The Importance of History to the Erasing-history defence

In this article, I argue that that the primary goal of statues honouring public figures is to create and shape a collective identity. The way that these statues further the goal of identity is not by holding up the subjects of the statues as admirable but rather by asserting that the subjects were in some way objectively important and central to some group surrounding the statue. I will look at the defences for keeping statues of and awards named after John A. Macdonald and show that the primary concern is not with defending the character of Macdonald but rather that removing him is 'erasing history'. These defences are not about defending Macdonald as a person but rather defending a conception of the Canadian identity that requires Macdonald play a central role. Against these defences of Macdonald, I show that the 'objective history' case for him and other such similar figures fails. In the particular case of Macdonald, it fails because he was actually not that important for Canadian history. In the general case of negative public figures, I provide a short defence of how group identities are not static and not unchangeably rooted in a single historically based articulation.

Automated summary

This article argues that the primary goal of statues honoring public figures is to create and shape a collective identity. The author examines defenses for keeping statues of John A. Macdonald and shows that the concern is not defending Macdonald's character but rather the fear of "erasing history." The article also discusses the failure of the "objective history" argument and provides a defense of how group identities are not fixed and can change over time.