June 27, 2025

Shan Hsieh, Rona Mohsini, Zoya Nasir, Yasmine Sleiman, Alison Wardley, Yao Xiao, Cody Yoon

Introduction

Our site of interest, Fort York, is a historic site that maintains the military garrison that was established by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe in 1793, who then named it York, favouring English names to local Indigenous ones like “Tkaronto.” Located on what was once the shore of Lake Ontario, York’s location made it a strategically defensive position for a military fort, using the naturally protected harbour to defend itself from naval attacks.

York would ultimately be a site of a major battle in the War of 1812, cementing it in the national historical record as a key founding event of what is now Canada. The site now sits on a plot of land next to the Gardiner Expressway. The garrison houses nine separate buildings in total, including soldier and officer barracks, and ammunition magazines, all built following the American invasion of York in 1813. It was last used as a military garrison during World War I and has since been preserved as a national historic site.

Our research found that Fort York inspires reflections and connection from visitors about Canada’s colonial legacies and colonial experiences elsewhere through various objects, displays, and stories. When it comes to Indigenous specific displays, visitors would fall into discussions that demonstrate their ongoing negotiation around their understanding of how museums should represent Indigenous people, culture, and history. To present the above findings, our report will conduct a literature review that contextualizes Fort York’s transformation according to diversity and inclusion initiatives adopted by the Toronto Historical Museums, which draw on broader museum transformations in a collective attempt to decolonize museums.

Background

Broader museum transformations

Canada has seen the trend of museum decolonization as a response to a wider cultural acknowledgement of museums as colonial institutions. According to Brandie Macdonald (2022), museums are not sites of pure objectivity, but instead are “messengers, benefactors, and monuments” to their colonial origins. Many museums found their start in their collections acquired through colonial powers or on the stolen land of Indigenous peoples; Indigenous material objects and cultural knowledge were reframed as “primitive” by European colonizers (Macdonald 2022, 10). Furthermore, in Museums as Contact Zones, James Clifford (1997, 192–4) defines the museum as spaces of cultural representation, a “contact zone,” where diverse cultural narratives interact and often conflict, reflecting the power dynamics inherent in the museum’s representation of cultures and histories.

Clifford (1997, 206) discusses how Eurocentric “colonial perspectives” can overshadow the voices and perspectives of Indigenous communities in museum exhibitions, perpetuating the marginalization of their narratives. In response to these critiques, museums around the world have shifted their focus to de-cantering dominant Eurocentric narratives and undoing the colonial legacy in their programming. Macdonald (2022, 11) describes the museum decolonial praxis as an ongoing, fluid, and collective process in which members of marginalized communities are involved in the acquisition and dissemination of cultural artifacts. Similarly, Clifford emphasizes the importance of incorporating the voices and perspectives of the people whose culture and histories are being presented (Clifford 1997, 190-191).

In regards to Indigenous representation in North America, Wali and Collins (2023, 330) remarks on the representation and misrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in historical museums, noting that the transformation of museums is part of the paradigm shift in decolonizing and “indigenizing” Indigenous representation. They reference Clifford’s “contact zones” that describe the role that museums play in perpetuating or dismantling colonial legacies. The Indigenous representation, like the mannequin of the Indigenous warrior that was restored after dialogue between Fort York and Indigenous community members, is an example of how the historical garrison has stepped into the process of not only decolonization, but “indigenization,” in which representation is done on the terms of Indigenous peoples (Wali and Collins 2023, 333). The maintenance of co-developed displays and the reactions it produces could be a form of Indigenous resistance that challenges visitors to renegotiate their understanding of Indigeneity (Wali and Collins 2023, 338).

Furthermore, Garneau’s (2016) “Truth and Conciliation” model — as opposed to the Truth and Reconciliation model — speaks of a process that does not further neocolonial systems of assimilation and erasure. Garneau (2016, 30) emphasizes the process of conciliation as perpetual and continuous, rather than a task with an endpoint in which the past can be “left behind.” The term “Reconciliation” implies a past in which the First Nations and Canada were at peace and was “tragically disrupted (…) and will be painfully restored through the current process” (Garneau 2016, 30). The reality, however, is that Indigenous people and Canada were never considered of equal status, and the past they hope to return to is fictional. Garneau (2016, 34) argues that sites centering Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation journey often encourage victims to speak their truth, inadvertently making a “spectacle of individual pain for settler consumption.” As Garneau states, those who manage spaces inform the narratives; reconciliation exhibitions held in colonial institutions are designed to push a colonial narrative. To render them sites of conciliation instead, they should be native-managed, within native territory as an “irreconcilable space of indigeneity” (Garneau 2016, 35).

Toronto History Museum transformations

Following these broader trends, the Museums and Heritage Services developed a Three-Year Strategic Plan centering six goals: First is to decolonize Toronto history museums to advance recommendations of Indigenous voices in Canada. This approach strives to re-establish Indigenous Nationhood by bringing their values, philosophies and knowledge systems to the forefront, challenging colonial influence. The second goal is to create community spaces that are inclusive to all. Museums play a necessary role in community building through knowledge, which makes it essential for them to dismantle biases and engage diverse audiences rather than leaning on the Eurocentric status quo. The third goal is to share relevant stories from multiple perspectives to support an equitable society. This prompts institutions to recognize their colonial legacies as a necessary step towards disrupting dominant narratives. Museums can then promote discussions surrounding issues of diversity, inclusion, and equity, therefore encouraging cross-cultural learning.

The fourth goal is to revitalize the visitor experience to ensure equitable access to services and a sustainable financial future. Museums and heritage sites aim to ensure equal treatment of all individuals by granting them equal access to resources and city spaces, as well as equitable educational opportunities. The City itself will also factor these into their financial decisions. The fifth goal is to build capacity to promote Sustainable Development Goals, which help all communities thrive. Museums can be tools to push forward certain SDG goals, notably those of protecting and safeguarding heritage, supporting education, and supporting research and cultural participation. By using programs to further a “people first” approach, the hope is to ultimately reduce poverty in the long term. The final goal is to champion the creation of a Museum of Toronto that serves as a hub to the existing Toronto History Museums and celebrates Toronto’s cultural heritage. The hope is to empower museum workers, visitors, and volunteers that work within Toronto History Museums (City of Toronto, 2022).

Transformation Efforts at Fort York

As one of ten Toronto Historic Museums, Fort York has implemented various practices to adhere to goals of the strategic plan. We follow the Fort York Casual Visitor Tour Programme Outline used by historical interpreters for guided tours to note the decolonial transformation efforts at Fort York. Stories that diversify the representations at the Fort are speckled throughout and touch on the presence of women, Black soldiers, the transatlantic slave trade, and Indigenous warriors who are independent allies in the battle (Fort York 2025). The outline also guides historical interpreters to conduct a land acknowledgement to inform visitors of the treaties signed between the Crown and the Mississaugas of the Credit and Chippewa bands, and to relay particular stories of Indigenous peoples. The programme also refers to efforts by Fort York and the City of Toronto Museums in collaborating with Indigenous communities, including establishing an Indigenous Programming Advisory Circle-Aanji Bimaadiziwin and a Indigenous Programming Advisory Circle (IPAC) to guide future decolonial programming. These collaborations focus on co-creation to address gaps in representation and visibility of Indigenous history and expression in an effort to decolonize Fort York and other Toronto History Museums (Fort York 2025). These advisory councils are done under the City of Toronto’s strategic plan outlined by the “Indigenous Heritage Engagement Project,” in which the Toronto History Museums requested guidance in co-presenting Indigenous stories across the 10 museums (City of Toronto 2021, 4).

Fort York is also regarded as a community engagement partner in the Indigenous Arts Festival, Advising & Strategic Report, as Fort York is the site of the yearly festival (Chiblow and Lea Fleming 2022, 4). The Indigenous Arts festival aims to establish long-term relationships across Indigenous communities and partner organizations, while empowering various community organizations, curators, artists, and knowledge keepers (Chiblow and Lea Fleming 2022, 5). On June 20th and 21st, 2025, Fort York will hold the Indigenous Arts Festival and Na-Me-Res Pow Wow for Indigenous People’s Month, partnering with Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation and Na-Me-Res’ (Native Men’s Residence) mission (City of Toronto 2024, 16). As it hosts the events, Fort York becomes grounds for Indigenous celebration, empowerment, and collaboration, marking its personal efforts in meeting the Toronto History Museums Strategic Plan to decolonize its museums.

Fort York regular guided tour

Regular guided tours at Fort York take place every hour. A sign on the gate at the western entrance advertises free admission to “Canada’s largest War of 1812 Collection” as a large Canadian flag flies overhead (this flag was temporarily replaced by a Mississaugas of the Credit flag on June 1st for Canada’s Indigenous History Month). Typically, visitors gather in front of the canteen, meeting at the blue plaque with a map of the fort and some introductory information around the War of 1812.

After taking questions, and occasionally watching a 10-minute video in one room of the North Soldier’s Barracks about the history of the site, the group then makes their way to the neighbouring room in the North Soldiers’ Barracks, where they learn about the living conditions of regular everyday soldiers. On the wall next to the entrance, red uniforms and fur coats are hung on wooden pegs; these recreated props are often used as conversation-starters and illustrate the lived-in, immersive nature of the site. The guide typically discusses the poor rations in relation to how British men often had class-related motivations to enlist in the military. Sometimes, in the Soldiers’ Barracks, the tour guide will also address the role women and children had at the garrison by prompting visitors to guess what the isolated corner bunks were used for. These conversations, when they occurred, centered around the lack of agency and autonomy women were historically afforded. While very few wives of soldiers would live at the garrison with their husbands, some families would live in the Barracks with up to thirty-two other soldiers. Eugene described how some women would work as laundresses and even make more money than their husbands at times. Eugene also described the “wife lottery” that would be done at the piers, emphasizing the socioeconomic dependence women would have had on their husbands.

After the Soldiers’ Barracks, the group is then taken into the Officers’ Barracks and Mess. The last location of the guided tour is the kitchen at the back of the Officers’ Mess. Here, the guide demonstrates how hired cooks would use the brick oven and hearth, sometimes by using the functional setup to make and share some historical and doughy derby cakes. Odd antique kitchenware, such as old recipes, sugar cones, and metal fruit trees are typically used as a talking point to situate the garrison within a larger colonial trade network. For example, the sugar cone is used by interpreters to touch on the Transatlantic Slave Trade, reminding visitors that it was a key driver due to supply and demand in Europe.

When the tour concludes, a musket demonstration takes place on the grass in between the Stone Magazine and Blockhouse #2. In our fieldwork, the talk that accompanies the musket demonstration varied between the sessions during the Door Open event and the regular demonstrations. While regular demonstrations last 15 minutes and include one historical interpreter who doubles as the demonstrator, during the Open Doors event, the demonstration was 30 minutes long and accompanied by at least 11 other historical reenactors. They demonstrated the loading and firing of the musket, the line formation, and also took to putting on a scene to show the crowd the lack of training the Canadian militia received at the time (i.e. by accidentally aiming at the crowd only to be yelled at and redirected). In those 30 minutes, the historical interpreter also mentioned the weapon technology used by Indigenous people and the kinds of training and strategies they had for battle.

Exceptional cases and non-standard tours

Unlike the general tours that typically take place every hour, some tours deviate from the usual format, offering a unique and different experience of the museum. We observed that these exceptional tours tended to occur in one of the following situations: when it was raining, when a special event coincided with the tour hours, or when there was only one visitor on the tour.

One such tour occurred on Thursday, May 29th, 2025. In contrast to the previous 1:00 pm tour, which had around 10 visitors in the tour group, there was only one visitor, Jenny, for the 3:00 pm tour. Due to the continuing rain and the lack of visitors, the historical interpreter, Eugene, decided to offer a special tour at the Brick Magazine, an area the museum typically does not include in its tours. This is due to accessibility concerns for people using mobility aids, and also because the museum is still working on some of the exhibits in the building. Around 3:10 pm, after waiting for any other visitors, the tour group went to the Brick Magazine, where Eugene described the structure of the building and how it failed to be a gunpowder magazine due to the design failure. He further explained how the steep staircase leading to the entrance created accessibility concerns for visitors, preventing the building from being included in the usual tours. Inside the Brick Magazine, Eugene described the history of downtown Toronto based on several photographs of early Toronto from the 1930s, which were displayed on the first floor. Eugene then took the group to the second floor of the building, where he explained the accounts of the Battle of York in 1813. After that, Eugene described the two mannequins on the second floor, and particularly the Indigenous fighter mannequin, which had involved controversies surrounding its portrayal of Indigenous people.

Notable objects, exhibitions and stories

The Visitor Centre is a metal-paneled building located to the west of Fort York’s main garrison site. Situated along a wooden boardwalk underneath the Gardiner Expressway, it is separate from the rest of the garrison buildings. The Visitor Centre contains most of Fort York’s physical exhibitory about Indigenous history, as well as provides a brief background on the war, treaties, and participants. The gallery, where most of these things are located, is behind a pair of glass doors through the Visitor Centre entrance. The gallery exhibits various timelines, maps, and quotes, as well as a medicine wheel table featuring stories of Indigenous historical figures such as Peter Jones and a looping video entitled “Indigenous Memorial: Surviving Injustice,” which claims to “commemorate the sacrifice of Indigenous warriors and those whose names are not yet known,” reflecting directly on Fort York’s colonial legacy and its ongoing project to diversify its stories. A wall at the back of the exhibition displays “Four Perspectives from 2012” that quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Six Nations Legacy Consortium, a British commissioner to Canada, and an American historian, reflecting on the legacies of the War of 1812, 200 years later. Upon exiting the Gallery, a ramp leads up to a pair of doors that open automatically, leading to a hallway where visitors can experience an immersive audio-visual experience of the battle that took place at Fort York on April 27th, 1813. It leads visitors through a timeline of that day, starting in the early morning, following the American invasion, and culminating in the British military exploding their gunpowder magazine. The hallway eventually leads visitors from the Visitor Centre out the doors at the other end, and to the Garrison and rest of the site above.

In the Soldiers’ Barracks video room, guides will discuss historical human presence on the land, actively recognizing the Indigenous presence in North America since time immemorial, a critical precursor to colonialism and John Simcoe’s establishment of Fort York in 1793. Referencing the construction of the Gardiner Expressway that passes by Fort York and the subsequent urban development of Toronto, the guides mention the archaeological discovery of footprints that date to the late Ice Age, highlighting the continued and consistent occupation of the land by non-Europeans. However, physical evidence in the historical record is not always available or accurate due to a number of reasons, such as bias, lack of funding, lack of adequate research, or lack of documentation, emphasizing the importance of this specific archaeological find in relation to Fort York’s colonial history.

One object in the kitchen that stands out most to visitors is the sugar cone propped up on one of the tables. The guide will often point to sugar and coffee as examples of global commodities, specifically mentioning the Atlantic Slave Trade, the West Indies, and the British Empire’s (and therefore Canada’s) entanglement in the global market predicated on the exploitation of Black and Indigenous labour, land, and resources. Reflecting on this prompts visitors to think about the historic and current dependency on a system of global trade, and the advertisement of concentrated wealth.

Immersive Experience – Immersing in a Colonial Setting

Fort York stands as a large open space of bright green lawns that contrast the “concrete jungle” of the surrounding Gardiner expressway and city skyline. One visitor, Ashwin, who visited the site for an impromptu walk and remarked the city as a “concrete jungle,” could not help but remark how this contrast creates an immersive experience, one in which visitors are taken “away from all the hustle, bustle, and it’s just like a cocoon.” The same visitor found that the brickwork of the Brick Magazine was a standout feature of the site, as it reminisced our starting point, a representation of our earliest build work. As a result, Ashwin understood the initial presence on this site to be whoever is connected to the brickworks, that is, the British soldiers and early American settlers.

When other visitors were questioned on what stood out from their experience, many recalled the barracks, the costumed reenactors and historical interpreters, and most pointed to the musket demonstrations. Visitors on guided tours that resonated with the North Soldiers’ Barracks noted the bunk beds, red militia coats, and muskets lining the walls, while at the Officers’ Barracks and Mess, visitors marveled at the furnished rooms, running kitchen, and functioning brick oven. One self-guided visitor, Brad, felt that such recreated rooms especially stood out because they made him feel immersed. The visual recreation of the site was the only experience he had from his visits, as he did not feel inclined to read the displays and panels.

Brad was not alone in his approach to the site. Many other visitors chose to walk around and observe more visual, embodied, and interactive elements, such as costumed historical interpreters and the musket demonstration, leaving their experience to be made up of only those elements. Furthermore, many visitors, including George from a guided tour, recall that such physical elements bring the room “to life.” Musket demonstrations were often recalled as the most interesting or favorite part of many interviewees. They found that having a reenactor in costume explain who used the musket, its parts, and then demonstrate how it was used added to their experiences. James, who watched the demonstration at the Doors Open event, recalled that the demonstration with the reenactors painted “almost a picture of what was going on at that point in time.” The historical reenactors largely added to his experience. During most musket demonstrations, the historical interpreter and reenactor is dressed in scarlet Officers’ uniform, while during the Doors Open event, visitors could see Green militia uniforms as well as women fitted into colonial prairie dresses with aprons, bonnets, and baskets. Jason, who took a self-guided and guided tour with his partner Helen, remarked on the overwhelming British presence and representation through these elements:

So, in this museum, we didn’t come across anything really about the Aboriginal tribes or… So, like we came in the entrance, and then we saw the video, and then we came over to the fort. So it’s been all like British army, British fort.”

Helen also remarked that the site is very British before asking about the Indigenous presence during the War of 1812.

On the other hand, objects, such as the sugar that often evoke narratives about the Transatlantic Slave Trade; the Indigenous flag, and the Indigenous mannequin in the Brick Magazine work in opposition to the British presence on the site and illuminate to visitors the Indigenous and decolonial representation and involvement on this site and land, both in the past and present. This sentiment was noticed by Brad, who was very interested in the Indigenous mannequin, and reflected on postcolonial issues in Canada, “We’re still facing postcolonialism in Canada, and it’s interesting to see the mannequin…who would have actually witnessed it. It stood out to me.”

Ethnographic interviews

From our interview findings, we developed two broad categories. One category discusses the various objects, displays, and stories at Fort York that made visitors acknowledge, connect, and reflect upon colonial legacies and Indigenous representation. We refer to these stories, objects, and displays as mediumsthat stimulate visitors at Fort York to engage with the site, encouraging them to challenge colonial narratives and the erasure of Indigenous presence, culture, and history. Our second category brings up visitors who desire more opportunities to learn about Indigenous perspectives, verbalising their appreciation for what they learned and sharing wishes to hear and see more.

Category 1: Stimulates Visitors to connect and reflect on Colonial legacies and Indigenous Representation

Displays: The Indigenous Warrior Mannequin

Visitors at Fort York recognized representations of Indigeneity, sparking critical reflections on how the Indigenous presence is represented at the museum. Two mannequins can be found on the top floor of the Brick Magazine, one depicting a British incorporated militia and the other an Indigenous warrior from the Battle of York. The Indigenous mannequin is angrily screaming while raising a scalping knife above his head. He wears a yellow bandana covering his head, a maroon-spotted blouse, black pants with ribbons on each leg, a brown breechcloth with yellow borders, and light brown moccasins as footwear. The depiction of the warrior has his mouth open with teeth showing, a black line drawn across his face over his cheeks and philtrum, his jaw painted red, and a necklace made of animal bones around his neck. He also wears a musket on his back and a tomahawk around his waist. The mannequin’s offensive features and posture, as he attacks with a knife, stood out most to Jenny, which she described as “jarring.” Jenny was also surprised to hear from our guide that the Indigenous mannequin was once removed from the display due to complaints from visitors who felt it depicted a racial stereotype of Indigenous people as “hostile savage Indians.” However, our guide also described how the mannequin was later returned to the museum after the Mississauga First Nation communities saw it as representing a “brave defender,” rather than the typical portrayal of passive, helpless victims.

When we later asked Jenny what she thought of the mannequins, she noted the stark difference between them, with the Indigenous seemingly “coming at you with a knife” while the British militia soldier is “just standing there.” She shared that it made sense, “Oh, they were the ones who met the Americans first,” noting that the Indigenous were first to defend against the Americans during their attack. But she also noted her understanding of past complaints, “so it does have a very weird- I understand why a weird underlying connotation would come from,” where, although the mannequin is not “stereotypical,” it is still “jarring” to have such an aggressive portrayal.

Jenny’s reflection highlights how Fort York functions as a “contact zone,” which Clifford (1997, 192) describes as a space where different interpretations of culture and history can interact, negotiate, or even conflict with each other. These different interpretations and reactions to the mannequin are, in part, shaped by expectations of how museums should represent the Indigenous Other. Bunten (2018) remarks that museums stage the tourist’s experience to meet their expectations of the Indigenous other as uniform, sanitized, and in synchronous design. This representation is considered “jarring” and deserving of complaints as it challenges that expectation. The mannequin, therefore, acts as a medium in a contact zone that encourages visitors to interact, react, discuss, and ultimately have ongoing negotiations around their expectations of Indigenous representation (Clifford 1997). What some visitors may consider to be “stereotypical” and harmful representation is contrasted by Indigenous people who affirm their representation to be a portrayal of their active history and culture.

Objects: Land Acknowledgement Board and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Flag

Another set of visitors, David and Victoria, a couple visiting from Brazil, were particularly drawn to the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation flag that hangs above the west gate and the Land Acknowledgement sign at the entrance, which welcomes visitors as soon as they enter the site. During their visit, the couple did a self-guided tour, visiting the Visitors Centre before exploring buildings on the site, including the stone magazine, blockhouse #2, and the Officers’ Barracks & Mess. One of our research team members, Cody, accompanied them during their visit. As they were walking to Officers’ Barracks & Mess, Cody noticed David pause and look up before pointing and asking if the flag over the west gate was, “that is the… the First Nations flag?” After hearing Cody’s reply, “Yes,” he widened his eyes and said, “Wow.” When David was later asked about the flag, he shared that the flag and land acknowledgement “caught my attention.” To the couple, who stated during the interview that they struggled to understand written displays due to their unfamiliarity with English, and have not grasped the full picture of Canadian history, the flag and Land Acknowledgement were a clear reminder of Canada’s efforts to “remember and honour the native people here.” For them, it was surprising to see the flag, as they originally understood the site as “strictly [a place about] the British against Americans.”

For David, the Mississaugas of the Credit flag at Fort York was a key object that not only made him pause but also prompted him to ask a question and later reflect, connecting the flag to broader decolonial efforts in Canada. David’s pause and subsequent actionsalign with what Brandie Macdonald (2022, 12) describes as “an important aspect of decolonial praxis.” For David, the flag did as Chief of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, Stacey LaForme, intended, that is to, “remember the people of this land” (Vieniertseva 2023). David and Victoria were able to acknowledge the Indigenous presence in the otherwise dominant “British against Americans” narrative through the flag and land acknowledgment board, effectively unsettling “the relentless march” of colonial narratives through Fort York’s decolonial efforts (Macdonald 2022, 12).

Stories

Visitors that Reflected on Colonial Legacies

From the collection of interviews conducted throughout the research period, we also observed a general trend amongst some visitors who self-reflect on colonial and Indigenous histories. Some visitors in this group were foreign visitors; therefore, critical reflection upon colonial history was not only focused on the Canadian colonial legacies represented at Fort York, but also extended to other global colonial legacies. For instance, during one particular tour, a visitor, Helen, asked about the relationship between Indigenous warriors and British soldiers, a question that allowed the historical interpreter to detail Canada’s colonial history with Indigenous people on this land. His explanation drew on various treaties that concerned the Crown’s occupation of the land on which Toronto was built. The historical interpreters’ words stood out to the four visitors we interviewed after the tour, as they shared reflections on Canada’s colonial history, Denmark’s colonial past, and Ireland’s experience with Britain’s colonial history. During one of the interviews, Eliza, a Danish woman visiting the site with her family, was asked about her favorite part of the tour, which she shared,

For me, it was when we visited the [North Soldiers’ Barracks] with [the guide] and then he talked about the history of when the British came here in the year, how do you say… Indigenous people. That story also interested me because I know there has [sic] been a lot of issues here with these Indigenous people and still are, and we have the same with us.

Eliza specifically recalled one quote mentioned, “Take the Indian out of the Indians,” before reflecting on Denmark’s need to also incorporate Truth and Reconciliation policies, specifically claiming that Denmark, like Canada, also needs to try “putting everything on the table and just looking at it.” Eliza’s son, Stefan, also reflected upon Denmark’s own cultural genocide against the Inuit Thule of Greenland and a system similar to residential schools that aimed to erase Inuit language and culture among younger generations. He shared, “It’s very similar to our own history of taking people from, they are Inuit, for example, and bringing them to Denmark and from Greenland… taking them away from their families.”

Fort York’s decolonial efforts, in sharing Canada’s colonial history through discussions of cultural genocide and residential schools, are participating in the decolonial process of truth telling, which Macdonald (2022, 11) highlights along with accountability and reconciliation. Truth telling, as Macdonald quotes bell hooks, is rooted in the idea that “the heart of justice is truth telling, seeing ourselves and the world the way it was rather than the way we want it to be.” Garneau (2012, 36) also touches on the importance of truth-telling, highlighting that the truth in Truth and Reconciliation requires that Canada recognize and accept its colonial legacy, especially in connection to residential schools, without “washing” it away. Eliza recognized Fort York’s efforts in truth-telling, describing the guide’s explanation as “…very honest, even though he hasn’t been part of any of these things, he still considered it as part of his history.” Both Stefan and Eliza ended off with the final reflection, “it’s remarkable for us because it’s part of our own history.”

Similarly, Jason and Helen, a couple from Dublin who were on the same tour, found themselves reflecting on Ireland’s relationship with colonial Britain and its overlap with Indigenous treatment in Canada. During the interview, when discussing British colonialism and Indigenous history in Canada, Jason connected this topic to his Irish background and shared, “It’s complicated, like definitely. And with an Irish past, you’re conscious,” recalling Ireland’s struggles when fighting for independence from the British Empire and other historical colonial powers.

The Danish family and the Irish couple were prompted by the discussion of Canadian colonial legacies at Fort York to connect and reflect upon Denmark’s own colonial past and Ireland’s historical struggle with the British Empire. Eliza and Stefan’s reflections went further, causing them to call upon Denmark to take similar steps towards Truth and Reconciliation. Therefore, Fort York’s decolonial efforts encourage visitors to not only recognize Canada’s colonial past but also to reflect critically on the need for more decolonial actions around the world. These reflections are shaped by visitors’ diverse backgrounds, as they recall their national histories, allowing them to draw connections and discuss colonial issues faced by communities globally.

Stories that Uplift Indigenous Presence and History on the Site

Some visitors share interesting reflections as they discuss the “Birthplace of Urban Toronto” label, a popular narrative associated with Fort York, which visitors recall when sharing their expectations about the site. This label can be found on the Fort York website and is often shared during tours, as guides talk about how the landscape has changed since the battle, and how Toronto developed around the town of York. One visitor, Nathan, an engineering student at the University of Toronto, was sharing his expectations about the site, recalling the site as the birthplace of Toronto, before he clarified, “This is the birthplace of, well, it’s the birthplace of York, but it’s not the birthplace of Toronto. Toronto was- It was a pre-existing place, right? But it’s the birthplace of European presence in modern-day Toronto.”

Nathan’s clarification about the pre-colonial presence at Toronto is a decolonial effort that historical interpreters often also draw upon. During tours, interpreters emphasize the Indigenous treaties that made the British Crown’s settlements and the town of York possible. Fort York also features a brochure about Canada’s treaties with Indigenous populations, a brochure made by various Indigenous communities, curators, and heritage workers. Eliza, our Danish visitor, recalled learning about the treaties as a standout moment, sharing, “I haven’t heard about it before.”

Other visitors also recall how their perception, that there was no Indigenous presence on the site, was changed by the historical interpreters, especially as visitors were informed that the Indigenous were independent allies of the British and defended against the American invasion. Stefan shares, “I didn’t know that the Indigenous people sided with the British, for example, against the Americans. But that’s what I found really interesting.”

During other tours, historical interpreters tell visitors about the name of the land, Tkaronto, meaning “where there are trees standing in the water.” These stories and explanations, ranging from the treaties to the role of Indigenous allies, work to inform, acknowledge, and remind visitors of the Indigenous presence, history, and involvement at the site and on the land. Much like the objects we discussed earlier, such as the land acknowledgement board and Indigenous flag, the historical interpreters’ rhetoric about Indigenous history challenges the erasure of Indigenous presence that some visitors may adopt when they perceive the site as being solely about the British.

James, an aspiring historian who visited the site during the Door Open Toronto event, highlighted the importance of having a clear connection on why the Indigenous perspective is shared on the site. As the interpreters clearly explained the involvement of Indigenous people as independent allies and why they were willing to ally with the British, James shared that it made the Indigenous representation as central as the British narrative. He explained,

They showed their perspective and their view without making anyone out- like without making any other perspective seem lesser. Or like this is the main view, whatever it is, the American view with the Canadian view or the Indigenous view. They didn’t feel like there was this main important view and then here is some other stuff. They were very, ‘Here is how it is, here is how everyone sees it.’

What James speaks of aligns with Fort York’s decolonial initiatives to decenter and diversify narratives shared at the site. Just as James recognizes in his interview, Macdonald (2022, 13) argues that the intention behind diversifying narratives is not to “rewrite history, but to intentionally uplift the whole truth.” Macdonald (2022, 9) goes on to highlight that many museums often perpetuate colonial narratives that erase Indigenous presence, noting that they are “filled with cultural resources taken from Indigenous people and lands around the world,” further asserting that museums can become “everlasting monuments that replicate colonial erasure and violence through their exhibitions.” This underscores the importance of using anti-colonial language and narratives in museums, such as describing the origins of Tkaronto and affirming the Indigenous history on the site, fostering a more inclusive representation of the history at Fort York, that disrupts colonial discourse and makes Indigenous presence and history known to its visitors.

Category 2: Visitor desire to experience an Indigenous presence in Fort York

Our second category draws on interviews with three visitors who expressed their desire to see more Indigenous representation at Fort York. We highlight these accounts to demonstrate that visitors not only recognize the Indigenous presence emphasized through the museum’s decolonial efforts to diversify narratives, as described in the first category, but they also desire to see and know more about the Indigenous presence on the site.

For example, Nathan was particularly interested in weapons and the firearm technology used during the battle. Nathan joined two separate tours and interviews with our research team, and during both interviews, shared his regrets in not being able to see a “percussion shotgun with engravings that resembled that of Métis origin,” which was talked about but not displayed at the time in the Visitor Centre. Nathan further added that the “Indigenous people definitely played a massive part in the War of 1812 and post-War of 1812,” so perhaps the museum should be expanded to talk more about the general history of Canada. This sentiment is shared by another visitor, Eliza, who could not help but complain about the lack of historical museums in Toronto, sharing her curiosity to learn more about Indigenous history on the land before, during, and after colonial contact. Eliza detailed that she wants to know “Who lived here already? Since when? Where did they come from, which tribes? How did they live? And how did they react when the French came?”

Eliza and her family take an interest in learning about the history of the places they visit. When planning their trip from Denmark to Toronto, they initially considered visiting the Royal Ontario Museum, but Eliza shared that she could not find any exhibitions that only focused on Canada and Canadian history, which she wanted to learn about. She added that Denmark also has museums like the ROM, which tell you about other parts of the world. As a result, they decided that Fort York would better address the history of Toronto. When asked if their expectations were met, both shared that they were pleasantly surprised, especially as the historical interpreter spoke for over half an hour about both the site and Canada’s history, they further added their surprise to learn about Indigenous history during the tour, but recalled that their interpreter’s explanation, addressing Canada’s broader and historical relationship with Indigenous people, really stood out.

Some visitors also expressed the desire to not only hear more about Indigenous history, but to hear about a contemporary perspective from the Indigenous people. For example, Park, a Korean pharmacology graduate student at the University of Toronto, described how he learned about the British and Indigenous forces forming an alliance to defend the land during the American invasion in 1813. However, Park shared that he remained curious to know more about what had happened between the allies right after losing the fort to the Americans, saying,

There was also a mention of the Indigenous people retreating to the woods, and that itself shows a disconnect between the British people and what the Indigenous people have been doing. It was clear that those people were not moving together, and it was kind of, they were on the same side but it seemed that they were not really operating together on, um, as a united whole, so, I’m not sure what happened on that end…I wish to know more.

Park further expressed his desire to understand the contemporary Indigenous communities’ perspective on the history of Fort York, and particularly the Battle of York in 1813. He commented, “I’m curious to know what perspective would be of the Indigenous communities on what happened, currently in 2025.” Park explained that his curiosity stemmed from the fact that the “current relationship between the Indigenous communities and the government of Canada is very unstable,” with many “factors and legislatures to be reviewed and revised.” Thus, he questioned whether the historical representation of Indigenous people at Fort York is truly unbiased, stating, “I am questioning whether this tour is showing a truly unbiased perspective and if this tour is being truly transparent about the relationship between the Indigenous folks in the 1800s and the Canadian-British people.” In requesting to know more about the current perspective and voice of Indigenous community members about the battle, Park reflects that perhaps more can be said about the experience of both the British and Indigenous during the invasion and after, giving a more diverse account of the battle.

These visitors’ expressions of wanting to learn more about Indigenous history, perspectives and their presence at Fort York demonstrate their engagement with the site’s current representation, and their critical reflection, which inspires them to seek further knowledge. These visitors first acknowledged what they had learned about Indigenous history and presence at the site before reflecting on what else they would like to learn. This illustrates how Fort York’s decolonial efforts are not only being recognized by visitors but also motivate them to critically reflect on Indigenous presence and representation, encouraging them to seek more information on the topic.

Conclusion

Our research suggests that Fort York acts as a medium that inspires reflection, connection, and negotiations with colonial legacies. Fort York’s efforts to diversify stories and narratives at the site, particularly highlighting the Indigenous presence, are not only recognized by the visitors, but further encourages them to reflect on the topic. As visitors engage in tours and self-guided exploration, they remark on objects, displays, and stories throughout the site that stimulate moments of reflection on Canada’s colonial history and Indigenous representation. Visitors connect with the various colonial legacies in Canada and their own unique experiences with colonial histories around the world, including Denmark, Ireland, and Britain. These reflections from the visitors offer an opportunity for the museum to understand how their decolonial efforts are perceived and experienced by tourists from around the world. Therefore, while Fort York is a site connected with British colonial history, it also serves as a site of ongoing negotiation, where diverse narratives, such as Indigenous history and perspectives, are brought into focus, allowing visitors to interpret them through the lens of their own experiences.

References

Chiblow, Savanna and Lea Fleming, Jessica. 2022. “Indigenous Arts Festival — Advising & Strategic Report.” Presented to the Aboriginal Affairs Advisory Committee.

City of Toronto. 2021. Indigenous Heritage Engagement Project: Presentation to the Aboriginal Affairs Advisory Committee. https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/aa/bgrd/backgroundfile-171837.pdf.

City of Toronto. 2022. “REPORT for ACTION Advancing Reconciliation, Equity and Inclusion: Re- Imagining a New Future for Toronto History Museums.” https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ec/bgrd/backgroundfile-227700.pdf.

City of Toronto. 2024. “Economic Development and Culture 2024 Culture Connects: An Action Plan for Culture in Toronto (2025-2035).” www.toronto.ca/city-government/accountability=perations-customer-service/ long-term-vision-plans-and-strategies/action: plan-toronto-culture-sector/

Clifford, James. 1997. “Museum as Contact Zone.” In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, 188–219. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fort York. 2025. “Fort York Casual Visitor Tour Programme Outline.” Fort York National Historic Site: HistoricTO.

Garneau, David. 2016. “Imaginary Spaces of Conciliation and Reconciliation: Art, Curation, and Healing.” In Arts of Engagement: Taking Aesthetic Action in and beyond the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, edited by Keavy Martin et al., 21–41. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Goddard, John. 2014. “Fort York National Historic Site.” In Inside the Museums: Toronto’s Heritage Sites and Their Most Prized Objects, 195–214. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Macdonald, Brandie. 2022. “Pausing, Reflection, and Action: Decolonizing Museum Practices.” Journal of Museum Education 47 (1): 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2021.1986668.

Toronto History Museums. 2020. “Toronto History Museums Strategic Plan Laying a New Foundation 2020-2022 Museums & Heritage Services Strategic Plan 2.” City of Toronto. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/8fa8-11X8.5-2021- WorkplanAugust-18.pdf.

Vieniertseva, Daryna. 2023. “Flag Raised as Part of Toronto Celebrations of National Indigenous People’s Day.” Humber News. June 20, 2023.

Wali, Alaka, and Robert Keith Collins. 2023. “Decolonizing Museums: Toward a Paradigm Shift.” Annual Review of Anthropology 52: 329–345.