Monuments and memory: an examination of the Newfoundland and Labrador commemoration landscape and its place in the global monumentality issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This MA dissertation examines the monument landscape in Canada, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador, and how many factors in our society have shaped it. This thesis explores the need for a discussion surrounding the changes seen and not seen in the monument landscape. Currently, the most relevant research on this subject is from the United States, as they are directly dealing with their monuments due to multiple public rallies for the Black Lives Matter movement and other forms of organization. However, we can also see research and change of commemorative heritage in countries such as Germany, England, and Australia. The US and other countries are still working towards a better future, but they have taken the first steps to create change on multiple levels. Although this discussion has been introduced in Canada, the monument landscape seems to lack upheaval, unlike in other countries. Canada has a history of colonialism and discrimination of certain groups, in particular, Indigenous and First Nations peoples. This history is only starting to be called into question. Our ‘negative history,’ Canada’s dark past with multiple attempts at extinguishing the Indigenous and First Nations peoples, tends to be ignored or displayed inaccurately, as seen with many commemorative heritage structures around the country. Monuments have been toppled, and there have been other forms of attack on particularly dated commemorative heritage. However, since there is little to no discussion surrounding the monument landscape, Canada has been unable to make the same progress as the United States. To explore the monument landscape in Canada and think critically about this discussion among the public, I researched through theoretical approaches of relationality, postcolonial (decolonization) theory, landscape memory/public memory, and nationalism and colonialism. I used various methods as I gathered quantitative and qualitative data. The information I collected for the background of monuments came from exploratory research through multiple scholarly and media-based sources. I also conducted online and in-person surveys to explore NL residents’ current views of monuments and their purpose in our society. Interviews followed the online survey with certain participants to gain a more in-depth view of their opinions and gauge their understanding through various questions. Interviews with Indigenous leaders/elders were also conducted to gain an outlook on monuments and Canada’s monument landscape from an Indigenous perspective. The final interviews were targeted towards individuals who had qualities that would help to further the understanding of how monuments work within society. I also catalogued all the monuments in St. John’s in a document that houses the information I could procure for each monument and created an interactive map through Google Maps to showcase where the monuments are located in the city. Through all these forms of research, I gained a comprehensive view and understanding of monuments throughout history and how they continue to work in the modern day as they display history. From my surveys and interviews, there is a widespread (while vague) condemnation of racism, but there are outliers to this notion. No significant population took one side of the discussion, i.e., everything should change or nothing should change. This discussion is difficult to start, as each monument needs guidelines for its change or contextualization. This discussion includes the need for education, Indigenous collaboration, and the consideration of money and power. We must consider the abovementioned ideas to further the discussion of monuments in Canada, both among the public and the three levels of government. I discuss the importance of creating this discussion and how to keep it going by exploring how racism and discrimination have been combated in other workplaces/disciplines. With this, I conclude with future areas of Tuck – MA Thesis research that can be conducted to help keep this discussion moving and to better the outcomes of changing or contextualizing a monument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".