Member of Heritage Advisory Committee not impressed with city hall plans to remove LaSalle plaque

opinionviolet 100x100By David Barker

November 3rd, 2020

BURLINGTON, ON

 

On October 14th, I attended via Zoom as a member a meeting of the City’s Heritage Advisory Committee; a meeting that is open to the public and whose activities are published on the City’s website. One of the topics on the agenda for discussion pertained to the almost certain removal of a monument located in LaSalle Park which commemorates the first landing of a non-indigenous person (LaSalle) in this area.

A number of what I call “spoof” reasons were provided by staff to the committee to justify its removal. Here for your review is the written information provided by staff to the committee along with these three pictures.

LaSalle marker

A plaque put in place in 1923 tells part of the story about how LaSalle Park got its name. The language used represents the time – someone apparently has a problem with the word “white man”.

LaSalle Park Plaque Removal
• Heritage Burlington is advised that a plaque is to be removed from LaSalle Park.

• LaSalle Park is owned by the City of Hamilton and is operated by the City of Burlington. The plaque in question was erected in 1923 by the Wentworth Historical Society, when Aldershot was still in East Flamborough Township, several decades before Burlington assumed operational responsibility for the park.

LaSalle prov plaque

The provincial plaque tells more of the story.

• The 1923 plaque does not add much value or significance to the park, namely as it does not provide much detail, and there is a provincial plaque in the parking lot near the North Shore Blvd East driveway entrance to the park. The provincial plaque is in a more prominent area, provides greater detail, and uses more inclusive language.

• Further, the 1923 plaque is in an inaccessible low-traffic area of the park. For accessibility reasons, this is not an area where Burlington staff would recommend putting any new plaque or interpretive display.

• Following formal contact with Hamilton, the City intends to proceed with the removal of this plaque. The plaque will be documented before it is removed

So you can see it looks to be pretty much a done deal.

The second plaque at LaSalle Park providing information about the park and its origins is at the entrance of North Shore Boulevard. That plaque in my view is awful in that a number of words are hyphenated due to poor layout of the text. You judge from the picture provided.

Tucked away at the end of the third bullet point given by staff is in my view the real reason for the plaque’s removal manifested in the words extolling the virtues of the plaque at the entrance specifically “and uses more inclusive language”. It seems the issue with the original plaque and monument has absolutely nothing to do with its location but has everything to do with the fact that it describes the Frenchman who set foot there as being a “white man”.

LaSalle plaque wording

Tough to find fault with the wording. Not “politically correct” by today’s skewered standards but certainly not offensive.

Other than the fact that the plaque and monument was installed in 1923, almost one hundred years ago, when times were different and society was different, what on earth is wrong with referring to a Caucasian as a white man. I am a white man and proud of it. Just as black people are proud of being black (Black Lives Matter). It would seem the City has received a complaint (we were let to believe just one person complaining) suggesting the verbiage is non-inclusive. In my view, that is, as probably a white Anglo Saxon protestants from the UK might likely say, “a load of old cobblers!”.

This to me is an example of history cancellation. If you feel that way too, please let your councilor know how you feel.”

Barker DavidDavid Barker, a retired insurance executive, is a member of the Heritage Advisory Board and a frequent commentator on public issues

Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

18 comments to Member of Heritage Advisory Committee not impressed with city hall plans to remove LaSalle plaque

  • Tom Battaglia

    Re plaque: Wake up people! The woke protesters want to change or erase history.

  • Jill

    Since history matters so much let’s honour the original name of the park pre-1926 which honoured the Indigenous people. The origin of the Wabasso name is said to come from a First Nation word for “white rabbit”. Keep the monument but remove the plaque replacing it with a Land Acknowledgment! That way both histories of the Indigenous and European settlers are honoured in the park.

    • David Barker

      Jill

      The plaque and the monument are one of the same. Without the plaque one is left with just a large rock. If the plaque is removed how is LaSalle honored?

      Please tell me you are not suggesting changing the name of LaSalle Park to something else, are you?

      • Jill

        I made no suggestion renaming the park did I?! But there are TWO plaques/monuments to LaSalle, let’s keep the one that actually provides more historical details about his arrival. The second smaller plaque can reflect instead the 100s years history of the Indigenous people that were there before LaSalle and after his brief visit to Burlington. LaSalle did not discover Burlington, he got lost and stopped in Burlington briefly meeting the Indigenous people and Adrien Jolliet.

        Why is the beliefs of 1920s when the plaque was placed overrule the history before that and the beliefs of today? Shouldn’t the Historical Society be promoting History and not the White person experiences through out history?

      • Jill

        I made no suggestion renaming the park did I?! But there are TWO plaques/monuments to LaSalle, let’s keep the one that actually provides more historical details about his arrival. The second smaller plaque can reflect instead the 100s years history of the Indigenous people that were there before LaSalle and after his brief visit to Burlington. LaSalle did not discover Burlington, he got lost and stopped in Burlington briefly meeting the Indigenous people and Adrien Jolliet.
        Why is the beliefs of 1920s when the plaque was placed overrule the history before that and the beliefs of today? Shouldn’t the Historical Society be promoting History and not the White person experiences through out history? I say this as a White person

  • Rod Ellison

    I just read this about removing the plaque. I live in Stoney Creek and I like history. The reason I like history is that in grade 9 and still taking Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.I took that in grade 4. So anything related to Canada I enjoy and if there is an error on the plaque, why is it that it probably was never mentioned before now after almost 100 yrs someones nose got out of joint. Maybe if they took time to study up on these explorers who with the assistance of diverse cultures were able to get as far as they did. Thank you to all of those people. They worked hard, starved, ragged and yet when they finished their journey they were proud of what they had accomplished. We don’t know what went on during these trips but they became brothers and sisters through all of that. Leave the plaque alone, I read the plaques when I go on a tour because I’m interested in knowing what happened by whomever. I see people walk past the plaques and it means nothing to them. I’m a proud Canadian also born and raised in Ontario.

  • I am writing to you to share a very concerning article that was written regarding a plaque in LaSalle Park.

    I find the article to be incredibly offensive. It is not factual and appears to be written from a place lacking in understanding regarding equity, inclusiveness and social justice.

    I am upset to see this piece of writing be shared as if it may represent the opinion of anyone other than the author. His opinions are biased by skin colour which he clearly describes. If these are the thoughts representing local land and issues and are from a person on a formal advisory board, there is great reason to be concerned.

    His words need to be removed and an apology must be issued. He should no longer be on this board and if there is someone else that you suggest that I email regarding this, I kindly request you hat you share their contact information with me.

    Regards,
    Cory Klass

    • David Barker

      Cory

      If you were to refer to the fucia coloured box alongside the headline to the piece you would note the piece is clearly labeled “Opinion & Commentary”.

      You say the piece is not factual. I believe it is. I was at the meeting and I believe I have reported fairly and accurately. You were not there so maybe you can tell me what you believe to be inaccurate. To help you with that here is link to the minutes of the meeting posted on the City’s website.

      https://burlingtonpublishing.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=88b27e1b-8a4c-4c85-8891-cbcb2ca5741f&Agenda=PostMinutes&lang=English

      I am not pushing any white supremacist crap. Just simply questioning why the term “white man” now appears to be unacceptable. LaSalle was a white man, not a black man, not an indigenous man; a white man.

      I understand and unreservedly support equity, inclusiveness and social justice. That is a two way street. Please explain how in your view referring to LaSalle s a white man falls outside those three very important tenets.

      Calling for censorship of an opinion piece, which does not advocate by any stretch of the imagination, violence, hate or any other action that would be contrary to equity, inclusiveness or social justice is more scary and offensive than any part of my opinion piece. Fredom of speech and expression is as important as equity, inclusiveness and soctal justice. How would you have rectef had the publisher censored your comment? Two way street!

      Thank you though for reading the piece and providing your point of view.

  • I just wanted to express my disappointment in an article that was published to your online newspaper, which I understand was written by a community member. Not only is the article poorly written, but I feel it is irresponsible to publish a story that is clearly an opinion piece aimed at creating a reaction, without advertising it as such. David Barker expresses many sentiments (such as “white pride”) that are ignorant at best and white supremacist at worst.

    Please consider removing/editing the article or publishing another piece with a complementary opinion, and reviewing the paper’s values and ethics.

    Thank you,
    Avalon

    • David Barker

      Avalon

      I’m sorry you do not like my prose. Perhaps you might like to suggest improvements. Each to their own.

      Maybe my prose is not up to your standard, but my powers of observation certainly em to exceed yours. Please refer to the fucia coloured box to the left of the headline of the piece. You will note it clearly states “Opinion & Commentary”. OK?

      BTW, the dictionary definition of “complementary” is “combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another”. I don’t think that is what you were attempting to convey.

      I’m very taken aback by your assertion that my expression of being proud of my white ethnicity is “ignorant at best and white supremacist at worst”. That is a huge leap to make with so little upon which to base that opinion. So by extrapolation are you suggesting those that are black and support BLM are either ignorant at best or are black supremacist at worst? Because I do not believe them to be either. They are proud of the ethniciy as they should be; and seek equality as is their right.

      Might I suggest you write piece from another point of view. Can we look forward to reading that?

  • Jill

    Why do we need 2 plaques in the same park about LaSalle arriving in 1669 and staying less than a year?! How is history being erased by “only” keeping the bigger plaque which gives a more detailed account than the one on the rock? This seems like a big fuss for no reason.

  • Eve St Clair

    Elect a Liberal Mayor ,expect these kind of things to happen . Leave the darn plaque it is history that we cannot change

    • David Barker

      Evd.

      Thanks for your comment.

      The complaint, we were led to believe, came from a single member of the public, not the mayor or a councilor.

      We gained no intimation that staff were being directed by council.

      Councilor Nisan, who sits on the Heritage Committee as a non-votig member, did not apply any pressure or put forward a position one way or the other. He did suggest the matter be referred to the Inclusivity Committee (yes we have one). His suggestion was adopted by the Heritage Committee.

    • David Barker

      Sorry typo Eve not Evd

  • PETER CHRISTIE

    Just leave the sign!! It is a bit of history and does not hurt anyone. I am proud to be a white woman. I would be proud if I was a black woman, or Asian, Indian etc. Be proud of who you are. Don’t live in the past, live your best now!!

  • Collin

    I agree with removing the old plaque. I was startled to see the reference on the plaque to LaSalle being “the first white man” to reach the bay. It infers that something is not historically important unless a white person did it — an attitude that was all too prevalent in the education system and in society when I was going to school some 60 years ago. I don’t find the standards that led to the decision to replace it “skewered.” While I agree that the typography of the new plaque leaves much to be desired, it is much more informative than the old one. Even so, it neglects to mention that LaSalle would never have reached this area without the help of Native guides and two canoes of Native helpers. Mr. Barker is welcome to be proud of the accident of birth that made him a white man. As a white man myself, I am much prouder of being a Canadian and part of a diverse society that is the product of the efforts of my fellow Canadians of all skin colours, cultures and beliefs. It is my opinion that official plaques should reflect our current values as Canadians, not the outdated thinking that prevailed nearly 100 years ago.

    • David Barker

      Thanks Collin for your comments. Just to clarify:- like you I am a proud white person but even more proud to be a Canadian and a citizen of the best country in the world. I guess back in the days when LaSalle is said to have landed there there were either indigenous (phew nearly said indian) people or white people. By 1923 there would have been black people so the white man descriptive would have been pretty fair.

      Different times, different standards.

      Again thanks for your comments.

  • Steve W.

    Agree with you completely. I will contact my councilor today.

    On a related matter (re use of white/black) I recently ran into the same problem when describing an incident on Burlington Transit – I referred to the man in question as a black man to better describe him. That was not allowed. I had to pull down my tweet. The world has gone nuts.