Time to make McClung a pioneer — again

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/01/2020 (2084 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A famous Winnipegger enthusiastically promoted selective breeding among humans for the refinement of the species. She championed the forced sterilization of people who were considered “unfit,” meaning people judged as “feeble-minded.”

She left Winnipeg and moved to Edmonton, where she was elected as an MLA and was a main promoter of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act, legislation that allowed the sterilization of almost 3,000 people. The victims were disproportionately immigrants and Indigenous people.

By today’s standards, she would be considered a racist.

What do we do about Nellie McClung?

The question is relevant because Winnipeg city council is being asked to approve an initiative called Welcoming Winnipeg: Reconciling Our History.

The goal — to better reflect Indigenous perspectives in place names and historical markers — is part of Mayor Brian Bowman’s push for reconciliation.

He has hosted an anti-racism summit, composed a team of Indigenous advisers and mandated reconciliation sessions for city employees. Commendably, he uses his position’s high profile to call out racism whenever he sees it.

In this newest development, a public committee comprised of 50 per cent Indigenous people and 50 per cent non-Indigenous will be asked, in part, to review suggestions to rename Winnipeg landmarks, monuments and street names that honour historical figures who are now considered offensive.

A bronze sculpture on the grounds of the Manitoba legislature honours McClung and the so-called Famous Five, who were pioneers of first-wave feminism. The statue includes McClung’s close friend, Emily Murphy, whose frequent writing about racial differences demeaned people who were Jewish, Chinese and African.

Make no mistake, the Famous Five did not get famous by advocating for Indigenous people. Their successful fight to get Canadian women recognized as “persons” under the law in 1929 excluded Indigenous women, who were not legally considered “persons” until 1951.

Knowing that, what do we do about McClung?

She should be put at the top of the list of people whose historical validity will be weighed by the recently announced committee. Deal with her first. The wide popularity of her life and accomplishments makes her the ideal subject to kick off public discussion. Let her, once again, be a pioneer.

Navigating the tension between McClung’s considerable achievements and her deplorable actions — deplorable by 2020 standards — will give the committee a model of how to regard other controversial historical figures.

First, context matters.

McClung was in step with her times in her active promotion of eugenics, which is the term for trying to genetically “improve” the human race by controlling who gives birth. Eugenics was a popular idea in Europe and North America among the white Anglo-Saxon community that shaped McClung.

Second, intent matters. McClung believed she was helping society by curtailing generation-to-generation degeneracy. “To bring children into the world, suffering from the handicaps caused by ignorance, poverty, or criminality of the parents, is an appalling crime against the innocent and hopeless,” she wrote in In Times Like These, one of her 16 books.

Third, balance matters. Her advocacy of eugenics should be weighed against her many accomplishments. It was largely through her efforts that in 1916 Manitoba became the first province to give women the right to vote. She used her gifts as an orator and politician to fight for medical care for children, mother’s allowance, property and divorce rights for women and other reforms including workplace safety.

The city committee won’t have the power to order the removal of the statue of the Famous Five from the provincial grounds. Its mandate will be restricted to making recommendations, which could include a recommendation to the province that it reconsider the statue.

The committee might ignore McClung, reasoning her legacy is too hot to handle because she’s admired by many Manitobans. That would be unfortunate.

The complexity and wide popularity of her public life — warts and all — are reasons she’s a good template of how to proceed in the tricky business of judging historical actions by modern standards.

Here are possible targets cited by the mayor in the past:

Bishop Vital-Justin Grandin, the namesake of Bishop Grandin Boulevard, advocated for Métis rights and the Roman Catholic church declared him “venerable” (found “heroic in virtue” during the investigation leading to canonization as a saint) in 1966. He led the campaign for residential schools to “civilize” First Nations people.

Garnet Joseph Wolseley is commemorated with Wolseley Avenue, Wolseley School and the Wolseley neighbourhood. He commanded the Red River Expeditionary Force in 1870 to establish Canadian sovereignty in Manitoba.

Edgar Dewdney is acknowledged with a street name in Point Douglas. As lieutenant-governor of the Northwest Territories and Indian commissioner, his policies included withholding food rations from Indigenous people to force them to settle on reserves.

Such men deserve to be judged by the same criteria we extend to McClung. Historical context? Intent? Positive accomplishments?

McClung was an admirable leader in many ways and can continue to lead. Her example reminds Manitobans that, when it comes to revoking someone’s honour, we should be extremely cautious.

carl.degurse@freepress.mb.ca

Carl DeGurse is a member of the Free Press editorial board.