Ryerson University Changing Name

[Zeitgeist]

Egerton Ryerson was a champion of Indigenous.  Sadly, his name is being erroneously attached to residential schools, which he did not found.  It appears that an angry ignorant mob is being allowed to rewrite history.   Where is the university president? Where are the adults?  I guess we pretend that orange is purple.  If we repeat a lie long enough...

Some facts about Ryerson:

“EGERTON RYERSON WAS deeply interested in the lives and education of Indigenous people. As a young man he was appointed to the Credit mission, home of the Mississaugas. At the Credit Mission, located in what is today the City of Mississauga, the 23-year old set out in 1826/27 to learn Ojibwe (Anishinaabemowin) and worked in the fields with the people of the settlement. “I was at that time a perfect stranger to Indians, and but little acquainted with their customs,”  Ryerson reported in the American Methodist Magazine in 1827. “But the affectionate manner in which they received me, and the joy they appeared to feel on the occasion, removed all the strangeness of national feeling, and enabled me to embrace them as brethren, and love them as mine own people.”  The first Methodist missionary to live with the Credit Mississauga, Ryerson joined their fight to secure a title deed to their lands at the mouth of the Credit River, 12 miles west of Toronto. He stood by them to protect their remaining land base against the ever-encroaching British Canadian settlers (by this time, Indigenous peoples constituted less than 1% of the Canada West population). His hope, indeed the progressive way of thinking at the time, was to help Indigenous communities become farmers. He won their respect. The Credit Mississauga admired Egerton, who rolled up his sleeves, ate and lived and toiled alongside them. At a council fire in December 1826 the Credit Mississauga “adopted” the 23-year-old, giving him the Ojibwe name of a well-regarded recently deceased chief: “Cheechock” or “Chechalk,” who had belonged to the Eagle doodem. The name “Chechalk” meant “Bird on the Wing.” Ryerson also became a life-long friend of future chief Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers), known as Peter Jones.“ (Dorchester Review)

https://apple.news/ABfZta7YmRWu7_41PuXf0RA

https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/blogs/news/the-imbecile-attack-on-egerton-ryerson

 

[Argus]

Yes, but all that pales into insignificance given he was asked for his advice on how to educate natives and said that they should go to boarding schools. And fifty years later, well after his death, they set up the residential school system on a shoestring budget and didn't supervise it. 

So it's his fault. That bastard!

 

[RedDog]

Cancel Culture continues unabated, pointing fingers in any way the wind blows. It’s a movement perfectly suited to Antifa and the weak who over estimate their value.

[Pete_Coach]

We should not name anything after anyone. Future citizens may not like it.

All names of everything should be changed to numbers or letters or symbols.

[OftenWrong]

11 hours ago, Pete_Coach said:

We should not name anything after anyone. Future citizens may not like it.

All names of everything should be changed to numbers or letters or symbols.

Culture destroyers will heartily agree with you. That's what this is all about of course.

In the past, places had names and that is what they were always called. Places like Maple Leaf Gardens, etc. have a history and are identifiable cultural icons. Now we have names like the Air Canada Centre, later renamed to the Scotiabank Arena, and next year it will get renamed to another corporation again.

In fact I don't know what these places are called anymore. If I want to go there, I cannot say where I am going. Even if I did, there's a good chance people wouldn't know what I was talking about. It's just that place, you know, the one that used to be called something else.

 

[TreeBeard]

On 10/5/2021 at 7:26 AM, Pete_Coach said:

We should not name anything after anyone. Future citizens may not like it.

All names of everything should be changed to numbers or letters or symbols.

Can we just agree to name things the best we can for now and let the future society rename it if there is public sentiment to do so in the future?

 If being an architect of the residential school system isn’t enough to have your name pulled off of a building, what would be the criteria?  

Nothing ever?  Mass murder?  One murder?  Cattle steeling?  Where should the line be drawn in order for someone to have the honour of having a university named after them?

[Zeitgeist]

On 10/14/2021 at 7:22 PM, TreeBeard said:

Can we just agree to name things the best we can for now and let the future society rename it if there is public sentiment to do so in the future?

 If being an architect of the residential school system isn’t enough to have your name pulled off of a building, what would be the criteria?  

Nothing ever?  Mass murder?  One murder?  Cattle steeling?  Where should the line be drawn in order for someone to have the honour of having a university named after them?

You’re ignorant of history if you think Ryerson was an architect of Residential Schools.  It’s like saying that Thomas Jefferson was the architect of the Civil War.  Different era and context.  Clearly context doesn’t matter.

Yes we could revert to numbers instead of names.  We could do that for people too.  I’m sure William Blake would have much to say about a world in which humans are reduced to numbers.  Remove all qualities.  Dehumanize people and places.  Hitler did that.  

[Nationalist]

On 10/5/2021 at 10:26 AM, Pete_Coach said:

We should not name anything after anyone. Future citizens may not like it.

All names of everything should be changed to numbers or letters or symbols.

And having said this...did you climb back under your chair?

[Nationalist]

On 10/14/2021 at 7:22 PM, TreeBeard said:

Can we just agree to name things the best we can for now and let the future society rename it if there is public sentiment to do so in the future?

 If being an architect of the residential school system isn’t enough to have your name pulled off of a building, what would be the criteria?  

Nothing ever?  Mass murder?  One murder?  Cattle steeling?  Where should the line be drawn in order for someone to have the honour of having a university named after them?

Ryerson did not architect the residential school system. He gave his advise. And at the time, it was an effort to educate the native people. I went to highschool and played hockey with one of those who went. He was a great guy, a very intelligent person and a fantastic hockey player. 

He went home to the reserve for Christmas one year and came back with two black eyes. Seems his own family beat the hell out of him for being "white"

I've also met a teacher who have taken contracts to teach on reserves. None of which went well and the teacher soon resigned in defeat.

So...to summarize...Ryerson did NOT architect the residential school system and the native people are quite responsible for their circumstances.!

Edited December 30, 2021 by Nationalist

[TreeBeard]

On 12/30/2021 at 9:48 AM, Nationalist said:

native people are quite responsible for their circumstances

So when the government took their children away and forced them to go to residential schools, that was their own fault?  

I find that illogical.  Maybe you could explain.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

So when the government took their children away and forced them to go to residential schools, that was their own fault?  

I find that illogical.  Maybe you could explain.

Of course.

What was it the Iroquois and other bands wanted? Segregation.

Its my belief that the agreement for the ill-fated reservation system, was a gargantuan mistake born of prejudice and mistrust on both sides.

I think the residential school system was run by racists in many districts. But I also grew up with a native who came to Calgary willingly so he could get a good education. Great guy.

I want Canada to preserve the native cultures, as I do the Quebecois and Acadian. They lend "favour" to our grand nation. But not to the extent that it hinders NATIONAL UNITY! At that point it all becomes counter productive. 

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What was it the Iroquois and other bands wanted? Segregation.

You’ve established that they wanted to live on small reserves in areas where resources were poor and their people might go hungry?

I’m not convinced that you’ve established that this is the case.

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You’ve established that they wanted to live on small reserves in areas where resources were poor and their people might go hungry?

I’m not convinced that you’ve established that this is the case.

Hilarious...

Dude...if you don't know the treaty history...just stop now.

Go do some reading. Find out what happened and why. Then...I'll be here.

[TreeBeard]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Hilarious...

Dude...if you don't know the treaty history...just stop now.

Go do some reading. Find out what happened and why. Then...I'll be here.

Dude…. Would you say all the treaties were signed with informed consent of the native people? 

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Dude…. Would you say all the treaties were signed with informed consent of the native people? 

Lol...are you saying natives aren't intelligent enough to know what they're signing?

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Nationalist said:

Lol...are you saying natives aren't intelligent enough to know what they're signing?

No, I asked if you thought there was informed consent.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No, I asked if you thought there was informed consent.

I would assume so. I mean...it was originally the natives who proposed the segregation. 

But now you're headed for a real mud puddle. I've read a lot of the treaties and watched both sides shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly. 

The natives wanted their independence and the colonists in Canada needed their help with the Yankees. But once they started down the path of racial segregation, things just got worse.

IMO the natives missed a wonderful opportunity to actually partake in the creation of Canada. They were short-sighted. All of them.

[TreeBeard]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:48 PM, Nationalist said:

The natives wanted their independence

You think being put on reserves is maintaining their independence?  Do you think the colonists were actually interested in giving these nations their independence?

[TreeBeard]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:48 PM, Nationalist said:

IMO the natives missed a wonderful opportunity to actually partake in the creation of Canada. They were short-sighted. All of them.

Do you think the colonists gave them an opportunity to partake in the creation of Canada?

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You think being put on reserves is maintaining their independence?  Do you think the colonists were actually interested in giving these nations their independence?

I think the Iroquois and Mohawk got what they asked for.!

Who's fault is it they were so shortsighted? 

[Nationalist]

28 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think the colonists gave them an opportunity to partake in the creation of Canada?

In short...yes.

[TreeBeard]

11 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

In short...yes.

You don’t think the colonial governments discriminated against the indigenous populations?

 

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You don’t think the colonial governments discriminated against the indigenous populations?

 

Of course I do.

Just as much as the tribes discriminated against the colonists. Every bit as much as the iroquois discriminated against the other tribes. And as much as the English and French colonials discriminated against each other.

What's ur point?

Edited February 3, 2022 by Nationalist

[TreeBeard]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Of course I do.

Just as much as the tribes discriminated against the colonists. Every bit as much as the iroquois discriminated against the other tribes. And as much as the English and French colonials discriminated against each other.

What's ur point?

How could a people who were broadly discriminated against by the colonial government ever have the opportunity to shape the country, as you claim they were given an opportunity to do?

[Nationalist]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

How could a people who were broadly discriminated against by the colonial government ever have the opportunity to shape the country, as you claim they were given an opportunity to do?

Man-oh-man...do I really have to tippytoe through Canadian history with you? They weren't "given" the opportunity...I dont think...as much as they could have decided to live WITH the colonists...or at least work with them...to BE part of the society and take advantage of the more comfortable technology. 

It would have been abrasive at first, but hell, the colonists had internal issues of their own.

It's never helpful when 1 dimensional thinking makes conclusions and judgements on anything. Especially history.