Playing the Indian Card

Monday, June 28, 2021

The Crimes of Henry Dundas

 


Sir Henry Dundas

As Kingston pulls down its statue of Sir John A. Macdonald, a severe self-inflicted blow to a tourist town that can claim being Macdonald's home town as a major attraction, Toronto is poised to rename Dundas Street, currently the city's centre (as Yonge and Dundas, and Dundas Square) on the grounds that Henry Dundas, after whom the street was named, was a proponent of slavery.

Initial estimates are that the name change will cost Toronto taxpayers 5-6 million dollars; not to mention the cost to private businesses.

One is surprised to learn, on checking Wikipedia, that Henry Dundas was actually a lifelong public opponent of slavery, and advocate of abolition. But then again, Macdonald was a proponent of Indian rights, and wanted to give them the franchise.

The notion that Dundas supported slavery is based on the fact that he inserted an amendment to Wilberforce’s bill abolishing the slave trade, calling for this to be “gradual.” Dundas himself claimed this was a tactical necessity, as a sudden total ban without proper preparation would simply create a black market trade. And as an immediate end could not get the votes to pass the Commons and Lords. Historians are divided on whether this was true, or whether his intent was to prolong the trade.

Dundas had up to that point been a leading abolitionist, responsible as a barrister for the legal prohibition of slavery in Scotland. And, of course, calling him a supporter of slavery requires us to call him a liar. 

The interesting question is why the at least relative good guys, like Dundas or Macdonald or Langevin, are targeted, and not dubious or openly racist figures like George Brown or the Famous Five or Tommy Douglas, who continue to be commemorated without controversy.

The simplest explanation is that the racists are now in charge. It is simply not politically expedient to call racism racism, so, in an obvious ruse, it is called by its proponents "anti-racism." But the deeper explanation, I suspect, is guilt: when people feel guilty over something, anyone who has acted morally in some significant way is to be pulled down and disparaged.




No comments: