na thanks, it is quite clear in this thread what is up, and I believe you know quite well what you did and are doing.
Nothing's up. And I'm not doing anything. And I resent the implication.
Can someone more reasonable maybe give me a hand here in trying to understand this issue. I see that something has happened that has offended people, and I'd really like to understand why.
na thanks, it is quite clear in this thread what is up, and I believe you know quite well what you did and are doing.
Nothing's up. And I'm not doing anything. And I resent the implication.
Can someone more reasonable maybe give me a hand here in trying to understand this issue. I see that something has happened that has offended people, and I'd really like to understand why.
So instead of reading this thread until you got it, you "innocently" decided to make it worse, by calling me unreasonable because I am not interested in your demands, when the answer is right here in this thread.
That you really think you have a right to make said demand, to tell me you resent that I no not care about your "concern" and thus will not "help" poor you, indicates much. Again especially given I already told you the answer was in this thread.
na thanks, it is quite clear in this thread what is up, and I believe you know quite well what you did and are doing.
Nothing's up. And I'm not doing anything. And I resent the implication.
Can someone more reasonable maybe give me a hand here in trying to understand this issue. I see that something has happened that has offended people, and I'd really like to understand why.
So instead of reading this thread until you got it, you "innocently" decided to make it worse, by calling me unreasonable because I am not interested in your demands, when the answer is right here in this thread.
That you really think you have a right to make said demand, to tell me you resent that I no not care about your "concern" and thus will not "help" poor you, indicates much. Again especially given I already told you the answer was in this thread.
I made no demands. I made a request. I read the thread. I didn't understand something. I asked a question. Not sure why this means you need to come at me like this. I made no claims to having any special rights. I do think your response before, and this one now, are quite unreasonable.
I'm not here to "canonize" McClung. She was a moderately unconventional woman who lived a century ago, had the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people, and had the guts to take that opportunity and run with it. I liked vaudree's posts about her because they were written in a spirit of respect for relatively ordinary people who work hard in good faith, and they were furthermore written out of a generous impulse to share -- vaudree has obviously done some work on McClung, and she shared that with us, most unself-consciously.
If we're getting self-conscious, though, we have to note that McClung is a Scottish name, as is Douglas. We all know the social make-up of anglo Canada a century ago, so sure, we're talking about people with a moderate amount of privilege, even when they were poor, as many were, and some major limitations on how they understood that privilege. Can we still honour people like that? Several commenters above, male and female, have written respectfully to that question without feeling the need to compare intellectual sizes or exercise their wit on someone else's grave. Call me a feminist, but that's really all I would ask for when we're talking about figures like McClung or, yes, Emily Murphy. If the tone of the responses that Smith first got on this thread, before vaudree spoke, don't shock you, then maybe go back and read them again, and wonder about who is writing to what and why in a thread about a modestly but importantly accomplished Canadian woman. I mean -- "omg, McClung believed in eugenics!" Srsly.
vaudree's reflections also reminded me of something that maybe younger people aren't so aware of any longer. The vast majority of Canadian women of all backgrounds lived out severely restricted lives well into my adult life. It has become a cliche of popular culture to mock those women, the fifties housewives who did their vacuuming in heels and shirtwaists and pearls. If you actually knew some of those women, though, you know that a lot of them were seething in anger and wondering whether there was any way out. You also know that many of them had been off to war in the forties and had a taste of a freer if more dangerous life. Some of them came back and just fitted in, while quietly seething; some had the nerve to do their version of what McClung did. Social change takes a long time.
And just as a PS about the statue thingy: I never quite get the urge to rank the arts, one of the diversions that took place above. I do literature m'self -- I'm no musician or painter or sculptor or architect, but I love all those things and I've never felt the need to claim that the art I know is "better." That just makes no sense to me. I like good sculpture. My favourite "statue" in Toronto is the Glenn Gould sculpture outside the CBC building -- Gould slouching on a park bench as he used to do, except not in that neighbourhood (he was more Avenue Road and St Clair). Poor fellow -- about to be overwhelmed by the G20 Dreadfuls. It's a good "statue." So are the chairs in Ottawa dedicated to the Famous Five. No, Catchfire, McClung wasn't George Eliot, and she wasn't Flaubert, and she wasn't Nelson Mandela. She was an anglo Canadian woman who lived when she did, recognized what might be possible under the circumstances, and took the chance. All honour to her.
Gee.... spend a day on the road and see what happens.
As for where I posted, mea culpa. I only saw the "feminism" part, not introductions Feel free to move it wherever you want.
But I did want to answer CytizenH's post way back there. (#8)
I agree with you that stories and oral history are a lot more vibrant than stodgy conservative things like statuary, monuments, buildings and street names. Unfortunately we live in a society where almost all we see is conservative history - prime ministers, war heroes, entrepreneurs - and a vast majority of European men. The argument of whether McClung should be honoured aside, alternative history is largely untaught and invisible, and not everyone is going to make the effort or even be aware of anything other than the official historical record.
Monuments may be bird-dropping collectors, but they are also something that usually lasts for hundreds of years in a place where EVERYONE sees them. Ignoring that reality means ignoring an important part of preserving history, stodgy or not. Memorials are also physical places where people gather to commemorate ideas and events (whether it be a memorial to fallen soldiers or to the women killed in the Montreal massacre).
The father of a good friend of mine went back to the town where he was born a few years ago. None of his people lived there any more. No one spoke his language, nor could he see it anywhere; the street signs were all changed. The only thing left to show that his people had ever been there were a few churches and buildings, even though his people had been there over 400 years.
(edit) and of course the ultimate monument... gravestones.
So yes, I agree, stories and oral culture are wonderful ways to keep history alive, but they can sometimes be easily suppressed, and like a lot of things, it is always good to back them up with a hard copy.
I find the gang up on Catchfire in this thread to be offensive.
@ skdadl
Yup. Thanks. It's never a good idea to be too sure about what's going on in someone else's head, or how she came to make the decisions she did - especially if we have no idea about her circumstances. As I said already, I think people will look on us as far more stupid than people in her time, even though we see ourselves as far more enlightened - because we have so much more information in front of us.
For the record, I lived in a town 40 years ago which had a school named after McClung. But it is still nice to know that a woman doesn't have to wear a crown to get on the legislative grounds.
And vaudree, it was late last night when I wrote and I forgot to say thanks.
(edit)
..and this is probably a subject for another thread, and not something I want to use to distract from Nellie McClung, but I can think of people whose actions i hate, and who have committed terrible crimes. who nevertheless have earned their place in bronze. People and history are complicated.
skdadl,
Thank you. This helps. And I do apologize. It wasn't my intention to dismiss or mock, and I suppose it does say something about my own perception that when I found this thread after 6079_Smith's original post, my initial thoughts were about Canadian history rather than Canadian women's history. To maybe explain my comments a little bit, I've come across Nellie McClung twice while researching other things. The first was back in highschool. I was researching marijuana prohibition in Canada and came across The Black Candle. In looking into that book, and Emily Murphy, I came across McClung and learned a lot about her. That is why I made the Emily Murphy comment. In my head they are closely connected. The second time I came across McClung was while researching eugenics. There is no doubt in my mind that Nellie McClung's work for women's suffrage and for the cause of women in Canada and everywhere is vastly more important than anything she did around eugenics, but having looked deep into the eugenics stuff, I find it very scary and creepy and worthy of a little more notice than an "omg".
As for the statue business, it certainly wasn't my intention to "rank" artistic mediums. I happen to like sculpture alot. And, now that you mention it, I love that Glen Gould sculpture. I was, I suppose, giving weight to various methods of remembering. 6079_Smith's post above (52) actually does a lot towards changing my mind about that. Well, at least giving me some new perspective.
My first inclination when reading this thread was to agree with the sentiment that monuments to people who have advocated this or that type of atrocity are wrong. I do think it's kind of gross to see street names in Toronto and realize that so many of them are named after family compact types, and oppressors. I mean, heck, I grew up near Amherst Island, and we all know what kind of a person that was named after.
But I can be convinced by the argument that the significance of statues doesn't have to include the idea of sainthood. Most people who are the subject of statues are actually quite flawed, I would guess. People don't get statues made because they're uniformly good. They get statues made of them because they did something historically notable, in all their flawed humanness.
At least, that's how the story goes. Except that, unfortunately, to date, very few women have been recognized as having "notable" enough accomplishments to have them recognized with statues. And that goes for people of colour and probably Indigenous people as well.
I say: more funding for public art, and statues, and the like. More funding for mural artists who can create artistic depictions of the accomplishment or the event as opposed to simply the person. More funding for visual representations of our history and historical figures.
And more imagination when it comes to what qualifies as history. More room for depictions other than great man (and great woman) public historical art.
That's what I'd like to see.
Excellent post, Michelle!
I particularly like "more imagination when it come to what qualifies as history".
Slim pickings here: Statues are an important method of commemorating notable people in history, so we wondered if many Canadian women have been recognized for their accomplishments by the creation of such monuments. We'll be adding information and images about monuments and statues of Canadian women across the country - and welcome any information and photos you want to share!
I've known a lot of extraordinary women who have garnered perhaps newspaper articles about them, but never a statue. Here;s one: Fern Rahmel
excerpt:
The death of Fern A. Rahmel marks the passing of a woman of Renaissance proportions.
Miss Rahmel, 95, died Saturday at Peterborough Regional Health Centre.
She was admired and respected as a teacher, theatrical director, journalist, historian, horticulturalist and writer.
She was a patron of the arts, contributing generously to many associations that promote art, music, writing and drama. She established and provided funds for a bursary at Trent University. She also donated the funds for the Phoenix Award for English which she established at PCVS many years ago.
In 1999, the Peterborough Examiner's Ed Arnold published a list of 50 people who most influenced the development of Peterborough in the previous 100 years. She was on the list with Dr. H. R. H. Kenner, Sir Sandford Fleming, Katherine Wallis, Pansy Forbes and George A. Cox, to name but a few
(a general thread on extraordinary women in this country would be interesting)
[URL=http://researchergal.blogspot.com/2008/07/kemble-womens-institute-lookou... btw, is a link to provide a bit of background to writer's photos above. (Click to the larger map and then zoom out if you don't recognize Georgian Bay.)
About "more imagination when it comes to what qualifies as history": If I had it to do over again 
, I would work on social history, find myself a period that I thought needed excavating and start to excavate. Social historians try to capture it all and everyone in "it," whatever it is and impossible though that ever is; they do a dialogue with a community at a particular time, let the period they've chosen and the place and the people teach them what needs to be said about all that, and they discover / reveal amazing things by working that way. You stop caring that you're not studying the "great" figures of the day because the detective work on the locals or on the actions of groups just becomes so interesting. You also learn about the rhythms of history, how very slowly change can seem to come about, how much communities or even large regional masses can appear to resist change for a long time, but then how they can seem to move or change very suddenly, although by then you know that something has been building through the apparently quiet times.
The lessons of social history are particularly comforting when you look at current electoral politics and realize we're up a creek for a while.
You would probably find the work of Braudel and the Annales t be of interest, Skdadl.
Yes, I have and I do. It's possible to do social history on a grand scale, take on an entire major period, and Braudel did that brilliantly, but many fascinating social histories focus on one place and a slice of time, and just become magical in what they can recreate and maybe explain or at least illuminate. The Return of Martin Guerre is one well-known such story; [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=lSgtq5rZUkEC&dq=Salem+Possessed&printse... Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft[/URL] is a book that totally turned my head around on that topic. And they're often page turners.
Writer, in reference to your post #62, I was at that location a few weeks ago.
It is a very nice site, with an excellent view.
Grey County does a good job providing history about its citizens.
I've heard it argued that fiction can be considered social history as well. One woman I knew told me she felt that the Anne books, particularly Rilla of Ingleside (which chronicle's Anne's daughter Rilla's experiences, and the experiences of their whole community, during the first World War).
Fictional characters, but the events and timelines, as well as the community interactions, were, this woman argued, a social history of the war. (Although definitely told from a pro-war perspective!)
Perhaps that's why so many people are so charmed by the Anne books. You feel like someone has dumped you into that time and you get to see how the whole society at the time worked, including the attitudes of various people in the community, what kinds of people had what degree of social status, etc.
webgear wrote:
Writer, in reference to your post #62, I was at that location a few weeks ago.
It is a very nice site, with an excellent view.
Grey County does a good job providing history about its citizens.
Caissa added most of these signs are provided by the Ontario Government. I freelanced drafting some of these plaques back in the early nineties.
Michelle: having history backgrounds Ms. C. and I read a fair bit of historical fiction. The best of it can transport you back in time. Contemperaneous works such as the Anne series provide historians with lots of valuable insights to the era.
When I was in Schwerin, Germany I noticed a very odd monument. According to my friend there, the people wanted to reclaim their old history after the fall of the communists (they were busy tearing down a lot of beautiful tileworks, and buildings from the communist era when I was there).
They chose Henry the Lion, a valiant medieval figure like Richard Lionheart, except that he was even worse than Richard as a king. It is not in the regular history books, but he destroyed the economy, and killed so many of his people through forced work and war that he had to import new men from Poland to avoid having his people die out entirely - and I don't think the women fared much better.
They commissioned artist Peter Lenk, expecting a classical monument. What they got was this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Schwerin_Loewe_Skulpt...
http://www.peter-lenk.de/html/frame.htm
In case you can't see, the panels include soldiers killing and gouging each others' eyes out, a horse trampling a pile of bones, and a row of people dropping their pants and sticking their asses at a person on horseback (presumably Henry). The monument was greeted with outrage by many people, since it stands right in the main public square. But they have not dared to tear it down.
Here is another of Lenk's works:
http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/peter-lenk-public-group-s...
Today is the 86th anniversary of the Privy Council decision (overturning the Supreme Court) that women are to be regarded as "persons" under the BNA Act - as a result of the relentless struggle waged by Canadian women and spearheaded by the Famous Five (Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung).
I decided to revive this thread, even though it was a difficult one - primarily as a tribue to skdadl. RIP.
Thanks Unionist.
And, in passing, to Boom Boom.
I must have been away somewhere at the time...
