Erect The Statues At Wilfrid Laurier Analysis

Another issue that is brought up by Finn in his write up on Change.org is the fact that the university did not consult the public about the decision to house these statues. As Finn explains, the statues were originally rejected from being in Victoria Park due to a large opposition from the public (Para. 3). The Laurier community had no opportunity to discuss the implications of the statue project prior to the decision made by the university. This scenario displays another power dynamic that exists, and manifested itself with the decisions Norton and Walton-Roberts discuss the way that power manifests itself when they write that “power is exercised through the production of knowledge” and that “our knowledge about ‘reality’ is not in fact

This demonstrates that Canada as a whole still has disagreements regarding what is appropriate, and what is inappropriate with regards to our history. This is demonstrated through the two aforementioned news sites and their opposing views. The National Post’s article, titled “Erect the Statues at Wilfrid Laurier” is clearly an article that believes that the statues ought to be implemented into Laurier’s campus. The comments on the article are very reflexive of this sentiment with people writing that it is, to paraphrase slightly, “political correctness run amuck”. Some comments on this article tend to exaggerate, comparing opposing to the implementation of the statues to being like ISIS. While this is a case of incredible hyperbole, one can see how the connection is made. The Globe and Mail’s article “Wilfrid Laurier University to reconsider plan for prime ministers’ statues” provides a viewpoint that aligns closer to those who opposed the statue project initially. The article does not provide a voice for those who believed the statues belonged on Laurier’s campus and instead, focussed heavily on the opposing viewpoints. It is also interesting to note that the Globe and Mail’s online article’s comments section is slightly hidden, whereas the National Post’s article had their comments in a very open space of the page. The Globe and Mail’s comments section, however, displays a more diverse set of beliefs, in which debate is taking place between both viewpoints, whereas the National Post’s comment section seemed to all have the same belief that the statues belonged on the campus. Through the different information and viewpoints presented by the different news outlets, it is clear to see that the websites or newspapers that one reads will create a different “reality” for each person and the views that they adopt. This