By DANIEL N. PAUL - April 1, 2012

Len Canfield’s March 25 column in The NovaScotian ("Cornwallis era part of brutal struggle") attributes to me the following quote: "anything with the Cornwallis name has to go."

I categorically deny ever making such a statement! I have advocated, and will continue to advocate, that all places and things in Nova Scotia that were named to honour Edward Cornwallis should in good conscience be renamed because of his attempt to exterminate a race of people by using barbarism.

However, I have never advocated that his name be erased from history books, only that history books be rewritten to relate the entire story, including the scalp proclamations that he and his military government authorized.

I agree wholeheartedly with the headline that the Cornwallis era was part of a brutal struggle. The French and British were involved, as were other European powers throughout the Americas, in brutal struggles among themselves to claim the spoils of the American civilizations they were in the process of brutally destroying and depopulating.

Conversely, the indigenous peoples of the Americas were engaged in an all-out struggle for survival, which they could not win because their arms were no match for the deadly might of the invading Europeans.

The Hon. Joseph Howe, in a speech in Dartmouth in 1867, included the following piece of wisdom, which I think Canfield and other like-minded individuals should contemplate long and hard: "The Indians (Mi’kmaq) who fought your forefathers were open enemies, and had good reason for what they did. They were fighting for their country, which they loved, as we have loved it in these latter years ... they were true to each other and to their country ...."

The defence that brutality was part of the times is to me — and I would venture to state, to all men and women of good conscience — a crock.

Consider the massacre of the clan MacDonald at Glencoe (Scotland) on Feb. 13, 1692. Five weeks after their chief swore loyalty to King William, a force of 920 soldiers was unleashed against 200 defenseless MacDonalds. The massacre was deemed by Parliament to be barbarism. No one was ever held accountable for it, but not a soul has ever tried to justify the use of barbarism against the clan.

Skip ahead to the Nazi era. Should the murder of Europe’s Jews be deemed defensible because it was related to the attitudes of the times? Anti-Semitism was a widespread racial intolerance that extended to Canada and the U.S., where it was rampant. Anti-Semitism, rightly so, is not deemed to be a credible defence for the Nazis’ behaviour! The slaughter of uncountable millions of indigenous Americans was the result of white supremacist beliefs at their worst. Indigenous peoples, because of their colour and religious beliefs, were classified by colonial Europeans as inferiors, not entitled to human considerations. Should these white supremacist beliefs be considered a credible defence in modern times? I truly believe that all people of good conscience will respond with a resounding no!

Many individual Mohawk were hired by the British to do their dirty work; this does not make the entire Mohawk nation guilty of their crimes. Many Mi’kmaw warriors were employed by the French to do their dirty work; this does not make the entire Mi’kmaq nation guilty of their crimes. Entire races of people should not be blamed for actions of those they had no control over.

When governments make horrific decisions to commit crimes against humanity, whether in colonial times or modern, they must be held responsible for the horrors committed.

I agree we should stop playing "the blame game" and start playing "the take responsibility game." To this end, let’s acknowledge for all time that Cornwallis committed a crime against humanity when he agreed to try to exterminate the Mi’kmaq. That will contribute immensely toward realizing the goal of racial harmony in this province!

Mi’kmaq Elder Dr. Daniel N. Paul, C.M., O.N.S., is a human rights activist, historian and author.

The following is an unedited Version:

On March 25th a column written by Len Canfield, entitled “Cornwallis era part of brutal struggle” was published in the Herald’s Nova Scotian. The column contained the following quote, which Canfield attributed to me "anything with the Cornwallis name has to go." I categorically deny ever making such a statement! I have advocated, and will continue to advocate, that all places and things in Nova Scotia that were named to honour Cornwallis’s memory, because of his attempt to exterminate a race of people by using barbarism, in good conscience, be renamed. However, I have never advocated that his name be erased from history books, only that history books be rewritten to relate the entire story, including the scalp proclamations that he and his military government authorized.

I agree wholeheartedly with the headline that headed Canfield’s column, “Cornwallis era part of brutal struggle.”Indeed, the French and British were involved, as were they and other European powers in other areas of the Americas, in brutal struggles among themselves to claim the spoils of the American civilizations that they were in the process of brutally destroying and depopulating. Conversely, the Indigenous peoples of the Americas were in engaged in an all out struggle for survival, which they could not, because their arms were no match for the deadly armed might of the invading European armies, win.

The Honourable Joseph Howe, in an anti-Confederation speech he made in Dartmouth in 1867 included the following piece of wisdom, which I think Canfield and other like minded individuals should contemplate long and hard before making condemnatory statements about the Indigenous Peoples attempts to defend themselves:

“The Indians (Mi’kmaq) who fought your forefathers were open enemies, and had good reason for what they did. They were fighting for their country, which they loved, as we have loved it in these latter years. ...they were true to each other and to their country....”

Now I’ll address the Caucasian defence of “it was part of the times” which to me, and I would venture to state all men and women of good conscience, is a crock.

First, the Massacre of Glencoe (John Buchan), Scotland

In 1691, it was decided by King William and his advisors, as a means to terrorize all Highland Scots into submission, to massacre the small clan MacDonald.

The selection of the MacDonald Clan for extermination was not a well thought out action. In fact, the Clan Chief Maclan had made the Clan’s submission to the King, however, it was deemed to be too late by the authorities, January 6, not within the deadline of January 1, 1692, that had been set for submission by the King and his royal officials. Thus, on February 13, 1692, five weeks after their chief swore loyalty to King William, a force of 920 regular soldiers were unleashed against 200 defenseless MacDonalds “....in the words of the song, like murdering foxes among helpless sheep, they murdered the house of MacDonald.”

The massacre was deemed by Parliament to be barbarism. However, no one was ever held accountable for it, which, in view of the fact that the King was involved, is understandable, the aristocrat, except by another aristocrat, was untouchable. Even so, not a soul has ever tried to justify the use of barbarism against the Clan.

Lets skip ahead to the Nazi era. Should the murder of Europe’s Jews be deemed defensible because it was related to the attitudes of the times? Anti Semitism was a racial intolerance that was widespread, including Canada and the USA, where it was rampant. Both countries denied haven to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution, thus, they can be held responsible for many deaths associated with the carrying out of the Nazi Horror. Anti Semitism, rightly so, is not deemed to be a credible defence for such behaviour!

The slaughter of uncountable millions of Indigenous Americans was the result of white supremacist beliefs at its worst. Indigenous peoples, because of their color and religious beliefs, were classified by colonial Europeans as inferior humans, not entitled to human considerations. Murder of them was not considered a crime until recent times, in fact such murders were classified by most Caucasians as the elimination of pests. I ask this question: Should the white supremacist beliefs of colonial Europeans be considered a credible defence in modern times? I truly believe that all people of good conscience, excepting modern white supremacists, will respond with a resounding no!

In closing I’ll leave you with this to ponder. During the progression of history many collaborators have sullied it’s pages. Examples: Many individual Mohawk were hired by the British to do their dirty work, enforcing brutal proclamations, etc.; this does not make the entire Mohawk nation guilty of their crimes. Many Mi’kmaw warriors were employed by the French to do their dirty work; this does not make the entire Mi’kmaq nation guilty of their crimes. During the Nazi era there were Jewish collaborators; this does not make the Jews responsible for the barbarism they suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Stop blaming entire races of people for the actions of those they had no control over. However, by all the ties of humanity, when governments make horrific decisions to commit crimes against humanity, whether they be of colonial times or modern, they must be held responsible for the horrors committed.

I agree, lets stop playing “the blame game” and start playing “the take responsibility game.” To this end let’s acknowledge for all time that Cornwallis committed a crime against humanity when he agreed to try to exterminate the Mi’kmaq. The end result will be most rewarding, it will contribute immensely toward realizing the goal of racial harmony in this Province!

Please visit thefollowing URL to read more about British barbarities

http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishScalpProclamation-1749.html