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.

The Postmodern Paradox

Benito Mussolini, 27th prime minister of Italy and, arguably, the founder of postmodernism.

Surely it should be apparent to all that intolerance was been growing exponentially in our society and culture, throughout the developed world. It has now gotten so extreme that public discourse seems almost no longer possible. No compromise over anything; Trump is evil; into the streets with tire irons.

And where is the intolerance coming from? From the very people who claim their core issue is “tolerance.” From the postmodernists. They are the ones shutting all dissenting voices down, or trying to.

And this was perfectly predictable from the beginning.

Postmodernism called itself tolerance of differing views. It might even have believed so. The problem was with being “absolutist,” “judgmental,” or “extremist.” Declare that all truth is relative, and everyone gets to live together in perfect harmony. After all, there is no truth. Truth is merely a social construct.

That’s exactly wrong, and now we are seeing the fruits of the premise. So long as there is a core of shared standards, values, truths, it is possible to politely have disagreements and usually to resolve them. Because we can appeal to these standards. Standards like tolerance itself.

Once you remove those standards, once there is no absolute truth, everything becomes a matter of personal opinion, or, put another way, of personal will. You believe whatever you want to believe.

So what happens when the guy beside you believes something different, and something openly contradictory to your “truth”?

There is no basis on which to discuss matters; no basis on which to compromise; no basis on which to peacefully co-exist. The only course is to either submit to his will, or attempt to impose your own will, your own version of “reality,” on him.

Bring out the tire irons. There is now no other way.

He must use your chosen pronoun. His opinion is not allowed rights. He is not allowed rights. He must accept that you are really a woman, and assent to this publicly. “Racism” becomes whatever you want to call racism. “Anti-racism” becomes whatever you want to call anti-racism. Individual words only mean whatever you want them to mean at the moment. The very idea of discourse is ridiculous, if not threatening. Laws, social norms, morality and reason itself are to be subverted if they do not produce the willed result.

There is only one solution, and it is a simple one: a re-commitment to the Good, the True, the Beautiful. We must at least agree that we seek these things, and that they are the standard measure.

From there, we could move forward together. We would have a foundation on which to build.