In this episode, we dig into the complicated question of what to do about the controversial statue to Private Alexander Watson in front of St. Catharines City Hall. Brock University professors Michael Ripmeester and Russell Johnston examine the complex history of the monument and walk us through ways that its challenging narrative offers opportunities for education and reconciliation.
In this episode, we dig into the complicated question of what to do about the controversial statue to Private Alexander Watson in front of St. Catharines City Hall. Brock University professors Michael Ripmeester and Russell Johnston examine the complex history of the monument and walk us through ways that its challenging narrative offers opportunities for education and reconciliation.
EPISODE 5
[INTRODUCTION]
[00:00:08] ANNOUNCER: Welcome to The Open Door, presented by the Brown Homestead in the heart of the beautiful Niagara Peninsula.
[EPISODE]
[00:00:21] AH: What do we do with Private Watson? By that, I mean the statue of Private Alexander Watson, which has stood for the most part, quietly on the lawn of the St. Catharine City Hall, since it was unveiled in 1885; a memorial to a young man from St. Catharine’s, who died during the Northwest rebellion.
As it was when it was first raised, the monument has found itself back in the news recently. A group of citizens has petitioned for it to be removed from City Hall property. Their argument is that it celebrates the suppression of the Northwest resistance, and therefore, symbolizes the violent oppression of indigenous peoples. It's a valid concern, and an important issue for anyone who hopes that we're at the beginning of an era of truth and reconciliation here in Canada.
It's also a complicated one, as demonstrated by a recent St. Catharine City Council vote. After considerable community consultation and the recommendation by city staff to move the monument to Victoria Lawn Cemetery, city council was still deadlocked, and the future of the monument was left in limbo. Where do we go from here? Fortunately, we're lucky enough to be joined today by two Brock University professors, who began researching the Watson Monument, well before the current controversy. Welcome to The Open Door, Dr. Michael Ripmeester, from the Department of Geography and Tourism Studies.
[00:01:40] MR: Hi, Andrew. Thanks for inviting me.
[00:01:42] AH: And Dr. Russell Johnston, of the Department of Communications Popular Culture and Film.
[00:01:47] RJ: Great to be here. Thank you for inviting us. Yes.
[00:01:50] AH: It's great to see you both here. I don't think there's anyone better to speak to about this issue, because you guys started researching the Watson Monument, when no one else was really talking about it. Before we roll up our sleeves and tackle the big questions, maybe you can say a little bit about how that came about.
[00:02:07] MR: Okay, the idea came from Russell, who came up to me one day and asked if I would be interested in thinking about monuments and the ways in which audience responded to them. We didn't have any real conception of what we wanted to do at the beginning of this, except to see whether or not people responded in some way to all the mnemonic products, things like monuments, historic sites, museums littered around the Niagara region.
As luck would have it, we had the Watson monument standing right in front of City Hall. We thought, what better thing to test some of our ideas, than to ask people whether or not they knew what this monument was about. We started by asking people right in front of it, what they thought the monument was for. Not surprisingly, I think, only about 6%...
[00:03:03] RJ: It was 6%.
[00:03:03] MR: 6% of people actually knew what the Watson monument stood for. That prompted all kinds of further research on to mnemonic products and the way people responded to them. We have been interested in Watson and Watson’s story, and the way in which people react, or engage with it ever since.
[00:03:30] RJ: That encapsulated, once we found out what contemporary citizens of St. Catharines thought about the monument, we also looked backwards and tried to chart how the monument had figured in the city's life up until that moment, up until 2005. Then, we looked at the backstory of the monument itself.
[00:03:49] AH: You've watched it go from obscurity, to the front pages of the newspapers. In terms of the current discussion, I think that you really got to the root of the problem in your article in the St. Catharines Standard, when you point out that the monument tells two conflicting stories at the same time.
[00:04:06] RJ: Well, the initial impetus for the monument was the Northwest Resistance of 1885. At that point in time, Métis communities in what, what is now St. Saskatchewan, were concerned about their land claims as the federal government was moving settlement further west. The same was true of the Assiniboine Nations, who were also concerned that their claims for reserves that were being set aside for them at that point in time weren't being fully listened to. In fact, the treaties that were governing those had been delayed by quite some time.
The Northwest resistance occurs. These various groups make it known that they're willing to take up arms in order to defend their particular territories, until the federal government actually recognizes their claims. The federal government answers with roughly 5,000 troops that are sent from eastern Canada, basically, to suppress the resistance. That's the impetus for it.
One of the soldiers who goes out west is Alexander Watson. He’d originally grown up in St. Catharine’s. He had moved to Winnipeg and joined the 90th battalion, which was a militia unit at that point in time. He dies at the Battle of Batoche. The Battle of Batoche is the key moment of the Northwest Resistance. Insofar as that is when the Métis component to the resistance collapses, and Louie Riel is taken into custody.
After he falls at that battle, his body is returned to St. Catharine’s for his family to bury in a local cemetery, but the city decides to honor his service with the military at that point in time and supported the federal government's aims. Over the next year, there's fundraising. They gather enough money to put up a monument. It's initially thought it might go on his gravestone. Later, the committee decides that it would be better at City Hall to serve as a permanent memorial, both to him and to all the militiamen who fell at Batoche and during the Northwest resistance.
The part it transfers from being a monument to an individual citizen, who serves in the army, to being a representative monument towards all of the militiamen, all of the volunteers, as they would have been called at that point in time, who served in the Canadian military and who had fallen. That's one narrative. That narrative continues through time, that the monument is seen as a general service memorial, rather than a tribute to an individual soldier, or a gravestone for an individual soldier.
Before World War I before cenotaphs come along, that is St. Catharines war memorial. It exists, what? 30, 32 years, 35 years before the end of World War I. That's one story. The other story to bear in mind here is the resistance itself. That's what's forgotten. We think, I don't even think, given the evidence over the last year that we saw through the debate about whether or not to remove the monument.
I would say in St. Catharines, the story of the Northwest resistance is completely lost. That that is an aspect of Canadian historical education that doesn't seem to resonate with people at this point in time. Even if they know the name Louie Riel, they are not aware of the battles that happened along the Saskatchewan rivers at that point in time, or the participation of the militia at that point in time. That's the other side of the story. At a moment in time when we're talking about reconciliation, and looking back to how indigenous peoples retreated in Canada over a long period of time, we have to look at the monument as a reflection of its moment in time and realize that this monument was raised to someone who was actively engaged in the Federal Government's program of indigenous suppression and blocking rights at that point in time, for these groups who were trying to negotiate their own way into Confederation. Just as each new province was trying to negotiate its way into Confederation.
[00:08:07] AH: Hence, the competing narratives that we reconsider one part of the story, it ends up in conflict with the other. The proposed solution to that right now was to move the monument to the Victoria Lawn Cemetery, which was intended to be its original destination. Aside from removing the symbolism of having it in front of City Hall, that really just relocates the problem, doesn't it?
[00:08:30] MR: I think so. There's a couple of things to think about here. Since we started talking about this with you, Andrew, I've thought about this a lot, and done a little bit of more reading and reviewing some of the things that I've looked over. I think, the fact that it was in front of City Hall is a powerful statement in terms of its symbolism, right? It means, in all kinds of ways that the city is committed to remembering this, despite the fact that it's got these conflicting narratives.
I would be happy to agree that it, placed in front of City Hall is probably not the best place for it. Then you do, when you talk about removal, as you said, you run into many of the same problems. The monument doesn't change. The things that it symbolizes doesn't change, no matter where it might be. One of the things that has been happening a lot is that contested monuments end up in museums. The literature from the museum science side would say, well, that's not really a fantastic solution, either, because now you've just shifted the responsibility for telling the story and the conflicting stories from the public sphere, to an indoor sphere in a museum. The museum may not have the infrastructure, the staff, or the budget to do those kinds of things. It's a tough decision.
The other thing is that if you move it to the cemetery, it removes it from City Hall. It does remove it from broader public view, but it doesn't change it very much. It does in a sense that it could be on the site of Private Watson's tomb, but I still think it would need to be recontextualized. It would need to be able to tell the story of the citizen soldier, but also acknowledge the fact that this particular citizen soldier participated in something that wasn't so great.
[00:10:33] AH: The other element to what you're saying is that as one city councilor pointed out, moving at the Victoria Lawn Cemetery is still to keep it on city property.
[00:10:42] MR: I was just going to say, so that still demonstrates a commitment to that particular narrative. If it's done without recontextualization, it remains pretty much as it did. The thing is, it's just a bit further from the public eye.
[00:10:58] AH: Right. Obscurity isn't a good answer, either. Because when you choose an out of sight, out of mind solution, you're running the risk of whitewashing history, repeating the same mistake that caused the problem in the first place by leaving out facts, which is what makes the recontextualization so important.
[00:11:14] MR: I think, when you look at the literature around reconciliation, a lot of it involves dialogue. We need to have people talking about Private Watson and the Northwest Resistance in order for us to be able to come to grips with the two different kinds of narratives. I think, public discussion is absolutely central to this. It was also mentioned in some of the cases where they were talking about moving Confederate monuments to museums. That isn't enough. You still need to have people talking.
I think, one of the great things if there is a great thing that came out of the events of the summer of 2020 around Watson, was that people started to talk about it. I can't remember exactly how many social media posts we sampled. It must have been near a 1,000.
[00:12:11] RJ: Yes, it was.
[00:12:12] MR: In terms of what people were saying, in terms of people commenting. This was an important first step, I think, in dealing with it. City Council went through a number of consultations, which I think is fantastic. That still needs to go further. I mean, people, the citizens, residents need to be talking about these things, in order for the whole idea of truth and reconciliation to move forward.
[00:12:45] AH: The conversation is important if we're going to get to the truth that we're seeking, the comprehensive inclusive truth of history. That brings to mind something that you said, Mike, that has stuck with me. When it comes to history, truth is always being renegotiated. At the end of the day, truth is a product of power. I'm not sure if that's supposed to reassure me, or scare the hell out of me.
[00:13:06] MR: I think, it's just a fact. History is always being renegotiated as people look to historical sources in the context of the webs of power in which they're situated. That it's very difficult to look at anything outside of the things that you know and accept as true. For historians and people talking about heritage, you're always in context. I think, as I'm sitting here thinking about this, there's an anthropologist named James Clifford, who thought a lot about writing, and the way in which academics write. He comes to the conclusion that everything we do is fiction, in the sense that it's something made. Not in the sense that we made it up, but in the sense that we made it. We choose the beginning, we choose an end, we choose a narrative, we choose the events that we look to fill in the narrative. It's always something made.
[00:14:09] RJ: When I think about history and the way that history is written, Mike and I have talked about this before, but ideally, all historians are going to go to the source documents. They're going to look for primaries. Whether that's documents, artifacts, archaeological digs, witnesses, survivors who are still with us, who can speak to their experience. At the end of the day, that historian is going to take all of those sources and interpret it through the historian zone, knowledge, perspective, and potentially ideology.
That's certainly been true through a century of Canadian history. Any historian who graduates knowing about Canadian history, studying Canadian history is familiar with the canon of Canadian history. You know perfectly well who the conservatives were, who the liberals were, and who the social democrats were. They're going to see his through those different lenses. I think, one of the things that's interesting about the current moment and looking at the Watson monument, and other monuments that have been markers to the suppression of various ethnic minorities throughout North America and the rest of the world, is that we're starting to hear perspectives from outside of those groups, really.
People, I think categorize it to quickly as a left-right question. We're starting to see history being written by other groups, who have not had their histories centered, and say, histories of Canada, or centered in histories of the United States. They're pointing out that the markers that were raised to basically, the white settler heritage, the white settler histories, doesn't matter if they're written by conservatives, new democrats, or liberals. Those histories left out a huge part of our country's past, which was the indigenous peoples. Period, point blank.
From that perspective, it is difficult to accept the continuing existence of these monuments in place, if their whole purpose in the first place was to honor the people who were central to the suppression of indigenous rights, or counteracted the ability of indigenous peoples to participate in the construction of Confederation.
[00:16:18] AH: However well-intentioned one is, we have to be honest with ourselves. It is impossible to escape our own perspective. As is often the case, though, finding the best way forward means developing the best understanding we can of how we got here. Let's take a look at the monument and the history of the monument. You've pointed out that one of the significant facts about it is that it's a very early monument to a citizen soldier. What a lot of people don't realize is that the monument doesn't actually depict Private Watson himself.
[00:16:48] RJ: That's also true. Soon after Watson passed away, the committee was formed. It was a group of citizens within the city of St. Cathariness, who thought, the city itself needs to mark this event. First, I believe this is an informal group of citizens. Very quickly, the people they pulled in to chair the committee, perhaps give it a higher profile, was the mayor of the city at the time, and the commander of the local militia unit, which is now the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. At the time, it was just the Lincoln Regiment.
Regardless, with those two men in charge, the committee raised sufficient funds to have the statue built. They held a competition to see who could come up with the best design and they ran with that. It was a local man who ran a cemetery monument company. Again, initially, it was supposed to be on his gravestone. Anyway, the design they came up with, the design that they sought, they didn't want it to be Watson himself. They consciously wanted it to be what they termed, a typical volunteer in the militia. A typical soldier.
The design they ended up with looks like a soldier standing at rest, pretty much in a contemplative position. I would say, his eyes are vaguely downcast, or a little bit forward, but not focused on anything. It's almost as if they wanted that citizen soldier to be guarding the grave of a comrade, a fellow soldier who had fallen in battle. It's as if that soldier is contemplating that, or perhaps, protecting the grave itself.
It's an interesting, somber monument in my eyes when I'm looking at it, and it looks befitting for a cemetery. However, of course, it did end up on City Hall property. Basically, at the last minute, I think it was only in the last five or six weeks before it was unveiled that the committee decided it might be better placed at City Hall and make a civic statement, rather than a funeral statement as it would in the cemetery.
The soldier is not dressed in Watson's company's uniform. Watson was a rifleman. They had distinctive green uniforms that was traditional within the British Army at that point in time. They had particular caps that they would have worn with the green uniforms. The local militia does not, still don't, in their dress uniforms, they're used to the red tunics that were more familiar with the British Army and had the white pith helmets. That's what the statue is in front of City Hall is, I think, anyone looking at it would immediately assume, it's a red and white uniform, as opposed to a solid green uniform. It's not Watson. It's a soldier really representing the local militia.
[00:19:29] AH: A soldier that who, at the time, would have represented a pretty politically charged symbol.
[00:19:36] MR: The militia in Canada for a long time had been championing their place within civil society. There's lots of ways to think about the militia at this point in time, but the militia emerges in upper Canadian society. It pre-exists Confederation itself. Militia units had expected a certain amount of public service from locals at that point in time and the Canadian days later becomes more and more volunteer.
However, the militia pictured itself as the defenders of Canada. They believe that they are the equal of the British regulars that had defended Canada up until Confederation. They have participated in things like the War of 1812. They'd certainly participated in blocking the Fenians, during the Fenian raids of the 1860s and early 70s. They saw themselves as competent soldiers in their own right. The Militia units also became local social clubs in a way, that you've got young men coming together, if they're meeting on weekly, or bi-weekly, or even monthly basis. This is young men getting together. Perhaps, instead of engaging in sports or things like that, this is young men engaging in military training and formations and marching drills and things like that. It becomes a social event, I think for them.
After the War of 1812, the family compact, that people in power, certainly in Toronto surrounding the governor at that point in time, also looked upon the militia as establishing the truth of what? The United Empire loyalists traditions as well, that these were people of British backgrounds who had settled Upper Canada, helped to create this fledgling British colony in North America, in opposition to the Republicanism of the United States. The Tories at this point in time, basically empower the old family compact to become the Conservative Party over time, take the militia in their arms, and a lot of the militia leaders would have associated with the Tories as well.
The rest of the community who did not see things from the same outlook might not have agreed with the way that some of the commanders, some of the volunteers and the militia, position themselves in society. Maybe would have marked them for their pretensions, in some ways. Certainly, over long periods of time, where there is no military combat in which these volunteers are fighting, they might have had a high opinion of themselves. Certainly after combat, like the Northwest resistance, people had a much higher opinion of them, because they did put their lives on the line when they engaged in these kinds of combat roles. That was also true during the Fenian raids.
Yes, there could have been two very different opinions about the place of the militia in society, and St. Catharines in particular, before their police forces, the militia was called out often to suppress the Irish workers who are working on the canals, helping to build the first Welland Canal and the second canal and developments to the third canal as well. Within those communities, certainly, Catholic, Irish canal workers did not have much use for Tory Protestant, maybe Orange Lodge member militia units. There's social, political and religious conflict there within the community itself.
[00:22:53] AH: Well, you touched on the loyalists who are a great example of that. We talked about that extensively in a previous episode. It's a great example of how the truth is always being renegotiated and how the loyalists are represented differently almost generationally, depending on the perspective of the day. It certainly spend as much time probably exploring the myth and reality of the militia tradition in Canada and in Ontario. At the end of the day, we have a funny relationship with our military history here in Canada, don't we?
[00:23:22] RJ: We do. I think, for the most part, the military is honored. Certainly, if we look at Remembrance Day ceremonies, much of World War I and World War II service and Korea, now Afghanistan is treated as unproblematic. I think, what surprises Michael and I in terms of discussions of the Watson monument, is that earlier engagements, I think, are largely forgotten.
[00:23:45] MR: Well, I think one of the things we found in our research, as we struggled to figure out, or make some sense of what the people who participated in our surveys were telling us, we did surveys in 2005, 2008, 2012, 2016, talking about what people knew about local things. The most telling from that, just to follow on a point that Russell just made was that we were very interested to see how people responded to the War of 1812 Bicentennial.
In 2016, we went out and interviewed people using the same questionnaires that we had in previous years, in which we were basically asking to see what people had top of mind when they were thinking about Niagara. If the efforts to make the War of 1812 Bicentennial a major part of our understanding of Canadian history, people should have been aware of it and should have talked about it. What we found was that nearly nobody one, mentioned anything historical. Two, I think only two people out of the 258, or something like that, people we surveyed in 2016 mentioned anything to do with the War of 1812.
Again, if I remember correctly, I think both of them got it wrong. The idea that those previous battles are important, and find their ways into people's consciousness is, I think, yeah, it's just wrong. At least according to our research.
[00:25:31] AH: Yet, as you said, we have these temporary moments of focus and pride that pop up. You used a great phrase the other day. You said, “Eruptions of memory.” In this case, in the case of Private Watson, why now?
[00:25:44] MR: It's a very good question. There's been lots of times in the past where these things might have come up. In fact, like we mentioned earlier, the question did come up in 2009, where somebody, one of the people who work for the city said, “This is a problematic monument.” There was a bit of interest around that. Russell and I were interviewed in various places. We talked about it. There were very, very, very few responses in the public realm about it. What happened in 2020? Well, we had a pandemic, that's for sure. We also had Black Lives Matter. Something about that, and then the protests that emerged from that, and when the folks who started the petitions to remove Watson talked about it.
Both of them were like, “Well, we were involved in this protest, and we started to look around for something.” There it was. I think, there was this way of thinking about monuments in history, in the wake of those murders, that prompted a whole bunch of people everywhere, to think about the monumental past. It was a spark. Did it have something to do with the pandemic? I'm not sure. Did it have something to do with those murders? Absolutely.
[00:27:21] AH: It's interesting, because pretty much what you were talking about how we weren't necessarily as a community, finding identity in our traditional history. It sounds like, in this moment, we're finding that our traditional history is defining the identity that we're looking for.
[00:27:36] RJ: I think, Andrew brings up a really intriguing thought. I think, eruptions happen with volcanoes after a long period of time of tension, or pressure being built up underground. I think, in our case, certainly, in terms of indigenous history in Canada, this has been coming for a long time. if we look back, let's say to the 1960s, there already at that moment in time, people rethinking indigenous history throughout North America. Sadly, probably the most famous people who came out of that might have been Marlon Brando and Neil Young, when they tried to make these causes and this knowledge more publicly visible. That's the early 1970s.
Attempts to rewrite indigenous history from an indigenous perspective had been happening in Canada and the United States for 50 years or more. There has been this attempt to make it more noticeable and to have us rethink the place of indigenous peoples in both countries. There was the Truth and Reconciliation Committee Commission. There was what, the Royal Commission on Indigenous Affairs in the late 1990s. There's been so much written about it that has slowly been percolating up, maybe into Canadian consciousness.
I feel like, people were, I guess, believed that slowly, something would happen. Maybe positive, the people who are sympathetic to this. Perhaps, the moment last summer, when Black Lives Matter struck, that galvanized people actually into activity. People who might have been sympathetic before, but now felt they could actually take some concrete action to do something themselves. That gets realized in local communities.
That if something seems like it's elsewhere, if something let's say, happened in Saskatchewan in 1885, but now you're conscious that there's actually something in your own city right now, right outside your door, you could walk outside in the 20 minutes, be standing in front of this thing that represents what happened in Saskatchewan in 1885, I think that makes it much more real to people, that they're now making connections between what happened, or the things that come out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and then turn around in their own hometown and they see a monument to the same political practices that created the residential schools.
Here's this local soldier who participated in the suppression of rights in 1885. That squelched the Métis community at that point in time. I think, that makes it more real for people. Yes, it's an eruption. I think that eruption comes after a long period of pressure, where various ideas come out. Just, one thing I'll point out about that. In terms of the discussions, let's say, the centenary of the Red River Resistance to 1870 is 1970. There is a discussion around Riel. Riel, his reputation becomes restored through that period of time, when people come to see what value he brought to Confederation at that point in time, and began to believe that there was justice to the issues that he was raising. He's then recast as another father of Confederation.
At that point in time, if you start to think about Riel as the hero, what does that make the militia? What does that make the Canadian government, if Riel was actually in the right, deserves to be considered the father of Confederation. That flips the script. After that point in time, that starts percolating out in small ways, that there are articles written for the standard in the 1970s and the 1980s, where reporters actually said, “Should this monument be here?” This conversation does go back aways, but it never gained traction until what, 2020.
[00:31:42] AH: The eruption happens, and it ends up in the lap of poor city councilors here in St. Catharine’s, who suddenly have to wrestle with this complex issue and come up with an answer for it. It was ultimately a split vote, which left everything in limbo. Some of the councilors who voted against the city staff recommendations to move the monument to Victoria Lawn Cemetery, cited the cost of it as a reason. The estimated cost, $100,000. I think to a degree, it's hard to fault them. When you look at the scope of what municipal government is responsible for, we want them to be thoughtful about where they spend large sums of our money. I have to confess that I have something of a bias here and that I've argued, much to the chagrin of many of my colleagues in the heritage industry that other than providing regulatory oversight, I think government should get out of the heritage business altogether.
I mentioned that only to say that the suggestion that came up in our conversation the other day, that we find funding opportunities in community subscription, rather than public money is an intriguing one to me. There's a historical basis for this. You've touched on that earlier. That that's often how monuments like these were initially funded. That comes with its own set of problems, doesn't it?
[00:32:54] MR: If you're talking about public subscription, you're immediately setting parameters around people who are going to be one, willing and two, able to participate in something like this. Particularly, I think, one of the rough things about this case is that St. Catharines, or Niagara has relatively high unemployment, a high living wage. There's not a lot of extra money kicking around.
Given that demographic of willingness and ability, what does that mean for decision-making? There's always something where you follow the money to see where things are going. This is important, I think. The other thing is, is that, as you say, we've got this this thing with naming things and remembering things and putting up monuments. Is a municipality responsible for these things? It's a hard question, because they have been for a long time. If you want even a marker on a bench, or a plaque, you apply to a particular city office to have this thing done.
I guess, the thing we have to think about is what the alternatives might be. One, with things like the Watson monument, which are controversial, and which are going to cost a lot of money. Also, it's hard for the city to, like I think, it's hard for the city not to do something, because there is this sense that – there is this commitment to this particular narrative standing out in front of City Hall. On the other hand, you can see what folks are saying like, “This is a lot of money that we're using now, when there are lots of other things where those funds could be used, perhaps materially, productively, or symbolically productively, or something else.”
[00:35:07] AH: I agree with that. That's a very real question is should we be spending $100,000 on preserving a monument, when we have the housing crisis that we have in Niagara and other another issues to deal with? Again, even if we are going to be spending money to address this topic, and then you're right, Mike, there is some commitment to it that has to be upheld. What's the best use of that money? Do we have more impact? Do we have more positive impact by moving this monument? Or do we have more positive impact by investing those funds in positive messaging that helps correct the imbalance that for a lot of people, the monument represents?
[00:35:44] MR: Well, I think that you're right on both counts. I think, in all kinds of ways, both things have to happen. One of the things that Russell and I talk about in the research that we've been doing is that the way in which things stick in people's heads is when they become what some academics call ‘intertextual messaging’. The same messages repeated in various venues.
When you learn Canadian history, you see the monuments, you see the heritage moments, you get the history classes in school. There's all this suite of things that it even includes coins and stamps and things like that. I think, in order for reconciliation, really to move forward, there's got to be investment in those kinds of things.
The Watson monument, moving it, sure. But it's also got to be recontextualized. There's got to be things for people to talk about. Then, the telling of Canadian history in schools, I think, has to address some of these issues as well. We can't be learning about the rise of Canadian nationality from the golden moments of the Voyagers to the multi-cultural present. It's always linear and progressive, the story we learn. I think, one of the things that we have to do is start to explore the wards, along with the heroes and great events.
We got to start in school. I think, if the municipal government, provincial government and federal government are going to continue to be involved in heritage, they've got to address these things in various ways. One of the things I think that worries me a great deal is that during our research, for example, where we were looking at social media responses to the Watson controversy in the story around the removal vote, was that up until there was mention of the petition, there was almost nothing. I think, on Twitter, there might have been two posts before that, going as far back as Twitter goes, and as far back as we can find, anyway.
Then, there's this flurry of activity around the votes. Then as soon as that's done, it's over. Nobody is talking about it. At least not in public venues. One of the things that I think has to happen is that those discussions have to continue. They can't stop, just because some decision has been reached. Even looking through things over the past week or so since the announcement on the split vote, there's been very little public response regarding the decision.
One, it may be that people are just sick of it and want the decision to be made. Two is, I just wonder whether or not the eruption of 2020 can be sustained without further dialogue, without further intertextual messaging of the fact that our history as Canadians, and some of the heroes that we look up to are tainted, and that we are responsible in all kinds of ways for the fact that there's people living an hour and a half north of Toronto who don't have drinking water, for the fact that we've got housing problems in Niagara, but in some of the First Nation communities. The housing situation is terrible.
Is there any movement that allows for, like the story that came out last year. I think, a grandfather to take his granddaughter into the bank and not get arrested, simply because they look indigenous, right? There's all these things that I think, systemic and structural racism need to stay in the spotlight. We can't say, “Okay. Well, okay. That's done.” Now, let's just get back on with their lives.
[00:40:04] AH: I think, that's an important piece with this is finding that focus and sticking with it and continuing the conversation. We're going to have to learn how to start telling these difficult stories, and get away from repeating our mistake of putting forward an edited, cleaned up history. The monuments do matter, even the difficult ones. Removing them will always be seen by somebody as an erasure of some part of their past.
[00:40:30] RJ: Issue with leaving it still doesn't cope with the folks who have legitimate reasons for objecting to the statute itself. It's come up many times in the social media posts last summer, that this was a statute that was raised at a particular moment in time, by a particular segment of the community. To the best of our knowledge, the entire community didn't necessarily agree with it being raised, but it went up on City Hall property.
When the organizing committee is led by the commander, the local militia and the mayor, and it's going on City Hall lawn, I don't know how many people could have actively disagreed with that, at that point in time. Anyway, at this point in time, we certainly heard through social media and several people articulate the issue they have with that monument actually standing there. I don't want to speak on their behalf.
There's the ongoing sense of grievance, disappointment, hurt, and pain there at seeing a monument that basically represents the government's desire to eliminate an entire group of people based upon their ethnicity from Confederation, to end their heritage at that point in time. That certainly gets reinforced later through the residential schools. That monument still stands there at this point in time for that. In terms of Michael talking about maintaining the conversation, and ensuring people talk about this, I think the conversation about the monument itself has to end.
I think, someone has to make a decision about how these fits into contemporary Canada, if white settler Canadians are serious about engaging in reconciliation and finding solutions to problems, this is a symbolic problem that has been raised. It's a work of art. It's a monument, so it’s a symbolic problem. It represents particular ideological ideals that were put in place in 1885. In stone, it's still standing.
I think, we need to make a decision about the monument. I think the discussion about what the Northwest resistance was, that conversation can go on. I agree with Michael on that. That's something that should be part of curriculum in high schools, if not earlier, but should be part of ongoing discussions of anyone who's taking Canadian history at the university, or college level. It could be an ongoing discussion in the Walrus Magazine, or great blogs or the Globe and Mail weekly edition, or Le Devoir.
I think, the conversation but the monument actually has to be resolved. Otherwise, that friction, that monument sitting there still maintains friction, which isn't necessarily productive friction. Maybe that leads to an eruption, like the removal of the McDonald statue in Downtown Hamilton, or the constant desecration of the statues in Montreal Tidwell.
[00:43:28] MR: I would just like to reiterate that I do think the city has a responsibility to deal with that monument, whether or not it's going to cost things. I'm not sure how, but I completely agree with Russell in that, that has to be over. That discussion is not productive. What I do think, as I said earlier, leaving it on City Hall is a restatement of commitment to that particular narrative. There may be a more cost-effective way of dealing with that. I'm not sure what and I'm not an artist, but there must be ways that we can deal with. If we don't want to remove it, if that's too expensive, what else can we do?
Because I do think the city in the realm, or the spirit of truth and reconciliation has to do something, simply so we can move forward with this. I think, the continuing discussion does nothing but make the social cleavages that we're seeing deeper.
[00:44:44] AH: I agree. I think, it's important to note in this case, that I don't want to come across as suggesting that there's anyone who's looking to erase history here. Certainly, Gavin Fearon, the fellow who started the petition has talked about reframing the discussion around it, and Councilor Kerry Porter who brought the issue to council has talked about the importance of doing just what you're saying, which is moving forward with great care, in a way that will bring people together, instead of dividing them.
We've really focused on recontextualized, telling these stories better. It becomes a very big question as to who is qualified to do that. You referenced the other day, the idea of moving the monument to the National War Museum in Ottawa. I found that very, very interesting. Perhaps, you can speak to that.
[00:45:29] RJ: When it's been raised, the idea, to put it into a museum, I know, there are concerns that this is simply shifting the responsibility. I tend to think, space matters. I think, Mike would agree with me that geography matters in this case, where it's placed shapes the context within which people are going to understand that particular monument. On a city hall property, a monument that's raised to commemorate one side of a particular conflict that involved with should have been all Canadians. That's problematic for me. I think, that's problematic to the people who wish to see the monument removed.
Placing that in a museum, where it's contextualized amongst other artifacts that have come from all across Canada is, I think, much different. Museums are equipped to serve in an educational capacity. They're equipped to manage cultural heritage, basically. In a way that the property at City Hall just isn't. As much as it might be shifting the problem to another place, I think that other place has a better way of dealing with the problem that we're facing now, viewing these cultural artifacts, these monuments within the context of reconciliation.
One of the proposals that's been brought up, and I don't know how – honestly, people are pursuing at this point was to put it in the Niagara Falls Military Museum. I think, that's a very interesting spot to do it, because I know the curator in the newspaper has said that he might be willing to do that, or investigate it, depending on the costs. In that case, it still remains at Niagara, what, a cultural artifact. The National Museum, I think that's an intriguing idea, simply because to my mind, is one of the earliest monuments to a citizen soldier in Canada, I think that is of national importance.
I'd be curious to know why the National Museum doesn't know about it already, in ways that the Egerton Ryerson, or McDonald statues get written about very quickly by the national press, but the national press hasn’t picked up on the Watson monument at all, as an 1885 Northwest Resistance piece. There's that. I mean, there's the National Military Museum as well. Whether it's the Museum of Civilization, or the National Art Museum, I think there are intriguing places where this monument could go, where someone could do a better job contextualizing it, and ensuring that it serves an educational purpose that would reflect both stories, and not just one story.
[00:48:01] AH: A big part of it is what you refer to it's that specialized ability, that expertise required to engage different groups in the narrative. It comes back to the don't talk about us without us philosophy. That's going to be, we're going to be critical here. One of the things that I've struggled with a little bit in this case is that the discussion wasn't initiated by indigenous people. I have a great awareness about being offended on someone else's behalf, because it doesn't pull too far away from the notion of speaking on someone's behalf, instead of listening to them.
[00:48:33] MR: It's an interesting point that you raised there. People writing about other people have recognized for quite some time that a lot of the writing that we do is actually speaking for someone, or about someone. This came to a head in the 1980s and 1990s, when people started to write about what was the crisis of representation. That is representing other people in print, as experts and allowing our own voices to dictate what other people knew about other people. It was often presented as a series of facts, right? It's hard to read Margaret Mead, or any of those other anthropologists and say, “Well, no. That's not true.” Because they're written in academic books, and they carry this voice of authority.
That, as someone who was a grad student during that time, that thinking has certainly stuck with me for a very long time. Has been part of the way I think, and the way I write when I deal with any of the things that I'm thinking about, or writing about. More recently, there's this idea that's come out. It's the idea of being allies, and using privilege to start conversations. One of the things that I thought was really interesting is that two local indigenous activists actually pointed this out through the social media responses, to the Watson Memorial controversy.
It was like, thanks. Thanks for doing the heavy part, some of the lifting on this. Might be low-hanging fruit, but still, well done. I think, one of the things that makes this work is not speaking for, but there's a rule for activists to disrupt things carefully, so that you're not taking the reins and acting for.
[00:50:43] AH: Agreed. Russell, you were saying?
[00:50:45] RJ: Mike was quoting Karl Dockstader and Sean Vanderklis of One Dish One Mic, when he was saying they're thanking the petitioners for taking that on, because Mr. Dockstader and Mr. Vanderklis were really tackling bigger issues at the time that were absolutely not symbolic. They aren’t addressing things like, the Caledonia situation and investigating things from across Canada at that point in time, which they thought had more contemporary import.
[00:51:11] AH: Two great fellows to engage with, if you want to learn something and get some firsthand perspective on this, both of them. I would encourage anyone to follow them on social media and pay attention to what they're talking about, and their radio show as well. Two excellent examples.
With that in mind, taking on that responsibility, and you are continuing to write about the Watson Monument, you're putting together a book about it. How do you navigate this? What are the next steps for you? We've talked about a lot here. What are the things that we haven't uncovered yet that you're still looking into?
[00:51:42] MR: We have a book in the works with University of Toronto Press, that has been reviewed and seems to be going ahead. That book ends with – the discussion of Watson ends anyway, with the decision to consult from last August. We needed to end it somewhere. That seemed a good place. We needed to get that done. We've also since then, continued that research, and we're working on a paper that explores this debate further.
We've interviewed some people who've spoken publicly about the Watson monument, to just to get a deeper sense, what people are thinking about the monument and how it is contextualized. One of the things that came out of that was that we were both very, very impressed with how thoughtful and conscientious people were in thinking about this. People talked about the need for dialogue and avoiding backlash and healing and goals. That was very impressive. Kudos to those folks who are moving in that direction. We haven't, at least I don't remember talking too much about pushing this any further. The big goal right now is to get the book done, and to get this chapter done. Then we'll probably – we'll talk again.
[00:53:17] AH: That definitely makes sense. I wanted to thank you guys, both, as someone who has come to this discussion relatively lately, compared to you both. If you wanted to learn about it. I have to credit you, because it would have been impossible to do without the work that you've done and the groundwork that you've done. I know, it's been much appreciated by me and also, by a number of people who have been in the same shoes that I am in trying to learn about this. We all owe you both debt of gratitude for the work that you've done on this. I also want to thank you for taking so much time today to talk about this very challenging, complex issue.
Have we solved the dilemma of what to do with Private Watson? No, we haven't. Some questions don't have a perfect answer. As we've talked about today, asking the questions and continue the conversation is often more important. I think, the challenge to anyone who's listening today is to keep talking about this, and other monuments like it. Even when the discussion moves on to other topics, and the cycle of forgetting starts to kick in, don't let go of this. It's too important. One way you can do that is to get involved. Reach out to your city councilor and tell them what you think.
More importantly, tell them that they don't get to punt this one away again. It's time to make a decision and make it work in a way that will bring us together. Yes, it's going to cost some money. When you become the caretaker of a historic artifact, you assume responsibility for it. Allowing a piece of our heritage to decay and collapse, because you don't like the repair bill isn't an option. It's not a precedent that the city wants to set for other owners of heritage properties and artifacts.
Let me just say too as an aside, in the hopes of saving someone the trouble of writing in a smug email that I'm very aware of the irony of opening and closing this episode with the maple leaf forever. Maybe someday, Mike and Russell will come back and help us tackle that one. In the meantime, thank you both so much for sharing your time, your expertise and your insight with us today.
[00:55:17] AH: You're welcome. Thank you for inviting us.
[END OF EPISODE]
[00:55:27] ANNOUNCER: Thanks for listening. Come help us deck the halls next time on our Christmas episode. Social Historian, Meg Grimsmo of the Nelles Manor Museum joins us for a cup of cheer to discuss holiday traditions through the years. Subscribe today so you won't miss it.
To learn more, or to share your thoughts and show ideas, visit us at thebrownhomestead.ca on social media. Or, if you still like to do things the old-fashioned way, you can even email us at opendoor@thebrownhomestead.ca.
[END]