In the Chronicle Herald today (Feb 12) there was a letter in the Voices of the people section (A12) talking about the just recently canceled re-enactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham; a battle that entrenched the defeat of the French in Canada. The writer goes on to state the outcome of this battle allowed English Canada to "show its true colours as one of the brightest examples of democratic society, as the French were allowed to stay and flourish. Democratic you say? If the English were so democratic, why were the First Nations of Canada not allowed to vote in the democratic atmosphere (in a land that was taken, stolen, appropriated, conquered, use whatever language you want, it all boils down to theft) until March 31, 1960. So you are saying the English were oh so democratic since the battle in 1759, so how does this explain the 201 years in between. Does not sound so democratic to me. There is no universally accepted definition of the term democracy, however there are two held principles that are generally agreed on. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. Easy to get around I guess. Do not count First Nations as "citizens"(once more, in their own homeland, stolen)
If you are going to give a history lesson, be sure to give the whole history lesson and not just the side to support your argument, no matter how one-sided your argument may be.
You are going on the belief that history is a fact. It's not, the only thing that history is, is an biased accounting recorded by the winner. You will never find a recording of history from any period that isn't corrupted in this way.
ReplyDeleteEven our current news that we watch today is being influenced by the political atmosphere of the day and the location. How a news story is reported is based on the beliefs of the majority.
It is the nature of people to choose the information that backs up our beliefs and to disregard or discredit the remainder. Don't frustrate yourself by expecting anyone to be above this.
I could not agree with you more. But, does denial of such events as residential schools, genocide in the Americas, the holocaust, even though we know the true history about these events, mean it is ok to for a person to accept a known "false" history? I always tell people to remember there are many views to history and the winners are the only ones who have had the opportunity to write history. This history has been dictated by someone in a position of power, a power given due to an unearned privlege society grants (check your school books over the past 60+ years, who is telling the history? Now look for the 5 pages in the History text talking about First Nations, who is telling MY history, and what gives them the right?)
ReplyDeleteFor years, and I have heard it from associates, flat out denial of the mass abuse at Residential Schools. Now if someone denies the holocaust ever happened, they lose all credibility, and even their job (recently in the RC church)
Remember, as you stated, it is the nature of people to choose information that backs up our beliefs. When we do this we are also backing up our biases, which are learned, not nature (inherited), which leads down a whole new path. If we can learn something can we not unlearn it as well?