The Street with No Name

 

The renaming of Dundas Street is an injustice to the memory and good name of Henry Dundas, and a frivolous waste of taxpayers’ money. On the other hand, we have an excess of places in this province named after Englishmen and Scotsmen who had little or nothing to do with Canada. It would be nice if we began to commemorate Canadian culture and history instead.

I expect the naming commission will only come up with a worse name. In all good sense, they should not choose the name of a politician, a journalist, or a businessman. To do so is to court divisiveness; these are, by career, controversial figures. They should not name it after anyone living; they might, after all, do something scandalous in the future. Nor should they name anything after anyone whose primary qualification is their race or gender; that is racism. A cultural figure would be best, and ideally someone whose presence in Toronto had a significant influence on the cultural life of the city.

Some possibilities:

Gould Street

Kurelek Street

Callaghan Street

Frye Street

McLuhan Street

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.