head, Tommy Douglas and Pierre Trudeau are good examples.
You hear few people demanding statues and buildings named after Tommy Douglas be changed? Cornwallis lived two centuries ago; Douglas advocated eugenics while my grandfather was alive.
To all of those social justice warriors, let’s not forget that this great progressive figure, despite his Keynesianism and commitment to the welfare state, believed that those deemed “subnormal” shouldn’t be allowed to have children because they would inevitably end up in jail.
Pierre Trudeau, who was inundated by the anti-Semitic rants of Lionel Groulx and other intellectuals of the period — most of whom were openly supportive of Mussolini, Dollfuss, Franco, and other fascists; most of whom praised Stalin and Mao (who, between them killed 60-70 million people). And, for somebody who is lauded as a great Canadian nationalist, Trudeau wasn’t too keen on fighting for his country in the Second World War.
Egerton Ryerson undoubtedly had a role in residential schools, but what he is also is the Father of Public Education and that certainly outweighs any role he played in conceptualizing residential schools.
Here’s his vision as quoted in “A National Crime” by John S. Milloy: “They are schools of learning and religion … to give a plain English education adapted to the working farmer and mechanic … to be taught agriculture, kitchen gardening, and mechanics.” I know, that was emotionally grueling to read and undoubtedly shows us just how evil he truly was. Hardly.
Without Ryerson, all of those students protesting at Ryerson University would not have the privilege of attending a public university or even public schools as we know them.
Canada is one of the few countries where students are now taught to be ashamed of their history. Mind you, there are episodes in our past that we should be ashamed of, but Sir John A. Macdonald is not one of them.
The provincial government has failed to provide students with a comprehensive understanding of their history; teachers have failed to speak up against this; professors have failed by undermining the national narrative.
If we have learned anything from this sordid affair it is that Jack Granatstein has finally been vindicated.
Trevor Parsons is a graduate of Laurentian University, an M.A. candidate in Canadian history at Nipissing University, and a board member of the Hastings County Historical Society.
