I am no stranger to the flaws - perceived and otherwise - of Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first Prime Minister. But the time has come to revise the historical revisionists, who led the toppling of his statues and other forms of diminution following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Report in 2015. With this in mind, Patrice Dutil has written a balanced and nuanced study, Sir John A. Macdonald and the Apocalyptic Years 1885 (2024). 1885 was the year of Louis Riel, the year of famine among Indigenous Peoples, the year of smallpox, and the make-or-break year of the Canadian Pacific Railway, our iron link to continental connection. In Dutil’s view, 1885 was as perilous to Canada as was 1917, the year of Dieppe and of conscription in Quebec. To this we might also add: the year 2025 with Donald Trump’s tariff turbulence and other threats which have stirred Canadians and even united them.
For the most part, the book is well written, apart from a
few clichés,
but I fear the best part was confined to a footnote. In the conclusion, Dutil writes that the
phrase “killing the Indian to save the child” is falsely associated with
Macdonald. He goes on to explain in the
footnote:
Though Macdonald is consistently accused of having
uttered this phrase, there is no record of it.
None of his ministers or government officials ever used it. In fact, no Canadian politician used the
phrase until Stephen Harper did in 2008 in his apology for residential
schools. This is an American expression
that was first used by Captain Richard Pratt, the director of the Carlisle
Indian School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was
probably the most eminent Canadian to cite that phrase in a speech in May of
2015.[1]
So, it appears that even eminent Canadian figures don’t
always get their history right. As
Macdonald’s fortunes have tumbled, the prestige of Indigenous Studies rose – as
if in an inverse relationship. But
history is not a zero-sum game, and it should not be about one fixed allegiance
to an historiographical tradition. Rather,
it is about embracing complexity: the past cannot be understood outside of
history itself. History belongs to a time
and a place. Context matters. And while we have all been busy retrofitting our
houses to suit current building codes, we should remind ourselves that these
“codes” have changed over time. Today’s Land
Acknowledgements are oddly reminiscent of yesterday’s Lord’s Prayer.
I have trouble with the word “genocide” and other current
terms of our day. Yes, Macdonald is
pilloried for his role in the formation of Indian Residential Schools. But if Macdonald
and company were so bent on “genocide”, why was his government busy inoculating
the (grateful) Indigenous Peoples? Why
was almost half of the budget at Indian Affairs dedicated to supplying food to
the Indigenous Peoples, who were starving?
Why were Indigenous Peoples (owning property) given the right to vote? Why
did they have the opportunity to meet in person with Macdonald’s cabinet, and with
the Prime Minister at his Earnscliffe home in Ottawa?
More questions: Why did Macdonald’s proposed $5 head tax on
Chinese coming to Canada result in a $50 tax?
(Answer: Because British Columbians demanded it as a condition of
entering Confederation). Why did Macdonald want Canada to be the first
nation in the world to give women the right to vote? (Answer: Because he knew of the writings of England’s
leading public intellectual, John Stuart Mill).
As Canadians today rally around each other is it not incumbent
on us to restore some honour to our first and founding Prime
Minister? Ask yourself: where would you
be now if Macdonald hadn’t succeeded?
[1]
Patrice Dutil, Sir John A. Macdonald and the Apocalyptic Year (Toronto:
Southerland House, 2024), p. 312, n. 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment