ENGL1130 | Arguments on the Removal the Statue of Sir John Macdonald

in history is about a man who developed the country. Therefore, the issue here that can be noted is due to the projection of the image. In accordance with this, it has been argued that nothing lasts forever, as the statue is not a historically significant one that was a gift by Sir John A MacDonald. The question that arises here is that gifts are necessary to be displayed forever. The second argument that comes up here that the legacy of Macdonald is much more negative is portrayal when his treatment of the indigenous people and Asian community members are considered. In support to this, the author states that MacDonald was amongst one of the most negatively viewed personality (Bernie et al. A1+). On the contrary, the author argues that if the members of the community are serious about the reconciliation. Then, it is the part of their responsibility to ensure that public spaces in Victoria are not only to begin to reflect the limited amount of colonial legacy but also to begin the signs and symbols of the presence of all type of people present in the city (Cohn B2 ).

The problem that is taking place here is due to the presence of the concrete piece of a statue that is present in front of the city hall in an over pressurising way. Therefore, for the Aboriginal and indigenous family members who visit there with their family, it is a significant symbol of colonial violence that may torture them emotionally.  

Secondly, it has been argued that Macdonald statute is more of a negative representation than the positive when considered the ill-treatment if the indigenous people. It has been stated that Mac Donald was the only politician that justified legal context of racism based on the charged cultural practices that separated the grounds of Chinese and Aryans. It has been found that Macdonald enmity towards the Indigenous people went to the extent of abolishment of indigenous languages through the development residential system of school, considering these factors of suppressing and torturing the indigenous people it can be stated that the statue of Macdonald needs to be removed despite any good that could be attributed to him. The record of cruelty persists and even the actions of genocide refrain him to get any honour.

On the contrary, it can be contradicted that historic sites and Monuments address the concerns through historical figures such as Sir John A. Macdonald, whose actions in developing residential school have made him a negative figure with the indigenous members (Anderson A2). Therefore, it can be said that there is nothing to further discussion of the noble goals of either positive or reconciliation for laying down the entire disaster pointing at only one person. The author here argued that Macdonald is the father of Confederation and the first individual to draft the 72 resolution at the Quebec Conference. Moreover, Macdonald made the effort to negotiate with B.C to turn Canada’s sixth province for offering the transcontinental railway. However, followed by the confederation and implementation of Indian Act 1876, Canada government duty was to offer proper education to the indigenous children, but the Macdonald government made an ill-conceived decision in this respect. It has been stated, that there were very few exceptions on oppositions against the establishment of the residential schools. Neither the senior departmental hospitals nor the members of the churches raised any voice against the system and its torturing character. It is the generation of the Canadian voters and government in partnership, which bears the accountability for the prevalence of residential school. Therefore, it can be argued based on the factors that reconciliation must seek an honest argument with proper arguments of truth other than biased ideological notion about the issue.

Again, it can be stated that the existing campaign on the removal and reconciliation that is being performed against the statue of Macdonald is both wrong as well as unjustified. In this aspect, the author states that reconciliation needs all the parties to an emphasis on the future that has the authority to frame the past that cannot be reverted (Lee Crowley A4). In this regards, it can be argued that people must seek for ways to accept the accountability for the past mistakes and to genuinely accept the gestures of healing by showing kindness and compassion to the past. In support of this, it can be stated that the decision to remove the statue is a bigger effort to humiliate the persons and that his contribution fails the test of genuine forms of reconciliation. These activities show that the non-indigenous Canadians are not able to accept the reduction of their dominating founder that was broadly accepted and assisted at that period. The author mentioned that there could have the development of new interpretive material for accompanying the statue of Macdonald for complete recognising his duty in assisting Canada's policy of the Aboriginal along with several more positive accomplishment. It can be argued, that Canadian people could have tried to embrace the creation and exposure of the new statutes by celebrating their Indigenous leaflets for making an effortful contribution to their community (Cohn B3). Therefore it necessary to realise the errors made by the founder as well as the leader’s effort in changing society. They should be making an effort to celebrate indigenous histories that epitomises a two-way street for a genuine reconciliation by offering understanding and kindness.

Conclusion

From the above study, it is evident, that there is a major controversy, which is trending over the removal of Macdonald's statue from the city hall. From all the arguments it can be agreed upon that removing the statue not much justified, as the history that one chooses to talk at any point is a reflection of the present. It can be strongly agreed upon that the statue of Macdonald need not to be forgotten nor celebrated from city hall since it is a commemoration of a historical past. Maybe for many Cnidarians, there is a presence of feat that removing statues may erase the memory of countries history. However, considering the indigenous issue, others must not judge the actions of historical persons based on contemporary standards.

Reference list and Bibliography

Anderson, Rick. "Should Statues Of Sir John A. Macdonald Be Removed? No | The Star." thestar.com. N.p., 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2018. A2

Bernie M. Farber, David B. Macdonald and Michael Dan "Should Statues Of Sir John A. Macdonald Be Removed? Yes | The Star." thestar.com. N.p., 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2018. A1+

Cohn, R. Martin. "History Is Littered With Statues Dumped From Their Perches: Cohn | The Star." thestar.com. N.p., 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2018. B2

Lee Crowley, Brian. "Brian Lee Crowley: Removing Macdonald Statue Fails Test Of Reconciliation." Vancouver Sun. N.p., 2018. Web. 25 Oct. 2018. A4