Critical Analysis Of The Article Sorry, But I’Ve Had Enough Of Saying Sorry By Christie Blatchford

In Christie Blatchford’s article “Sorry, but I’ve had enough of saying sorry”, she criticizes decisions made to remove statues of John A. MacDonald and other historical figures from several city halls across Canada. Blatchford believes that taking down statues of historical figures is a form of vilification because the decision is solely based on these men’s complicated and problematic histories. They are only defined and recognized by their wrongdoings while overlooking other aspects of their lives. For example, Blatchford states that while John A. Macdonald “was responsible for Aboriginal policy… including the development of the residential school system, ” he “also wanted to extend the federal vote to Aboriginal men, so long as they met the same qualifications as other British subjects. ” Blatchford believes that we are dehumanizing historical figures does nothing for progress. We should not be vilifying men who were only acting the same way other men were during their time.

I believe that the overarching idea in Blatchford’s article is that there needs to be more proactive ways to work towards true reconciliation. For example, she states that “Canadian governments, federal and provincial, have been apologizing for historical wrongs for decades. ” This means that apologizing is only the first step to reconciliation and that more action needs to be taken. She sees the removal of statues as another form of apology and believes that Canada has apologized enough and more needs to be done. Also, removing statues does nothing for reconciliation because it does not change the fact that past injustices happened. The problem with Blatchford’s article is that it does not explicitly say that Canada needs to do more than just apologize. It mostly criticizes the decisions about the removal of statues and only upon further analyzing can readers infer that it implies that more needs to be done. This is problematic because she is implying that removing statues has no significant meaning, vilifies historical figures, and is not a step towards reconciliation.

I disagree with Blatchford’s point because the removal of statues is not just another form of apology for past injustices but is actually a symbolic gesture. Apologies are an important first step to reconciliation but also, removing statues of historical figures who created policies that incited harm against Indigenous peoples, is a visual and symbolic representation of the commitment to reconciliation. It is easy to say that taking down statues does nothing if they have not experienced the negative intergenerational impacts of these policies.

Secondly, I disagree with Blatchford’s statement that removing statues vilifies historical figures. Asking that someone be held responsible and accountable for their actions always gets construed as vilification. By removing statues like John A. Macdonald’s from city halls, does not mean that we are overlooking his contributions to Canada and placing all the blame on him for the oppression and deaths of Indigenous peoples but rather, recognizing his wrongdoings and not glorifying him for this. John A. Macdonald, as Blatchford said, was a “man of their time and place, subject to the common failings (that is, racism or misogyny) of their era, plus burdened with personal weaknesses. ”

I agree that there is no one person in the world that is not “burdened with weaknesses” but as a “man of their time and place”, he undoubtedly had agency. He would have been more than capable of not subjecting thousands of Indigenous peoples unnecessary and unjustified pain and suffering. These historical figures have perpetuated the marginalization of Indigenous peoples, which continues to have negative ramification for them today.

The article also implies that by taking down statues, history is also being erased and historical figures being erased.