I suppose that bistorical revisionism is probably not the best choice of words. Rather some kind of commentary on political correctness. It is interesting to note that a female first nations artist suggested that the murals stay up with some kind of plaque put up with an explanation, whch I think is the best solution.

I had heard that other art which had been a source of controversy (and similarly found offensive to natives) in Eastern Canada had been removed. The example cited in the local paper was a statue of Champlain and a kneeling native, which sounds suspiciously like one mentioned above, so maybe it hasnt been taken down, or maybe theres more than one.

I dont know about Kim Cs comment above, it would seem now that in modern and (hopefully) enlightened society you do get the losers point of view, isnt that what this thread is all about?

Its hard to imagine any murals painted in the 1930's, that wouldnt offend somebody in this age in one sense or another, for instance I remember looking at a MacMillan Bloedel (lumber company) annual report cover from 1964 showing a clearcut valley, which you would certainly not see today, but then it meant money.

THis reminds me of the story of Rockefeller commissioning the famous socialist mexican artist Diego Rivera to paint a mural in Rockefeller center. He was given complete artistic license. Of course, he painted in a Lenin's face and when asked, refused to remove it, rather he ended up adding a picture of Rockefeller in an unflattering way, with a cigar and champagne glass - the mural was covered up, he was paid his full price. The mural was then taken down, or painted over. Rivera did have his revenge of sorts, he later repainted the mural in Mexico City.