(Yonge) Dundas Square comes of age - Does it need a new name?

[Tuscani01]

back to the original thread:

"Dundas Square" is just fine. What's the point in changing it now?

Re-naming things just seems so lame and fickle, especially when a thing was originally named in honour of something/someone. Find something new to name if you want to honour something -- it's no honour when names are overturned on a whim.

Calling it "Dundas Square" would involve renaming it though, as it is currently Yonge & Dundas Square.

 

[Humpday]

I may have missed something but isn't it already named? http://www.torontolifesquare.com/

 

[wyliepoon]

Half the screen at the "entrance" to YDS is now covered by a "Yonge-Dundas Square" sign. I think that's the end of the the naming discussion there.

 

[gristle]

Half the screen at the "entrance" to YDS is now covered by a "Yonge-Dundas Square" sign. I think that's the end of the the naming discussion there.

If so, then reason has prevailed - finally.

 

[toraerach]

Agreed. The changes towards modernism and diversity are part of the history of the twentieth-century in Toronto and Canada, the depression/war years being the watershed events that set us on this new course. My growing assessment, however, is that while modernism and diversity have been good, Multiculturalism was reactionary and harmful to a maturing understanding of ourselves and to the understanding that we would project to newcomers who adopt Canada as their home.

Multiculturalism came about in a time when we discovered that the official history, the official culture, etc. was an insufficient description of Canada as it existed then. Canada has always been a multicultural country, much more so than many people realize, and that multiculturalism is not solely a product of recent immigrants but of communities that have been here longer than Canada itself: Aboriginal peoples, Acadians and other Francophone communities outside of Quebec, Cape Breton's Scottish community, a disctinctively Newfoundlander culture, etc. No idea of a monocultural or bicultural Canada could exist without systematically excluding these communities, so we decided it would be in everyone's best interest to celebrate our differences instead of glossing over them.

Even outside of the obvious English-French and settler-Aboriginal divides, perhaps there was a hesitancy within white English Canada towards an idea of a unified nationalism. Afterall, a huge chunk of that population would be descendants of Irish and Scottish immigrants who didn't do so well out of Old World attempts to form a unified British identity.

I don't see official Multiculturalism as reactionary at all, but as a great move forward in our collective conception of Canada. A conception that allowed us to see ourselves for what we were and are: a diverse group that lives together in peace and prosperity for the most part. What is reactionary, in my mind, is this belief some people have that what is Multicultural is foreign. It is not. There is a Chinese culture within Canada, and it is part of Canada. A traditional Ukrainian dance is as Canadian as ballet class. Canada has many faces, no one more valid than the next as they all inform our existence. They all affect us in some way and allow us to locate ourselves within the country and the greater world.

Does that mean we shouldn't teach Canadian history? Of course not, because to understand our society as it exists today, we must know where it came from. But one of the great things about Canada is that there is no real accepted definition of Canadian - we get to decide that for ourselves.

To put this post somewhat on topic, I'll echo what many are saying here. Dundas Square is it's name and there's no point in changing it now. Why would one want to? Dundas St. is one of the most fascinating and historically influential streets in the province.

 

[MisterF]

I may have missed something but isn't it already named? http://www.torontolifesquare.com/

That's the name of a building next to the square, not the square itself.

 

[Tewder]

Canada has always been a nation of immigrants. Yes, the people who came here from Europe were immigrants too. But nowadays, the immigrants are brown, yellow, and black, instead of white, and that is truly what concerns certain people.

People of all 'colours' have been coming to Canada for generations (the Underground Railway for example). The knee-jerk posture of those who advocate for official Multiculturalism is that those who don't must be racist. Not true. This is propaganda, pure and simple, and dangeroous propaganda at that. Canadians of all colours and backgrounds question the legitimacy of this government policy. It is a fair and important debate to have.

It was the aggressive policy of assimilation that destroyed much of the original culture of Canada. and teaching/assimilation of that which forms our collective identity."

Be careful of interpreting or 'judging' the past through the distorting lense that is the hindsight of an evolved social consciousness:

It was 'Darwinism' (might makes right) that destroyed the original cultures of Canada (the weapons of the Europeans were bigger and more efficient than those of the native peoples), and it was an antiquated approach to assimilation that informed the failed policies you speak of, an approach that wasn't grounded in a respect for/tolerance of diversity and human rights and freedoms etc. These notions were not respected because they had not evolved yet.

Viewing Multiculturalism as a panacea for the situation of the native peoples, or for any group in Canada, is reactionary and in fact may prove harmful. Multiculturalism didn't give birth to tolerance, it was the other way around. Multiculturalism and government funding didn't expose the native school problem so much as an evolving social consciousness did (the same one of the post-war years that evolves to embrace womens rights, civil rights, gay rights,and diversity in general etc).

In refusing to investigate and question who we are 'collectively', effectively shutting down the national dialogue on where we have come from and where we are now, we open ourselves to the risk of further abuses. An enlightened policy of assimilation celebrates and teaches all Canadians the values that have evolved here and that are entrenched in our institutions and laws, and protects us from challenges to them. This should be the role of our central government, and not the further deconstructing of national unity through divisive policies that essentially posit that the only way for disparate people to live together and respect one another is to avoid any sense of unity or community. This is counter-intuitive if you ask me.

 

[Tewder]

... an interesting debate. Apologies if this derails the thread. Would the mods please relocate these posts?

Multiculturalism came about in a time when we discovered that the official history, the official culture, etc. was an insufficient description of Canada as it existed then. Canada has always been a multicultural country, much more so than many people realize, and that multiculturalism is not solely a product of recent immigrants but of communities that have been here longer than Canada itself: Aboriginal peoples, Acadians and other Francophone communities outside of Quebec, Cape Breton's Scottish community, a disctinctively Newfoundlander culture, etc. No idea of a monocultural or bicultural Canada could exist without systematically excluding these communities, so we decided it would be in everyone's best interest to celebrate our differences instead of glossing over them.

Even outside of the obvious English-French and settler-Aboriginal divides, perhaps there was a hesitancy within white English Canada towards an idea of a unified nationalism. Afterall, a huge chunk of that population would be descendants of Irish and Scottish immigrants who didn't do so well out of Old World attempts to form a unified British identity.

The differences between us do not need celebrating. As you say, Canada's vast diversity and multiculturalism (with a small 'm') has always been somewhat self-evident. This diversity of people living together yet abiding by and flourishing within the underpinnings of the nation's traditions ('rule of law', order, democracy, and the legacy of the British parliamentry system etc.) go far in explaining the relative harmony here throughout our history, and the nation's ever-progressive move towards tolerance, inclusivity, and civil rights etc. Multiculturalism (with a big 'm' this time) seems less evident to me, a far more politicized and unnecessary gesture. Again, Canada is already a diverse nation, and an open and tolerant one as befits our common culture and beliefs. This is what matters at heart. This is what should be understood clearly and taught to all who come here. This is what those who would deconstruct the meaning of 'Canadian' fail to see. The rest of it is extraneous and very political indeed (i.e. who gets government funding for what and why etc...). Presumably our national identity is about more than funding choices?...

I don't see official Multiculturalism as reactionary at all, but as a great move forward in our collective conception of Canada. A conception that allowed us to see ourselves for what we were and are: a diverse group that lives together in peace and prosperity for the most part. What is reactionary, in my mind, is this belief some people have that what is Multicultural is foreign. It is not. There is a Chinese culture within Canada, and it is part of Canada. A traditional Ukrainian dance is as Canadian as ballet class. Canada has many faces, no one more valid than the next as they all inform our existence. They all affect us in some way and allow us to locate ourselves within the country and the greater world.

Does that mean we shouldn't teach Canadian history? Of course not, because to understand our society as it exists today, we must know where it came from. But one of the great things about Canada is that there is no real accepted definition of Canadian - we get to decide that for ourselves.

Those who would define 'Canadian' by looking in the mirror are being simplistic and are missing what does make this nation amazing which is the diversity of people living in harmony according to basic belief system that allows them and protects them to do it.

In the end it is important to define our terms. I've been very explicit in defining Multiculturalism as a government policy and not as the reality of diversity. I also think it is important when talking about policies of cultural assimilation that we're not talking about the superficial specifics of Ukranian dancers and Chinese parades etc. - things which of course are all part of our landscape - but of a more profoundly shared belief systems that truly defines and differentiates somebody as a Canadian or not (beyond simply being born here that is). This is where we need to evolve to for a stronger understanding of Canadian identity, one that builds rather than deconstructs.

 

[kEiThZ]

Why change a good thing? Let's keep the name as is. It sure makes the square easy to find. Though, maybe we can stand to call it a quad instead of a square. Then again, I am an engineer and such technicalities would only be observed by those of my ilk.

 

[SP!RE]

"Peace" (which Canada's government has lost sight of ), "Freedom" and other such tacky names have NO relevance to this square.

Yonge-Dundas (or more affectionately, Dundas) Square is the only appropriate name here I think. It gives a sense of place and pays homeage not only to Toronto's history, but Dundas Street which is so overlooked in so many ways, yet is an important artery for this city.

I pray that the current name sticks.

PS: My job places me very close to the square's top management people and I can tell you that renaming the square doesn't seem to be even a consideration. Especially with all the branding work that goes into it. But I can ask them more specifically to double-check.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Timothy Eaton Square would be an appropriate name for that location.

What a shame it was never named Timothy Eaton Square, or Eaton Square I really like that and it's quite fitting. In the end any potential name change will be paid naming rights such as Rogers Square or the like.

 

[urbandreamer]

^When they bulldoze the Eaton Centre c.2063, Toronto will get its Eaton Square.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Who, in this country, have you ever heard say that the Taliban were "freedom fighters"? The people who voted for Trudeau? That's insane. Think before you speak.

And btw, the Taliban is an extremist right-wing group. So, if there were a certain political ideology that would sympathize with them, it would lie somewhere on the hypocritical right.

Check it out:

"But here is a contrary position, currently being promoted by the pseudo-left sect that runs the Canadian Peace Alliance and the Toronto Stop The War Coalition: "The Taliban is the resistance in Afghanistan and we must support it, critically, but unreservedly. . . There is no fundamental difference between the liberation theology movements in South America and the popular Islamist resistance movements in the Middle East and Asia, movements such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban. . . .Every U.S. and NATO tank that the Taliban destroy, every Karzai-appointed stooge they assassinate and every town or village they liberate is a victory for our side and a grievous blow to U.S. imperialism."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...vin-a-victory-for-afghanistan-and-canada.aspx

 

[urbanboom]

^

I don't think it's fair to compare the people who as you say, "fawn over Trudeau" to the group that made those statements. That group is a communist group in Canada - what the National Post (The National Post! ) is doing is akin to asking a a far-right neo-Nazi group their opinions on Israel. As Barney Frank so well put it this week, "it would be like debating a dining-room table. Why would you do it?"

The average Canadian who holds respect or voted for Trudeau (a great deal of people, I might add) shouldn't be tossed into the same category as fringe groups.

 

[Tewder]

... in the same way perhaps that we shouldn't dismiss all who vote for Harper as racist right-wing nutjobs?!