Reince Penis posted:

Supercar Gautier posted:

Jesus Christ, is this Grenier or is it someone else being Grenier all over again?

Yes, let's use a polynomial regression to track polls. Just draw a loving parabola on the chart, that's the ticket.

Drunk Canuck posted:

That's uh where they get the idea he's good with money.

Lobok posted:

Assuming his supporters even care about things like provincial budgets.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

What do you think people interpret when you call them "settler" all the time?

quote:

A Quick Word on the Meaning of the Term “Settler”

A lot of people in Canada take offence to being called “settlers” even though the term is not derogatory. Being a settler means that you are non-Indigenous and that you or your ancestors came and settled in a land that had been inhabited by Indigenous people (think: Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.). However, it is important to recognize that while the term is not derogatory, it can often be very difficult to hear. Many people, particularly when first learning about the subject of settler colonialism, have strong and negative reactions to it. Andrea recalls yelling at the person who first called her a settler (thankfully Emma forgave me!), and Sarah recalls feeling like the rug had been ripped out from under her. Most of us like to think that we are good people, and being told that we’re complicit in a colonial project can be emotionally wrenching. So we would like to encourage those who are interested in learning about this subject to make space for their feelings, recognizing them without judgement, and, whenever possible, to extend the same consideration to others. This is not to suggest that racist behaviour is acceptable under any circumstances, but, rather, that each person is on their own journey. We embrace the philosophy of love as political resistance whenever possible. However, part of this radical love is being open to learning and growing, even when it is painful.



What is Settler Colonialism?

Simply put, settler colonialism is a term that is used to describe the history and ongoing processes/structures whereby one group of people (settlers) are brought in to replace an existing Indigenous population, usually as part of imperial projects. Settler colonialism can be distinguished from other forms of colonialism by the following characteristics:

Settlers intend to permanently occupy, and assert their sovereignty, over Indigenous lands.

This invasion is structural rather than a single event, designed to ensure the elimination of Indigenous populations and control of their lands through the imposition of a new governmental/legal system.

The goal of settler colonialism is to eliminate colonial difference by eliminating Indigenous peoples, thereby establishing settler right to Indigenous lands.

Though often assumed to be a historical process, settler colonialism as a project is always partial, unfinished, and in-progress. Examples include Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Colonization, settlement, and the creation of nation-states like the ones mentioned above depend upon particular historical narratives that reinforce or justify settler occupation of Indigenous lands. These narratives seek to reinforce the idea that these lands “belong” to settlers and that settlers “belong” on this land. Therefore, the rewriting of history is a key part of settler colonialism. This often rests on an artificial temporal division that divides a location’s history into two distinct periods: before and after settlement. Central to the “before” time is the idea that the lands in question were either empty or not being used (referred to as the Doctrine of Discovery/Terra Nullius (literally, empty lands). {1}

{1} Chelsea Vowel, Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Issues in Canada


A (Brief) History of Settler Colonialism in Canada

Most of us are familiar with the traditional narrative. Once upon a time, North America was basically empty of humans. Then some people came across the Bering Land Bridge, and started moving across the continent. We call these people Native Americans. Some of them practiced agriculture, while others were hunter-gatherers. But then, European explorers arrived and “discovered” the New World. The colonists who came were intrepid adventurers, determined to make a new life for themselves through hard work and perseverance. There will often be some mention of Louis Riel after this point. But afterwards, while there are some variations depending on where went to school, Native peoples essentially vanish from the narrative. Aside from a short discussion of Louis Riel, Native peoples essentially vanish from the narrative.

While there are myriad problems with this narrative, the most important part is that it is not accurate. This is the kind of history that results when only sources from settlers are used, and these sources are not interrogated regarding their intentions.

So what really happened? Here’s what we know:

Indigenous peoples have lived on Turtle Island (A.K.A. what settlers call North America) since time immemorial (more on this later). The continent was highly populated, the people culturally & ethnically diverse. It was a diplomatically complex space inhabited by a wide range of Indigenous peoples who had systems of law, trade, and governance. These societies were as complex and sophisticated as other societies at the time.

After contact, the French & British began to send settlers to what is now Canada in order to benefit from its resources. Britain and France had differing approaches to Indigenous relations but when Britain eventually took over in 1763, British law began to develop different categories that reflected their understanding of race. Through the Indian Act, the crown divided inhabitants of Canada into two categories: Indigenous people and non-Indigenous settlers. While Turtle Island prior to contact was as complex and sophisticated as Europe at the time, the Indian Act negated Indigenous diversity and reduced the people of Turtle Island to the category of “Indian.” By the same mechanism, all non-Indigenous people who came to Canada for economic benefit were settlers.

Some, though not all, Indigenous groups signed Treaties which constituted agreements that Indigenous and non-Indigenous settlers would share the resources of the lands in good faith, that non-Indigenous settlers wouldn’t take more than what they needed, and that the relationships would be respectful. However, this isn’t what happened. Even after making many agreements the crown actively and violently broke its agreements with Indigenous leadership in order to achieve racial and economic dominance, and to assimilate Indigenous people into British/settler culture.

The category “settler” was legally solidified in Canada through the construction of legal binaries developed by the Indian Act. That is, not only does being a settler describe a particular history of migration and economic relationship; in Canada, it’s also an effect of the law.

quote:

This semester, I’ve heard at least one person express their love for this land and their discomfort with the term “settler.” This individual did not see how the term applied to their situation and found it divisive and hurtful. They chalked up conflicts within indigenous-settler solidarity efforts to simple differences in cultures and worldviews.

The latter statement is fundamentally connected to the speaker’s discomfort with the term “settler.”

Simplifying these conflicts ignores and hides the ongoing colonial power dynamics that shape indigenous-settler relationships. This logic frames colonialism as historic, rather than an ongoing structure.

This is why the term “settler” is used: to denaturalize our — that is, all non-indigenous peoples’ — status on this land, to force colonialism into the forefront of our consciousness, to cause discomfort and force a reckoning with our inherited colonial status, to create the understanding and desire to embrace, demand and effect change.

“Settler” is a political and relational term describing our contemporary relationship to colonialism. It is not a racial signifier. Rather, it is a non-homogenous, spatial term signifying the fact that colonial settlement has never ceased. Colonial settlement is ongoing and it will remain so as long as we continue our implicit consent by remaining willfully oblivious to, or worse, actively and consciously defending, colonial power relations.

Dispossession, disconnection and destruction is the story of Canada. But it doesn’t have to be our future.

If we don’t acknowledge and understand our settler status, how will we work together, in solidarity and in practice, for a better future?

Of course, being called a settler or self-identifying as a settler doesn’t mean we understand this relationship — perhaps we never will fully understand the extent of it. Nor is it an end in itself. Unsettling is a longer and larger-than-life process involving the emotional, psychological and mental, but more importantly, the material.

We have inherited “settler” status because the structures of colonial domination remain to benefit us, whether you are first or eleventh generation on these lands (though these benefits flow unequally amongst us). Understanding this is the first step in creating new relationships based on peace and mutual respect — the first move towards producing the conditions for solidarity.

But this is only the first step.

quote:

Thus, the term “settler” and the reason for its use, which brings forth the intimate and affective relationships to ancestral, social, cultural, economic, and political histories and presents which shape this world, necessarily leads not to pride, but rather to shame, frustration, alienation, and anger towards myself, other settlers, as well as the structures of settler colonialism. These feelings though also potentially signal an opening, a recognition of an un(der)realized interdependence. However, alone, these feelings are not sufficient. After all, I cannot just critique or declare that this world falls short of my desires and expect it to transform itself. Nor can I ignore the power differentials between settlers, as such willful acts risk stalling the decolonial engine. Instead, if these desires and simultaneous feelings of shame, frustration, alienation, and anger are to be at all transformative, they must be accompanied by thought and practice attentive to their respective sources; they must be guided by accountability and respect, care and renewal, with urgency and insurgency, to address and destroy the parasitical relations that exist between and among settlers and Indigenous peoples, as well as to support those (potentially) good relations that already exist, and those that we wish to establish between and among settlers and Indigenous peoples.

quote:

Settler colonialism is a distinct type of colonialism that functions through the replacement of indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty. Settler colonial states include Canada, the United States, Australia, and South Africa, and settler colonial theory has been important to understanding conflicts in places like Israel, Kenya, and Argentina, and in tracing the colonial legacies of empires that engaged in the widespread foundation of settlement colonies. More recently, settler colonial analyses have been extended to the use of settler colonisation in larger imperial projects, and the impacts of settler colonial state power on global politics. As Lorenzo Veracini, a key scholar in settler colonial studies, argues “settler colonialism makes sense especially if it is understood globally, and that we live in a settler colonial global present” (The Settler Colonial Present, 2015).



Settler colonialism can be distinguished from other forms of colonialism – including classical or metropole colonialism, and neo-colonialism – by a number of key features. First, settler colonisers “come to stay”: unlike colonial agents such as traders, soldiers, or governors, settler collectives intend to permanently occupy and assert sovereignty over indigenous lands. Second, settler colonial invasion is a structure, not an event: settler colonialism persists in the ongoing elimination of indigenous populations, and the assertion of state sovereignty and juridical control over their lands. Despite notions of post-coloniality, settler colonial societies do not stop being colonial when political allegiance to the founding metropole is severed. Third, settler colonialism seeks its own end: unlike other types of colonialism in which the goal is to maintain colonial structures and imbalances in power between coloniser and colonised, settler colonisation trends towards the ending of colonial difference in the form of a supreme and unchallenged settler state and people. However, this is not a drive to decolonise, but rather an attempt to eliminate the challenges posed to settler sovereignty by indigenous peoples’ claims to land by eliminating indigenous peoples themselves and asserting false narratives and structures of settler belonging.



Settler colonial societies around the globe tend to rely on remarkably similar spatial constructs, power structures, and social narratives. Beginning with terra nullius – the perception that lands in long-term use by indigenous peoples are empty or unused – settler colonisation proceeds to carve up indigenous-held lands into discrete packets of private property. As settler collectives invest their identity and material belonging in these properties, they simultaneously create or empower a state to ‘defend’ these properties from indigenous peoples and nations who are seen as inherently threatening. The power of settler state structures is often embodied in the form of frontier police forces, like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, various Australian mounted police forces, and the ubiquitous American cavalry of the ‘Wild West’, as well as bureaucratic agencies. These government officials have gone under many names, but in North America are commonly called ‘Indian Agents’, and they often wielded (and in some cases, continue to hold) extraordinary power over indigenous peoples, including the ability to apprehend children, to prevent people from leaving official ‘reserve’ lands (or conversely, to expel individuals or families from reserved territories), to control employment, and even to summarily direct police or military forces against indigenous people. These extreme powers are exercised based on carefully constructed racist narratives. Consider the way indigenous people have (and are) considered to be ‘savage – – men often portrayed as violent, women as hyper-sexualized, and both in need of care from the ‘civilised’ settler state. The narrative dehumanization of indigenous peoples supports parallel narratives of peaceful, adventurous and virtuous settlement and expansion, as ‘brave pioneers’ are held up as paragons of new settler nations carved out of frontier spaces.



As a concept, settler colonialism has been in circulation for decades, but has achieved new relevance since the publication of a number of works in the later 1990s and early 2000s introduced settler colonial theory to disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, and political theory. Debates around settler colonial studies have been contentious, especially around intersections between settler colonial racism and identity politics. Numerous works have explored the ways that oppressed or marginalized communities may be complicit in settler colonialism, often generating heated debates around who is or should be considered a ‘settler’. Other critiques have pointed to the tendency among some scholars of settler colonialism to treat settlement as inevitable, simultaneously relieving settler societies and states of the burden of reconciling with indigenous peoples, and placing the burden of accommodating settler sovereignty onto those same indigenous peoples. More recently, settler colonial scholars have taken up the challenge of considering what decolonisation means for settler societies, drawing settler colonial theory into open-ended and forward-looking discussions on indigenisation, autonomy, and anti-state and anti-capitalist politics.

Supercar Gautier posted:

Jesus Christ, is this Grenier or is it someone else being Grenier all over again?

Yes, let's use a polynomial regression to track polls. Just draw a loving parabola on the chart, that's the ticket.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

I've got some math for you Kathleen. We used to have hydro one, now we have hydro none. Explain that professor.

Stickarts posted:

Interesting stuff

patonthebach posted:

gently caress restraint. This guy along with his dumb wife are wholly culpable of killing their kid. A reasonable parent would have sought real medical care and not tried random herbs and spices from the Presidents Choice 'blue menu'.

THC posted:

and they are continuing to profit from the sale of "alternative" "remedies" to other naive idiots some of which are parents

James Baud posted:

I'm on the parents' side on that one, quite honestly.

quote:

A senior Alberta government official told CBC News late Tuesday that "Kinder Morgan is not making this easy."

The official, who spoke to CBC News on condition of anonymity, said there is "a lot to lose right now."

THC posted:

so... basically the decision has already been made, the main obstacle is the company itself, and all this interprovincial bickering is kayfabe?

James Baud posted:

I'm on the parents' side on that one, quite honestly.

patonthebach posted:

Don't even get me started on how Shoppers drug mart and a bunch of other chain pharmacies are putting homeopathic bullshit in the same aisles along with real medicine. Corporate greed rules above all else, even babies sick and suffering.

James Baud posted:

Short version, the healthcare system this couple are so maligned for being too slow to go to kills people through negligence all the time despite the best intentions of the people involved, largely free of consequences.

These parents had no intention of harming their child, they just underestimated how serious the condition was. They hosed up.

Most of the rest is just trying to punish them for not being compliant normies who think the way they're told to.

Par for the course for the thought police contingent, but deeply troubling to anyone else who doesn't mind being contrarian.

Everything worth knowing is already known, etc.

James Baud posted:

Short version, the healthcare system this couple are so maligned for being too slow to go to kills people through negligence all the time despite the best intentions of the people involved, largely free of consequences.

These parents had no intention of harming their child, they just underestimated how serious the condition was. They hosed up.

Most of the rest is just trying to punish them for not being compliant normies who think the way they're told to.

Par for the course for the thought police contingent, but deeply troubling to anyone else who doesn't mind being contrarian.

Everything worth knowing is already known, etc.

James Baud posted:

I'm on the parents' side on that one, quite honestly.

Baronjutter posted:

That's a shockingly bad take, even for Baud.

James Baud posted:

I did say short version, I have things to do today due to foolishly self-imposed deadlines.

James Baud posted:

Short version, the healthcare system this couple are so maligned for being too slow to go to kills people through negligence all the time despite the best intentions of the people involved, largely free of consequences.

These parents had no intention of harming their child, they just underestimated how serious the condition was. They hosed up.

Most of the rest is just trying to punish them for not being compliant normies who think the way they're told to.

Par for the course for the thought police contingent, but deeply troubling to anyone else who doesn't mind being contrarian.

Everything worth knowing is already known, etc.

DariusLikewise posted:

Parental rights are mostly bullshit

Arivia posted:

let me guess the solution is two-tier healthcare?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

mashed_penguin posted:

Some of the homeopathic garbage is pretty much copying the package design of actual medicine. I have picked up homeopathic stuff a few times and didn't realize it until I went looking for the active ingredients section.

James Baud posted:

Short version, the healthcare system this couple are so maligned for being too slow to go to kills people through negligence all the time despite the best intentions of the people involved, largely free of consequences.

These parents had no intention of harming their child, they just underestimated how serious the condition was. They hosed up.

Most of the rest is just trying to punish them for not being compliant normies who think the way they're told to.

Par for the course for the thought police contingent, but deeply troubling to anyone else who doesn't mind being contrarian.

Everything worth knowing is already known, etc.

patonthebach posted:

I almost bought childrens medicine with no active ingredients because of this poo poo. My child is sick, gently caress your voodoo bullshit. I still can't believe a major chain carries this stuff. If people actually boycotted stuff that mattered you would think we'd all be up in arms against this homeopathic poo poo being sold in stores.

Baronjutter posted:

A huge amount of people believe in that poo poo or are at least sympathetic. There's a real narrative that big pharma and the health system are all corrupt pill-pushers while "natural" medicine is good and honest and safe and gentle.

patonthebach posted:

I almost bought childrens medicine with no active ingredients because of this poo poo. My child is sick, gently caress your voodoo bullshit. I still can't believe a major chain carries this stuff. If people actually boycotted stuff that mattered you would think we'd all be up in arms against this homeopathic poo poo being sold in stores.