Dear Editor:
My letter to you is in regard to the numerous historical homes bearing plaques in our community.
So unique, so interesting, so … dated.
It’s always a pleasure walking around the neighborhoods, mini pooch in tow, taking in all of the names of the original property owners in our area.
I get that women weren’t allowed ownership if their man wasn’t around. But, really, should we be celebrating this on the homes deemed historical in our township? So many lovely historical homes with plaques bearing the man’s name and occupation when it was built.
Seriously, was he really all on his own in that stone pad of establishment?
Recently, I was walking down a street with a few such entitled homes. Two homes had gentlemen’s names, both followed by their biz, “carpenter.”
Then, lo and behold, I see a plaque with a lady property owner. Her name? M. Black, widow.
Nice to know that the historical society and our township wants to celebrate her in this way on a home plaque (her hubby croaked, so she gets a plaque because she owned a house).
Time to reflect, isn’t it, and reconsider our heritage, what is worth commemorating on plaques, and what’s worth ditching.
The heritage homes in our community are important, no debate. Please, be just though in the acknowledgement of who in fact lived, and worked very hard in these older homes.
When we walk our streets with our children and grandchildren, we want to celebrate the beauty, cleanliness and friendliness, with a direction towards a future where equality is paramount.
Not all were men folk living in these homes, and they certainly all pulled their weight to make this community what it is today. All should be worthy enough to be represented on the plaques. Or ditch them altogether.
Rachel Bernstein,
Fergus