That colossal monument — Contrarian readers react

The gigantic statue of “Mother Canada” discussed here yesterday has many detractors and few admirers among Contrarian readers. Here’s a sample from the flood of comments received:

Barry (#1):

Non-supporters of this project need to stand up and hopefully have this cancelled.

Martha:

If some people in Ingonish or elsewhere see economic benefit to this statue, perhaps the focus should be on finding a different place for it—say at Ingonish. While Ingonish is one of my favourite places on earth, I could accept a (somewhat less intrusive) statue there, because there is already a certain degree of man-made tourism in the area. The irony of Green Cove as a location is that, on the one-hand, the promoter clearly understands what a special beautiful peaceful place it is, but on the other hand, does not understand why, nor appreciate that he is ruining it. Almost any other location would accomplish his objective while causing less fatal damage.

The Greek:

The proposal meets the essential criterion of kitsch monuments in Nova Scotia (the Stewiacke mastodon, the Millbank Glooscap): it presents its buttocks to the public. The proponent seems most proud of having nailed down all the branding rights. I’d love to see that contract. But it’s what you call the Emotional Blackmail (over & over again) that’s most offensive—the bumper sticker mentality behind such bullying slogans as “If you don’t stand behind our troops, you’re welcome to stand in front of them.”

Mother Canada and The Commemorative Ring

Dave:

I fear this is going to be like that gawd-awful memorial to “peace officers” that got installed at the Grand Parade is Halifax—no one can say “No,” because to say “No” would be disrespectful. And so we have a mini-arc de triomphe in a public space that already had a monument. Here’s an idea: why don’t we put Mother Canada there? And while we’re at it, a monument to nurses, and one to teachers, and maybe Vince Coleman…? [PD note: Pretty sure he means the train dispatcher, not the Cardinals left fielder.] We could rename the square Monument Place, and all groups worthy of commemoration could have their own monument there. I’ll bet it would be a real tourist attraction.

Tim:

Size matters. Clearly, Parker, you do not support our troops.

This from a government who would rush to take electorally useful flak jacket photo-ops in front of soldiers in the field but cashier them before they could draw their pension if their service had injured them so they were considered unfit for service. I guess monuments are cheaper than ongoing support for veterans.

Warren:

Man, that is one ugly statue.

Janet

All great points, Parker, but there’s another. Plenty of non-Christians have died overseas for Canada, some of them even from Cape Breton. The monument not only excludes them, it crosses the line between church and state. Then there’s the fact that—beyond ruining one of Canada’s most beautiful coastlines—it’s bad kitschy art.

Janet, again, a few hours later:

I’ve just been getting up to speed. From what I read, this project is the brainstorm of a sentimental Toronto-based millionaire with more money and political connections than taste. The politicians, including Peter MacKay, jumped on it to wring some cheap political capital out of the same veterans whose benefits they’re busy cutting off. And now we’re in danger of having a gigantic piece of kitsch plopped down on the glorious Green Cove lookout. Seriously, it has to be stopped.

Sandra

What’s wrong? Everything’s wrong. It’s spending a fortune to destroy a beautiful and unique section of Cape Breton’s coastline in the guise of honouring our veterans by constructing a gargantuan, Gothic monstrosity. Huge monies stand to change hands—on the heels of the closure of Veterans’ Affairs offices because they’re not affordable. Green Cove’s ancient geological rock formations will be replaced by a mammoth figure looming over our coastline.

Bobby:

I agree the monument could be more contemporary. However, as an artist who could have submitted a winning design… At the risk of adding to the hyperbole, only tree-hugging, PC pinhead twits oppose this project. [PD note:  Bobby had more to say in what became a heated Twitter exchange, but most of it was of an ad hominem nature that didn’t really address the policy issues I raised. You can find it at my Twitter feed: @kempthead.]

Joyce:

The expropriation of land was for the stated purpose of declaring the area a national park, not for a statue and “tourist attraction.”

David:

still cannot get it through my thick skull that people are serious about such a grotesque monstrosity. But I guess they are.

Nancy:

My beautiful new Strombo bobblehead is a much finer work of art, frankly

Barry (#2):

I’ll take it if you don’t want it. Oh, and how is this a Harper thing? The media I read and heard from the spring was some rich guy from the big smoke was investing millions of his own money. I think Parker was just hoping it was going to be a giant statue of him to match his over sized ego.

Barry exaggerates. The statue is big, but not THAT big. It’s a “Harper thing” because Harper’s cabinet gave the necessary permissions to locate it in a National Park. It also seems clear that promoter Tony Trigiani enjoys special access through a friend or friends inside cabinet.

Jeremy:

Love it! You can compete with Rio De Janeiro!

That’s it for now. If Mr. Trigiani or his “ambassador,” retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, wish to respond to the points raised in my original post, they will get space here.