GUEST COLUMN – ‘Cancel Culture’ or, ‘The Season of Sanctimony’

Headless statue of Sir John A. after being pulled down by vandals.

Guest Columnist

AS A REGULAR READER of several newspapers, science-oriented magazines, and professional and letters-based publications, I occasionally think that I am moderately well informed and aware of current political/social trends, regional, national and world-class events of social, political or scientific import, and the like. 

That is, until fairly recently. I have begun to hear with increasing frequency the term “cancel culture.”  It was new to me… a genuine neologism.  (I chose that word to indicate my contempt for those who create moral conflict, guilt and remorse for something that is shameful today, but happened without shame a hundred years ago.)

And, yes, we should know, and yes, the schools are the place to teach our history, our good as well as our bad, as part of our national/cultural  growing pains.  Like Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach, we should wear the bad ones as well.

But let us not flog ourselves.

The term “cancel culture” itself seems to have originated some time during or near the end of the Trump administration in the United States.  Looking back on that presidency does certainly put an attractive face on the notion of cancellation,  but I am sure that forgetting is not a solution to aberrations of any sort.

However, nowhere do I recall seeing the term used in any way other than a summative dismissal of political or moral analysis that was less than laudatory or praiseworthy.

That fact has led me to the conclusion that the term, and the mind-set that invented it and uses it, refers generally to a desire or effort to erase or ignore or diminish the past so as to avoid moral responsibility for having participated in it: denial as erasure, ass cleansing. 

The notion is foolish and, in itself, immoral. Let me focus on a few examples of events or stories which illustrate my point.. 

The best example belongs right here in Canada, with demands by extreme revisionists for the destruction of all statues of our Fathers of Confederation – particularly Sir John A. MacDonald – on the basis that he or his government or its soon-after successors, and all Prime Ministers between then and now –  designed,  fostered, participated in, tolerated or sanctioned the Indian Residential schools AND their subsequent grotesque evolution into chambers of horrors.


GUEST COLUMN – Catholic church must pay a heavy price for residential schools


Riding their moral hind-sighted high horses into this Quixotic foray, the puritans of history are doing little else but fan the winds of resentment, disunity and division. They remind me of the parent who would beat his child 17 years after he discovered that the child, though now no longer a child, had once betrayed his trust.

We may lament, but cannot judge,  the past on a set of ethics which did not exist at the time.  If one discovers today that one’s child stole money from his father’s wallet some 20 years ago, does one, upon that discovery,  beat the child, who is no longer a child?

Similarly, do we destroy all graven images and statues of Sir John A. MacDonald because he lived in 1867 and, through some ironic moral aberration,  held the morality of HIS day, rather than the morality of a nation he had only barely begun to dream of?

He was, in fact, somewhat ahead of some of his peers, but some sanctimonious latter-day prudes insist that we castigate him because, fool that he was, he was not totally in tune with his own generation, as his modern critics seem to be demanding. 

He was but a man! He lived a century and a half ago. And he did not have today’s sensibilities or hindsight. 

Shame on you,  Sir John, for being mortal!  No one demanded of you at the time that you be a century and a half ahead of humanity’s ever-evolving ethics code, so you took it upon yourself to dare to be just moderately cruel and insensitive, instead of outrightly preposterous.

By all means, you should have unilaterally announced the United Nations Code of Human Rights, as well as the Canadian one… minor though it may be. Foresight, John! Shame!

Shame on you for your failure… for your… humanity. We, the sanctimonious prudes of hindsight, lament your basic, inadequate humanity, and demand that you know better, post hoc, as it were – demand that you KNEW better!

We hope that tearing down your statues will enlighten you, endear us to you, and endear our zeal to the rest of the world.

There; a good verbal and moral emetic, and we are cleansed!  Save the red paint. Put John back where he belongs.  To err is human; to forgive is divine. And a man ain’t nuthin’ but a man. Don’t cancel that. 

Pierce Graham is a retired vice principal of NorKam secondary and a long-time English teacher.

About Mel Rothenburger (9357 Articles) is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

2 Comments on GUEST COLUMN – ‘Cancel Culture’ or, ‘The Season of Sanctimony’

  1. Rob Johnstone // June 24, 2021 at 1:20 PM // Reply

    Absolute hogwash.

    The idea that individuals in the past were of all of the same moral virtue of their time is demonstrably false.

    In the 1860’s, the United States was involved in it’s most bloody conflict because of opposing ideologies as to whether or not human beings were property. Would you make the claim that Abraham Lincoln was just as moral as those southern leader who proclaimed that the white man is and always will be superior?

    John A MacDonald was an immoral person in his time and never should have been venerated as he is in the first place. Young people in this country have decided to ask questions about those we were taught to worship as demi-gods in school and found some very uncomfortable answers.

    Like you, I am not a historian, but there is plenty of primary source evidence of his racist views that were well past the “norm” of his time. He can be remembered for both his positive and negative impact on this country, but to say that he should be idolized in bronze is a disservice to our history.

  2. Bad excuse to use because he was born at some point in a dark past when the notion of right versus wrong was still in its infancy or perhaps not so clearly defined. The well-known Leonardo Da Vinci died in 1519. From all accounts he was an outstanding man and knew very well the difference between right and wrong and he chose right. MacDonald didn’t do that. He was told by the financiers to get rid of a problem standing in the way of the riches of Canada. He chose wrong. Historic periods may have a bit of an influence but right and wrong were and are pretty clear when it comes to many things in my relatively well read opinion.
    We can’t reverse the past but we sure can learn and make amends.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: