Instead of commenting on someone else's comments, it is worth hearing what she had to say herself. Here is a link to the interview itself: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/why-the-canoe-might-not-be-the-glorious-symbol-of-canada-you-think-it-is-1.3477103?autoplay=true

She says something to effect that the only meanings a material object has are the meanings we give to it. She feels that the symbolism given to the canoe erases disturbing colonial history. She suggests that there are other alternatives to canoeing and liking canoeing somehow exacerbates any colonial misdeeds.

Regarding the first statement, if we don't give the canoe a meaning that symbolizes colonialism et al, then it doesn't symbolize colonialism etc. If she chooses to apply the meaning of past history to the canoe, that is her choice, but that does not make it an inherent symbol of such that everyone will universally recognize.

Regarding the second statement, I think it is quite possible to love canoes and canoeing for their ability their own merits while simultaneously being aware of colonial history. One does not erase the other, it doesn't even obscure it, they are different thoughts, occupying different mind spaces. One is an appreciation of a beautiful design, the other is an understanding of history.

While some people may not be aware of the origins of canoes, or we may be vague about how Europeans took over the Americas, appreciation of canoes serves more as a basis for learning that information than as a means of erasing it.

Ms. Dean's suggestion of alternatives such as hiking or power boats, while not only failing as substitutes for exploring remote lakes, would themselves absolutely serve to erase the history of indigenous peoples. Canoes are a reminder, not an eraser.